So it's not really something intended to be efficient and useful, it's a conversation piece.

Have you looked at other teenage engineering products? None of them are in any way the most practical way to accomplish something.

The OP-1 is genuinely useful. It might not be good value, but I’m not sure anything does the job it does nicer.

Sure, I have no doubt that someone can make good use out of it. But clearly it isn't meant to be the most practical option, in the sense that the same things can be accomplished without a 2k$ device.

And then there's the K.O. II, which is somehow inexpensive, nice, and useful.

That's their reason to make it a stand-alone device. What is my reason to want it to be a stand-alone device?

Too many layers of stubborn ppl acting confused at this point. The hardware is the hardware because they wanted to make hardware. People bought they hardware because they wanted hardware.

? I'm not confused about anything, I'm explaining why it's a terrible decision. People aren't buying it (at least not now that it's actually out and reviewed, pre orders aside), not just because it's stand-alone hardware but that certainly isn't helping matters.

You're right, and I agree vehemently about the poor quality as well as if you're planning on taking a big swing, better to start with an app.

Bizarrely, my 5 year plan was exactly what they did, but step 1 is release a cross-platform app and get it reliable as possible while waiting for an AI level up.

Releasing an app, especially when they're trying to get ahead of the game and are staffed and funded to do so, would beg the question "Why do just an app? It's the same as ChatGPT, which is free."

The reviews are bad, they're certainly not on the precipice of selling a million units. but they had a ton of preorders and the strategy worked, they're in the conversation, names out there, and they'll be forever associated with AI hardware. A GPT wrapper app with the same level of coverage would get the same general reaction we're seeing now. A GPT wrapper app with the coverage a wrapper app gets would get much less attention.

While I'm not interested in this device either, you could make this argument for many standalone devices. Why does Nintendo keep selling their own devices rather than putting their games on phones and PCs? They think having it as a physical, distinct device offers something that a phone app doesn't, which is pretty on brand for them.

Now, whether or not the buyers will agree with their thinking is another story.

I think Nintendo puts game-specific hardware in their portables. A phone wouldn't necessarily have the same GPU. Also perhaps they have more battery than a phone? I don't know, but it seems plausible Nintendo has actual reasons.

Nintendo puts an 2014 ARM chip + Tegra X1 in their Switch.

There is unlikely any reason for you, someone who spends his time posting anonymously on an Internet forum, to want this.

But there is population out there who like to go outside and show off their fancy things to other real, live people. They are the intended audience.

Yes, it very well may be that this is not fancy enough to win anyone over, but such is the nature of business. Not everything is a hit. Even successful companies like Apple and Google that you would think should know with certainty what people want have had their fair share of flops. You really don't know until you try.

You can buy fully functional Android phones for less than $200, with better cameras, and battery life, and larger screens, and… well not a software-locked touch screen

Possibly not, but is this thing a sales success? I haven't seen any compelling positive discussions of it yet.

Yeah it's just marketing. If it becomes a success they will sell their service as an app for sure.

It's just much easier to stand out with a beautiful hardware design than the 200th AI app released this month. And you can hardly buy anything from teenage engineering at this price point ;) Except the playdate which is much cooler.

But yeah it should have been an app.