Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan
I'd disagree that it can't be neutral. They're now in line with their competitor. Most will shrug at that (i.e. neutral). But Sony can play the card that they didn't have to be forced to make those decisions by their competitor. They can argue they're obviously the leadership team that's actually leading at this point rather than following. That's definitely more fuel for Sony.
And I didn't imply your sarcastic example at the end. Didn't even come close to that.
|
Dude, for the changes to be neutral, they would have to have a negligible effect. That means the people who were angry would have to still be angry and the people who were excited would have to still be excited. A neutral change cannot, by definition, change the mindset of the market.
Secondly, if the change IS 'neutral,' then it is neither good nor bad - in which case there is exactly zero reason to question whether it's a "good thing." If it's neutral, it doesn't hurt them, so who gives a fuck?
Sony can argue that they're leading the market. Sure. And that will matter to exactly nobody outside of fanboys for either side.
If you're arguing that the moves are neutral, there's no reason for you to be commenting on what it does to their contrast with Sony. If you're arguing that the moves are bad, then you're implying exactly what you say you aren't. You're certainly not arguing that the moves are good.
So which is it? Are you talking out of your ass, or are you lying?