And yes, it does look like you're talking shit about something if you're not talking at what it is but what you perceive it to be - ARM, for example, or the specs that you think are outperformed by today's devices.
I think so too, purely from intuition. You get all the trigger-happy people early on, but the longer people wait, the less likely they would end up buying it.
I hope Canonical has something interesting planned for the later days of the campaign, like revealing certain things that they haven't yet, which could kick up the momentum a bit again when they need it.
It'd be pretty cool if some CEOs decide that their companies need that batch of 100 Edges that they have a special for.
now that you're being thoughtful i don't mind your bashing.
you're missing some facts, they're being vague of which processor they'll use and they're only considering silvermont as of late for a potential choice, but "fastest processor" literally weights which has the highest performance by Q1~Q2 2014(production run).
facts are, silvermont is the only thing intel has that fits the bill for being fastest, but thats only with today's competition.
silvermont's baytrail-T target is A15 claiming 30% faster than it is, but in a sense theres a pending ARM processor at which has 26%~36% roughly more processing power than A15, which is A57.
theres no announcement of a latter development in intel's case, they haven't even released silvermont yet, so the likelihood of having intel being "fastest processor" is doubtful at best.
handset processor isn't baytrail-T but merrifield which is a dualcore silvermont with an even slower clock, its possible that they'd fit a baytrail-T quadcore in their handset but you're looking at much higher consequences.
weight these facts and you end up with higher odds for ARM developing the fastest by Q2 2014, unless intel does manage to follow up something at least 20% more powerful and 20% more power efficient (pushing perf:watt up so it can match ARM performance while pushing TDP down even lower).
i'm not entirely saying its junk but for the price it is inferior, the massive storage and larger ram does constitute to being superior, but on everything else its either the same or inferior.
current paper specs weights it as being inferior all together, camera is inferior, screen is inferior, connectivity is inferior(not exactly, its possible that they aren't being specific).
consider these at the price of $830 or even $700, i don't see it being a better purchase?
i think they've made the mistake of having it at a rough start, they only opened the lower-price plans a bit too late and too little slot, they managed to pull in hesitant buyers but they aren't pulling in anything else.
if you look at the current pledge count theres hardly anything on the upper prices, which means they're selfdestructing on their decision.
in either case they need to settle their estimates, otherwise they can't justify the $830 pricetag, even $700 is asking for too much.
