3D renders of your favorite VST plugin interface!

[elassi]

I always liked the U-he Modular renders. There was a fab close up of ace at one point that I can no longer find.

The overall mood of the first one... puuh.

[ghettosynth]

It's clear that you do, you started out by saying that the misrepresentations of a product are "just fun." You are protesting too much, if you don't wish to be perceived as shallow, then just be less shallow.

I'm only "protesting" like you call it because you keep on putting false assumptions about my motives.

Which would those be? You stated explicitly that they are "just fun." No, they are not "just fun", you are wrong about that and I gave you evidence. Rather than just concede the point you continued on with bad analogies about women. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that you would engage in the shallow behavior that you described based simply on the fact that if you wouldn't, then you defeat the entire purpose of your own argument.

But that's ok. You seem to be that kind of person.

Like I said, you're overly defensive. Since you've not been able to make a coherent argument, you turn to attacking your opponent.

Again, if you want to be perceived as less shallow, then just be less shallow.

These renders serve the purpose of selling a product, of making it tangible. That's about psychology. It doesn't mean that you're evil because you make them, but it, like false eyelashes, it is misrepresentation.

If you're swayed by them, well, yeah, I think that you're shallow and it makes me chuckle a bit. Just like if a guy is swayed by false body parts.

[elassi]

You stated explicitly that they are "just fun."

Honey, check the thread once again and find out what's wrong with your statement.

[elassi]

Just like if a guy is swayed by false body parts.

Again: Don't mix findings with personal approval.

[ghettosynth]

You stated explicitly that they are "just fun."

Honey, check the thread once again and find out what's wrong with your statement.

You're right, I confused you with the other guy. So, it seems that you've just been talking about women and makeup the whole time and you don't actually have anything coherent to offer at all?

The rest of it applies, you're justifying shallowness in perception in both products and women and then are surprised to find that not everyone will "kiss the girl," if not, what exactly are you trying to convince me of?

[elassi]

You're right, I confused you with the other guy. So, it seems that you've just been talking about women and makeup the whole time and you don't actually have anything coherent to offer at all?

Also talked about images on food packagings. You missed that? Hmmm, probably because you're so aroused.

But that's ok. You seem to be that kind of person.

[ghettosynth]

You're right, I confused you with the other guy. So, it seems that you've just been talking about women and makeup the whole time and you don't actually have anything coherent to offer at all?

Also talked about images on food packagings. You missed that? Hmmm, probably because you're so aroused.

No, I ignored it because the sentence doesn't parse. If you prefer, I can amend my previous statement to read "you've just been spouting gibberish and talking about women and makeup the whole time..."

But that's ok. You seem to be that kind of person.

You mean the kind of person who brings up makeup and breasts in a conversation about user interfaces? No man, that's clearly you, and, if I'm not mistaken, only you.

[Jace-BeOS]

The "camera" is positioned and the "lens" configured in such a way as to remove perspective (isometric projection?), leaving an apparently flat GUI with very realistic objects, including soft shadows and lighting.)

It's called "Orthographic" but otherwise you're 100% right.

Ah, thanks for the correction It's been years since I've done any 3D rendering.

[Jace-BeOS]

hmm...

araucann3d.jpg

This made me laugh . I hate the flat design fad.

[elassi]

@gettosynth

It's a bit disappointing (in regard to intellectual level) that a guy who introduces scientific papers into a debate doesn't know how to sort and judge examples that are provided to describe social circumstances that are not necessarily welcome (or the writer's habit) but nonetheless exist.

On a side note: We need to discuss this later, or another day, or within another topic (you bet), because it's three o'clock in the morning over here. You may think it's another win for you, that's ok, because you seem to be that kind of person, but actually it's just the need for sleep.

Enjoy yourself in the meantime and never forget to teach the people - when you're in a supermarket - to put the goods back on the shelves because otherwise you'll rant about their ignorance all day (weird assumptions about how they recognize you're apparition included).

[Jace-BeOS]

It's one of those things I never understood...

You're not alone there. I guess it's to tickle the remains of the lust for real gear. It's putting me off anyway.

I always found it funny how some companies make a 3D box image for a download only product.

To me, it's behavior cut from the same cloth. It's an attempt to psychologically influence the buyer towards thinking of the product as a physical product. This has more value in the buyer's mind than a virtual product. It's not unlike the use of ownership language in video games to get you to buy into the value of in-app content. "Only three hours left to complete the challenge and add your supergun 9000 to your collection."

There's a tendency to dismiss these sorts of effort as marketing by claiming that everyone does it and that we're all subject to the effects. Ok, there's some truth to that, but, that doesn't mean that all vendors are equally guilty or that we don't get to sum up the degree to which a firm uses these techniques and then apply our own judgement and trust accordingly.

In essence, the more of this type of manipulation that you do, the less I trust you and the more likely it is that I'm going to believe that you are making up for product quality with manipulation. Even if that part's not true, i.e., that you happen to be a vendor who is both competent and also aggressive, it will take A LOT more work for me to realize that you're an outlier.

This kind of response is also just psychology. For example, the general public will tend to think that car and furniture salesman are sleazy and will behave accordingly. That's the aggregate perception driving an individual behavior and, as a vendor, you have to keep this in mind.

I have a very strong negative reaction to marketing. What you described above reminds me of game developer companies and their incessant preorder and DLC bullshit. They just about thoroughly have the cart before the horse. Some corporations don't seem to want to actually make product in return for the money they get from consumers. "Broken? Ship it now and patch it later. [one month later]: Patches? Sorry but we've dedicated all resources to the next big thing. Here, preorder it and you'll get this thingamabob DLC."

[ghettosynth]

It's a bit disappointing (in regard to intellectual level) that a guy who introduces scientific papers into a debate doesn't know how to sort and judge examples that are provided to describe social circumstances that are not necessarily welcome (or the writer's habit) but nonetheless exist.

You brought up tits in a conversation about user interfaces and are overly defensive because you're shallow and think that everyone else is. Just own it, and move on.

[Jace-BeOS]

I'm not sure how you guys got to this point but... I also have a negative reaction to makeup and fake body parts

I must say it's ...odd... how men on tech forums bring up women so often when talking about tech. I just saw some appalling examples on a thread from 2008 on GearSlutz. Can we just not compare tech gadgets with women, please and thank you?

[ghettosynth]

It's one of those things I never understood...

You're not alone there. I guess it's to tickle the remains of the lust for real gear. It's putting me off anyway.

I always found it funny how some companies make a 3D box image for a download only product.

To me, it's behavior cut from the same cloth. It's an attempt to psychologically influence the buyer towards thinking of the product as a physical product. This has more value in the buyer's mind than a virtual product. It's not unlike the use of ownership language in video games to get you to buy into the value of in-app content. "Only three hours left to complete the challenge and add your supergun 9000 to your collection."

There's a tendency to dismiss these sorts of effort as marketing by claiming that everyone does it and that we're all subject to the effects. Ok, there's some truth to that, but, that doesn't mean that all vendors are equally guilty or that we don't get to sum up the degree to which a firm uses these techniques and then apply our own judgement and trust accordingly.

In essence, the more of this type of manipulation that you do, the less I trust you and the more likely it is that I'm going to believe that you are making up for product quality with manipulation. Even if that part's not true, i.e., that you happen to be a vendor who is both competent and also aggressive, it will take A LOT more work for me to realize that you're an outlier.

This kind of response is also just psychology. For example, the general public will tend to think that car and furniture salesman are sleazy and will behave accordingly. That's the aggregate perception driving an individual behavior and, as a vendor, you have to keep this in mind.

I have a very strong negative reaction to marketing. What you described above reminds me of game developer companies and their incessant preorder and DLC bullshit. They just about thoroughly have the cart before the horse. Some corporations don't seem to want to actually make product in return for the money they get from consumers. "Broken? Ship it now and patch it later. [one month later]: Patches? Sorry but we've dedicated all resources to the next big thing. Here, preorder it and you'll get this thingamabob DLC."

Yes, and after you've been bit by this once or twice, you start associating those behaviors with lower quality products, even if it isn't true for every product that uses those techniques. I think that it's natural to develop distrust when you feel manipulated by marketing.

It's reasonable to ask which comes first, but, for the most part, the companies that I respect the most don't seem to waste too much time with fluffier aspects of marketing. Now, some do engage in excessive communication, I'm looking at you iZotope, but their emails don't trigger distrust so much as they trigger annoyance. That is, it's not necessarily misrepresentation so much as it's eagerness. For me, and everyone has their own internal model, misrepresentation is a strong trigger of non-trust. Too much of it and you're in the same basket with people selling timeshares and religion.

Some research suggests that trust has a heavier weight than risk in online commerce.

Consumers’ risk perception and trust are considered among the most important psychological states that influence online behavior. Despite the number of empirical studies that have explored the effects of trust and risk perceptions on consumer acceptance of e-services, the field remains fragmented and the posited research models are contradictory. To address this problem, we examined how trust and risk influence consumer acceptance of e-services through a meta-analysis of 67 studies, followed by tests of competing causal models. The findings confirm that trust and risk are important to e-services acceptance but that trust has a stronger effect size. We found that certain effect sizes were moderated by factors such as the consumer population under study, the type of e-service, and the object of trust under consideration. The data from the meta-analysis best supports the causal logic that positions trust as antecedent to risk perceptions. Risk partially mediates the effects of trust on acceptance.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-9205-4

[funky lime]