**
@Male_M3dia**
It depends on what your definition of "good business" is.

Some people go into business where money is the only objective, and that's fine if you're wired like that, it's business after all.  But the problem with that business model is that it has a bottleneck right from the start: you're competing with everyone else in your field that have the same goal, whereas if your goal is not simply one of money, you are not so constrained by it (if at all).

Launching Dawn the way they did can be likened to promoting a new tablet platform without an app store, so as far as I can tell, any failure is down to the way it's been orchestrated, it's not down to the idea behind it; there's nothing wrong with the idea of supplying a dedicated version for each platform, and like I said, it benefits the user.

Vendor convenience is not important; customer convenience is.

The only real benefit (to the developer) in creating a single figure in two platform versions is branding, nothing else.  If the content is not compatible between them then they might as well be called totally different names and each have their own marketing campaign.  The only things identical between them, as far as I can tell, is the figure shape and the name, "Dawn", so I'm guessing the developer realised this when they took the decision to go this route.

Dawn appears to be a "branding" designed to give a feeling of unity across the two platforms, and that's a good idea, it's good business.  I think any failure is down to orchestration, not the base logic behind the idea.