Arguably the voicelessness is a bonus. But I will agree that the Wii didn't sell because of it's lack of online capability. I think it shows more that people aren't that bothered about online play. If they want to browse the web or use netflix they can do that on the Wii and i do think most people rather not be verbally abused by young kids so they're put off by online gaming.
That may very well be but what I have works well enough for me. The only issue with the Wii is the friends codes which are non-existant on the 3DS. You just jump online and find a match and network connectivity seems fine. Other than that I use the systems (minus the 3DS though) for web browsing which is quite nice to do away from the desktop sometimes and I just can't do that on the 360.
Again I would hope it's infinitely better since it's not free but for what I want I don't think it is. I would assume that's the case for most people too as there are more people who own another system than own a 360. Oddly enough the one thing that MS does allow in their walled garden that probably puts a lot of people off from online gaming (which is an issue on the PS3 too) is the foul mouthed kids. I'm not terribly surprised a lot of people rather not spend their free time being 'pwned' by a 12 year old calling them nigger faggot.
Valve complained that they can give away additional content for their games on the PS3 but not the Xbox. I'm not terribly sure about the Wii but I got Zelda Four Swords for free the other week as did anyone else that wants it.
Microsoft benefitted entirely by IBM's more open system and they used to get the monopoly they have now but that they're the dominant one they want a lock-tight system and everyone's pretty much decided desktops will go away. The idea of set-top boxes have been pushed for so long and failed. MS realises its consoles that will become the set top box.
So they got into gaming and they're making something that is expensive and locked down from the beginning so there are no expectations that you can have any sort of freedom like you have on your desktop. The MS fanboys are lapping it up too. I prefer to stay with the much cheaper and open PC gaming.
Most people would disagree with you which is why the Wii has a huge lead over the 360 everywhere and globally the PS3 right on the 360's ass with only a couple or few million less units despite launching a year later, being initially more expensive, the hacking issues, etc.
The 360 is all about milking the customer. No included wifi so you can buy a pricey adapter, can't use a standard HD, got to buy a expensive proprietary add-on. If you're a developer and want to give something away then forget about it. To play games online or do anything really it's $60 a year. The system has no browser to ensure your chances of getting anything for free are minimised and instead they expect you to pay to access facebook or twitter through their system.
The 360 is the computer MS always wanted. They're in full control and will butt hurt you if you don't like paying for everything. I'm completely happy with my free online services through the Wii and 3DS but for $60 a year the 360 damn well better have better online services.
The Mac store is pretty open and they even include GPL'ed software unlike iOS. I don't think asking for their programs to be sanboxed will change that. I wouldn't be too concerned about what ignorant people think. The amount of ignorant people that seem to think the Mac is already as closed as the iphone don't really matter.
Google is pretty shoddy in some areas. Customer support, imo, is the biggest one but, imo, they also seem more happy to push new features than fix problems. Google Maps was broken for me on my Android phone a couple years ago due to an update for a good few weeks before it was fixed.
The kinect hardware can be profitable while it being a failure for the actual console. It's selection of 60 games is largely crap. If companies continue to not invest in developing good software for it then what is the point of a kinect for the xbox? I think MS is concerned about that and wants to get a piece of the action for people using it elsewhere. So that is how I assert it's a failure for the xbox. It's so far a dumping ground for poor games and I think it will quietly fade away on the 360. I don't blame MS for preparing for that and in fact it's smart. A lot of people like using kinects but for other things so it's wise to invest in that and keep the product alive and profitable.
I'd say the iPad is really good at content creation. There are some really good drawing and 3D modelling apps and I believe there is something coming out for writing code. I don't recall the specifics for how the company got around the 3rd party executable code (perhaps it can't execute the code on the ipad) but it's there. In fact I'd say the iPad is the best non-PC/laptop creation device you can get at the moment.
I'd argue it is. That is why they're looking at supporting Kinect through other uses. I would guess it's become apparent that a big chunk of the units sold are not being used for gaming and instead used for other means. There are only 60 games for Kinect and most of them are complete trash. One of their quality titles (kinect sports) has only sold 3 million units compared to at least 10 million kinects. It would be really interesting to know how many kinect purchases actually resulted in games being bought.
That's largely in part from bleeding customers for every last penny by making them buy subscriptions, not allowing developers to give anything away and offering as little as possible in the hardware and then selling over priced add-ons.
Despite that I think the whole xbox division hasn't made back all the money that was lost. They're just not losing more money and earning on what's being sold.
I've yet to see an app market that operates in any other way. Xbox indie games, android, etc along with the iphone all seem to be hit or miss. I think a lot of it is it's all cheap and while that should allow more opportunities I don't think it does. It makes people think most of it is junk so they only buy the things that are popular and proven.
That and there is a lot of shit that doesn't deserve money on those markets (especially Android) so is it no surprise a lot of people don't make money?
And notice how most everything you go on about has nothing to do with gaming. MS certainly sold a lot of Kinects. I'd personally like to know how many are actually being used on an xbox.
From what I know kinect sports sold 3 million units. They've sold 10 million Kinects. Considering of the 60 Kinect games Kinect Sports is perhaps the best one by far implies to me most of those people buying kinects don't want to use it for gaming. Not that I don't blame them but that makes it a failure for the Xbox, imo, even if MS is selling loads of them. Why else distract potential game developers away from making games from something that is supposed to be a key part of their gaming system?
As far as I'm concerned it's bombed on the xbox. I think this just proves it as they're looking to make money off of kinect through other systems and seeing how it would appear a big chunk of kinect purchasers are doing things with it on a PC they probably just figured they might as well get in on that.
Yeah I hate it when all 600 distros aren't exactly the same. That's going to make it much harder for me to some like a pompous windbag who claims to be able to use hundreds of operating systems. How can I deal with that?
I'm not entirely sure it is too expensive. If that were the case then why are more and more people going? People are seeing a benefit to it.
Too many people are getting degrees that shouldn't do it. To be honest I don't really have sympathy for them. People should stand up to companies demanding unnecessary degrees but they don't. It's just easier to get the degree and hopefully gain an advantage over someone.
I think the growing importance of a degree is ruining high school (parents go bat shit if their kids would fail) so kids are less prepared leaving high school. Then the ones going to university just because they have to probably aren't gaining anything out of it except a shitty attitude of "I have all this debt so I damn well better be rich" and then they hit reality.
It would not surprise me if the push for degrees is to try and ensure you employees that are up to their neck in debt and scared about keeping their job let alone considering moving out of a bad job when they want. But whatever the reason behind it more people are going. There must still be a benefit there so suck it up and make the most of it.
It's a pointless filter because it causes a lot of people to waste 2 to 4 years of their life and gain debt they don't need and at some point the majority of people will have one so what happens is basically you end up filtering out the tiny fraction of people who don't even bother to finish high school. So it's useless.
Apple's products were only shiny since the introduction of the iMac era and onwards. Until then Apple and Next only made standard beige or black boxes. Then Steve used design to stand out from the crowd which was very smart. Why would anyone want a standard beige box that doesn't run all your Windows applications when you could have a standard beige box that does.
Most mobile platforms or non-windows PCs are based on Linux, Free BSD or something other than Unix. Dennis Ritchie certainly deserves starting something good but to give him so much credit for today's operating systems ignores a hell of a lot of people that built on top of what he did.
I don't think he was. Woz certainly had the technical ability but most everything Apple is remembered for and importantly everything new they brought to the table of computing isn't technical really.
I think they both had a huge and equal impact on the world. It's just that you value Ritchie's more technical contribution as some value Steve's input.
Slashdot Mirror
mono, lol
It doesn't matter who is to blame the point is that GPL code is not on the iphone but it's on the Mac store. That certainly isn't a lie
Arguably the voicelessness is a bonus. But I will agree that the Wii didn't sell because of it's lack of online capability. I think it shows more that people aren't that bothered about online play. If they want to browse the web or use netflix they can do that on the Wii and i do think most people rather not be verbally abused by young kids so they're put off by online gaming.
That may very well be but what I have works well enough for me. The only issue with the Wii is the friends codes which are non-existant on the 3DS. You just jump online and find a match and network connectivity seems fine. Other than that I use the systems (minus the 3DS though) for web browsing which is quite nice to do away from the desktop sometimes and I just can't do that on the 360.
Again I would hope it's infinitely better since it's not free but for what I want I don't think it is. I would assume that's the case for most people too as there are more people who own another system than own a 360. Oddly enough the one thing that MS does allow in their walled garden that probably puts a lot of people off from online gaming (which is an issue on the PS3 too) is the foul mouthed kids. I'm not terribly surprised a lot of people rather not spend their free time being 'pwned' by a 12 year old calling them nigger faggot.
Valve complained that they can give away additional content for their games on the PS3 but not the Xbox. I'm not terribly sure about the Wii but I got Zelda Four Swords for free the other week as did anyone else that wants it.
Microsoft benefitted entirely by IBM's more open system and they used to get the monopoly they have now but that they're the dominant one they want a lock-tight system and everyone's pretty much decided desktops will go away. The idea of set-top boxes have been pushed for so long and failed. MS realises its consoles that will become the set top box.
So they got into gaming and they're making something that is expensive and locked down from the beginning so there are no expectations that you can have any sort of freedom like you have on your desktop. The MS fanboys are lapping it up too. I prefer to stay with the much cheaper and open PC gaming.
Most people would disagree with you which is why the Wii has a huge lead over the 360 everywhere and globally the PS3 right on the 360's ass with only a couple or few million less units despite launching a year later, being initially more expensive, the hacking issues, etc.
The 360 is all about milking the customer. No included wifi so you can buy a pricey adapter, can't use a standard HD, got to buy a expensive proprietary add-on. If you're a developer and want to give something away then forget about it. To play games online or do anything really it's $60 a year. The system has no browser to ensure your chances of getting anything for free are minimised and instead they expect you to pay to access facebook or twitter through their system.
The 360 is the computer MS always wanted. They're in full control and will butt hurt you if you don't like paying for everything. I'm completely happy with my free online services through the Wii and 3DS but for $60 a year the 360 damn well better have better online services.
The Mac store is pretty open and they even include GPL'ed software unlike iOS. I don't think asking for their programs to be sanboxed will change that. I wouldn't be too concerned about what ignorant people think. The amount of ignorant people that seem to think the Mac is already as closed as the iphone don't really matter.
Sure if your text editor is Notepad. Otherwise I've never had any problems working with multiple files in Vim or even Notepad++.
Google is pretty shoddy in some areas. Customer support, imo, is the biggest one but, imo, they also seem more happy to push new features than fix problems. Google Maps was broken for me on my Android phone a couple years ago due to an update for a good few weeks before it was fixed.
The kinect hardware can be profitable while it being a failure for the actual console. It's selection of 60 games is largely crap. If companies continue to not invest in developing good software for it then what is the point of a kinect for the xbox? I think MS is concerned about that and wants to get a piece of the action for people using it elsewhere. So that is how I assert it's a failure for the xbox. It's so far a dumping ground for poor games and I think it will quietly fade away on the 360. I don't blame MS for preparing for that and in fact it's smart. A lot of people like using kinects but for other things so it's wise to invest in that and keep the product alive and profitable.
I'd say the iPad is really good at content creation. There are some really good drawing and 3D modelling apps and I believe there is something coming out for writing code. I don't recall the specifics for how the company got around the 3rd party executable code (perhaps it can't execute the code on the ipad) but it's there. In fact I'd say the iPad is the best non-PC/laptop creation device you can get at the moment.
I'd argue it is. That is why they're looking at supporting Kinect through other uses. I would guess it's become apparent that a big chunk of the units sold are not being used for gaming and instead used for other means. There are only 60 games for Kinect and most of them are complete trash. One of their quality titles (kinect sports) has only sold 3 million units compared to at least 10 million kinects. It would be really interesting to know how many kinect purchases actually resulted in games being bought.
That's largely in part from bleeding customers for every last penny by making them buy subscriptions, not allowing developers to give anything away and offering as little as possible in the hardware and then selling over priced add-ons.
Despite that I think the whole xbox division hasn't made back all the money that was lost. They're just not losing more money and earning on what's being sold.
They should be but their EULA means they're no responsible for anything even if their software causes your building to burn down.
I've yet to see an app market that operates in any other way. Xbox indie games, android, etc along with the iphone all seem to be hit or miss. I think a lot of it is it's all cheap and while that should allow more opportunities I don't think it does. It makes people think most of it is junk so they only buy the things that are popular and proven.
That and there is a lot of shit that doesn't deserve money on those markets (especially Android) so is it no surprise a lot of people don't make money?
And notice how most everything you go on about has nothing to do with gaming. MS certainly sold a lot of Kinects. I'd personally like to know how many are actually being used on an xbox.
From what I know kinect sports sold 3 million units. They've sold 10 million Kinects. Considering of the 60 Kinect games Kinect Sports is perhaps the best one by far implies to me most of those people buying kinects don't want to use it for gaming. Not that I don't blame them but that makes it a failure for the Xbox, imo, even if MS is selling loads of them. Why else distract potential game developers away from making games from something that is supposed to be a key part of their gaming system?
As far as I'm concerned it's bombed on the xbox. I think this just proves it as they're looking to make money off of kinect through other systems and seeing how it would appear a big chunk of kinect purchasers are doing things with it on a PC they probably just figured they might as well get in on that.
Yeah I hate it when all 600 distros aren't exactly the same. That's going to make it much harder for me to some like a pompous windbag who claims to be able to use hundreds of operating systems. How can I deal with that?
I'm not entirely sure it is too expensive. If that were the case then why are more and more people going? People are seeing a benefit to it.
Too many people are getting degrees that shouldn't do it. To be honest I don't really have sympathy for them. People should stand up to companies demanding unnecessary degrees but they don't. It's just easier to get the degree and hopefully gain an advantage over someone.
I think the growing importance of a degree is ruining high school (parents go bat shit if their kids would fail) so kids are less prepared leaving high school. Then the ones going to university just because they have to probably aren't gaining anything out of it except a shitty attitude of "I have all this debt so I damn well better be rich" and then they hit reality.
It would not surprise me if the push for degrees is to try and ensure you employees that are up to their neck in debt and scared about keeping their job let alone considering moving out of a bad job when they want. But whatever the reason behind it more people are going. There must still be a benefit there so suck it up and make the most of it.
Because your business goes tits up and you have nothing. You claim you can't pay for your education and you still have something.
Now if they revoke the degree and make it illegal for that person to claim they've graduated university then maybe but how do you enforce that?
University is expensive and there is no way everyone else should subsidize people's educations by letting them claim bankruptcy.
It's a pointless filter because it causes a lot of people to waste 2 to 4 years of their life and gain debt they don't need and at some point the majority of people will have one so what happens is basically you end up filtering out the tiny fraction of people who don't even bother to finish high school. So it's useless.
Apple's products were only shiny since the introduction of the iMac era and onwards. Until then Apple and Next only made standard beige or black boxes. Then Steve used design to stand out from the crowd which was very smart. Why would anyone want a standard beige box that doesn't run all your Windows applications when you could have a standard beige box that does.
Most mobile platforms or non-windows PCs are based on Linux, Free BSD or something other than Unix. Dennis Ritchie certainly deserves starting something good but to give him so much credit for today's operating systems ignores a hell of a lot of people that built on top of what he did.
I don't think he was. Woz certainly had the technical ability but most everything Apple is remembered for and importantly everything new they brought to the table of computing isn't technical really.
I think they both had a huge and equal impact on the world. It's just that you value Ritchie's more technical contribution as some value Steve's input.