I'm sure it wasn't also the sticky floors, the screaming children or the guy in the seat ahead of your turning on his phone so he could check his text messages and destroy your low-light vision, right?
Ironically, I'd argue that since Schmidt left, Google's products have only gotten worse. Gmail was redesigned, and started hiding features rather than adding them. Labs was killed, mostly across the board (it still struggles on in Music, but for who knows how long?). Maps was redesigned once, twice, each time removing more of the interface and increasing the CPU/RAM utilization of hardware. Google, who used to be known for products made by (and for) power users, became a company focused on design and the democratization of the interface. Their latest introduction to Project Fi has basically completed the transformation, with Google's introductory trailer claiming that the service "just works," echoing Apple's famous adage from years ago.
That's a fair response. I can agree with the merit of your suggestion, Office 2003 is basically the same product and is moderately comparable in modern times. It doesn't have the OOXML formatted files that its successor used, but most modern systems can read the binary.doc and its siblings to a fair degree. It shares the advantage of most desktop applications in that its interface can remain literally unchanged from the day it was installed, for good or bad.
I think I'd argue that some of your current iteration examples are a bit hard to compare to those that Google shut down. Apart from shopping and 411, which have easy and popular alternatives in Amazon, eBay, and local 411 telephone services, all the rest are pretty much services that only have context on the Internet. It's difficult to compare a venerable service like retail (Amazon, eBay) to Wave, which was an experiment in combining IMs, email and Google Docs. It's certainly easy to imagine how a service like Amazon could survive without the Internet, albeit with some hardships, but not as easy to imagine a service like Google Wave. I agree, those services you listed off are still around in their current iterations that mimic their 2005 iterations reasonably well, but they have the advantage of being instantly recognizable and accessible services with direct offline analogues, something that Google Wave, iGoogle and the others didn't have.
Getting back to Office 2003, I have to point out that many of the big tech companies are even moving away from that format of desktop application. Microsoft, Apple, and of course Google, have been releasing services (Microsoft 365, iWork with iCloud, etc) that blur the line between desktop and web applications. More companies, such as Adobe, Autodesk and other industrial products are moving in this direction as well, taking their software into the cloud and offering it on a subscription basis. These products will be just as subject to the whims of their creator as was Google Wave, as fleeting as iGoogle, and able to be redesigned, restructured, have its features removed or reorganized or replaced, and possibly shut down, all on the whim of the company. Subscribers have no ownership in this situation, and are just as beholden to the goodness of the company they subscribe from to maintain the product. Even with contracts and money flowing, a business could easily decide to shutter a product line in favor of something else, especially those with broader categories of applications (e.g. Microsoft, Adobe and Google). I would propose that we haven't seen the last of shuttered services like these, and the next time it happens it will be far more shocking than Google Reader ever was.
Everything is popular and useful to someone. I didn't use any of those products heavily before they were killed, and their death didn't bother me at all. I used Windows Live Messenger heavily before Microsoft killed it, and the experience on Skype is far worse, but Microsoft isn't the worst company in the world to me. Businesses do what is best for business, and if there's a need, they fill it.
Star Wars?! Oh, man, there are so many better examples of Disney rehashing old works. How about Maleficent (aka Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective)? Or running the Disney Princess angle into the ground with Brave (at least other Princess films had a legend or fairy tale background, Brave was just a complete fabrication)? Better yet, let's just talk about Disney Princess films, and how Disney takes an old legend or fairy tale, and turns it into a highly profitable film and merchandising effort? If that's not rehashing the same shit over and over, I don't know what is. The recent Star Wars acquisition doesn't have anything on the black hole of creativity that is Disney.
On the other hand, works in the public domain allow multiple interested parties to rescue old films to update their medium, rather than relying on the generosity of a copyright holder. If a copyright holder believes there is no money to be made, why would they invest the time in updating the medium? Whereas a non-copyright holder, yet an interested party, may have archival or just plain altruistic motives for doing so?
It's also possible that the copyright holder does not have the financial means to update, publish, market and otherwise finance a restoration of the work, while another for-profit company might. While under copyright, such a company might simply buy a license, but there can be legal loopholes and financial obstacles in the way of this (such as if the copyright holder simply does not want to sell, or believes they deserve a higher cut than is reasonable). A public domain work has none of these problems. The only real issue would be getting hold of a copy of the film in good enough condition to work on and reproduce.
It also demonstrates why we Americans have had such a bitch of a time getting something as simple as ISPs regulated as common carriers made policy. There are plenty of monopolies in ISP land, it's only really if you have a municipal service or live somewhere spectacularly progressive (or mundane, that's you Kansas City) that you might get some semblance of choice. Had we a system like Europe, Ma Bell would never have grown as powerful, and ISPs like Comcast, Centurylink, Time Warner and Verizon would not have the ability to move vast markets like they do.
Because the moment someone offers something for free, it's met with suspicion. Windows Phone licenses are not free and iOS doesn't even have licenses. But Google gives away Android with no license fees required. And somehow that makes them less than legitimate.
Yes, the Open Handset Alliance exists, and yes, Google has an agreement with the OEMs who choose to receive Android from Google. It's no less damning than any agreements a Windows Phone licensee would have to agree to, an iPhone 3rd party hardware (like a charger) manufacturer, etc. The difference is the initial cost: nothing.
There are accusations that Google promotes their own services on Android. Absolutely, as do all the other mobile phone platforms. Windows Phone comes with Microsoft apps aplenty. iOS actually forces you to use their apps by default, if you click a link from email, it opens in Safari, no matter what other browser client you have installed. From a user standpoint, Google's additions are no more or less restrictive than their counterparts. None of Google's behaviors regarding Android are much different than how Apple or Microsoft treat their mobile platforms, except one.
Somehow, without something like a license fee, I think most look on Google's agreements as something less than a business transaction. They are cruel restrictions placed on an otherwise flexible product, iron chains that restrain the great freedoms of the OEMs, who chafe under the strict yoke of Google. None of this is true, it is merely perception, a perception that begins and ends with the lack of licensing fees for Android. If Google charged $5 per Android license install, none of this would be a problem.
You think landing on a body 1/6 of Earth's gravity, without an atmosphere or weather, and under the control of a human is really comparable to landing on Earth, with full gravity, atmospheric weather systems, and all controlled by a computer?
As recently proven by Amazon, you can easily twist the FAA's arm if you're a big, multi-national corporation. SpaceX shouldn't have a difficult time of it.
I think the objective is to get the rockets ready for a landing on solid ground, where parachutes are petty unreliable. For a precision landing, only retrothrust will do.
In the latest Falcon Heavy promo video, SpaceX is showing off the spent first stage boosters landing back at Launch Pad 39a. I have a hard time believing that's not the final objective here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it wasn't also the sticky floors, the screaming children or the guy in the seat ahead of your turning on his phone so he could check his text messages and destroy your low-light vision, right?
This guy gets it.
Ironically, I'd argue that since Schmidt left, Google's products have only gotten worse. Gmail was redesigned, and started hiding features rather than adding them. Labs was killed, mostly across the board (it still struggles on in Music, but for who knows how long?). Maps was redesigned once, twice, each time removing more of the interface and increasing the CPU/RAM utilization of hardware. Google, who used to be known for products made by (and for) power users, became a company focused on design and the democratization of the interface. Their latest introduction to Project Fi has basically completed the transformation, with Google's introductory trailer claiming that the service "just works," echoing Apple's famous adage from years ago.
That's a fair response. I can agree with the merit of your suggestion, Office 2003 is basically the same product and is moderately comparable in modern times. It doesn't have the OOXML formatted files that its successor used, but most modern systems can read the binary .doc and its siblings to a fair degree. It shares the advantage of most desktop applications in that its interface can remain literally unchanged from the day it was installed, for good or bad.
I think I'd argue that some of your current iteration examples are a bit hard to compare to those that Google shut down. Apart from shopping and 411, which have easy and popular alternatives in Amazon, eBay, and local 411 telephone services, all the rest are pretty much services that only have context on the Internet. It's difficult to compare a venerable service like retail (Amazon, eBay) to Wave, which was an experiment in combining IMs, email and Google Docs. It's certainly easy to imagine how a service like Amazon could survive without the Internet, albeit with some hardships, but not as easy to imagine a service like Google Wave. I agree, those services you listed off are still around in their current iterations that mimic their 2005 iterations reasonably well, but they have the advantage of being instantly recognizable and accessible services with direct offline analogues, something that Google Wave, iGoogle and the others didn't have.
Getting back to Office 2003, I have to point out that many of the big tech companies are even moving away from that format of desktop application. Microsoft, Apple, and of course Google, have been releasing services (Microsoft 365, iWork with iCloud, etc) that blur the line between desktop and web applications. More companies, such as Adobe, Autodesk and other industrial products are moving in this direction as well, taking their software into the cloud and offering it on a subscription basis. These products will be just as subject to the whims of their creator as was Google Wave, as fleeting as iGoogle, and able to be redesigned, restructured, have its features removed or reorganized or replaced, and possibly shut down, all on the whim of the company. Subscribers have no ownership in this situation, and are just as beholden to the goodness of the company they subscribe from to maintain the product. Even with contracts and money flowing, a business could easily decide to shutter a product line in favor of something else, especially those with broader categories of applications (e.g. Microsoft, Adobe and Google). I would propose that we haven't seen the last of shuttered services like these, and the next time it happens it will be far more shocking than Google Reader ever was.
Everything is popular and useful to someone. I didn't use any of those products heavily before they were killed, and their death didn't bother me at all. I used Windows Live Messenger heavily before Microsoft killed it, and the experience on Skype is far worse, but Microsoft isn't the worst company in the world to me. Businesses do what is best for business, and if there's a need, they fill it.
Most every tech company has that problem. Show me a product from 10 years ago that is still around, and popular, in essentially the same form.
Then again didnt they buy android, maps and translate?
Sure, in the same way that Apple bought Siri. They didn't just use the product as is, but continued to develop it for their own needs.
Usually the news is less about the federal regulator doing her/his job, but the decision being made.
Star Wars?! Oh, man, there are so many better examples of Disney rehashing old works. How about Maleficent (aka Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective)? Or running the Disney Princess angle into the ground with Brave (at least other Princess films had a legend or fairy tale background, Brave was just a complete fabrication)? Better yet, let's just talk about Disney Princess films, and how Disney takes an old legend or fairy tale, and turns it into a highly profitable film and merchandising effort? If that's not rehashing the same shit over and over, I don't know what is. The recent Star Wars acquisition doesn't have anything on the black hole of creativity that is Disney.
On the other hand, works in the public domain allow multiple interested parties to rescue old films to update their medium, rather than relying on the generosity of a copyright holder. If a copyright holder believes there is no money to be made, why would they invest the time in updating the medium? Whereas a non-copyright holder, yet an interested party, may have archival or just plain altruistic motives for doing so?
It's also possible that the copyright holder does not have the financial means to update, publish, market and otherwise finance a restoration of the work, while another for-profit company might. While under copyright, such a company might simply buy a license, but there can be legal loopholes and financial obstacles in the way of this (such as if the copyright holder simply does not want to sell, or believes they deserve a higher cut than is reasonable). A public domain work has none of these problems. The only real issue would be getting hold of a copy of the film in good enough condition to work on and reproduce.
18% is not unusual, it's a minority.
Are contracts valid once you're dead?
You mean the shopping service that nobody uses? I've tried before, I've never found a legitimate retailer on their search engine.
They did. It was called Symbian. It was once the most widely used Smartphone OS in the world. Now it's dead.
Tell that to Amazon Fire and Xiaomi.
It also demonstrates why we Americans have had such a bitch of a time getting something as simple as ISPs regulated as common carriers made policy. There are plenty of monopolies in ISP land, it's only really if you have a municipal service or live somewhere spectacularly progressive (or mundane, that's you Kansas City) that you might get some semblance of choice. Had we a system like Europe, Ma Bell would never have grown as powerful, and ISPs like Comcast, Centurylink, Time Warner and Verizon would not have the ability to move vast markets like they do.
Because the moment someone offers something for free, it's met with suspicion. Windows Phone licenses are not free and iOS doesn't even have licenses. But Google gives away Android with no license fees required. And somehow that makes them less than legitimate.
Yes, the Open Handset Alliance exists, and yes, Google has an agreement with the OEMs who choose to receive Android from Google. It's no less damning than any agreements a Windows Phone licensee would have to agree to, an iPhone 3rd party hardware (like a charger) manufacturer, etc. The difference is the initial cost: nothing.
There are accusations that Google promotes their own services on Android. Absolutely, as do all the other mobile phone platforms. Windows Phone comes with Microsoft apps aplenty. iOS actually forces you to use their apps by default, if you click a link from email, it opens in Safari, no matter what other browser client you have installed. From a user standpoint, Google's additions are no more or less restrictive than their counterparts. None of Google's behaviors regarding Android are much different than how Apple or Microsoft treat their mobile platforms, except one.
Somehow, without something like a license fee, I think most look on Google's agreements as something less than a business transaction. They are cruel restrictions placed on an otherwise flexible product, iron chains that restrain the great freedoms of the OEMs, who chafe under the strict yoke of Google. None of this is true, it is merely perception, a perception that begins and ends with the lack of licensing fees for Android. If Google charged $5 per Android license install, none of this would be a problem.
You think landing on a body 1/6 of Earth's gravity, without an atmosphere or weather, and under the control of a human is really comparable to landing on Earth, with full gravity, atmospheric weather systems, and all controlled by a computer?
As recently proven by Amazon, you can easily twist the FAA's arm if you're a big, multi-national corporation. SpaceX shouldn't have a difficult time of it.
I think the objective is to get the rockets ready for a landing on solid ground, where parachutes are petty unreliable. For a precision landing, only retrothrust will do.
We could send you out there with your arms raised up. It'll be like a giant game of catch, but with rocket fire.
Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about what crashed when.
Source?
In the latest Falcon Heavy promo video, SpaceX is showing off the spent first stage boosters landing back at Launch Pad 39a. I have a hard time believing that's not the final objective here.
EXTRA! News Titles Ambiguous Cowards Note
On a broader scope, they absolutely do. Week-to-week episode attitudes vary by writer.