I dont know if you're new to off-shoring, but it doesn't always bring prices down. It just fills the pockets of management a bit more.
I recently worked for a large company who decided they were going to start outsourcing their IT work (scripting mixed with document layout & design - fast turnaround stuff).
Their reason for doing this is that they said it was no longer viable to do the work locally, and they needed to outsource in order to remain competitive.
Sounds fair until you realise they were the biggest player in the industry by far, and the "cutthroat" margins they kept talking about somehow also produced record profits year on year.
but any human could see that if you remove everything after the +, you get the person's real email address. How long before spammers set up automated servers to do the same?
hotmail's approach uses completely different email addresses, which is much better.
People will support anything that gives them what they want, even if there is a slight cost tradeoff.
I think you'll find that the money will decide what becomes the standard, and if Apple, MS and the media companies get behind H.264 (which seems pretty likely) then there isn't much that a few people can do (and yes, in reality, those who are pushing for free codecs are literally a drop in a bucket compared to those who will just go along with whatever windows gives them)...
but if its an open web, surely anyone can put whatever they like on it? otherwise its not really open is it?
You are free not to support it. But many will. That's just the way the world works.
iTunes/mac wouldn't be successful if that weren't the case. Sure its a locked down, restrictive system, but it gives people what they want, so they're generally ok with it.
I know SJ doesn't like flash, but really, who goes on youtube and sits their complaining about flash? No one. Who even notices half the time when flash is used? again, no one.
Its only flash advertising and poorly written/designed websites using flash that cause people to blame flash for all of the world's problems.
It does have its fair share of problems and flaws, but no more than Windows itself, for example, or any other equivalent plugin. And to be fair, most of the time (youtube etc) flash "just works".
I haven't noticed chrome become any less stable since flash was added in, and I haven't noticed any flash-based sites crashing the browser either.
I find that most of the time I have trouble with flash is when I'm using firefox (on linux). Now that could be a fault of the plugin or the browser or a bit of both...but in any case, Chrome doesn't seem to have suffered because of flash.
Headaches are almost always a symptom of a bigger problem. Sure, aspirin will remove the pain of the headache, but probably wont remove the root cause (although your body may well recover during that time).
Pain isn't a negative. It serves a very important purpose. Removing the pain is not necessarily an improvement. Its more of a work-around and it can definitely have negative consequences.
I'd love to develop an app based on someone else's idea, but I dont feel that it should be a 50-50 split of profit. Coming up with an idea doesn't cost as much time, but it can be just as critical. However, an actual product is better than a thought inside your head.
I do not agree with selling ideas for money. Ideas should never be as protected as what they are today. Yes the idea is critical to success, but how much of the idea had to be adapted by the developer?
Someone might say, it'd be good to have an app that does X. But then the developer has to adapt that idea into what works on a screen etc and what the API is capable of, and in the end you end up with Y. Who takes the credit for the idea? really, it should be both, but the developer has done a LOT more actual work and effort.
Try to sell your app through other means and you'll start to appreciate where your 30% goes.
Marketing and distribution are critical to success too. Everyone knows you cant just come up with a good product and get rich instantly. It takes good business and marketing and a bunch of other things too.
Android (and iOS) give developers are real chance to profit by providing the market and tools. I think its worth something.
Yes, that's the point. The iOS platform is SO nice, that it beats out any of the "intellectual" Android arguments about being "Open" or "Free" - or even it having a larger marketshare. I'm not going to have to walk around with a clunky, crappy, inferior smartphone in my pocket just because of "principals".
Ok, you're now sounding more like a fanboy...
I'm pretty sure the majority of Android customers didn't buy an android phone because of "principles". Maybe some of them dislike the iphone, and maybe lots of them like that android lets them "do more", but they're buying them because they're cheaper or perceived as better.
If Android was as bad as you claim, I dont think it would be as successful as it is. The claim from Apple zealots for years has been that it outsells android because it is a better OS/phone. Well now surely the reverse is also true... (actually, that's tongue-in-cheek. I still think marketing and perceived value have a big part to play in what people choose).
Android is the #1 shipping smartphone platform, a completely open system, with free, publicly available tools. You can do it under Windows or Linux (the later, being also free) - on cheap, commodity PCs you can buy from any vendor.
So maybe we should ask the question of exactly why it is lagging in the app department. Apple never ran out and hired a billion people to write apps - yet they have more.
Is it the language? (C-Like vs. Java)? The "sleekness" and appeal of the OS itself? The mere fact that it's been on the market longer?
I, for one, am an open-source fanatic. I work as a Linux/kernel development engineer, and think Apple is evil.
I also own an iPhone, and write iPhone apps in my spare time. Why? Personally for me, the phone and the OS are beautiful and elegant. I love the platform, and the outcome of my work - and it's easy too to make money with one appstore to have to sell it on (even if the Apple bastards take 30%).
I find Android slow, clunky, and Java-based SDK's (like Eclipse and the Blackberry dev environment) to be the same - where XCode is smoothe and elegant - even if I did have to go buy a Mac in order to develop for it!
So that's the reason why I develop for iPhone. My point though is the following: Answer the question for a majority of iPhone developers, and you'll discover the remedy to the problem - don't just think that hiring a hundred - or a thousand Android app developers will fix the gap!
simple. the misinformation like what's contained in your post is why. and for the record, you own a mac, and an iphone, and you develop for the mac, and you use words like "beautiful" and "elegant", and "smooth" to describe them...you sir, are an apple fan. plain and simple. nothing wrong with that...but you should probably know.
seriously, c vs java? if done right you shouldn't be able to notice the speed difference in an app. More people know java than obj-c, and I'm guessing its easier to stick with what you know...but one still has to lure those developers, and mobile app developers probably aren't used to java at this point.
Android isn't slow. If you thought it was slow, then the phone was slow, or you may have only used pre-2.2 builds. Fair enough if that's the case...but Android isn't slow NOW.
the following is already there for iphone (a few years head start). there is a certain amount of inertia while many developers wait to see how android goes before investing large amounts of time and money into it. I think we are seeing the shift but it takes time.
There are also a large number of quality apps on android that are free. That means anyone serious in making money needs to invest more time to make an app that will sell, or otherwise people will just use the free app. Given that choice, or developing the same app for iOS where people are likely to buy it because most good apps are not free...and developers will go after the "easy money" every time.
I think this issue has everything to do with developer perception and nothing to do with the merits of either OS.
Aside from a few anomalies, I think its fair to say that if you are a developer who is successful with other software (think from a business sense, as in being able to create and market an entire product), then you will probably have a good chance of success with android.
However there are also a number of people who have struck it lucky. Some relatively simple apps have gone viral, and the creators have cashed in. Not millions of dollars worth, but anything in the thousands to even tens of thousands (USD) is possible if you pick the right time and market.
Phone apps (particularly Android) do have a much lower barrier of entry, and the attraction is that you dont need to publish your app or distribute it. All you need to do is create it and submit it, and in some cases you will need to market it. But if it becomes popular, it will market itself.
it clearly states he was disgruntled. I therefore assume he had his gruntle stolen and that's why he went and stole the code off them. you know, in a "you take my gruntle I'll take your code" kind of way...
oops, just read the article...seems they ARE using tagged photos. what a load of crap that is then. surely profile pics would be more useful, but then I guess they can only show you info that you put up...but if they dont know its you, why are they displaying your photos to a potential hacker?? I dont like it at all!!
Yes, because I forgot that the moment you upload a picture of a cartoon character Facebook then photoshops every photo you've previously been tagged in with the characters face instead of yours.
this has nothing to do with photos you've been tagged in. it will only show profile photos...which means a bunch of cartoon characters will show instead of your friends.
The people who want to click "OK" to anything would welcome a vetted app store as it would appear safer, and no doubt would be marketed as such.
Using the argument that such people would prefer an iphone amounts to the same thing...if they would choose iphone for app safety, then they would also choose a "safe" app store if one were available.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont know if you're new to off-shoring, but it doesn't always bring prices down. It just fills the pockets of management a bit more.
I recently worked for a large company who decided they were going to start outsourcing their IT work (scripting mixed with document layout & design - fast turnaround stuff).
Their reason for doing this is that they said it was no longer viable to do the work locally, and they needed to outsource in order to remain competitive.
Sounds fair until you realise they were the biggest player in the industry by far, and the "cutthroat" margins they kept talking about somehow also produced record profits year on year.
who says you have to connect it to the internet?
but any human could see that if you remove everything after the +, you get the person's real email address. How long before spammers set up automated servers to do the same?
hotmail's approach uses completely different email addresses, which is much better.
I want this in gmail :)
how come everyone thinks flash makes your pc slow and crash, and yet chrome doesn't do any of those things, even though it includes flash now??
but what can you do about it?
Who chooses the de-facto standard?
People will support anything that gives them what they want, even if there is a slight cost tradeoff.
I think you'll find that the money will decide what becomes the standard, and if Apple, MS and the media companies get behind H.264 (which seems pretty likely) then there isn't much that a few people can do (and yes, in reality, those who are pushing for free codecs are literally a drop in a bucket compared to those who will just go along with whatever windows gives them)...
but if its an open web, surely anyone can put whatever they like on it? otherwise its not really open is it?
You are free not to support it. But many will. That's just the way the world works.
iTunes/mac wouldn't be successful if that weren't the case. Sure its a locked down, restrictive system, but it gives people what they want, so they're generally ok with it.
hmmm, how can flash cause firefox to do things but not other browsers?
maybe its FIREFOX doing it, and not flash? I'm not sure - its just a suggestion.
does flash need to support firefox? or does firefox need to support flash?
I know SJ doesn't like flash, but really, who goes on youtube and sits their complaining about flash? No one. Who even notices half the time when flash is used? again, no one.
Its only flash advertising and poorly written/designed websites using flash that cause people to blame flash for all of the world's problems.
It does have its fair share of problems and flaws, but no more than Windows itself, for example, or any other equivalent plugin. And to be fair, most of the time (youtube etc) flash "just works".
I haven't noticed chrome become any less stable since flash was added in, and I haven't noticed any flash-based sites crashing the browser either.
I find that most of the time I have trouble with flash is when I'm using firefox (on linux). Now that could be a fault of the plugin or the browser or a bit of both...but in any case, Chrome doesn't seem to have suffered because of flash.
Headaches are almost always a symptom of a bigger problem. Sure, aspirin will remove the pain of the headache, but probably wont remove the root cause (although your body may well recover during that time).
Pain isn't a negative. It serves a very important purpose. Removing the pain is not necessarily an improvement. Its more of a work-around and it can definitely have negative consequences.
[snip] everything you have right now is thanks to people who believed they could do better than nature, and they did.
hmmm, really? I'm not convinced - I'll need examples...
Find me any of man's inventions that is in any way better than nature. Sure, we've made many things that assist us. But better? I disagree.
facebook?
I applaud this as their most (only?) innovative idea yet!
exactly. They got it wrong.
The CHAIR needs to stay.
BALLMER needs to go.
There's sure to be a "soviet russia" joke in there somewhere...
Idea: 10 minutes?
Implementation: 10 months.
Who should make a couple Franklins?
I half agree with you.
I'd love to develop an app based on someone else's idea, but I dont feel that it should be a 50-50 split of profit. Coming up with an idea doesn't cost as much time, but it can be just as critical. However, an actual product is better than a thought inside your head.
I do not agree with selling ideas for money. Ideas should never be as protected as what they are today. Yes the idea is critical to success, but how much of the idea had to be adapted by the developer?
Someone might say, it'd be good to have an app that does X. But then the developer has to adapt that idea into what works on a screen etc and what the API is capable of, and in the end you end up with Y. Who takes the credit for the idea? really, it should be both, but the developer has done a LOT more actual work and effort.
Try to sell your app through other means and you'll start to appreciate where your 30% goes.
Marketing and distribution are critical to success too. Everyone knows you cant just come up with a good product and get rich instantly. It takes good business and marketing and a bunch of other things too.
Android (and iOS) give developers are real chance to profit by providing the market and tools. I think its worth something.
Yes, that's the point. The iOS platform is SO nice, that it beats out any of the "intellectual" Android arguments about being "Open" or "Free" - or even it having a larger marketshare. I'm not going to have to walk around with a clunky, crappy, inferior smartphone in my pocket just because of "principals".
Ok, you're now sounding more like a fanboy...
I'm pretty sure the majority of Android customers didn't buy an android phone because of "principles". Maybe some of them dislike the iphone, and maybe lots of them like that android lets them "do more", but they're buying them because they're cheaper or perceived as better.
If Android was as bad as you claim, I dont think it would be as successful as it is. The claim from Apple zealots for years has been that it outsells android because it is a better OS/phone. Well now surely the reverse is also true... (actually, that's tongue-in-cheek. I still think marketing and perceived value have a big part to play in what people choose).
Android is the #1 shipping smartphone platform, a completely open system, with free, publicly available tools. You can do it under Windows or Linux (the later, being also free) - on cheap, commodity PCs you can buy from any vendor.
So maybe we should ask the question of exactly why it is lagging in the app department. Apple never ran out and hired a billion people to write apps - yet they have more.
Is it the language? (C-Like vs. Java)? The "sleekness" and appeal of the OS itself? The mere fact that it's been on the market longer?
I, for one, am an open-source fanatic. I work as a Linux/kernel development engineer, and think Apple is evil.
I also own an iPhone, and write iPhone apps in my spare time. Why? Personally for me, the phone and the OS are beautiful and elegant. I love the platform, and the outcome of my work - and it's easy too to make money with one appstore to have to sell it on (even if the Apple bastards take 30%).
I find Android slow, clunky, and Java-based SDK's (like Eclipse and the Blackberry dev environment) to be the same - where XCode is smoothe and elegant - even if I did have to go buy a Mac in order to develop for it!
So that's the reason why I develop for iPhone. My point though is the following: Answer the question for a majority of iPhone developers, and you'll discover the remedy to the problem - don't just think that hiring a hundred - or a thousand Android app developers will fix the gap!
simple. the misinformation like what's contained in your post is why. and for the record, you own a mac, and an iphone, and you develop for the mac, and you use words like "beautiful" and "elegant", and "smooth" to describe them...you sir, are an apple fan. plain and simple. nothing wrong with that...but you should probably know.
seriously, c vs java? if done right you shouldn't be able to notice the speed difference in an app. More people know java than obj-c, and I'm guessing its easier to stick with what you know...but one still has to lure those developers, and mobile app developers probably aren't used to java at this point.
Android isn't slow. If you thought it was slow, then the phone was slow, or you may have only used pre-2.2 builds. Fair enough if that's the case...but Android isn't slow NOW.
the following is already there for iphone (a few years head start). there is a certain amount of inertia while many developers wait to see how android goes before investing large amounts of time and money into it. I think we are seeing the shift but it takes time.
There are also a large number of quality apps on android that are free. That means anyone serious in making money needs to invest more time to make an app that will sell, or otherwise people will just use the free app. Given that choice, or developing the same app for iOS where people are likely to buy it because most good apps are not free...and developers will go after the "easy money" every time.
I think this issue has everything to do with developer perception and nothing to do with the merits of either OS.
Aside from a few anomalies, I think its fair to say that if you are a developer who is successful with other software (think from a business sense, as in being able to create and market an entire product), then you will probably have a good chance of success with android.
However there are also a number of people who have struck it lucky. Some relatively simple apps have gone viral, and the creators have cashed in. Not millions of dollars worth, but anything in the thousands to even tens of thousands (USD) is possible if you pick the right time and market.
Phone apps (particularly Android) do have a much lower barrier of entry, and the attraction is that you dont need to publish your app or distribute it. All you need to do is create it and submit it, and in some cases you will need to market it. But if it becomes popular, it will market itself.
it clearly states he was disgruntled. I therefore assume he had his gruntle stolen and that's why he went and stole the code off them. you know, in a "you take my gruntle I'll take your code" kind of way...
whoosh
Avira is also good. But Kaspersky is even better. You should use it with more modern hardware. Otherwise stick with Avast and all is good.
(emphasis mine)
not according to av-comparatives.org. kaspersky has slipped behind quite a bit while avast and avira are still front-runners.
hmmm, lets just say you're probably not the employee they were after.
to call something "boring" is pretty subjective. To call lego "boring" just means you have no imagination.
oops, just read the article...seems they ARE using tagged photos. what a load of crap that is then. surely profile pics would be more useful, but then I guess they can only show you info that you put up...but if they dont know its you, why are they displaying your photos to a potential hacker?? I dont like it at all!!
Yes, because I forgot that the moment you upload a picture of a cartoon character Facebook then photoshops every photo you've previously been tagged in with the characters face instead of yours.
this has nothing to do with photos you've been tagged in. it will only show profile photos...which means a bunch of cartoon characters will show instead of your friends.
?? why?
The people who want to click "OK" to anything would welcome a vetted app store as it would appear safer, and no doubt would be marketed as such.
Using the argument that such people would prefer an iphone amounts to the same thing...if they would choose iphone for app safety, then they would also choose a "safe" app store if one were available.