Ahem, I think you will find Google has been doing this for years. Free (as in beer and open source) OS upgrades for Nexus devices and free productivity apps for all platforms.
However the Nexus devices are a minority player in the Android market. The bulk of the Android devices are not so fortunate. Plus the Google productivity apps require buying into Google's cloud strategy. Apple only makes their cloud strategy an option, you are still free to store files locally on the device.
For many the internal storage often doesn't need to do much more than boot the operating system, provide VM swap and host apps. A typical user will probably have an external RAID to do their work on. Others will get the 512GB or 1TB upgrades.
Apple haters or not, the saddest thing to realize is that the only UNIX(R) Workstation on the market is now the Mac. As Apple is the only UNIX 03 certification holder who is still making desktops and laptops. All the other UNIX 03 hardware produced at the moment is Datacenter-only rackmounted servers.
So $2999 for a powerful UNIX(R) Workstation is a fair price.
A $600 Mac mini is also UNIX(R) and for many UNIX(R) users it is quite usable. Not all UNIX(R) users need a *high performance* workstation.
Thank you. I am thrilled to be wrong. I only noticed the M7 being mentioned with respect to the iPad Air during the presentation, I read too much into that.
So a developer only needs to get a mini to test 64-bit code and A7/M7 functionality.
A shot at other OS, computer *and* device makers
on
Apple Announces iPad Air
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
iWork is now free, and include collaboration features that MS Office will have a hell of a time trying to match.
-jcr
A major shot at other operating system, computer *and* mobile device makers. Free (as in beer) major OS update (computers) and free productivity apps (computers and mobile devices). Bundling the productivity apps with new computers and mobile devices will help Apple maintain their price points. Once again, Apple demonstrates that they are a hardware company at heart, that software is a tool to sell that hardware.
Note, black powder and gun powder are not the same thing. The former is an explosive and the later a propellant.
Making shit up again.
From the first line of your reference: "In American English, the term gunpowder also refers broadly to any gun propellant."
One of my friends, who was a historical reenactor, had to get a black powder certificate so he could use a musket. That's a kind of gun if you didn't know.
A friend has a replica Springfield muzzleloading black powder musket. When going to the range we stopped at a local gun store, he bought a small tin of black powder. The clerk asked him what it was for. My friend said it was for his muzzleloader. The sale proceeded, that was the extent of the "red tape", no special permit was required in our state. This was pre-9/11, I don't know what the state regulations are today.
If you are in space, then you are in nobody's territory.
You are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you launched from and/or the laws of the jurisdiction of your citizenship and/or the jurisdiction of the organization's legal registration.
"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.
Its probably not that simple. The country you are a citizen of and/or the country the organization was created in probably has a say as well. For example a US citizen may travel to North Korea, have NK permission to launch a rocket, and be subject to prosecution in the US for the work done in NK.
At a given moment whose laws are you subject to? There may simultaneously be two such states. The state in whose territory you are within, and the state to which you are a citizen of or if it is being done by an organization then the state where the organization was created.
To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless...
It seems that they are asking for a loophole around their country's firearms regulations, the "red tape" for small quantities of black powder may be nothing more than a firearms permit?
A quick google shows that Denmark allows rifles and shotguns for hunting, a firearms permit is required. Such permits generally cover rifles. shotguns and their ammunition. Small quantities of black powder probably fall in the ammunition category, some people like to go old school and use black powder muskets.
Note, black powder and gun powder are not the same thing. The former is an explosive and the later a propellant.
Which means nothing to me, the students aren't auditing it, you can't be certain that they gave them the *complete* code and you're suggesting that because the *government* has access to the code I shoudl be more trusting? Is this sort of delusional behavior typical of all Windows users? All it takes is 1 second of thought to see your comments are absurd.
Perhaps you should think about things for longer than one second. If you read my post for comprehension you will notice I made no claim about trust, merely that source code is available to some, contrary to a claim that was made. Apologies if this fact somehow contradicts your theories.
I have a serious question. Maybe I've been working for dysfunctional organizations too much, but I've noticed a different MBA pattern.
Been there done that. At one company that I worked at the senior management team was chosen by investors who bought out the original founders. I would characterize them as con men and thieves that were secretly executing an exit strategy, doing things that enhanced the sale price, hid the true state of product development and sales, and actually impeded the development of the next generation of products. They reinforced the negative stereotypes I had of CEOs and MBAs. What I eventually learned was that they did not represent what is taught in business school where you are taught to run a company for long term success, not for short term investment and sale (flipping). This company did precisely what business school warned about with respect to focusing solely on the short term, it failed. BTW, recall my point about getting what you reward not what is good for the company. That is precisely what happened here. The investor owners incentivized and rewarded senior management for nothing more than selling the company.
Fortunately most companies that I have worked for were not like the preceding. Yet the preceding still dominated my perception of CEOs and MBAs. It was not until I went to business school that I realized that the good senior management that I had usually worked for were not the exception, that they actually represented what business schools were teaching.
How do you explain the hordes of McKinsey/Accenture/pwc/BCG/Bain "consultants" who walk into a business and proclaim to the execs that they have all the answers?
That's easy. These companies have idiots for execs. As my strategy professor would like to say, companies run by such idiots can be a great opportunity. If the products/services and employees are good, a company screwed up by such senior management can be bought at a discount, un-f*cked up, and run by decent managers at a higher level that reflect the true potential of the products/services and employees.
That "MBAs can manage anything" mindset is a killer in technical job roles, and has led to me working on some miserable projects.
That mindset is not what has been taught in recent history. I was taught that understanding the domain, product, service, manufacturing process, etc was key. That if you were not familiar with the preceding you need to become so. That you probably want to speak with experienced employees to get a better understanding, people on the production line, people who directly interact with customers. To use a military example, if you want to know what the state of a unit is and how well it works you ask its sergeant not its captain.
Of course, there are exceptions, but why does the MBA automatically qualify someone as a manager any more than a paper technical certification conveys proficiency with a product?
It doesn't. My school discouraged applicants without industry experience. It told them that an MBA without industry experience did not really add much to a BA in Business. That while it may be convenient to do the BA and MBA back to back, you would probably get more out of the MBA program if you had a few years in industry first.
Of course I went to a state university, University of California, not a private for profit university. Perhaps that makes a difference.
FWIW my professor's often had real experience as well. They were rarely ivory tower academics. One was even part of a video game startup in the early 80s, he actually programed Apple II's in 6502 assembly back in the day.
If MBAs really aren't taught "bad management skills," what is it that corrupts them and causes the disastrous short term thinking epidemic in companies these days?
The same thing that corrupts many software developers that were taught to do the
Overall I'd recommend anyone who criticizes MBAs to try and reserve judgment until you have a chance to go sit in on a class at a good school. I believe that you will be surprised at what it's like, who you meet, and you might even change your opinion.
That is exactly what happened with me. A friend was a TA and a guest speaker for his class was the person running the Mohave Spaceport. My friend thought I might be interested and invited me to sit in. I think the class was entrepreneurship and they were discussing the various companies at Mojave and the civilian space industry in general. Sitting in got me thinking about enrolling in the program.
After decades of software development I went to business school. Some take aways.
(1) Business school is probably not what you think. The bankers, ceos, etc making the headline news for various nefarious reasons are not practicing what they were taught in business school. They are very much like the software engineer who is taught how to write well designed maintainable and reliable code and then writes complete crap once they enter industry. You can teach people how to do the right thing but there is no guarantee they will follow through, this is true in both engineering and business. In business school you will be taught to plan for the long term, to treat your business partners well, to treat you employees well, to treat your customers well, to be socially responsible, to be ethical, etc. In other words things leading to long term company success.
(2) An MBA program is probably not what you think. An MBA program is not about accounting and financials, that is just once topic covered. An MBA program is an overview of the complete organization and its lifecycle: Entrepreneurship, strategy, product development, marketing, accounting/finance, operations, information technology, organizational behavior (people), economics, etc. You will learn to look at things from the perspective of each of these specialties. The point of doing so is not to make you an expert in any of them. You will not become an expert, however you will learn enough to understand their perspectives and to therefore be able to effectively communicate and perhaps be more persuasive in your arguments with them. You don't have to stop being an engineer. You just become an engineer with a broader perspective and more likely to persuade ceos, accountants and people in marketing.
(3) Your classmates will probably not be what you expect. Most people in an MBA program are not coming from an accounting/finance background. They actually represent a minority. About 1/3 of my class consisted of people coming from engineering and scientific backgrounds. You will have an incredibly wide set of skills and viewpoints among your classmates.
(4) You get what you reward. There is a common theme that occurs in many classes, strategy, accounting, product development, information technology, operations, etc. Many failures can be traced back to having the wrong incentives. Basically people give you the behavior you incentivize, that you reward. Not what you ask for, not even what everyone agree is good or the right thing to do. There are many lessons to be learned in business school but it is amazing how often and in how many unrelated areas this one single problem arises.
As was mentioned above, digital signature key used to sing Windows executable are not released. Therefore, it will never be possible to get a binary result identical to what is published on TryueCrypt website.
If the code is the same and the differences are only in an appended signature and embedded timestamps then it would be practical to verify the binary.
To be honest the last time I did such a comparison was a couple of major revisions of Dev Studio ago.
In both cases, you can see the code, and compile it.
In both cases, the license does NOT grant you permission to copy the compiled binary anywhere, or to distribute it.
That is irrelevant with respect to audits. If your build matches the official build then your build does not need to be distributed, its redundant.
You can't see the source, you are in the position of having to trust.
Windows source code was (is ?) available to university researchers working on projects that Microsoft finds interesting. A friend (PhD candidate) was on such a research project.
If Microsoft allows professors and students to see the Windows source code I'd wager that governmental entities are allowed to see it as well.
Well they would have to come forward to launch legal proceedings, wouldn't they?
"Copyright (c) 2008 TrueCrypt Developers Association. All rights reserved."
No. Only a legal representative of the TrueCrypt Developers Association needs to come forward. No programmer is necessary. Business types and lawyers will do.
... Gamedevs need market research. Doesn't matter where it comes from...
And good market research is not simply asking fans what they want. Consumers often have **unstated** needs or wants, often things they are not even aware of. A good game designer figures out these unstated things.
Ever wonder why some online surveys are a series of comparison, one item differing from the other by one and only one specific feature, and that some of these comparisons seem similar or redundant? The reason is because such a series of specific comparisons often generates a more accurate list of ranked preferences than simply asking a person to rank of list of items.
Doing what the fans say is not necessarily good, at least for new product design.
You're using qualifying statements here to avoid being backed into a corner you rightly deserve to be.
I'm using qualifiers because the world is not black and white, there is no correct answer 100% of the time. Yet history shows that time and time again companies get into trouble and are displaced because they merely deliver what customers ask for. Similar-too products and incremental products. Game developers are *not* immune from this problem. This problem is so common it has a well known name, "The Innovator's Dilemma".
"successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business models that will meet customers' unstated or future needs" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma
Note the word "unstated". The role of a good designer is to discover these unstated needs.
The notion that fans are a poor resource...
Sometimes a poor resource. Being a game designer takes a *lot* more than being a fan of a particular game or genre.
... to use when making design considerations is a slap in the face to hundreds of highly successful open source products from Apache, to Linux, to Zend PHP. Indeed, for the most part, those products were created entirely by fans,...
Wrong. If Linus Torvalds had listened to fans of operating systems back in the day he would have used a monolithic kernel in Linux.
... and with each iteration, become even more popular and successful.
Wrong again. For example Linux development is largely corporate sponsored. With such sponsorship comes direction. Linus is not even in the top 100 source code contributors for the Linux kernel.
You've spent your entire post here largely asserting that the fans are wrong...
Sometimes wrong.
... and companies shouldn't listen to them. How, exactly, do you propose a company "deliver the fun as fans define it" if they aren't supposed to listen to them?
Fans rarely state, or are even aware of, all the things they will be fun for them to do. Or more generally customers often fail to state, or are aware of, all their needs or wants.
The fans consistently told them what they wanted, and they were consistently ignored. This isn't apathy or indecision -- that's flat out incompetence.
Doing what the fans say is not necessarily good, at least for new product design. Fans often tell you to be a derivative of some other game and/or an incremental improvement of your previous game. This sort of thing is a *classic* problem, not specific to the game industry at all, for an established company with a successful product by the way.
Now for improving a game once it has been released things change dramatically. Fans may not be a good source with respect to potential innovation but they are the ultimate judge of whether a game delivers the fun or not. Your innovation still has to pass the fun test. Developers have to put aside their ego at this point and deliver the fun as fans define it.
That said. Lucas Arts should have done a modernized version of X-Wing vs Tie Fighter. Screw innovation.;-)
A sender does not alway know that the recipient is using gmail. Gmail can be configured to grab emails from other non-gmail POP3 based email account and to send email via these accounts with the "from" field showing the non-gmail address. Admittedly if you look at the full headers you can see the originator was gmail.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem, I think you will find Google has been doing this for years. Free (as in beer and open source) OS upgrades for Nexus devices and free productivity apps for all platforms.
However the Nexus devices are a minority player in the Android market. The bulk of the Android devices are not so fortunate. Plus the Google productivity apps require buying into Google's cloud strategy. Apple only makes their cloud strategy an option, you are still free to store files locally on the device.
For many the internal storage often doesn't need to do much more than boot the operating system, provide VM swap and host apps. A typical user will probably have an external RAID to do their work on. Others will get the 512GB or 1TB upgrades.
Apple haters or not, the saddest thing to realize is that the only UNIX(R) Workstation on the market is now the Mac. As Apple is the only UNIX 03 certification holder who is still making desktops and laptops. All the other UNIX 03 hardware produced at the moment is Datacenter-only rackmounted servers.
So $2999 for a powerful UNIX(R) Workstation is a fair price.
A $600 Mac mini is also UNIX(R) and for many UNIX(R) users it is quite usable. Not all UNIX(R) users need a *high performance* workstation.
Not true... http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/ specifically lists the chip as: "A7 chip with 64-bit architecture and M7 motion coprocessor"
Thank you. I am thrilled to be wrong. I only noticed the M7 being mentioned with respect to the iPad Air during the presentation, I read too much into that.
So a developer only needs to get a mini to test 64-bit code and A7/M7 functionality.
iWork is now free, and include collaboration features that MS Office will have a hell of a time trying to match.
-jcr
A major shot at other operating system, computer *and* mobile device makers. Free (as in beer) major OS update (computers) and free productivity apps (computers and mobile devices). Bundling the productivity apps with new computers and mobile devices will help Apple maintain their price points. Once again, Apple demonstrates that they are a hardware company at heart, that software is a tool to sell that hardware.
The iPad mini seems to be going without the M7 motion coprocessor, unlike the full sized iPad Air. Regrettable, but still a nice refresh.
Smokeless powder is the propellant (modern ammunition). Black powder the explosive (19th century muskets, etc).
Making shit up again.
From the first line of your reference: "In American English, the term gunpowder also refers broadly to any gun propellant."
One of my friends, who was a historical reenactor, had to get a black powder certificate so he could use a musket. That's a kind of gun if you didn't know.
A friend has a replica Springfield muzzleloading black powder musket. When going to the range we stopped at a local gun store, he bought a small tin of black powder. The clerk asked him what it was for. My friend said it was for his muzzleloader. The sale proceeded, that was the extent of the "red tape", no special permit was required in our state. This was pre-9/11, I don't know what the state regulations are today.
If you are in space, then you are in nobody's territory.
You are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you launched from and/or the laws of the jurisdiction of your citizenship and/or the jurisdiction of the organization's legal registration.
"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.
Its probably not that simple. The country you are a citizen of and/or the country the organization was created in probably has a say as well. For example a US citizen may travel to North Korea, have NK permission to launch a rocket, and be subject to prosecution in the US for the work done in NK.
What is "the appropriate state party"?
At a given moment whose laws are you subject to? There may simultaneously be two such states. The state in whose territory you are within, and the state to which you are a citizen of or if it is being done by an organization then the state where the organization was created.
To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless ...
It seems that they are asking for a loophole around their country's firearms regulations, the "red tape" for small quantities of black powder may be nothing more than a firearms permit?
A quick google shows that Denmark allows rifles and shotguns for hunting, a firearms permit is required. Such permits generally cover rifles. shotguns and their ammunition. Small quantities of black powder probably fall in the ammunition category, some people like to go old school and use black powder muskets.
Note, black powder and gun powder are not the same thing. The former is an explosive and the later a propellant.
Which means nothing to me, the students aren't auditing it, you can't be certain that they gave them the *complete* code and you're suggesting that because the *government* has access to the code I shoudl be more trusting? Is this sort of delusional behavior typical of all Windows users? All it takes is 1 second of thought to see your comments are absurd.
Perhaps you should think about things for longer than one second. If you read my post for comprehension you will notice I made no claim about trust, merely that source code is available to some, contrary to a claim that was made. Apologies if this fact somehow contradicts your theories.
I have a serious question. Maybe I've been working for dysfunctional organizations too much, but I've noticed a different MBA pattern.
Been there done that. At one company that I worked at the senior management team was chosen by investors who bought out the original founders. I would characterize them as con men and thieves that were secretly executing an exit strategy, doing things that enhanced the sale price, hid the true state of product development and sales, and actually impeded the development of the next generation of products. They reinforced the negative stereotypes I had of CEOs and MBAs. What I eventually learned was that they did not represent what is taught in business school where you are taught to run a company for long term success, not for short term investment and sale (flipping). This company did precisely what business school warned about with respect to focusing solely on the short term, it failed. BTW, recall my point about getting what you reward not what is good for the company. That is precisely what happened here. The investor owners incentivized and rewarded senior management for nothing more than selling the company.
Fortunately most companies that I have worked for were not like the preceding. Yet the preceding still dominated my perception of CEOs and MBAs. It was not until I went to business school that I realized that the good senior management that I had usually worked for were not the exception, that they actually represented what business schools were teaching.
How do you explain the hordes of McKinsey/Accenture/pwc/BCG/Bain "consultants" who walk into a business and proclaim to the execs that they have all the answers?
That's easy. These companies have idiots for execs. As my strategy professor would like to say, companies run by such idiots can be a great opportunity. If the products/services and employees are good, a company screwed up by such senior management can be bought at a discount, un-f*cked up, and run by decent managers at a higher level that reflect the true potential of the products/services and employees.
That "MBAs can manage anything" mindset is a killer in technical job roles, and has led to me working on some miserable projects.
That mindset is not what has been taught in recent history. I was taught that understanding the domain, product, service, manufacturing process, etc was key. That if you were not familiar with the preceding you need to become so. That you probably want to speak with experienced employees to get a better understanding, people on the production line, people who directly interact with customers. To use a military example, if you want to know what the state of a unit is and how well it works you ask its sergeant not its captain.
Of course, there are exceptions, but why does the MBA automatically qualify someone as a manager any more than a paper technical certification conveys proficiency with a product?
It doesn't. My school discouraged applicants without industry experience. It told them that an MBA without industry experience did not really add much to a BA in Business. That while it may be convenient to do the BA and MBA back to back, you would probably get more out of the MBA program if you had a few years in industry first.
Of course I went to a state university, University of California, not a private for profit university. Perhaps that makes a difference.
FWIW my professor's often had real experience as well. They were rarely ivory tower academics. One was even part of a video game startup in the early 80s, he actually programed Apple II's in 6502 assembly back in the day.
If MBAs really aren't taught "bad management skills," what is it that corrupts them and causes the disastrous short term thinking epidemic in companies these days?
The same thing that corrupts many software developers that were taught to do the
Overall I'd recommend anyone who criticizes MBAs to try and reserve judgment until you have a chance to go sit in on a class at a good school. I believe that you will be surprised at what it's like, who you meet, and you might even change your opinion.
That is exactly what happened with me. A friend was a TA and a guest speaker for his class was the person running the Mohave Spaceport. My friend thought I might be interested and invited me to sit in. I think the class was entrepreneurship and they were discussing the various companies at Mojave and the civilian space industry in general. Sitting in got me thinking about enrolling in the program.
After decades of software development I went to business school. Some take aways.
(1) Business school is probably not what you think. The bankers, ceos, etc making the headline news for various nefarious reasons are not practicing what they were taught in business school. They are very much like the software engineer who is taught how to write well designed maintainable and reliable code and then writes complete crap once they enter industry. You can teach people how to do the right thing but there is no guarantee they will follow through, this is true in both engineering and business. In business school you will be taught to plan for the long term, to treat your business partners well, to treat you employees well, to treat your customers well, to be socially responsible, to be ethical, etc. In other words things leading to long term company success.
(2) An MBA program is probably not what you think. An MBA program is not about accounting and financials, that is just once topic covered. An MBA program is an overview of the complete organization and its lifecycle: Entrepreneurship, strategy, product development, marketing, accounting/finance, operations, information technology, organizational behavior (people), economics, etc. You will learn to look at things from the perspective of each of these specialties. The point of doing so is not to make you an expert in any of them. You will not become an expert, however you will learn enough to understand their perspectives and to therefore be able to effectively communicate and perhaps be more persuasive in your arguments with them. You don't have to stop being an engineer. You just become an engineer with a broader perspective and more likely to persuade ceos, accountants and people in marketing.
(3) Your classmates will probably not be what you expect. Most people in an MBA program are not coming from an accounting/finance background. They actually represent a minority. About 1/3 of my class consisted of people coming from engineering and scientific backgrounds. You will have an incredibly wide set of skills and viewpoints among your classmates.
(4) You get what you reward. There is a common theme that occurs in many classes, strategy, accounting, product development, information technology, operations, etc. Many failures can be traced back to having the wrong incentives. Basically people give you the behavior you incentivize, that you reward. Not what you ask for, not even what everyone agree is good or the right thing to do. There are many lessons to be learned in business school but it is amazing how often and in how many unrelated areas this one single problem arises.
As was mentioned above, digital signature key used to sing Windows executable are not released. Therefore, it will never be possible to get a binary result identical to what is published on TryueCrypt website.
If the code is the same and the differences are only in an appended signature and embedded timestamps then it would be practical to verify the binary.
To be honest the last time I did such a comparison was a couple of major revisions of Dev Studio ago.
In both cases, you can see the code, and compile it. In both cases, the license does NOT grant you permission to copy the compiled binary anywhere, or to distribute it.
That is irrelevant with respect to audits. If your build matches the official build then your build does not need to be distributed, its redundant.
You can't see the source, you are in the position of having to trust.
Windows source code was (is ?) available to university researchers working on projects that Microsoft finds interesting. A friend (PhD candidate) was on such a research project.
If Microsoft allows professors and students to see the Windows source code I'd wager that governmental entities are allowed to see it as well.
Well they would have to come forward to launch legal proceedings, wouldn't they?
"Copyright (c) 2008 TrueCrypt Developers Association. All rights reserved."
No. Only a legal representative of the TrueCrypt Developers Association needs to come forward. No programmer is necessary. Business types and lawyers will do.
... Gamedevs need market research. Doesn't matter where it comes from ...
And good market research is not simply asking fans what they want. Consumers often have **unstated** needs or wants, often things they are not even aware of. A good game designer figures out these unstated things.
Ever wonder why some online surveys are a series of comparison, one item differing from the other by one and only one specific feature, and that some of these comparisons seem similar or redundant? The reason is because such a series of specific comparisons often generates a more accurate list of ranked preferences than simply asking a person to rank of list of items.
Wrong. If Linus Torvalds had listened to fans of operating systems back in the day he would have used a monolithic kernel in Linux.
Oops, typo. Left out the word "not". "... he would **not** have used a monolithic kernel in Linux".
Doing what the fans say is not necessarily good, at least for new product design.
You're using qualifying statements here to avoid being backed into a corner you rightly deserve to be.
I'm using qualifiers because the world is not black and white, there is no correct answer 100% of the time. Yet history shows that time and time again companies get into trouble and are displaced because they merely deliver what customers ask for. Similar-too products and incremental products. Game developers are *not* immune from this problem. This problem is so common it has a well known name, "The Innovator's Dilemma".
"successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business models that will meet customers' unstated or future needs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma
Note the word "unstated". The role of a good designer is to discover these unstated needs.
The notion that fans are a poor resource ...
Sometimes a poor resource. Being a game designer takes a *lot* more than being a fan of a particular game or genre.
Wrong. If Linus Torvalds had listened to fans of operating systems back in the day he would have used a monolithic kernel in Linux.
Wrong again. For example Linux development is largely corporate sponsored. With such sponsorship comes direction. Linus is not even in the top 100 source code contributors for the Linux kernel.
You've spent your entire post here largely asserting that the fans are wrong ...
Sometimes wrong.
Fans rarely state, or are even aware of, all the things they will be fun for them to do. Or more generally customers often fail to state, or are aware of, all their needs or wants.
The fans consistently told them what they wanted, and they were consistently ignored. This isn't apathy or indecision -- that's flat out incompetence.
Doing what the fans say is not necessarily good, at least for new product design. Fans often tell you to be a derivative of some other game and/or an incremental improvement of your previous game. This sort of thing is a *classic* problem, not specific to the game industry at all, for an established company with a successful product by the way.
;-)
Now for improving a game once it has been released things change dramatically. Fans may not be a good source with respect to potential innovation but they are the ultimate judge of whether a game delivers the fun or not. Your innovation still has to pass the fun test. Developers have to put aside their ego at this point and deliver the fun as fans define it.
That said. Lucas Arts should have done a modernized version of X-Wing vs Tie Fighter. Screw innovation.
A sender does not alway know that the recipient is using gmail. Gmail can be configured to grab emails from other non-gmail POP3 based email account and to send email via these accounts with the "from" field showing the non-gmail address. Admittedly if you look at the full headers you can see the originator was gmail.