Mac OS 8 and 9 sucked, but this is what the iMac launched with and I believe that was successful still. e.g. people bought it to get a computer that goes on the Internet.
The real success did not occur until Intel CPUs and Mac OS X. That is where their marketshare doubled, that is where people no longer had to choose PC or Mac software, they could have both thanks the Boot Camp. Yes there were emulators but dual boot solves a lot of compatibility and performance problems. Although moving to Intel helped greatly here to, only the API had to be emulated not the instruction set as on PowerPC based system.
Apple spent many millions of dollars trying to produce an in-house operating system that had pre-emptive multitasking. The MacOS before OS X was a dismal kludge. Eventually, they gave up and let NeXT take them over and bring in a Unix clone.
Its not a clone, its a certified Unix based on BSD.;-)
6.5" was not a problem, you just put a 1" margin on both the left and right.
For something as formal as a thesis where the right probably needs to be 1/2" one would do the writing and digital proofreading with a 1" margin then when happy change the margin to 1/2" print and do the hard copy proofreading.
I know this sounds awkward but the alternative was a text based editor, or gasp a typewriter. The margin kludge was the least painful of the options.:-)
No. Windows 3.1 changed the PC world, that is where the PC world decided to go GUI. Windows 95 is merely where people said this is almost as good as a Mac. Mac OS was quite a bit crufty by the Win95 era. MS had WinNT which was far ahead of Mac OS. Apple did not get good again until Mac OS X.
A lot of people failed to understand the Mac at the beginning but the friendly and attractive and intuitive interface really caught on.
Yes and no. There was quite a bit of Apple evangelism going on. GUI did not necessarily just catch on in 1984, Apple worked hard to see that it did. Surely GUI would eventually catch on but with 1984 tech maybe a push was necessary.
Keep in mind that the embrace of the GUI had to occur both with the consumer and the developer. Apple was very smart in this regard. As a published Apple ][ developer we were automatically accepted into the Mac developer program. This gave us early access to the Mac at a reduced cost.
Several months before Apple sent us our Mac we were sent the documentation. A big part of that first delivery of the documentation was basically the evangelism convincing us to go GUI, to *not* just emulate a 40x25 or 80x25 text display and port our software directly. Being deprived of hardware and incredibly excited and curious we read everything Apple sent us. For all I know this may be the only time in history where indie developers sat down and thoroughly read the documentation before writing any code.:-) It was an incredibly wise move by Apple IMHO.
Its not about when a phone first ships, its about when a phone stops being sold. Recently I bought a dirty cheap Galaxy S4 pay as you go. I wanted Android 4.4 for development testing. You can't quite trust the emulator. I expect S3 were sold until quite recently.
A modern razr could possibly be a touch screen the entire size of the case, no physical number pad, more screen.
Hopefully folding, lower part all screen, upper part speaker and non-screen electronics. A joyful return to having the main screen protected so you can safely put it into your pocket with something else.
It would also likely be open to 3rd party apps so it would be more functional.
I think a modernization could do a great job of blending the old proven design and modern functionality.
Personally, if I had not wanted to develop iOS apps I would have kept my original razr much longer. I passed on the original iPhone and used an iPod touch for development.
That makes no sense at all. If things aren't working, you change the big parts, not the small parts. And it doesn't matter how big they are, it matters how fast they grow. Activision has started outsourcing dev on Blizzard-branded products to chase growth.
You do not change the big part that is working, that is outproducing all the other parts.
Blizzard is seeking growth but not by abandoning its ways. It no longer has 3 main internal dev teams (RTS, Diablo, WoW), it has additional teams working on unannounced products. Plus some smaller teams on smaller products. Yet all of these are working on Blizzard's timeframes per Blizzard's values. They'll ship when their done, they'll get reworked or canceled if off track, they will not ship whatever they got when some calendar date arrives.
And yet your hypothesis remains untrue. Blizzard has not been corporatized, its still produces a high level of revenue, it still has a high degree of autonomy. Owners and investors are still in a mindset of don't f*ck with the most successful part of the company. As they were when Vivendi owned, as they were when CUC owned before that. Corporate ownership and stockholders is nothing new to Blizzard. Failed projects are nothing new to Blizzard. There were various games that were internally canceled. There were multiple reboots of games that were eventually published.
If Activision Blizzard misses expectations then wall street pays less for their stock. They do *not* call for changes at the unit bringing in 46% of revenue. Such suggestions are nonsense.
Heroes of the Storm flopped. Overwatch did not meet expectations. D3 was a disaster, though they made some money back with the expansion, it was still a damaged brand that was abandoned. Blizzard lost its autonomy as a result of successive flops, which is why everyone old-school has now left.
Nope. According to the Q32018 financial report Blizzard had $1.5B in revenue for the first nine months of 2018. The rest of Activision combined had $1.8B in revenue. Blizzard alone is responsible for 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue. Blizzard still has amazing employee retention and many 10 and 20 year veterans to this day.
Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings. Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.
More seriously, shareholders are nothing new to Blizzard. They had them before when Vivendi owned, they had them before that when CUC owned.
Blizzard's owners and their respective shareholders have always known Blizzard is "different". For God's sake they MISSED CHRISTMAS with Diablo 1 and it still went on to set industry sales records.
Activision, Vivendi, and CUC shareholders get the same message. These are the revenues on our shipping games. We have additional unannounced games under development and their ship dates are unknown, if they ship at all and are not canceled. We ship games if and when they meet our standards, not according to a calendar date. For decades owners and shareholders have had no problem with this message..
Blizzard is largely autonomous of Activision, they don't have to deal with the BS Bungie did. Vivendi, Blizzard's owner, bought Activision. The name "Activision" was retained since it was far more recognizable than "Vivendi Games". It was not a merger of equals. Blizzard remained mostly hands off and left to run itself on its own schedule, hence the of the new company "Activision Blizzard".
Can we get Blizzard split off next, please? Activision is too worried about new characters to fix the problems they have with the game as it is.
Blizzard, well Vivendi which owned Blizzard, bought Activision. Vivdendi was wise enough to have hands off Blizzard and wise enough to recognize "Activision" was a more well known brand than "Vivendi Games". So Vivendi's new company was named "Activision Blizzard". Blizzard is still largely autonomous of the Activision management that was retained and put in charge of the other Vivendi Games studios.
Note how Blizzard is still on its decades old, it will ship when its ready schedule, and not tied to any sort of annual release schedule as Bungie was complaining of.
Why is this data being broadcast to the client? It's basic game security 101 that you only send the data to the client on a need-to-know basis to prevent this kind of exploit.
Need-to-know includes units, structures, resources, etc currently not visible. Things that a clean player would not know about yet. Due to network lag and local storage delays a server needs to inform the client of things just beyond legitimate detection so that the client can prepare to render those things smoothly should they become visible, without pause or stutter.
So there will always be the potential for a cheater to acquire an illicit early warning regarding things that a player should not yet know about. Yes, a game should not send everything on the map. But some things local to the player should be sent. The big question/problem in design and polish is how local.
Again we are not including digital assets but only real world at the moment.
Regarding public transactions, I'm not saying blockchain is some sort of universal replacement for all ledger-like activities, no more than the web was/is a replacement for all retail sales activities. However blockchain is another tool in the toolbox and for some cases it will be the better fit. Hence it will not die off, it will merely dip from the current misuse of blockchain we are currently experiencing in some investment circles.
Also the transactions are not necessarily by people, we also have business to business.
And a public ledger does not need to positively identifiable a person or business, an identifier need not be personally identifiable information. The verifiability of the ledger does not require the identify of people of businesses. It just need to track the asset from one entity to another so that its current authenticity can be verified. Verified solely and independently by the person/company you are trying to interact with, no middleman necessary.
If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
Yeah, so it's based on trust and subject to errors. So what do you get, then, from using a blockchain, besides inefficiency?
You get fewer errors on the ledger side, my point above is that errors in warehouse physical inventory is often ledger independent (theft, etc).
Plus the blockchain based ledger inherently offers public transparency.
Your claim of inefficiency is based on what?
Apple is a big winner on the software side too. 2/3rds the number of iOS app downloads generates five times the amount of revenue as Android apps. https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
On the other hand with a co-CEO role clearly advertised ahead of time perhaps the required sharing is a way to have the more psychopathic go work somewhere else?:-)
"Apple realized long ago a battle at the low end is one that leaves no victors."
Except for the victors it leaves, of course. If there were no victors there would be no low end.
When the most successful party has 87% of the industry profits and the distant second place has 10% then you have one victor and one intact survivor. What could we call the remaining market participants? "Beleaguered?":-)
"Apple (AAPL) captured 87% of smartphone industry profits in the fourth quarter, despite accounting for only about 18% of total units sold in the period.... Samsung came in second in smartphone operating profits with 10% of total industry profits"
https://www.investors.com/news...
Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS 8 and 9 sucked, but this is what the iMac launched with and I believe that was successful still. e.g. people bought it to get a computer that goes on the Internet.
The real success did not occur until Intel CPUs and Mac OS X. That is where their marketshare doubled, that is where people no longer had to choose PC or Mac software, they could have both thanks the Boot Camp. Yes there were emulators but dual boot solves a lot of compatibility and performance problems. Although moving to Intel helped greatly here to, only the API had to be emulated not the instruction set as on PowerPC based system.
Apple spent many millions of dollars trying to produce an in-house operating system that had pre-emptive multitasking. The MacOS before OS X was a dismal kludge. Eventually, they gave up and let NeXT take them over and bring in a Unix clone.
Its not a clone, its a certified Unix based on BSD. ;-)
6.5" was not a problem, you just put a 1" margin on both the left and right.
:-)
For something as formal as a thesis where the right probably needs to be 1/2" one would do the writing and digital proofreading with a 1" margin then when happy change the margin to 1/2" print and do the hard copy proofreading.
I know this sounds awkward but the alternative was a text based editor, or gasp a typewriter. The margin kludge was the least painful of the options.
No. Windows 3.1 changed the PC world, that is where the PC world decided to go GUI. Windows 95 is merely where people said this is almost as good as a Mac. Mac OS was quite a bit crufty by the Win95 era. MS had WinNT which was far ahead of Mac OS. Apple did not get good again until Mac OS X.
A lot of people failed to understand the Mac at the beginning but the friendly and attractive and intuitive interface really caught on.
Yes and no. There was quite a bit of Apple evangelism going on. GUI did not necessarily just catch on in 1984, Apple worked hard to see that it did. Surely GUI would eventually catch on but with 1984 tech maybe a push was necessary.
:-) It was an incredibly wise move by Apple IMHO.
Keep in mind that the embrace of the GUI had to occur both with the consumer and the developer. Apple was very smart in this regard. As a published Apple ][ developer we were automatically accepted into the Mac developer program. This gave us early access to the Mac at a reduced cost.
Several months before Apple sent us our Mac we were sent the documentation. A big part of that first delivery of the documentation was basically the evangelism convincing us to go GUI, to *not* just emulate a 40x25 or 80x25 text display and port our software directly. Being deprived of hardware and incredibly excited and curious we read everything Apple sent us. For all I know this may be the only time in history where indie developers sat down and thoroughly read the documentation before writing any code.
FWIW a Sprint Prepaid phone. Seems new. Maybe Sprint offers it elsewhere or from them directly.
Summer 2018, Walmart, S4 Mini w/ 4.4. It was a dirt cheap prepaid phone. Never enabled the prepay, the wifi was all I needed for development testing.
Its not about when a phone first ships, its about when a phone stops being sold. Recently I bought a dirty cheap Galaxy S4 pay as you go. I wanted Android 4.4 for development testing. You can't quite trust the emulator. I expect S3 were sold until quite recently.
So has Android, since v5.0. This is about ending backwards compatibility with 32 bit apps.
Basically there seems no other way to stop people from continuing to sell Android 4.x-based phones.
A modern razr could possibly be a touch screen the entire size of the case, no physical number pad, more screen.
Hopefully folding, lower part all screen, upper part speaker and non-screen electronics. A joyful return to having the main screen protected so you can safely put it into your pocket with something else.
It would also likely be open to 3rd party apps so it would be more functional.
I think a modernization could do a great job of blending the old proven design and modern functionality.
Personally, if I had not wanted to develop iOS apps I would have kept my original razr much longer. I passed on the original iPhone and used an iPod touch for development.
That makes no sense at all. If things aren't working, you change the big parts, not the small parts. And it doesn't matter how big they are, it matters how fast they grow. Activision has started outsourcing dev on Blizzard-branded products to chase growth.
You do not change the big part that is working, that is outproducing all the other parts.
Blizzard is seeking growth but not by abandoning its ways. It no longer has 3 main internal dev teams (RTS, Diablo, WoW), it has additional teams working on unannounced products. Plus some smaller teams on smaller products. Yet all of these are working on Blizzard's timeframes per Blizzard's values. They'll ship when their done, they'll get reworked or canceled if off track, they will not ship whatever they got when some calendar date arrives.
And yet your hypothesis remains untrue. Blizzard has not been corporatized, its still produces a high level of revenue, it still has a high degree of autonomy. Owners and investors are still in a mindset of don't f*ck with the most successful part of the company. As they were when Vivendi owned, as they were when CUC owned before that. Corporate ownership and stockholders is nothing new to Blizzard. Failed projects are nothing new to Blizzard. There were various games that were internally canceled. There were multiple reboots of games that were eventually published.
If Activision Blizzard misses expectations then wall street pays less for their stock. They do *not* call for changes at the unit bringing in 46% of revenue. Such suggestions are nonsense.
Heroes of the Storm flopped. Overwatch did not meet expectations. D3 was a disaster, though they made some money back with the expansion, it was still a damaged brand that was abandoned. Blizzard lost its autonomy as a result of successive flops, which is why everyone old-school has now left.
Nope. According to the Q32018 financial report Blizzard had $1.5B in revenue for the first nine months of 2018. The rest of Activision combined had $1.8B in revenue. Blizzard alone is responsible for 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue. Blizzard still has amazing employee retention and many 10 and 20 year veterans to this day.
Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings. Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.
More seriously, shareholders are nothing new to Blizzard. They had them before when Vivendi owned, they had them before that when CUC owned.
Blizzard's owners and their respective shareholders have always known Blizzard is "different". For God's sake they MISSED CHRISTMAS with Diablo 1 and it still went on to set industry sales records.
Activision, Vivendi, and CUC shareholders get the same message. These are the revenues on our shipping games. We have additional unannounced games under development and their ship dates are unknown, if they ship at all and are not canceled. We ship games if and when they meet our standards, not according to a calendar date. For decades owners and shareholders have had no problem with this message..
Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings. Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.
Its a short answer: "We are highly profitable. Talk to you in three months. Bye." :-)
Blizzard is largely autonomous of Activision, they don't have to deal with the BS Bungie did. Vivendi, Blizzard's owner, bought Activision. The name "Activision" was retained since it was far more recognizable than "Vivendi Games". It was not a merger of equals. Blizzard remained mostly hands off and left to run itself on its own schedule, hence the of the new company "Activision Blizzard".
Can we get Blizzard split off next, please? Activision is too worried about new characters to fix the problems they have with the game as it is.
Blizzard, well Vivendi which owned Blizzard, bought Activision. Vivdendi was wise enough to have hands off Blizzard and wise enough to recognize "Activision" was a more well known brand than "Vivendi Games". So Vivendi's new company was named "Activision Blizzard". Blizzard is still largely autonomous of the Activision management that was retained and put in charge of the other Vivendi Games studios.
Note how Blizzard is still on its decades old, it will ship when its ready schedule, and not tied to any sort of annual release schedule as Bungie was complaining of.
is the dumbest fucking thing I've read today.
It seems you don't use twitter :-)
Why is this data being broadcast to the client? It's basic game security 101 that you only send the data to the client on a need-to-know basis to prevent this kind of exploit.
Need-to-know includes units, structures, resources, etc currently not visible. Things that a clean player would not know about yet. Due to network lag and local storage delays a server needs to inform the client of things just beyond legitimate detection so that the client can prepare to render those things smoothly should they become visible, without pause or stutter.
So there will always be the potential for a cheater to acquire an illicit early warning regarding things that a player should not yet know about. Yes, a game should not send everything on the map. But some things local to the player should be sent. The big question/problem in design and polish is how local.
Again we are not including digital assets but only real world at the moment.
Regarding public transactions, I'm not saying blockchain is some sort of universal replacement for all ledger-like activities, no more than the web was/is a replacement for all retail sales activities. However blockchain is another tool in the toolbox and for some cases it will be the better fit. Hence it will not die off, it will merely dip from the current misuse of blockchain we are currently experiencing in some investment circles.
Also the transactions are not necessarily by people, we also have business to business.
And a public ledger does not need to positively identifiable a person or business, an identifier need not be personally identifiable information. The verifiability of the ledger does not require the identify of people of businesses. It just need to track the asset from one entity to another so that its current authenticity can be verified. Verified solely and independently by the person/company you are trying to interact with, no middleman necessary.
Cool, thanks
If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
Yeah, so it's based on trust and subject to errors. So what do you get, then, from using a blockchain, besides inefficiency?
You get fewer errors on the ledger side, my point above is that errors in warehouse physical inventory is often ledger independent (theft, etc).
Plus the blockchain based ledger inherently offers public transparency.
Your claim of inefficiency is based on what?
Apple is a big winner on the software side too. 2/3rds the number of iOS app downloads generates five times the amount of revenue as Android apps.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
On the other hand with a co-CEO role clearly advertised ahead of time perhaps the required sharing is a way to have the more psychopathic go work somewhere else? :-)
"Apple realized long ago a battle at the low end is one that leaves no victors."
Except for the victors it leaves, of course. If there were no victors there would be no low end.
When the most successful party has 87% of the industry profits and the distant second place has 10% then you have one victor and one intact survivor. What could we call the remaining market participants? "Beleaguered?" :-)
... Samsung came in second in smartphone operating profits with 10% of total industry profits"
https://www.investors.com/news...
"Apple (AAPL) captured 87% of smartphone industry profits in the fourth quarter, despite accounting for only about 18% of total units sold in the period.