You missed the antennagate reference. With regards to the iphone 4, apples response to people complaining about the antenna being attenuated by the users hand was 'you're holding it wrong'.
If Tim Cook was genuine, they'd have blocked facebook from the app store.
If it were some small time app, I'm quite sure the app would be removed from the app store for breaking some rule in the ToS. However, there is a symbiotic relationship there, and while apple may not be directly benefiting from it, they permit it because it suits them.
Yea gamers are so laughable with these sorts of things. I watched one interview with GabeN, and regarding the L4D2 boycott, he even said that the boycott group were the fastest to buy the game.
They can make the rules as they see fit, but sometimes, you see a disruption take place, and I personally find it amusing when the old guard are trying to maintain their status and keep the newcomers out.
The point is; netflix isn't going anywhere! If they're making the profits I've read about, and more importantly, prepared to spend money on making art films, which the industry, broadly speaking, struggles to make money on, then it comes across as incredibly petty for organisations to try to keep them out of prestigious events, however, after all, these french associations/organisations are notoriously corrupt, with so many scandals plaguing other organisations, such as FIFA, FIA, IOC, as a few examples, I'm not really surprised.
Another aspect is that these judging organisations usually develop prestige through identifying and recognising quality, and having rigorous judging. If they exclude something for more arbitrary reasons, they're only hurting their own credibility in the long term.
Chromebook/ChromeOS is just google learning from their android past. While android was coming from behind, they had to do whatever they could to make it a success. That meant not only make it cost nothing, but it also meant they had nothing to lose either.
Do you think stars would be more, or less likely to go to something sponsored by Netflix and Amazon?
It probably comes down to marketing. Considering some (or many, dunno) of the stars go to the existing events with designer clothes, jewelry and accessories that they're paid to wear, I don't think they'd go if it wasn't lucrative for them, but then, their presence also gives the event some gravitas, which it otherwise wouldn't have, so that probably helps the remainders to feel special when they aren't making money out of the event.
If the industry didn't make such an event out of this stuff, then no one would!
The other thing is, it also shows how resistant to change the industry is. Just like they couldn't embrace the digital frontier and have had problems with piracy, even now, with streaming, which is a way to get people to pay for this stuff (i.e. not pirate) and they still don't want them in their little club. Not that I really care, but watching from the sidelines makes me think that in doing this, they're displaying a stubbornness and willingness to go down with the ship, if it comes to that.
It's definitely trying to make the news cycle, and if there are any lessons to be learnt from gamergate, it's being orchestrated, and, I'm not surprised to see some of the same companies involved again.
The rhyme of history is sounding again. When the printing press was invented in Europe, it didn't take long for establishments to see that sharing information was not always in their interests, books got banned, notably political ones. I think we're just in a similar phase as then; some companies are taking it on themselves to consolidate and control what gets shared.
I think in the 90's and definitely the time before that, there were physical/hardware limitations to a lot of ideas, where a lot of the time, people knew the value of this stuff, its just that it had never been done before, and sufficiently powerful hardware didn't necessarily exist either. In other words, there were lots of situations where tech could be implemented to improve processes, and just make it easier to do stuff.
Where we are at now, hardware has definitely stagnated. The last 3-5 years, I'd say no appreciable improvement in anything and no one really cares either. In the past, it didn't take a tech person to realise that an electronic calculator was superior to the slide rule, but what replaces an electronic calculator? Software may still have a way to go, but the obvious productivity improvements are either realised, or not economical. I believe that the tech sector is at an advantage here, because invariably the successful ones have been able to use their people to create their own tools and implement business innovations, which for other companies would be too costly. Any software a tech company produces, has the possibility of being useful by other business' and can be a product to sell.
I'm starting to think that things like smartwatches, VR, digital assistants, etc. they are all things symptomatic of stagnation. Most of them are solutions looking for a problem and demonstrate why there's such low adoption and general indifference to them. In the past, when some programs or devices were released, again, it was quite obvious of their value, Visicalc comes to mind where lots of people could see how it could provide useful information. Maybe those devices are looking for a killer application that makes them relevant, but I don't know what it is or could be.
I'm not sure on the details, but I think a part of the problem with EV's is manufacturing them is rather dirty, not the car itself but things like batteries and just about any part which uses rare earth materials. For this reason, I'd hazard a guess that the EV will be something coming out of the developing world, purely because they don't have environmental protections to make them prohibitively costly in their manufacture.
As much as I dislike google, I dislike snap as a company more, and it's clear to see that none of the companies in the top 5 like to see a new competitor tread on their turf.
It appears to me that snap hasn't been able to really do anything to stop other companies from reverse engineering snapchat features into their own products/services. As a result, I don't think snap will be around for a really long time, unless they carve out their own place in the tech landscape and prevent the other companies from encroaching on it, just like each of the top 5 more or less have.
Also, snap has made the app the social media for the 'cool kids' and it appears like they try to keep the app exclusive, so I don't know whether that will be enough to keep them going in the longer term.
Australian plants have, broadly speaking, evolved with fire. Quite a few plant seeds won't germinate or get released unless they've been through a bush fire. After a fire has gone through, the forests tend to grow back rather quickly, within a few years.
There is a problem with weighting reviews. In the video game world, a great divide between professionals and gamers have been seen numerous times. In some instances, it was due to suspected payment for favourable reviews, and this doesn't mean an outright payment, but there was an incident with a game called "Kane & Lynch" where banner advertising was bought and a reviewer who scored the game poorly was dismissed, in other cases, which appear to have befallen a company once praised for quality games, Bioware, whose later years have been plagued with games that the public have panned, all the while professional reviewers more broadly have missed and generally reviewed rather favourably. The ending for Mass Effect 3 and overall quality of Dragon Age 2 come to mind.
I stopped going to ars(e) during the gamergate issues as well. Ars has just become the reddit of tech sites; just a massive circlejerk where the only requirement is that you believe in their political religion.
Well, I agree, but if there were some innovative development in the oneplus phone, I certainly would think it would matter if someone had the expertise to explain it in some detail, but fact of the matter is, most tech journalists are just unable, unless it's prepared for them in a media release.
But that's because tech journalism is largely fulfilled by people who have no technical experience, and are more interested in looking the part (i.e. hipster/geeks) than actually dealing with technical information, and since a lot of people are fairly lazy to begin with (i'm guilty of that) why write something, when someone else has already done that for you.
A part of it also, and this goes more broadly, the review industry loves being subjective, because it allows them to be vague and not particularly truthful when it comes to reviewing stuff from good advertisers and companies who provide them with free junkets and products to review. This is just part of the perennial problem of drawing a line between editorial and advertorial control of a publication.
I would have thought that the OS from google, whose whole business revolves around tracking the users (i.e. the product) for monetisation. Then again, I don't really know. When I used android, all those so called "controls" were basically Hobson's choice; use it or don't. Don't want to be tracked, then don't use the app...
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I thought the same way. It would be great to be able to abrogate dealing with customer service, to a machine.
I wonder how long it will take before all these conversations are just chatbots talking to each other...
Read this for what it is. Tim is just kicking Facebook in the teeth while [t]hey are down.
Yea right... I'm sure if apple really wanted to, they could find a reason to pull FB from the app store. Right now, it's just lip service and no more.
You missed the antennagate reference. With regards to the iphone 4, apples response to people complaining about the antenna being attenuated by the users hand was 'you're holding it wrong'.
If Tim Cook was genuine, they'd have blocked facebook from the app store.
If it were some small time app, I'm quite sure the app would be removed from the app store for breaking some rule in the ToS. However, there is a symbiotic relationship there, and while apple may not be directly benefiting from it, they permit it because it suits them.
Yea gamers are so laughable with these sorts of things. I watched one interview with GabeN, and regarding the L4D2 boycott, he even said that the boycott group were the fastest to buy the game.
They can make the rules as they see fit, but sometimes, you see a disruption take place, and I personally find it amusing when the old guard are trying to maintain their status and keep the newcomers out.
The point is; netflix isn't going anywhere! If they're making the profits I've read about, and more importantly, prepared to spend money on making art films, which the industry, broadly speaking, struggles to make money on, then it comes across as incredibly petty for organisations to try to keep them out of prestigious events, however, after all, these french associations/organisations are notoriously corrupt, with so many scandals plaguing other organisations, such as FIFA, FIA, IOC, as a few examples, I'm not really surprised.
Another aspect is that these judging organisations usually develop prestige through identifying and recognising quality, and having rigorous judging. If they exclude something for more arbitrary reasons, they're only hurting their own credibility in the long term.
Chromebook/ChromeOS is just google learning from their android past. While android was coming from behind, they had to do whatever they could to make it a success. That meant not only make it cost nothing, but it also meant they had nothing to lose either.
Do you think stars would be more, or less likely to go to something sponsored by Netflix and Amazon?
It probably comes down to marketing. Considering some (or many, dunno) of the stars go to the existing events with designer clothes, jewelry and accessories that they're paid to wear, I don't think they'd go if it wasn't lucrative for them, but then, their presence also gives the event some gravitas, which it otherwise wouldn't have, so that probably helps the remainders to feel special when they aren't making money out of the event.
If the industry didn't make such an event out of this stuff, then no one would!
The other thing is, it also shows how resistant to change the industry is. Just like they couldn't embrace the digital frontier and have had problems with piracy, even now, with streaming, which is a way to get people to pay for this stuff (i.e. not pirate) and they still don't want them in their little club. Not that I really care, but watching from the sidelines makes me think that in doing this, they're displaying a stubbornness and willingness to go down with the ship, if it comes to that.
It's definitely trying to make the news cycle, and if there are any lessons to be learnt from gamergate, it's being orchestrated, and, I'm not surprised to see some of the same companies involved again.
The rhyme of history is sounding again. When the printing press was invented in Europe, it didn't take long for establishments to see that sharing information was not always in their interests, books got banned, notably political ones. I think we're just in a similar phase as then; some companies are taking it on themselves to consolidate and control what gets shared.
I think in the 90's and definitely the time before that, there were physical/hardware limitations to a lot of ideas, where a lot of the time, people knew the value of this stuff, its just that it had never been done before, and sufficiently powerful hardware didn't necessarily exist either. In other words, there were lots of situations where tech could be implemented to improve processes, and just make it easier to do stuff.
Where we are at now, hardware has definitely stagnated. The last 3-5 years, I'd say no appreciable improvement in anything and no one really cares either. In the past, it didn't take a tech person to realise that an electronic calculator was superior to the slide rule, but what replaces an electronic calculator? Software may still have a way to go, but the obvious productivity improvements are either realised, or not economical. I believe that the tech sector is at an advantage here, because invariably the successful ones have been able to use their people to create their own tools and implement business innovations, which for other companies would be too costly. Any software a tech company produces, has the possibility of being useful by other business' and can be a product to sell.
I'm starting to think that things like smartwatches, VR, digital assistants, etc. they are all things symptomatic of stagnation. Most of them are solutions looking for a problem and demonstrate why there's such low adoption and general indifference to them. In the past, when some programs or devices were released, again, it was quite obvious of their value, Visicalc comes to mind where lots of people could see how it could provide useful information. Maybe those devices are looking for a killer application that makes them relevant, but I don't know what it is or could be.
The metric system is definitely a russian plot.
I'm not sure on the details, but I think a part of the problem with EV's is manufacturing them is rather dirty, not the car itself but things like batteries and just about any part which uses rare earth materials. For this reason, I'd hazard a guess that the EV will be something coming out of the developing world, purely because they don't have environmental protections to make them prohibitively costly in their manufacture.
As much as I dislike google, I dislike snap as a company more, and it's clear to see that none of the companies in the top 5 like to see a new competitor tread on their turf.
It appears to me that snap hasn't been able to really do anything to stop other companies from reverse engineering snapchat features into their own products/services. As a result, I don't think snap will be around for a really long time, unless they carve out their own place in the tech landscape and prevent the other companies from encroaching on it, just like each of the top 5 more or less have.
Also, snap has made the app the social media for the 'cool kids' and it appears like they try to keep the app exclusive, so I don't know whether that will be enough to keep them going in the longer term.
Australian plants have, broadly speaking, evolved with fire. Quite a few plant seeds won't germinate or get released unless they've been through a bush fire. After a fire has gone through, the forests tend to grow back rather quickly, within a few years.
There is a problem with weighting reviews. In the video game world, a great divide between professionals and gamers have been seen numerous times. In some instances, it was due to suspected payment for favourable reviews, and this doesn't mean an outright payment, but there was an incident with a game called "Kane & Lynch" where banner advertising was bought and a reviewer who scored the game poorly was dismissed, in other cases, which appear to have befallen a company once praised for quality games, Bioware, whose later years have been plagued with games that the public have panned, all the while professional reviewers more broadly have missed and generally reviewed rather favourably. The ending for Mass Effect 3 and overall quality of Dragon Age 2 come to mind.
This is the same crap that google pulled on windows phone with its youtube app.
Bottom line is these companies are jostling for position, and users are just fodder. Google has gone full microsoft!
I reckon it will bring +$50 to the price.
I stopped going to ars(e) during the gamergate issues as well. Ars has just become the reddit of tech sites; just a massive circlejerk where the only requirement is that you believe in their political religion.
Well, I agree, but if there were some innovative development in the oneplus phone, I certainly would think it would matter if someone had the expertise to explain it in some detail, but fact of the matter is, most tech journalists are just unable, unless it's prepared for them in a media release.
But that's because tech journalism is largely fulfilled by people who have no technical experience, and are more interested in looking the part (i.e. hipster/geeks) than actually dealing with technical information, and since a lot of people are fairly lazy to begin with (i'm guilty of that) why write something, when someone else has already done that for you.
A part of it also, and this goes more broadly, the review industry loves being subjective, because it allows them to be vague and not particularly truthful when it comes to reviewing stuff from good advertisers and companies who provide them with free junkets and products to review. This is just part of the perennial problem of drawing a line between editorial and advertorial control of a publication.
I've noticed the same thing, increasingly the phone communication is becoming redundant.
It's this thing that the only the media use to write news stories about.
I would have thought that the OS from google, whose whole business revolves around tracking the users (i.e. the product) for monetisation. Then again, I don't really know. When I used android, all those so called "controls" were basically Hobson's choice; use it or don't. Don't want to be tracked, then don't use the app...