So shouldn't we see this with all of the other app stores? As is often pointed out on slashdot, iPhones only make up a increasingly small portion of smartphones. The availability of competing app stores should be able to show that the author is correct. While customers of Apple's app store may expect their apps to be free, surely this isn't the expectation for customers of the Google and Amazon app stores.
Availability of free apps would then become a selling point for the iPhone over Android. Not having free apps might (conceivably) give your app store more purchases per user, but if you have less users because your potential customers have been lured elsewhere with the "free" carrot that probably won't deliver you a net win.
Besides, I think it ignores the fact that while (possibly) improving the results for selling software it would be detrimental to other business models based on volume.
I'm in th UK. the only reason we get tuners in our TV's is so the government can fleece us £150 a year. Most people who learned how to plug a lead in have sky or cable boxes.This is infuriating
It always astounds me that people get up in arms about the licence fee while handing over far more money to Sky, largely to watch stuff they used to be able to watch on free to air.
The lack of volume control is mind-boggling. I can understand that (perhaps) in a conceptual sense it is the business of the TV but from a usability perspective it's annoying to have to reach for a separate remote. Since HDMI 1.3 I believe the device should be able to send volume control messages to the TV so even if it is the TV's business the Apple TV should at least be able to conveniently relay the message.
I think the actual Apple TV remote is just a necessary inclusion though, anybody with the option would probably use an iPad/iPhone if only to have a keyboard for the search screens. Not that the remote app UI is a great triumph.
even though no human being has ever chosen to nose-dive under any scenario in a commercial flight.
Why was an algorithm written that could do something that no one has ever wanted to do?
Is that something you are saying from knowledge or just making up? I was under the impression that getting the nose pointed down was a fairly 'normal' thing for a pilot to do when faced with a stalling plane. Indeed, keeping the nose up can be precisely the wrong thing to do.
It seems to me that unless you are going to prop up such regimes indefinitely then you have to countenance the possibility of messy change at some point and absent any specific risks at a given point in time the sooner they better as dangerous technologies (such as nuclear) are almost certainly going to be more commonplace the longer you leave it.
On disk caches in the MB range have little effect because in most cases anything in the disks cached will already be cached closer to where it is needed, ie in the OS cache using spare system memory. I suspect in that case the on disk cache is probably used more as a buffer than a cache.
Larger SSD caches bring two advantages, the cache persists across restarts assisting boot time and may also be larger than the amount of memory the OS allocates to its own cache.
Well, I suppose it's within their rights to up and leave a lecture because they don't like the topic
Would be interesting to know if such students (on average) attend more lectures than their counterparts, perhaps due to not being at the pub/hungover etc quite so much!
From a computer perspective I think the problem might be in tracking the possibilities, rather than in the matching.
IE I think you could quite quickly take once piece and compare it with the other 9999 pieces and see which ones will line up reasonably well with it. The trouble is that you might find many plausible matches and have to track them all going forward.
In some way it might be analogous to chess in the sense that the immediate effect of individual moves are easy for a computer to consider but it is increasingly difficult to judge the quality of a move as it looks further ahead, purely because the tree of possibilities get exponentially bigger with each additional move.
I also wonder what information there is to be gained before the matching begins. Can you gain insight into correct orientation from the paper grain (or they way the ink is deposited or from a close look at the tears the shredder generated) and thereby reduce the problem space?
So computers would be good at brute force matching but humans would be useful in cutting off paths that may seem plausible to the computer but aren't and also in cutting down the problem space by giving a computer hints based on a more nuanced understanding of the problem .
How is your assumption that several million dollars won't make a corporation blink relevant, or even for that matter anything but absurd?
Where did he assume that? As far as I could see he made no claim that the amount awarded wouldn't make the company blink, he merely suggested that a lesser amount would have an equal deterrent effect on Greenpeace.
There doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about that.
The problem that I have with all the new GUIs that are coming out it seems like it's all just change for the sake of change.
I think the only people saying that are those that either:-
a) Don't bother trying to think about what advantages a change may bring.
b) Don't bother seeking out or listening to explanations of changes.
c) Instantly dismiss any such explanations without much thought.
There are design documents that can be read, blog postings, discussions and so forth.
The iPhone also represented a huge effort - a radical departure for Apple and radically different from other cell phones, if it hadn't been an immediate success Apple would only be a fraction of what it is today.
The interesting thing to my mind is not so much the products but the fact they involved making disruptive changes in industries that are notoriously resistant to change. I'm not suggesting that the iPod and iPhone aren't good in themselves but they aren't whole without the music industry getting behind iTunes or mobile carriers getting behind the iPhone even while some of it's features may be against their (perceived or real) interests. For example I was gobsmacked when and update to iOS5 meant that messages will now be automatically sent for free over the network rather than SMS where possible.
It isn't just Apple's ability to persuade consumers that is great, it's also their ability to persuade other businesses.
Given she managed to open/turn pages in both magazines I think she understands them pretty well. The grabby hand movements don't seem strange, babies like feeling things. The only strange thing in the video is that the baby doesn't try to taste the magazine or the iPad.
I think the reason this annoys so many people, is the expectation of openness. Google has an open bug tracker, and Chromium is open source. So people assume it is open in all ways, like say the Linux kernel is
These people clearly can't be paying much attention to Linux Kernel development process. Linus will reject stuff that he thinks is fundamentally wrong (and often be far less polite in the process).
Slashdot Mirror
Availability of free apps would then become a selling point for the iPhone over Android. Not having free apps might (conceivably) give your app store more purchases per user, but if you have less users because your potential customers have been lured elsewhere with the "free" carrot that probably won't deliver you a net win.
Besides, I think it ignores the fact that while (possibly) improving the results for selling software it would be detrimental to other business models based on volume.
It always astounds me that people get up in arms about the licence fee while handing over far more money to Sky, largely to watch stuff they used to be able to watch on free to air.
The lack of volume control is mind-boggling. I can understand that (perhaps) in a conceptual sense it is the business of the TV but from a usability perspective it's annoying to have to reach for a separate remote. Since HDMI 1.3 I believe the device should be able to send volume control messages to the TV so even if it is the TV's business the Apple TV should at least be able to conveniently relay the message.
I think the actual Apple TV remote is just a necessary inclusion though, anybody with the option would probably use an iPad/iPhone if only to have a keyboard for the search screens. Not that the remote app UI is a great triumph.
Magic wand at the ready?
Is that something you are saying from knowledge or just making up? I was under the impression that getting the nose pointed down was a fairly 'normal' thing for a pilot to do when faced with a stalling plane. Indeed, keeping the nose up can be precisely the wrong thing to do.
After all, buying planes that someone else made is outsourcing. However I am not sure they'd fair better building their own.
It seems to me that unless you are going to prop up such regimes indefinitely then you have to countenance the possibility of messy change at some point and absent any specific risks at a given point in time the sooner they better as dangerous technologies (such as nuclear) are almost certainly going to be more commonplace the longer you leave it.
Only because you are an unbeliever.
Do they really want all their components back?
Oh I do hope that pun is intentional.
On disk caches in the MB range have little effect because in most cases anything in the disks cached will already be cached closer to where it is needed, ie in the OS cache using spare system memory. I suspect in that case the on disk cache is probably used more as a buffer than a cache.
Larger SSD caches bring two advantages, the cache persists across restarts assisting boot time and may also be larger than the amount of memory the OS allocates to its own cache.
Would be interesting to know if such students (on average) attend more lectures than their counterparts, perhaps due to not being at the pub/hungover etc quite so much!
Perhaps they are trying to balance out the perplexing "dangerous".
"Repression Fries"
From a computer perspective I think the problem might be in tracking the possibilities, rather than in the matching. IE I think you could quite quickly take once piece and compare it with the other 9999 pieces and see which ones will line up reasonably well with it. The trouble is that you might find many plausible matches and have to track them all going forward.
In some way it might be analogous to chess in the sense that the immediate effect of individual moves are easy for a computer to consider but it is increasingly difficult to judge the quality of a move as it looks further ahead, purely because the tree of possibilities get exponentially bigger with each additional move.
I also wonder what information there is to be gained before the matching begins. Can you gain insight into correct orientation from the paper grain (or they way the ink is deposited or from a close look at the tears the shredder generated) and thereby reduce the problem space?
So computers would be good at brute force matching but humans would be useful in cutting off paths that may seem plausible to the computer but aren't and also in cutting down the problem space by giving a computer hints based on a more nuanced understanding of the problem .
Where did he assume that? As far as I could see he made no claim that the amount awarded wouldn't make the company blink, he merely suggested that a lesser amount would have an equal deterrent effect on Greenpeace.
There doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about that.
I think the only people saying that are those that either:-
a) Don't bother trying to think about what advantages a change may bring.
b) Don't bother seeking out or listening to explanations of changes.
c) Instantly dismiss any such explanations without much thought.
There are design documents that can be read, blog postings, discussions and so forth.
Yes.
Fortunately we have lasers for those situations.
And that having an alternative lined up puts Mozilla in a stronger bargaining position for any new Google contract negotiations.
The interesting thing to my mind is not so much the products but the fact they involved making disruptive changes in industries that are notoriously resistant to change. I'm not suggesting that the iPod and iPhone aren't good in themselves but they aren't whole without the music industry getting behind iTunes or mobile carriers getting behind the iPhone even while some of it's features may be against their (perceived or real) interests. For example I was gobsmacked when and update to iOS5 meant that messages will now be automatically sent for free over the network rather than SMS where possible.
It isn't just Apple's ability to persuade consumers that is great, it's also their ability to persuade other businesses.
Given she managed to open/turn pages in both magazines I think she understands them pretty well. The grabby hand movements don't seem strange, babies like feeling things. The only strange thing in the video is that the baby doesn't try to taste the magazine or the iPad.
By "listen" do you mean "follow"?
It seems to me they did listen to the feedback but had good reasons to disagree with it.
Why?
These people clearly can't be paying much attention to Linux Kernel development process. Linus will reject stuff that he thinks is fundamentally wrong (and often be far less polite in the process).