Just because you are not the target market for a product does not mean there is no market.
So, what is the market then? Suckers? People who have gotten tired of complaining you pay a premium for Apple hardware and want in?
Because, as far as I can tell, you can buy a more powerful Win 8 laptop and a decent tablet for less than the cost of one of these, and you will end up with more storage, more power, and more overall usefulness than this.
It seems like you're paying a premium to get less hardware. Admittedly, I've never used one of these... but given that you can buy a Win 8 laptop with more specs than the Surface for half the price, you're just paying more for the option of being able to remove the screen from the keyboard.
In my experience, there's a lot of places I'd rather have my Nexus 7 than anything larger. Because a small tablet is really light, doesn't take up much space, and can be brought damned near anywhere.
Kids and people just looking to be entertained don't, but those of who want to get work done away from home and the office absolutely see the value in these full PC tablets.
So, I just checked on line with Best Buy... you can buy a Lenovo laptop running Win 8.1, with the same 8GB of memory and about 8x the storage for half the price as you can the cheapest Surface Pro (the one with 64GB of storage)
You can buy a Nexus 7 fairly cheap as well.
In other words, you can buy two devices for the cost of this, both of which will probably be better as a single device of that class, and end up with more overall storage and oomph.
It seems to me like you end up spending much more money, for much less overall hardware, all for the cost of a Surface Pro. Upgrade to one with a reasonable amount of storage, and that ratio gets ever worse.
So, really, why would you if it's not even cost effective for what you're getting?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
But, at the end of the day, it's your money... and you can spend it on whatever the hell you like. Hookers and blow, gumballs and comic books -- don't make any difference to me.:-P
Me, I'd buy a laptop and an inexpensive Android tablet. Because you actually get more for your money that way.
All of Descent's dizzying navigation challenges could be even more exciting with the immersive potential of a virtual reality headset
Speaking for all of us old fogies who got left behind by modern gaming due to our less than stellar reflexes and spatial awareness... absolutely no to this.
I'd probably hurl within about the first two minutes, Descent used to make me dizzy as it was. In a VR headset? It would get messy real fast.
Yeah, I know.. perhaps you missed the part where I said "all roads lead to Office"?
Xbox is cool, but then it only provides them with 800M. It does however create truckloads of good will towards them as it is a product that people really *WANT* to own.
Well, I like my XBox 360... but wanting to own an XBone? Not likely. Microsoft themselves pretty much made sure of that in the lead up to its release.
That want creates a halo for them where people are more willing to take a risk on one of Microsoft's other emerging offerings like Windows Phone or Surface.
Time will tell. I'm not sure people are flocking to either of those in huge numbers.
Don't think iPad. Think Macbook Air with a detachable keyboard.
I've got a $30 bluetooth keyboard I use with my Nexus 7.
Other than essentially trying to sell a full power laptop which can have the keyboard removed (and which will likely have crappy battery life and still essentially be a PC)... what are Microsoft bringing to the table?
Oh, that's right... a full power laptop which can have the keyboard removed, which will likely still have crappy battery life AND it runs Office.
To Microsoft, everything is a PC which is going to run Windows and Office.
They've never really been able to see past that.
My personal desktop has never had Office (or open Office, or any office suite on it), because for personal purposes, I have simply never needed one. I use my tablet for infotainment and looking up stuff on the web when I travel. I don't use it for heavy work.
I'm not sure that most people want what Microsoft thinks is the tablet market. In fact, given the sheer number of less-powerful tablets out there that people are happily using.
Microsoft has ever really predicted much in the way of new markets or products, or led the way in innovation. They have mostly stuck with their tried and true "all roads lead to Office".
If I wanted a laptop, I'd buy one. I'm not convinced that what they're selling is what most people are looking for.
Which, considering it is under water, is pretty impressive.
It's not like you can look out a window and pick a known target. It's more like being blindfolded in a vast space and trying to figure out where you're going with no other data.
If I dump you in an arbitrary spot on planet Earth with just a map... unless you have some mad skills, you will likely have NO idea of your position simply from the map.
Existing GPS systems can be essentially all solid-state. There are no moving parts, and the temperature tolerance can be made to handle pretty extreme tempteratures.
So, honest question... at what depth does the satellite signal from the GPS system penetrate water? Is it affected by surface conditions? Is it less than the average depth of a submarine?
My guess, if the existing GPS stuff was adequate for their needs, they wouldn't be looking into doing this.
From the article:
The movements caused by this interaction can be used for location positioning. It's a great deal more accurate than the current method used by submariners, which relies on accelerometers to pick up a vessel's movement while underwater. The accuracy difference is enough that a vessel surfacing after a day could be within three feet of its intended position--rather than up to a mile off.
Sounds to me like they don't rely on GPS at all, and quite likely because it's useless under water.
People just don't want the web equivalent of a radio collar attached to them. They do not want to be stalked by creepy advertisers.
And for me, that is one of the main reasons I quite aggressively block as much of this shit as possible.
Between companies like bright cove, scorecard research, and the literally dozens of tracking companies on the average web page, I have found I simply won't use the web without things like NoScript, and Ghostery, and as many as I can find for the browser I'm using.
Some web pages literally have 25 (or more in some cases) external entities who want to track what I do.. Facebook, Linked in, Google Analytics, and countless piles of crap.
I don't give a crap about your revenue model or your social media campaign -- I sure as hell didn't sign up for 50 entities I've never heard of knowing every site I visit.
Thankfully, there are plenty of really good privacy extensions out there. The more you have, the better. Because it's astounding just how much complete shit is embedded in every page -- which is not only bleeding out your personal information, but using up your bandwidth.
Possibly. What Google is saying is "if you don't sign this contract for our upcoming streaming service, at a rate which is entirely unfair to you, we will block your videos on YouTube".
From TFS:
Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negotiation.
In other words, Google is more or less strong-arming the artists into getting paid less than market rates so that Google can build a business model around it their content.
In other words, it sounds like Google are being assholes, and have long since left their "do no evil" stance behind them.
It has been speculated that life here on Earth came from space.
Not to be pedantic (OK, to be pedantic), but everything on Earth came from space.
Pretty much anything more complicated that hydrogen had to be created in a star which eventually went nova. Heck, even our water came from constant bombardment of comets and the like.
Despite what some people like to think, the Earth didn't just spring into existence fully formed.
Me, I've always thought it highly unlikely we're the only things to slither out of the mud in the entire universe.
no they aren't. they are saying that there is software on this device, much of it delivered by 3rd parties BTW, that will capture usage data. if you don't like that, here's the option to opt-out, which is not using the software.
Oh, OK, so "if you don't consent to give them this data, we're taking away features".
I see, totally different. How foolish of me.
It's not the 3rd parties disabling the functionality in the TV though, is it? It's LG, and it's in response to their updated privacy policy. Which means if they went to the trouble to disable the features, they likely also benefit from this data.
Sorry, but this lays squarely at the feet of LG as far as I'm concerned, and does nothing at all to change my view on smart TVs and the like, and further reinforces that the notion of the internet of things will be similarly bad for consumers and privacy.
Anything which can be abused by corporations will be abused.
Nothing says that even after "dumb TVs" are no longer available, that you can't turn a "smart TV" into a dumb one. It's called not giving access to your WiFi
Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.
Of course, it's only a matter of time before a TV manufacturer puts in a SIM card into a TV and broadcasts over cellular
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network... and no way I'd pay for it.
The point of the SIM is to figure out who to bill. I don't think they could just sneakily connect to it without someone paying for it.
Suddenly I'm thinking of Reg the Blank from Max Headroom and thinking he had the right idea.
Plus if companies do get caught on this kind of thing, they tend to be hardly punished (by regulators nor consumers).
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix.
See, my ISP gives me a 60GB/month cap, and $10/GB over that every month. Netflix was never an option for me.
If only we could configure our own hosts file on our tv, or something.
Well, depending on what you have at home, you could always figure out where the traffic goes and block the hosts at your router or use your own DNS server to redirect it to something else.
But that would probably break it even more.
For me, the only way to win is to not play -- I wouldn't consider connecting my TV to the internet. Because I don't use the services, and don't trust the companies who make the TVs.
Yup, right there in the terms of service you never read but nonetheless agreed to.
Because you don't "own" anything anymore, you use it at the indulgence of the manufacturer, and they can and will make any changes they see fit in order to maximize revenue.
The primary purpose of an internet connected TV is to generate ad revenue and marketing data about you -- or at least in my cynical view it is.
Basically they've said "if you don't consent to give us this data, we're taking away features". Probably because they can't (or won't) make the services work without it, and it's just easier to cut you off.
Connected devices have always been a huge privacy hole, and an opportunity to have someone continue to make money off you after they've sold you the TV.
It's also why my last TV wasn't a "smart" TV. My TV receives inputs from sources, but otherwise is essentially just a monitor with speakers.
I view this as more or less a predictable outcome of smart TVs, because companies view them as something you're using under license, and will only give you these services if they're getting what they want in return.
As has been pointed out elsewhere... they get in, they run, they get out, they get back in and run.
So, it doesn't seem like they can't get out (because they do), and it's not like they're just running endlessly (they apparently run the same length as captive ones).
Either it's intriguing, novel, or something passing for fun.
And, no, I doubt the mice are watching their figures.
I'm betting this gets them an IgNobel, because it's some pretty out there stuff, but is nonetheless cool and interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what is the market then? Suckers? People who have gotten tired of complaining you pay a premium for Apple hardware and want in?
Because, as far as I can tell, you can buy a more powerful Win 8 laptop and a decent tablet for less than the cost of one of these, and you will end up with more storage, more power, and more overall usefulness than this.
It seems like you're paying a premium to get less hardware. Admittedly, I've never used one of these ... but given that you can buy a Win 8 laptop with more specs than the Surface for half the price, you're just paying more for the option of being able to remove the screen from the keyboard.
In my experience, there's a lot of places I'd rather have my Nexus 7 than anything larger. Because a small tablet is really light, doesn't take up much space, and can be brought damned near anywhere.
So, I just checked on line with Best Buy ... you can buy a Lenovo laptop running Win 8.1, with the same 8GB of memory and about 8x the storage for half the price as you can the cheapest Surface Pro (the one with 64GB of storage)
You can buy a Nexus 7 fairly cheap as well.
In other words, you can buy two devices for the cost of this, both of which will probably be better as a single device of that class, and end up with more overall storage and oomph.
It seems to me like you end up spending much more money, for much less overall hardware, all for the cost of a Surface Pro. Upgrade to one with a reasonable amount of storage, and that ratio gets ever worse.
So, really, why would you if it's not even cost effective for what you're getting?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
But, at the end of the day, it's your money ... and you can spend it on whatever the hell you like. Hookers and blow, gumballs and comic books -- don't make any difference to me. :-P
Me, I'd buy a laptop and an inexpensive Android tablet. Because you actually get more for your money that way.
Speaking for all of us old fogies who got left behind by modern gaming due to our less than stellar reflexes and spatial awareness ... absolutely no to this.
I'd probably hurl within about the first two minutes, Descent used to make me dizzy as it was. In a VR headset? It would get messy real fast.
Yeah, I know .. perhaps you missed the part where I said "all roads lead to Office"?
Well, I like my XBox 360 ... but wanting to own an XBone? Not likely. Microsoft themselves pretty much made sure of that in the lead up to its release.
Time will tell. I'm not sure people are flocking to either of those in huge numbers.
LOL ... Will you go to Prom with me?
I kid, I kid. I'm sure my wife wouldn't approve.
Dogged determination and perseverance?
I've got a $30 bluetooth keyboard I use with my Nexus 7.
Other than essentially trying to sell a full power laptop which can have the keyboard removed (and which will likely have crappy battery life and still essentially be a PC) ... what are Microsoft bringing to the table?
Oh, that's right ... a full power laptop which can have the keyboard removed, which will likely still have crappy battery life AND it runs Office.
To Microsoft, everything is a PC which is going to run Windows and Office.
They've never really been able to see past that.
My personal desktop has never had Office (or open Office, or any office suite on it), because for personal purposes, I have simply never needed one. I use my tablet for infotainment and looking up stuff on the web when I travel. I don't use it for heavy work.
I'm not sure that most people want what Microsoft thinks is the tablet market. In fact, given the sheer number of less-powerful tablets out there that people are happily using.
Microsoft has ever really predicted much in the way of new markets or products, or led the way in innovation. They have mostly stuck with their tried and true "all roads lead to Office".
If I wanted a laptop, I'd buy one. I'm not convinced that what they're selling is what most people are looking for.
Which, considering it is under water, is pretty impressive.
It's not like you can look out a window and pick a known target. It's more like being blindfolded in a vast space and trying to figure out where you're going with no other data.
No, a map gives you a picture.
If I dump you in an arbitrary spot on planet Earth with just a map ... unless you have some mad skills, you will likely have NO idea of your position simply from the map.
So, honest question ... at what depth does the satellite signal from the GPS system penetrate water? Is it affected by surface conditions? Is it less than the average depth of a submarine?
My guess, if the existing GPS stuff was adequate for their needs, they wouldn't be looking into doing this.
From the article:
Sounds to me like they don't rely on GPS at all, and quite likely because it's useless under water.
Does it provide you with an accurate position on the globe?
As far as I know GPS means "global positioning system", and doesn't include the word satellite.
And for me, that is one of the main reasons I quite aggressively block as much of this shit as possible.
Between companies like bright cove, scorecard research, and the literally dozens of tracking companies on the average web page, I have found I simply won't use the web without things like NoScript, and Ghostery, and as many as I can find for the browser I'm using.
Some web pages literally have 25 (or more in some cases) external entities who want to track what I do .. Facebook, Linked in, Google Analytics, and countless piles of crap.
I don't give a crap about your revenue model or your social media campaign -- I sure as hell didn't sign up for 50 entities I've never heard of knowing every site I visit.
Thankfully, there are plenty of really good privacy extensions out there. The more you have, the better. Because it's astounding just how much complete shit is embedded in every page -- which is not only bleeding out your personal information, but using up your bandwidth.
Possibly. What Google is saying is "if you don't sign this contract for our upcoming streaming service, at a rate which is entirely unfair to you, we will block your videos on YouTube".
From TFS:
In other words, Google is more or less strong-arming the artists into getting paid less than market rates so that Google can build a business model around it their content.
In other words, it sounds like Google are being assholes, and have long since left their "do no evil" stance behind them.
How many billions have been spent on the war on drugs?
Clearly someone thinks so. And has for a very long time.
"No, Mr. Mouse, I expect you to run"
But, seriously, what if you had more than one mouse? Eventually you'd end up with a RAIM (redundant array of incarcerated mice) you have no use for.
I think the point is if you solely base it off if there was mass murder, what is the difference between them?
And, are you suggesting mass murder is OK as long as you accomplish something?
What is the threshold for 'accomplishment' balanced with how many murders in this calculus?
Not to be pedantic (OK, to be pedantic), but everything on Earth came from space.
Pretty much anything more complicated that hydrogen had to be created in a star which eventually went nova. Heck, even our water came from constant bombardment of comets and the like.
Despite what some people like to think, the Earth didn't just spring into existence fully formed.
Me, I've always thought it highly unlikely we're the only things to slither out of the mud in the entire universe.
Oh, OK, so "if you don't consent to give them this data, we're taking away features".
I see, totally different. How foolish of me.
It's not the 3rd parties disabling the functionality in the TV though, is it? It's LG, and it's in response to their updated privacy policy. Which means if they went to the trouble to disable the features, they likely also benefit from this data.
Sorry, but this lays squarely at the feet of LG as far as I'm concerned, and does nothing at all to change my view on smart TVs and the like, and further reinforces that the notion of the internet of things will be similarly bad for consumers and privacy.
Anything which can be abused by corporations will be abused.
Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.
And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network ... and no way I'd pay for it.
The point of the SIM is to figure out who to bill. I don't think they could just sneakily connect to it without someone paying for it.
Suddenly I'm thinking of Reg the Blank from Max Headroom and thinking he had the right idea.
Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.
See, my ISP gives me a 60GB/month cap, and $10/GB over that every month. Netflix was never an option for me.
Well, depending on what you have at home, you could always figure out where the traffic goes and block the hosts at your router or use your own DNS server to redirect it to something else.
But that would probably break it even more.
For me, the only way to win is to not play -- I wouldn't consider connecting my TV to the internet. Because I don't use the services, and don't trust the companies who make the TVs.
Yup, right there in the terms of service you never read but nonetheless agreed to.
Because you don't "own" anything anymore, you use it at the indulgence of the manufacturer, and they can and will make any changes they see fit in order to maximize revenue.
Welcome to the future!
You can probably assume that if you connected it to the internet, that it is.
I seem to remember a story not so long ago where even if you said "no, I don't want to", some devices did anyway.
Assume corporations are greedy and evil, and don't give a damn what you want. They probably are.
The primary purpose of an internet connected TV is to generate ad revenue and marketing data about you -- or at least in my cynical view it is.
Basically they've said "if you don't consent to give us this data, we're taking away features". Probably because they can't (or won't) make the services work without it, and it's just easier to cut you off.
Connected devices have always been a huge privacy hole, and an opportunity to have someone continue to make money off you after they've sold you the TV.
It's also why my last TV wasn't a "smart" TV. My TV receives inputs from sources, but otherwise is essentially just a monitor with speakers.
I view this as more or less a predictable outcome of smart TVs, because companies view them as something you're using under license, and will only give you these services if they're getting what they want in return.
As has been pointed out elsewhere ... they get in, they run, they get out, they get back in and run.
So, it doesn't seem like they can't get out (because they do), and it's not like they're just running endlessly (they apparently run the same length as captive ones).
Either it's intriguing, novel, or something passing for fun.
And, no, I doubt the mice are watching their figures.
I'm betting this gets them an IgNobel, because it's some pretty out there stuff, but is nonetheless cool and interesting.