Wikipedia says this company is pretty influential in the porn industry, though not the only player. I suppose it's sort-of interesting to hear what he thinks. Though there's no real meat to the article, it's almost like an anti-Flash astro-turf.
I think all content producers are generally looking forward to moving to HTML5 video. That doesn't mean that Flash is dead. It could potentially mean that in 3-5 years Flash will not be used for video. Right now, Flash is pretty much the only option. In a year or two, HTML5 video will be a reasonable competitor. After that, well I guess it's up to Adobe to figure out ways of making their product more appealing than the baseline (which is HTML5). But they have a dominant position now, support of major players, and seem committed to improving their product. It's hard to discount them on the word of one porn producer.
Efficiency in the sense that the buyer's order was too high (by a fraction of a cent)? and then the difference between the buy and the sell price doesn't go to the buyer or seller. That money just disappears from the transaction.
I guess if you worship at the shrine of "efficiency" then that kinda makes sense. It's the punishment for getting the price wrong. But at some point, at some level of detail, you might want to consider that the efficiency gains are inscrutable.
And at some level (which we might have already reached) the efficiency gains might be outweighed by what would act as a kind of transaction tax paid by market participants to the HFT machine.
Ney's premise, it seems to me is that trading firms and those running the exchanges have their clients over the barrel. Either you trust them and you play their game, or you don't and you find some other way to invest your money. It would seem that generally the clientele are pretty pleased with their results.
Moving along, the thing I don't understand about your post is that it conflated electronic trading and high-frequency trading.
I could be wrong, but in my mind, they are two different concepts.
Electronic trading is reducing barriers of entry to individuals and outside brokerages. Like you say, evening the playing field.
Electronic trading enabled the current generation of HFT. Which as far as I can understand is computers trading with computers based on not-fully-understood algorithms. Essentially, skynet for the stock market. And if you don't have a robot, you're screwed because every move you make, the robots see and react with more speed and power than you could ever hope to match.
Maybe I'm just naive, but it would seem that if you're opposed to the "NYSE specialists" you'd be just as opposed to the HFT trend.
so if he tells his boss the truth, he will look incompetent. if he wastes thousands of man-hours and thousands of dollars doing testing he knows is pointless and then wastes hours of executive time presenting that "there's not actually much difference between commodity hardware", then he did what he was told, but he still wasted everyone's time.
by that logic, I could get a patent for my novel by describing its contents and adding "a hardware appliance consisting of a bound book with paper pages printed on with ink". Then I could sue anyone who made a book using the themes of my patented invention. Wow, I'm gonna get rich! I sure hope nobody else has patented this idea already! (Note to self: remember to file a parallel patent describing how my book would be displayed on a eReader)
As cbiltcliffe points out above, software patents are presented and enforced as "process" patents. A software patent is not for the invention of a machine, it's a generic "way of doing" something on a machine.
That some patent lawyers attempt to shoehorn a process patent into a hardware patent by appending a generic description of a computer just shows that they acknowledge that, without such machinations, a software process would not qualify for patent protection.
Computers are designed to run generic code, that's their function and core value. To claim that running your patent-pending software on a machine that's designed to run generic software is somehow an improvement of that machine is ludicrous.
freedom of speech means freedom from government infringement.
if you say something offensive and it pisses off the guy (or girl) standing next to you, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. that's an interaction between two citizens. the government stays out of it.
if you want to be offensive, go on with your bad self. say whatever you want to say. but, as you point out, being offensive is being offensive. you can be just as offensive without using dirty words or non-PC speech. if you intend to slight someone and to show them disrespect, then the words you use are unimportant as long as your point comes across.
finally, did it ever occur to you that these "young folks" use profanity to get under you skin because they know that it works and they enjoy having that control over you?
while pounding away at the cliffs, one of the big guns overheats and jams, the shell in the chamber explodes setting off a chain reaction that sinks the ship
People who actually understood how and why things worked they way they do.
are you suggesting that there's a technical limitation that prevents the iPhone from playing flash? because, you know, a lot of very similar (non-Apple) devices play flash just fine.
I think the background necessary to understand why iPhones don't support Flash is business not engineering.
I'm not sure what's going on with that lawsuit. If they're making some sort of anti-competitive claim, I imagine that wont hold much water. It's possible Adobe felt they had an agreement that Apple violated. Or that Apple's terms change was illegal in some way that I am not aware of. Anyways, the lawsuit seems like a non-sequitur in this conversation.
In other words, they've blessed an easy and accessible way to develop apps for the iPhone, so excluding Flash is not about creating a walled development garden.
So they've moved from allowing one development environment to allowing two? That's still a very restrictive platform. Especially since you can use a fairly mature set of tools to develop in Flash and there's essentially nothing for HTML5 development (since it's not even a finished standard yet).
It might be that developers use the language of rights because the arguments I'm making have come to be accepted as truth and internalized. Apple is acting deliberately against the tenet of developer freedom. But the concept of developer freedom is not based on "rights" it's based on clear and repeatable outcomes through the history of modern computing.
I find it funny that, IMHO, Apple (circa 1990) itself is an obvious example of a company with a competitive advantage that strangled developer choice and lost out to a more "open" competitor (IBM-PCs). They've come full circle.
it's still a strawman, because the argument isn't that developers have a right to develop iPhone apps in Flash or Java. It's that limiting how developers can use your device makes your product weaker.
Apple is well within their rights to deny 3rd party development environments and to cripple their products as much as they like. And users are certainly free to purchase as many iPhones/iPads/iGlasses as they can afford. But independent developers play an important role in the success of such products and they are equally free to voice concerns over Apple's iron-fisted approach.
So we are pointing out that Apple is handcuffing the functionality of their devices in terms of how they can be used and who can use them. And that the stated reasons for doing so -- that flash/java is buggy and promotes bad apps -- do not actually hold up to examination.
I would add that historically, platforms that are difficult to develop for or place needless restrictions on content creators struggle in the medium to long-term. (Right now the iPhone/iPad has an advantage in terms of user-base, but that is not guaranteed going forward.)
Is it whining to point out that by not supporting popular environments like Flash/Java and by forcing users to use their language and development environment, Apple is giving a huge advantage to their competitors?
In reality, the disc works fine; the problem stems from the Blu-ray players themselves. In order to run optimally, the firmware for these fancy Blu-ray machines needs to be updated regularly via a download from the Web.... If a Blu-ray player owner doesn't have a home Internet connection, the chances are good the player's firmware will be out of date.
Wow, this is cringe-worthy. I mean, Blu-ray quality is so awesome, it needs a connection to the internet! Did someone from Ubisoft work on the blu-ray spec, or was it the other way around?
You honestly believe the only advantage of an Iphone 3GS over the latest Android brick is "marketing"
well since I didn't say anything like that anywhere in my original post, it seemed necessary to interpret his question so it would fit the thread.
I said:
1. There are a handful of phones on the market that are arguably better than the iPhone.
and
2. Apple's marketing is brilliant.
I would not say that the iPhone is only popular because of marketing. I would say that marketing is the one place where the iPhone has a distinct advantage.
In all technical areas, other phones have reached parity or surpassed the iPhone.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good device. And they've made incremental improvements, but IMHO it's trending towards middle-of-the-pack (top-of-the-price-range) status.
p.s. what is a "screaming moron"? I mean, how should I apply the adjective "screaming" here? Are my posts appearing in all caps or something?
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
Even accepting the premise that sales of the iPhone prove that nobody cares about openness. It doesn't mean that people wont care going forward. To be safer, you should say, "As far as I can tell, nobody cares at the moment"
Empirically, it can be said that Apple's platform is far more restrictive for developers and users than Android (or WebOS or even Windows Mobile).
All things being equal, closed/restrictive systems tend to attract fewer developers than open/permissive ones. Fewer developers means fewer applications, less innovation on the platform...
And historically, Apple has experienced the very same developer flight with Macintosh. They applied tight controls over their systems, charged boutique prices, and the result was that cheaper, crappier PCs dominated. Not because people loved them, but because that's where all the software was.
You act like there are only two options.
1. Let Apple decide what's best.
or
2. Have a terribly complicated experience that only a techie could love.
the GP and myself would like an option 3:
make the hardware and software as capable as possible and let the users/developers determine the boundaries of its capability.
p.s. "nerd rage"? you do know you're on Slashdot right? "News for Nerds" and all.
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
like anything you buy, the competing products have various strengths and weaknesses. but they're all comparable and none is clearly superior to the rest.
google informs me that I am not the only one who thinks so
Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans
(rolling my eyes)
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything. They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology. There was a point when the features of the iPhone made it somewhat unique. That moment has passed. Now it is one of a handful of well-designed phones that all do, essentially, the same thing.
Apple's brilliance is in marketing. They are able to market their products in such a way as to convince people, like you, that they have some magical powers that other companies don't have. The iPhone is still coasting on its reputation. The iPad is well on its way to doing the same thing (although the niche it fills is infinitesimal).
Exhibit A is this whole conversation. Apple has been able to spin the fact that its products are inferior (they don't play flash) into some kind of asset. FYI iPhone users really do want to watch video on their devices, just like they do on a regular computer. That the iPhone can't is a design flaw and a weakness of the phone. It's explicitly forcing users to conform to technology.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
Did Apple think the iPhone was going to be on top forever? Pretty shortsighted for a tech company if they did.
fixed that for you.
not that I think much would come of any lawsuit at this point, but maybe Adobe's trying to snap Apple out of it.
what Apple is doing is limiting developers to use only Apple's prescribed toolset. In the long-run that's going to mean that, despite the iPhone's current lead, Android/Windows 7 phones are going to be able to attract more developers and thus have new, interesting apps sooner and cheaper than iPhone.
Under some conditions I guess the collaborative features make it better than nothing (the book got finished).
So... the emperor has some clothes, then?
I mean, collaborative is one thing Word just isn't. Google Docs is essentially a collaboration tool.
Obviously the formatting features don't match up with the ones in Office, but you're replying to an article about a complete rebuilding of Google Docs to make it faster, more collaborative and, yes to add new features.
FTA:
formatting options like a margin ruler, better numbering and bullets, and more flexible image placement
you're paying as much as a very cheap internet connection
that you can carry around in your pocket, take into the grocery store, use on the toilet or in the basement or in your car or at the top of a mountain.
Slashdot Mirror
seriously, what are you talking about?
Wikipedia says this company is pretty influential in the porn industry, though not the only player. I suppose it's sort-of interesting to hear what he thinks. Though there's no real meat to the article, it's almost like an anti-Flash astro-turf.
I think all content producers are generally looking forward to moving to HTML5 video. That doesn't mean that Flash is dead. It could potentially mean that in 3-5 years Flash will not be used for video. Right now, Flash is pretty much the only option. In a year or two, HTML5 video will be a reasonable competitor. After that, well I guess it's up to Adobe to figure out ways of making their product more appealing than the baseline (which is HTML5). But they have a dominant position now, support of major players, and seem committed to improving their product. It's hard to discount them on the word of one porn producer.
Pardon me, but I believe you accidentally failed to flag your comment as ironic.
Eventually people will start to realise[SIC] it's a scam and stop throwing money away
And eventually the sun is going to grow large enough to envelope the earth. Wanna bet on which one happens first?
Part of the reason I am skeptical that "people" will have this realization, is that I think your critique of the markets is overly simplistic.
(The other part is that there's a sucker born every minute.)
Efficiency in the sense that the buyer's order was too high (by a fraction of a cent)? and then the difference between the buy and the sell price doesn't go to the buyer or seller. That money just disappears from the transaction.
I guess if you worship at the shrine of "efficiency" then that kinda makes sense. It's the punishment for getting the price wrong. But at some point, at some level of detail, you might want to consider that the efficiency gains are inscrutable.
And at some level (which we might have already reached) the efficiency gains might be outweighed by what would act as a kind of transaction tax paid by market participants to the HFT machine.
Ney's premise, it seems to me is that trading firms and those running the exchanges have their clients over the barrel. Either you trust them and you play their game, or you don't and you find some other way to invest your money. It would seem that generally the clientele are pretty pleased with their results.
Moving along, the thing I don't understand about your post is that it conflated electronic trading and high-frequency trading.
I could be wrong, but in my mind, they are two different concepts.
Electronic trading is reducing barriers of entry to individuals and outside brokerages. Like you say, evening the playing field.
Electronic trading enabled the current generation of HFT. Which as far as I can understand is computers trading with computers based on not-fully-understood algorithms. Essentially, skynet for the stock market. And if you don't have a robot, you're screwed because every move you make, the robots see and react with more speed and power than you could ever hope to match.
Maybe I'm just naive, but it would seem that if you're opposed to the "NYSE specialists" you'd be just as opposed to the HFT trend.
Artificial Agent Aids Astral Analysis
so if he tells his boss the truth, he will look incompetent. if he wastes thousands of man-hours and thousands of dollars doing testing he knows is pointless and then wastes hours of executive time presenting that "there's not actually much difference between commodity hardware", then he did what he was told, but he still wasted everyone's time.
on snap!
by that logic, I could get a patent for my novel by describing its contents and adding "a hardware appliance consisting of a bound book with paper pages printed on with ink". Then I could sue anyone who made a book using the themes of my patented invention. Wow, I'm gonna get rich! I sure hope nobody else has patented this idea already! (Note to self: remember to file a parallel patent describing how my book would be displayed on a eReader)
As cbiltcliffe points out above, software patents are presented and enforced as "process" patents. A software patent is not for the invention of a machine, it's a generic "way of doing" something on a machine.
That some patent lawyers attempt to shoehorn a process patent into a hardware patent by appending a generic description of a computer just shows that they acknowledge that, without such machinations, a software process would not qualify for patent protection.
Computers are designed to run generic code, that's their function and core value. To claim that running your patent-pending software on a machine that's designed to run generic software is somehow an improvement of that machine is ludicrous.
freedom of speech means freedom from government infringement.
if you say something offensive and it pisses off the guy (or girl) standing next to you, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. that's an interaction between two citizens. the government stays out of it.
if you want to be offensive, go on with your bad self. say whatever you want to say. but, as you point out, being offensive is being offensive. you can be just as offensive without using dirty words or non-PC speech. if you intend to slight someone and to show them disrespect, then the words you use are unimportant as long as your point comes across.
finally, did it ever occur to you that these "young folks" use profanity to get under you skin because they know that it works and they enjoy having that control over you?
while pounding away at the cliffs, one of the big guns overheats and jams, the shell in the chamber explodes setting off a chain reaction that sinks the ship
People who actually understood how and why things worked they way they do.
are you suggesting that there's a technical limitation that prevents the iPhone from playing flash? because, you know, a lot of very similar (non-Apple) devices play flash just fine.
I think the background necessary to understand why iPhones don't support Flash is business not engineering.
why is Adobe suing Apple to allow Flash
I'm not sure what's going on with that lawsuit. If they're making some sort of anti-competitive claim, I imagine that wont hold much water. It's possible Adobe felt they had an agreement that Apple violated. Or that Apple's terms change was illegal in some way that I am not aware of. Anyways, the lawsuit seems like a non-sequitur in this conversation.
In other words, they've blessed an easy and accessible way to develop apps for the iPhone, so excluding Flash is not about creating a walled development garden.
So they've moved from allowing one development environment to allowing two? That's still a very restrictive platform. Especially since you can use a fairly mature set of tools to develop in Flash and there's essentially nothing for HTML5 development (since it's not even a finished standard yet).
It might be that developers use the language of rights because the arguments I'm making have come to be accepted as truth and internalized. Apple is acting deliberately against the tenet of developer freedom. But the concept of developer freedom is not based on "rights" it's based on clear and repeatable outcomes through the history of modern computing.
I find it funny that, IMHO, Apple (circa 1990) itself is an obvious example of a company with a competitive advantage that strangled developer choice and lost out to a more "open" competitor (IBM-PCs). They've come full circle.
it's still a strawman, because the argument isn't that developers have a right to develop iPhone apps in Flash or Java. It's that limiting how developers can use your device makes your product weaker.
Apple is well within their rights to deny 3rd party development environments and to cripple their products as much as they like. And users are certainly free to purchase as many iPhones/iPads/iGlasses as they can afford. But independent developers play an important role in the success of such products and they are equally free to voice concerns over Apple's iron-fisted approach.
So we are pointing out that Apple is handcuffing the functionality of their devices in terms of how they can be used and who can use them. And that the stated reasons for doing so -- that flash/java is buggy and promotes bad apps -- do not actually hold up to examination.
I would add that historically, platforms that are difficult to develop for or place needless restrictions on content creators struggle in the medium to long-term. (Right now the iPhone/iPad has an advantage in terms of user-base, but that is not guaranteed going forward.)
Is it whining to point out that by not supporting popular environments like Flash/Java and by forcing users to use their language and development environment, Apple is giving a huge advantage to their competitors?
"biased opinion" is redundant
From TFA:
In reality, the disc works fine; the problem stems from the Blu-ray players themselves. In order to run optimally, the firmware for these fancy Blu-ray machines needs to be updated regularly via a download from the Web. ...
If a Blu-ray player owner doesn't have a home Internet connection, the chances are good the player's firmware will be out of date.
Wow, this is cringe-worthy. I mean, Blu-ray quality is so awesome, it needs a connection to the internet! Did someone from Ubisoft work on the blu-ray spec, or was it the other way around?
You honestly believe the only advantage of an Iphone 3GS over the latest Android brick is "marketing"
well since I didn't say anything like that anywhere in my original post, it seemed necessary to interpret his question so it would fit the thread.
I said:
1. There are a handful of phones on the market that are arguably better than the iPhone.
and
2. Apple's marketing is brilliant.
I would not say that the iPhone is only popular because of marketing. I would say that marketing is the one place where the iPhone has a distinct advantage.
In all technical areas, other phones have reached parity or surpassed the iPhone.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good device. And they've made incremental improvements, but IMHO it's trending towards middle-of-the-pack (top-of-the-price-range) status.
p.s. what is a "screaming moron"? I mean, how should I apply the adjective "screaming" here? Are my posts appearing in all caps or something?
Those "limitations" are exactly this.
And this is what I mean about taking what is actually a weakness and spinning it into a strength.
The iPhone is brilliant because it doesn't force people to conform to technology. It does this by limiting features?
have I got a phone for you!
http://www.jitterbug.com/
Nobody fucking cares
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
Even accepting the premise that sales of the iPhone prove that nobody cares about openness. It doesn't mean that people wont care going forward. To be safer, you should say, "As far as I can tell, nobody cares at the moment"
Empirically, it can be said that Apple's platform is far more restrictive for developers and users than Android (or WebOS or even Windows Mobile).
All things being equal, closed/restrictive systems tend to attract fewer developers than open/permissive ones. Fewer developers means fewer applications, less innovation on the platform...
And historically, Apple has experienced the very same developer flight with Macintosh. They applied tight controls over their systems, charged boutique prices, and the result was that cheaper, crappier PCs dominated. Not because people loved them, but because that's where all the software was.
You act like there are only two options.
1. Let Apple decide what's best.
or
2. Have a terribly complicated experience that only a techie could love.
the GP and myself would like an option 3:
make the hardware and software as capable as possible and let the users/developers determine the boundaries of its capability.
p.s. "nerd rage"? you do know you're on Slashdot right? "News for Nerds" and all.
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
like anything you buy, the competing products have various strengths and weaknesses. but they're all comparable and none is clearly superior to the rest.
google informs me that I am not the only one who thinks so
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/devices/htc-incredible-vs-apple-iphone-3gs/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/194464/droid_vs_iphone_3gs_an_update.html
http://www.ifixit.com/Misc/nexus_vs_iphone.html
Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans
(rolling my eyes)
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything. They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology. There was a point when the features of the iPhone made it somewhat unique. That moment has passed. Now it is one of a handful of well-designed phones that all do, essentially, the same thing.
Apple's brilliance is in marketing. They are able to market their products in such a way as to convince people, like you, that they have some magical powers that other companies don't have. The iPhone is still coasting on its reputation. The iPad is well on its way to doing the same thing (although the niche it fills is infinitesimal).
Exhibit A is this whole conversation. Apple has been able to spin the fact that its products are inferior (they don't play flash) into some kind of asset. FYI iPhone users really do want to watch video on their devices, just like they do on a regular computer. That the iPhone can't is a design flaw and a weakness of the phone. It's explicitly forcing users to conform to technology.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
Did Apple think the iPhone was going to be on top forever? Pretty shortsighted for a tech company if they did.
fixed that for you.
not that I think much would come of any lawsuit at this point, but maybe Adobe's trying to snap Apple out of it.
what Apple is doing is limiting developers to use only Apple's prescribed toolset. In the long-run that's going to mean that, despite the iPhone's current lead, Android/Windows 7 phones are going to be able to attract more developers and thus have new, interesting apps sooner and cheaper than iPhone.
gee, does that narrative sound familiar?
Under some conditions I guess the collaborative features make it better than nothing (the book got finished).
So... the emperor has some clothes, then?
I mean, collaborative is one thing Word just isn't. Google Docs is essentially a collaboration tool.
Obviously the formatting features don't match up with the ones in Office, but you're replying to an article about a complete rebuilding of Google Docs to make it faster, more collaborative and, yes to add new features.
FTA:
formatting options like a margin ruler, better numbering and bullets, and more flexible image placement
you're paying as much as a very cheap internet connection
that you can carry around in your pocket, take into the grocery store, use on the toilet or in the basement or in your car or at the top of a mountain.
yeah, um, that sounds like a decent deal to me.
the GP's point is still quite valid. Even 15GB is still quite a bit less than 5TB