Why do companies, particularly Google in this case, remove basic options and features in software as if it is costing them money.
Google particular seems to shut down small-mid size projects that can be incredibly useful and profitable.
Two examples:
1. Google Movie Showtimes...this was great, it was a nationwide very accurate movie showtime page that was a feature on Google...it didn't require much maintenance once it was already built. Also, they still have to have staff working on movie results...except they now use a Netflix-like side scroller that requires a user to click to get more info.
2. Google Wave...it could have been Slack. Slack is exactly Google Wave only with a polished interface. How much is Slack valued at right now again?
So what are we going to do about it? Point the finger of blame? Or defend ourselves? Your choice.
Both of course.
How can you defend yourself if you don't know what is attacking you?
Proper defense necessitates "pointing the finger of blame"...aka identifying the cause of the problem.
Fortunately we already know: Pharmaceutical companies make drugs abusable on purpose and incentivize doctors to prescribe them.
Democrats have been pushing for more pharma regulations for years, Repubicans opposing them.
Republicans have fought over and over to make it easy for these abusable drugs to get FDA approval.
Oxyconin is a perfect example, read up:
"In 2006, Giuliani acted as the lead counsel and lead spokesmen for Bracewell & Giuliani client Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, during their negotiations with federal prosecutors over charges that the pharmaceutical company misled the public about OxyContin's addictive properties. The agreement reached resulted in Purdue Pharma and some of its executives paying $634.5 million in fines"
It's about deliberate and demonstrable intent. Furthermore, it's about intent that can be proven in a court of law. In this case, the guy not only sent the image to someone known publicly to suffer seizures of this kind, he explicitly stated it was his intent to give the guy a seizure, and thereby do harm to him.
that makes sense...
didn't know he stated that explicitly...some DA bucking for a promotion might latch onto that and make a big headline-grabbing case out of it...that explaination is rational
I wonder if the reason the FBI took this meme sent on Twitter so seriously has something to do with the alleged "brainwashing" neuroscience techniques pioneered by Delgado and others.
Flashing memes get sent by the millions over the internet daily, some sent with the intent of causing seizure. Why take this one so seriously?
There seems to be a very limited number of answers, so it makes me wonder. This just seems so non-sensical and asymetric...punishment does not fit the crime whatsoever.
Netflix was a successful DVD rental by mail company that got the MPAA and copyright holders to put their content online for streaming. That is not some kind of "tech innovation"
Yes, I'll grant you that Netflix's deal to allow streaming required *marketing* innovation...some kind of innovative way to package the deal to copyright holders...that is true.
That's business and marketing innovation...it's not tech. An example of tech innovation is Youtube. They were able to build a system that allowed users to upload video and it worked well on the low-bandwidth internet of the time. The innovation was the technical ability to code and program a system to allow users to do that and make it scale.
Why does this matter?
Billions of dollars are invested into "innovative tech startups" every year...it's better for our industry (and our jobs!) if investors and the general public understand exactly what "innovation" actually is...in other words, I'm promoting anti-hype.
The solution to our jobs being automated is implementing a Universal Basic Income.
The future is here...it's happening...it's absolutely necessary to transition to a system that guarantees income.
The loudest objection, "We don't have the money"...it's simply not true...if we had even the tax levels of the halcyon 1950s Eisenhower administration, we could do it.
DMCA: Clinton CDA: Clinton COPA: Clinton DRM (criminalize breaking it): Clinton
did any Republicans lead the charge against these?
NO
Republicans were falling over themselves to make the rules worse than what was enacted!
Go down the line, the Republican's policy was always much more draconian and foolish than what Democrats were proposing.
Just because a Democrat was president doesn't mean the Democrats weren't trying to force the policy to be better. It doesn't change either party's position on policy.
Look at the DCMA.
Everyone knew we needed new rules, it's *how* those rules were passed through an intractable Congress that matters. Republicans wanted to put things like website ratings like film ratings in the DCMA Typically, Democrats have to fight tooth and nail just to get some kind of comprimise that isn't abjectly destructive in order to pass needed updates to t-com laws.
Republicans are always advocating for worse policy, compared to what Democrats are proposing particularly in the area of science and tech.
Policy is what actually matters. Policy is the laws we actually enact and how they are enforced.
Go down the line, every instance, Republicans' policy positions are the worse of the options for tech.
If Republicans changed their policies, that would change the situation.
It *does* matter, there is a difference between policies Democrats enact and policies Republicans enact. Especially in Science and Tech. Republicans and Democrats policies are very, very different.
It's probably more complicated, in the sense that the jobs were going away anyhow many times, and companies like Intel just outsource for the end of a lifecycle of whatever system. I can definitely see companies and analysts responding with something like that.
At the same time, for all we know this 11% figure is low. Look at what data they used.
There's no denying that outsourcing has been abused and that the rules are tipped in favor of large company profits over needs of US workers.
found that it is impossible to open the passenger door from outside of the car. It turns out that Ford designers removed the key lock from the passenger door
And your other points are centered on your usage needs and budget, narcisistic delusion affecting design...perfect example of the faulty thinking that leads to bad tech desgin.
"get bluetooth" isn't a valid fix for several reasons
first, Apple didn't just remove a headphone jack, they removed a *universally compatible data port* that allowed for simultaneous, cheap, adaptable charging and using the jack for headphones or for an accessory like a Square card reader. Simultaneously.
removing functionality like that is exactly like if Ford removed all the doors on the right side of their cars...it's perfectly analogous in how it cripples the user
2nd, bluetooth runs out of batteries
3rd, just because *you* and your particular use case have your needs met with bluetooth headphones and one jack doesn't mean that it's a good design for all users, from the perspective of designing a system for users.
this makes me think you are being sarcastic...honestly...
So I thought something was up. Truth is I know too many people on every side of the equation that think the way OP does so it's not out of question that OP was being serious.
Because skills are irrelevant. It's a post-skills economy out there. Social marketing is the only thing that matters. Social is everything.
This is categorically incorrect.
First, all that "social" has to run somehow....and it is people with "skills" that do the "relevant" programming.
The idea that what people call "social" is somehow supplanting the need for software devs and coders is actually ridiculous. All that "social" is coded and hosted and maintained by software devs and coders!
2nd, the whole contextualization of text and pictures sent over the internet to a logged-in user is this new thing in human experience called "social" is absolutely incorrect. Snapchat, facebook, twitter, etc...it's all just text and images.
What you and idiot marketing buzzword people call "social" is inherent human behavior. Things like facebook, snapchat, etc are simply mediators when humans choose to do it using internet.
Post cards are just as much "social" as snapchat.
I'm actually in the middle of refactoring a singe page web app, right now. I'm using my programming skills. I've been developing this app for seven years. It has zero users. Zero. Because I don't market it on all the social networks, my app might as well not exist, and my skills are worthless.
this makes me think you are being sarcastic...honestly...
the coding skill to make every function a one-liner isn't all that is necessary to make a successful app...no one ever said it was!
good coding skills are certainly useful, but just like good concrete laying or whatever skill, you either work for a company or for yourself...if you work for yourself you have to have skills, like business skills, other than the skill you are marketing...**it's the same for all skills not just code**
Indeed...as is everything. This statement is a tautology.
Sometimes there's video in there. Sometimes the ground is in different places. Sometimes the microphone is in a different spot. There any many different ways of making a remote work.
Just because this may be true doesn't really mean anything. It's a benefit that it is so versatile, first of all. The ports worked. Square Card readers work for Apple or Android. Most after market headphones work for both.
Wireless audio is what people use at home for connecting to their stereo (I certainly do, and it's far, far more convenient), and while I don't personally use wireless headphones myself (too cheap to buy them / I'd lose them / forget to charge them / they're all ugy / etc), I see plenty of people that do.
I tried to address this in my OP...designing for the user...
Slashdot Mirror
Why do companies, particularly Google in this case, remove basic options and features in software as if it is costing them money.
Google particular seems to shut down small-mid size projects that can be incredibly useful and profitable.
Two examples:
1. Google Movie Showtimes...this was great, it was a nationwide very accurate movie showtime page that was a feature on Google...it didn't require much maintenance once it was already built. Also, they still have to have staff working on movie results...except they now use a Netflix-like side scroller that requires a user to click to get more info.
2. Google Wave...it could have been Slack. Slack is exactly Google Wave only with a polished interface. How much is Slack valued at right now again?
great info thanks!!!
Both of course.
How can you defend yourself if you don't know what is attacking you?
Proper defense necessitates "pointing the finger of blame"...aka identifying the cause of the problem.
Fortunately we already know: Pharmaceutical companies make drugs abusable on purpose and incentivize doctors to prescribe them.
Democrats have been pushing for more pharma regulations for years, Repubicans opposing them.
Republicans have fought over and over to make it easy for these abusable drugs to get FDA approval.
Oxyconin is a perfect example, read up:
"In 2006, Giuliani acted as the lead counsel and lead spokesmen for Bracewell & Giuliani client Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, during their negotiations with federal prosecutors over charges that the pharmaceutical company misled the public about OxyContin's addictive properties. The agreement reached resulted in Purdue Pharma and some of its executives paying $634.5 million in fines"
source
Pharmaceutical companies that do this and the doctors who enable them are absolute scum.
Good example of why the private sector needs regulation.
that definition is entirely too broad and doesn't address the question were discussing
no, the concept of what defines "innovation" is so ruined by hype and nonsense it is hurting our industry
that makes sense...
didn't know he stated that explicitly...some DA bucking for a promotion might latch onto that and make a big headline-grabbing case out of it...that explaination is rational
Yes, from engineers on a project doing regular coding work....but that's not what I'm talking about.
"innovation" is such a misused and over-broad term these days....
Netflix's concept is not "innovative" from a startup perspective.
Everyone in the world thought it would be cool to watch movies over the internet...the only problem was copyright holders.
I wonder if the reason the FBI took this meme sent on Twitter so seriously has something to do with the alleged "brainwashing" neuroscience techniques pioneered by Delgado and others.
Flashing memes get sent by the millions over the internet daily, some sent with the intent of causing seizure. Why take this one so seriously?
There seems to be a very limited number of answers, so it makes me wonder. This just seems so non-sensical and asymetric...punishment does not fit the crime whatsoever.
Netflix was a successful DVD rental by mail company that got the MPAA and copyright holders to put their content online for streaming. That is not some kind of "tech innovation"
Yes, I'll grant you that Netflix's deal to allow streaming required *marketing* innovation...some kind of innovative way to package the deal to copyright holders...that is true.
That's business and marketing innovation...it's not tech. An example of tech innovation is Youtube. They were able to build a system that allowed users to upload video and it worked well on the low-bandwidth internet of the time. The innovation was the technical ability to code and program a system to allow users to do that and make it scale.
Why does this matter?
Billions of dollars are invested into "innovative tech startups" every year...it's better for our industry (and our jobs!) if investors and the general public understand exactly what "innovation" actually is...in other words, I'm promoting anti-hype.
The solution to our jobs being automated is implementing a Universal Basic Income.
The future is here...it's happening...it's absolutely necessary to transition to a system that guarantees income.
The loudest objection, "We don't have the money"...it's simply not true...if we had even the tax levels of the halcyon 1950s Eisenhower administration, we could do it.
heh...wrong
they need help to specialize in the right situation
hmm...I'd give you "competitive advantage in some cases" but "evolutionary advance"...
evolutionary advances are not seen on 100 year timescales
also, whatever change must increase the ability to reproduce for it to be related to evolution
I tried to say the same thing.
It's really important that people be able to understand this concept.
did any Republicans lead the charge against these?
NO
Republicans were falling over themselves to make the rules worse than what was enacted!
Go down the line, the Republican's policy was always much more draconian and foolish than what Democrats were proposing.
Just because a Democrat was president doesn't mean the Democrats weren't trying to force the policy to be better. It doesn't change either party's position on policy.
Look at the DCMA.
Everyone knew we needed new rules, it's *how* those rules were passed through an intractable Congress that matters. Republicans wanted to put things like website ratings like film ratings in the DCMA Typically, Democrats have to fight tooth and nail just to get some kind of comprimise that isn't abjectly destructive in order to pass needed updates to t-com laws.
Republicans are always advocating for worse policy, compared to what Democrats are proposing particularly in the area of science and tech.
Policy is what actually matters. Policy is the laws we actually enact and how they are enforced.
Go down the line, every instance, Republicans' policy positions are the worse of the options for tech.
If Republicans changed their policies, that would change the situation.
It *does* matter, there is a difference between policies Democrats enact and policies Republicans enact. Especially in Science and Tech. Republicans and Democrats policies are very, very different.
Yeah, just what we need, more government regulation.
Unless we let corporations edit the human genome, and patent human DNA, we are the enemy of the free market. /s
Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.
Almost completely down the line, any policy involving tech will have the Republicans pushing policies that are the worst.
Net Neutrality? It's the GOP who want to destroy it.
DRM of all kinds, always Republicans.
It goes on and on.
Why is it so important to grasp this fact? Why am I even posting this?
Because so many techies still support Republicans or 'Libertarians'...
So one in ten jobs were shipped overseas.
It's probably more complicated, in the sense that the jobs were going away anyhow many times, and companies like Intel just outsource for the end of a lifecycle of whatever system. I can definitely see companies and analysts responding with something like that.
At the same time, for all we know this 11% figure is low. Look at what data they used.
There's no denying that outsourcing has been abused and that the rules are tipped in favor of large company profits over needs of US workers.
wow...
My car-door analogy is perfect and logical.
And your other points are centered on your usage needs and budget, narcisistic delusion affecting design...perfect example of the faulty thinking that leads to bad tech desgin.
Next!
ugh this is annoying...
"get bluetooth" isn't a valid fix for several reasons
first, Apple didn't just remove a headphone jack, they removed a *universally compatible data port* that allowed for simultaneous, cheap, adaptable charging and using the jack for headphones or for an accessory like a Square card reader. Simultaneously.
removing functionality like that is exactly like if Ford removed all the doors on the right side of their cars...it's perfectly analogous in how it cripples the user
2nd, bluetooth runs out of batteries
3rd, just because *you* and your particular use case have your needs met with bluetooth headphones and one jack doesn't mean that it's a good design for all users, from the perspective of designing a system for users.
I mean not that much...
I'll give you maybe a "whosh"....I did say this:
this makes me think you are being sarcastic...honestly...
So I thought something was up. Truth is I know too many people on every side of the equation that think the way OP does so it's not out of question that OP was being serious.
This is categorically incorrect.
First, all that "social" has to run somehow....and it is people with "skills" that do the "relevant" programming.
The idea that what people call "social" is somehow supplanting the need for software devs and coders is actually ridiculous. All that "social" is coded and hosted and maintained by software devs and coders!
2nd, the whole contextualization of text and pictures sent over the internet to a logged-in user is this new thing in human experience called "social" is absolutely incorrect. Snapchat, facebook, twitter, etc...it's all just text and images.
What you and idiot marketing buzzword people call "social" is inherent human behavior. Things like facebook, snapchat, etc are simply mediators when humans choose to do it using internet.
Post cards are just as much "social" as snapchat.
this makes me think you are being sarcastic...honestly...
the coding skill to make every function a one-liner isn't all that is necessary to make a successful app...no one ever said it was!
good coding skills are certainly useful, but just like good concrete laying or whatever skill, you either work for a company or for yourself...if you work for yourself you have to have skills, like business skills, other than the skill you are marketing...**it's the same for all skills not just code**
Indeed...as is everything. This statement is a tautology.
Just because this may be true doesn't really mean anything. It's a benefit that it is so versatile, first of all. The ports worked. Square Card readers work for Apple or Android. Most after market headphones work for both.
I tried to address this in my OP...designing for the user...