Should Sony, Samsung, and all the other television manufacturers also give the networks a cut of their profits? Surely one of the primary uses of any television is to watch shows put out by the networks.
One boring Saturday, my kids and I made a couple of stop motion movies using their toys, our crappy point and shoot camera, and iMovie. We put the camera on a tripod and moved the toys around in front of it (it was a chase scene). Take a picture, move the toys a bit, take another picture, etc... After taking hundreds of pictures, we had iMovie make a slide show with them, showing each picture for 1/10 second (at the time, that was as fast as iMovie would go), then burned it to a DVD. The movies were only a minute or so long, but it was fun and easy.
Once upon a time, I used to have a nice, but small DVD collection. Then I realized I was never watching them and so I got rid of them, both physical and digital copies.
With Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, a DVR, and 1000 channels of satellite TV (and other sources I'm sure), I'm never at a loss for something to watch. I understand that people who collect movies and cork-sniffing videophiles may want to curate a personal video collection, but I don't think most people will.
You're backing up 8+ TB onto tape? What kind of tapes and drive? I always thought the only practical way of backup up multi-TB drives was with other multi TB drives.
You're kinda making the GP's point. One who has developed critical thinking skills isn't going to blindly believe that Big Pharma companies are always acting in your best interests.
What's more when you put it on your resume you can be certain that HR will recognize the name.
Having a big name like "Microsoft" on your resume matters mostly to HR reps from other big name companies. And the Microsoft brand isn't what it used to be.
Microsoft used to be able to attract top tier talent. Google arrived and that started to change. Lots of Microsoft's best people left for Google and now both Microsoft and Google are losing some of their best talent to Facebook and other companies in the social space. These days Microsoft is about as appealing as Oracle or SAP. Depending on your perspective, that may or may not be a good thing.
I think you have this exactly backwards. If you love developing software and want to make a difference, Microsoft is not the place to be. It is a bureaucratic mess. It is a mature company run by lawyers and MBAs serving other mature companies run by lawyers and MBAs. If you want a safe paycheck and can handle lots of meetings and corporate politics, you could be happy there.
That's funny! I had a friend who worked for MS about 10 years ago and the exact same thing happened - he became a super fanboy. He was constantly dropping hints about secret things he couldn't talk about yet and was generally annoying. A few years later, he left the company to work with some friends at a start up and as the Microsoft influence faded, so did his love of all things Microsoft. These days, he holds the company in pretty low regard.
Required by whom? Companies negotiate volume licenses because they cost less and are usually quite flexible. The downside is that you agree to be audited by Microsoft.
But 3D TV's don't have a huge price barrier. They are within reach now, especially to the hardcore early-adopting videophiles.
I think the big mistake being made is that the manufacturers are assuming people give the television their undivided attention when it's on. That just doesn't happen all that often anymore. Perhaps for watching a movie and certainly while playing a video game, but other than that, people are often doing something else while they watch TV.
I think you're wrong about sports. Watching sports on TV is often a very social thing. Especially the big events like the Super Bowl, World Series, World Cup, Stanley Cup, etc... Who wants to socialize around a big game wearing glasses? Even if they manage to shrink them and make them not burn through batteries, nobody wants to need glasses to watch TV with their friends. At my place, when we are watching a game, probably only 1/3 of the time is actually watching the television. Another 1/3 is spent preparing and eating food and 1/3 is spent just talking.
Somebody sitting at home alone might go for it. But that too assumes people give their undivided attention to the television. In my experience, that simply isn't the case.
Games that work on n platforms generally suck on n-1 platforms.
Good developer support is important. More important is a large customer base willing to spend money on applications and games. Apple's iPhone is doing well in this regard. Even though the iPhone market is smaller than Android, it is more profitable for game developers. I have a hard time believing Microsoft's platform is going to do much to change this. They may carve out a profitable audience, but I wouldn't expect much more than that.
The XBox and Zune are both very well reviewed devices that have sold well. They just don't make much money for Microsoft.
What Android phone gives me vanilla Android and no uninstallable apps? I want a phone that is updated to the most recent Android version in a reasonable amount of time.
The EEE (and any other netbook) PCs are far too fragile and not repairable by end users to the same degree that the X0-1 is. If I wanted to ship a computer to kids, the XO-1 is still a great choice, even running Windows.
Exactly. Microsoft is going to be very dangerous in the coming years. Those who can't innovate, litigate and Microsoft has one of the most awesome collections of patents. As they decline, expect some devastating lawsuits.
Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing a hardware company with a software company.
Maybe combine MSFT + DELL and compare that with Apple.
Microsoft charging a license fee for their new mobile OS is actually a bit surprising to me. I was actually expecting them to subside handset makers who chose their OS.
Your home in my neighborhood would have an annual tax bill more than $20k (probably closer to $30,000).
In other neighborhoods, it would be closer to what you are paying now. That's what I meant about it being difficult to compare. Averages are easy but specifics are trickier.
Slashdot Mirror
Should Sony, Samsung, and all the other television manufacturers also give the networks a cut of their profits? Surely one of the primary uses of any television is to watch shows put out by the networks.
One boring Saturday, my kids and I made a couple of stop motion movies using their toys, our crappy point and shoot camera, and iMovie. We put the camera on a tripod and moved the toys around in front of it (it was a chase scene). Take a picture, move the toys a bit, take another picture, etc... After taking hundreds of pictures, we had iMovie make a slide show with them, showing each picture for 1/10 second (at the time, that was as fast as iMovie would go), then burned it to a DVD. The movies were only a minute or so long, but it was fun and easy.
Yeah, but why? It sounds like you have hundreds of hours of video stored locally. Do you really watch that much tv?
Once upon a time, I used to have a nice, but small DVD collection. Then I realized I was never watching them and so I got rid of them, both physical and digital copies.
With Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, a DVR, and 1000 channels of satellite TV (and other sources I'm sure), I'm never at a loss for something to watch. I understand that people who collect movies and cork-sniffing videophiles may want to curate a personal video collection, but I don't think most people will.
You're backing up 8+ TB onto tape? What kind of tapes and drive? I always thought the only practical way of backup up multi-TB drives was with other multi TB drives.
You're kinda making the GP's point. One who has developed critical thinking skills isn't going to blindly believe that Big Pharma companies are always acting in your best interests.
Having a big name like "Microsoft" on your resume matters mostly to HR reps from other big name companies. And the Microsoft brand isn't what it used to be.
Microsoft used to be able to attract top tier talent. Google arrived and that started to change. Lots of Microsoft's best people left for Google and now both Microsoft and Google are losing some of their best talent to Facebook and other companies in the social space. These days Microsoft is about as appealing as Oracle or SAP. Depending on your perspective, that may or may not be a good thing.
I think you have this exactly backwards. If you love developing software and want to make a difference, Microsoft is not the place to be. It is a bureaucratic mess. It is a mature company run by lawyers and MBAs serving other mature companies run by lawyers and MBAs. If you want a safe paycheck and can handle lots of meetings and corporate politics, you could be happy there.
Working at a startup can be extremely satisfying.
That's funny! I had a friend who worked for MS about 10 years ago and the exact same thing happened - he became a super fanboy. He was constantly dropping hints about secret things he couldn't talk about yet and was generally annoying. A few years later, he left the company to work with some friends at a start up and as the Microsoft influence faded, so did his love of all things Microsoft. These days, he holds the company in pretty low regard.
Required by whom? Companies negotiate volume licenses because they cost less and are usually quite flexible. The downside is that you agree to be audited by Microsoft.
The 50g was designed and manufactured by Kinpo in Taiwan.
But 3D TV's don't have a huge price barrier. They are within reach now, especially to the hardcore early-adopting videophiles.
I think the big mistake being made is that the manufacturers are assuming people give the television their undivided attention when it's on. That just doesn't happen all that often anymore. Perhaps for watching a movie and certainly while playing a video game, but other than that, people are often doing something else while they watch TV.
I think you're wrong about sports. Watching sports on TV is often a very social thing. Especially the big events like the Super Bowl, World Series, World Cup, Stanley Cup, etc... Who wants to socialize around a big game wearing glasses? Even if they manage to shrink them and make them not burn through batteries, nobody wants to need glasses to watch TV with their friends. At my place, when we are watching a game, probably only 1/3 of the time is actually watching the television. Another 1/3 is spent preparing and eating food and 1/3 is spent just talking.
Somebody sitting at home alone might go for it. But that too assumes people give their undivided attention to the television. In my experience, that simply isn't the case.
Did HP start making new calculators? I thought they closed down their calculator division.
I remember reading this and being sad:
http://www.hpcalc.org/goodbyeaco.php
Games that work on n platforms generally suck on n-1 platforms.
Good developer support is important. More important is a large customer base willing to spend money on applications and games. Apple's iPhone is doing well in this regard. Even though the iPhone market is smaller than Android, it is more profitable for game developers. I have a hard time believing Microsoft's platform is going to do much to change this. They may carve out a profitable audience, but I wouldn't expect much more than that.
The XBox and Zune are both very well reviewed devices that have sold well. They just don't make much money for Microsoft.
Danger was mostly consumer-level gear, wasn't it? Plus I think they were buying the engineering team.
Since then, Microsoft seems to be much more focused on business stuff. That's why they are interested in RIM.
I haven't heard that they were interested in Nokia. That doesn't make much sense to me.
What Android phone gives me vanilla Android and no uninstallable apps? I want a phone that is updated to the most recent Android version in a reasonable amount of time.
The TMO plan includes unlimited data.
This seems like a bad idea as well. It's an invitation to poorly funded fire departments to start fires in non-subscribers homes.
The EEE (and any other netbook) PCs are far too fragile and not repairable by end users to the same degree that the X0-1 is. If I wanted to ship a computer to kids, the XO-1 is still a great choice, even running Windows.
When you are satisfying consumer demand, is it caving?
Dell also buys hardware from partners in the far east.
Exactly. Microsoft is going to be very dangerous in the coming years. Those who can't innovate, litigate and Microsoft has one of the most awesome collections of patents. As they decline, expect some devastating lawsuits.
Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing a hardware company with a software company.
Maybe combine MSFT + DELL and compare that with Apple.
Microsoft charging a license fee for their new mobile OS is actually a bit surprising to me. I was actually expecting them to subside handset makers who chose their OS.
Your home in my neighborhood would have an annual tax bill more than $20k (probably closer to $30,000).
In other neighborhoods, it would be closer to what you are paying now. That's what I meant about it being difficult to compare. Averages are easy but specifics are trickier.