Total contributed: 1 030 826$USD Number of contributions: 113 871 Average contribution: 9.05$USD
Think what you want, but I'm pretty sure EA wouldn't bother with the 9.00$USD price tag or a customer base of only 115k players. They probably spend much more than 1 million on advertising alone for a single game.
What it does show is that the average target price for a game seems to be 1.80$USD.
It’s a total no-brainer, but the Firefox team wants to get all evangelistic and completely irrational, making it a holy war.
And it's a war they just can't win. There's too many valid options right now. Depending on your OS, you have a choice between Internet Explorer, Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox, to name only the major options.
It would be quite simple for Google to reduce the number of Firefox and Opera users. Simply remove "Flash playback" capability on YouTube. Chrome and Safari can already play H.264, and soon Internet Explorer will join them.
What will Firefox and Opera users do once that happens? Will they say "Please YouTube, add Theora to YouTube?" Hell no, they don't know and don't care how things work.
They'll say "Firefox/Opera is crap, it doesn't even support the new YouTube", just like people thought that the other browsers were crap when all the websites were made for IE6. They'll download Internet Explorer, Chrome or Safari and stop using Firefox/Opera.
The thing is, there is no such thing as "Flash Video" anymore. It's just a Flash interface to playback H.264 files anyway, so why bother with Flash at all for playing back video files?
Without context, it sounded like "browsing is faster because the UI is simpler".
Explained that way, however, it becomes obvious that "faster" is about the time it takes for a user to do something with the UI and it has nothing to do with browsing or rendering speed.
From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox. Ask the users to pay the bill: "Do you want to still be able to view YouTube? Please donate 25 cents today!" It would fund Mozilla AND pay the H.264 royalties where it's needed.
Others have suggested that the Mozilla Foundation should just use the OS to playback video and stop complaining for nothing. H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?
And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?
Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem.
Just because an interface looks simple doesn't mean it looks faster. Who thinks like that? The "Speed holes" reference" above is quite right. Those UI designers either have been misquoted or are just complete fools.
What a simple interface means is that common tasks should be more obvious to do.
Don't give the users 100 options at once, especially things that only power-users use only once in a while. I'm not a fan of putting options in tabs and sub-menus, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.
Put the basic features at the beginning, the most obscure ones at the bottom. Put them in named groups such as "Basic", "Advanced" and "Expert" if necessary, so that non-technical users aren't afraid to mess with the basic ones, and advanced users don't waste time looking for what they need in the basic and advanced options.
The Microsoft founder recently announced plans to invest $300,000 into research for machines that suck up seawater and spray it into the air, seeding white clouds that reflect rays of sunlight away from Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they still need to compute what "42" is the answer of.
It even knows where my fucking keys are.
1990-1973 = 17 years .. but we're in 2010.
1990+17 = 2007
So, it's 3 years late? ... Is Jupiter pregnant?
Linux users != most people
Just like my raincoat. - President Skroob
Well, maybe the UltraSound PnP, but not the UltraSound MAX!
"Stories like this make me happy to be a ham."
Nope. Story the day after, in the newspapers.
Yeah but you're always watching your back because of wolves. Must be stressful.
I don't care how fast you do it, there's only two albums.
But the way I calculated is how EA will calculate it, and we both know they're looking at this indie-bundle-event.
Total contributed: 1 030 826$USD
Number of contributions: 113 871
Average contribution: 9.05$USD
Think what you want, but I'm pretty sure EA wouldn't bother with the 9.00$USD price tag or a customer base of only 115k players. They probably spend much more than 1 million on advertising alone for a single game.
What it does show is that the average target price for a game seems to be 1.80$USD.
Yep. It detects lies.
No it doesn't. Most people use either Windows or Mac OS X. Both of these OS ship with H.264 support.
And it's a war they just can't win. There's too many valid options right now. Depending on your OS, you have a choice between Internet Explorer, Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox, to name only the major options.
It would be quite simple for Google to reduce the number of Firefox and Opera users. Simply remove "Flash playback" capability on YouTube. Chrome and Safari can already play H.264, and soon Internet Explorer will join them.
What will Firefox and Opera users do once that happens? Will they say "Please YouTube, add Theora to YouTube?" Hell no, they don't know and don't care how things work.
They'll say "Firefox/Opera is crap, it doesn't even support the new YouTube", just like people thought that the other browsers were crap when all the websites were made for IE6. They'll download Internet Explorer, Chrome or Safari and stop using Firefox/Opera.
The thing is, there is no such thing as "Flash Video" anymore. It's just a Flash interface to playback H.264 files anyway, so why bother with Flash at all for playing back video files?
Also, see the three reasons posted by Winckle.
Without context, it sounded like "browsing is faster because the UI is simpler".
Explained that way, however, it becomes obvious that "faster" is about the time it takes for a user to do something with the UI and it has nothing to do with browsing or rendering speed.
From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox. Ask the users to pay the bill: "Do you want to still be able to view YouTube? Please donate 25 cents today!" It would fund Mozilla AND pay the H.264 royalties where it's needed.
Others have suggested that the Mozilla Foundation should just use the OS to playback video and stop complaining for nothing. H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?
And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?
Just because an interface looks simple doesn't mean it looks faster. Who thinks like that? The "Speed holes" reference" above is quite right. Those UI designers either have been misquoted or are just complete fools.
What a simple interface means is that common tasks should be more obvious to do.
Don't give the users 100 options at once, especially things that only power-users use only once in a while. I'm not a fan of putting options in tabs and sub-menus, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.
Put the basic features at the beginning, the most obscure ones at the bottom. Put them in named groups such as "Basic", "Advanced" and "Expert" if necessary, so that non-technical users aren't afraid to mess with the basic ones, and advanced users don't waste time looking for what they need in the basic and advanced options.
Nope. He just watched The Animatrix last night.
Sea water sprayed into the air, salt drops on land, crops die.
Unfortunately, the machines are solar-powered.
Undersea computing?
It's going to crash a lot and get a lot of viruses? /duck
Ni!