Sorry to have to say this, but it's getting ridiculous how digg.com is beating slashdot.org on every interesting story by days.
Slashdot used to represent the shrewdest of technology people -- it's about time Slashdot stepped up to the plate and proved themselves.
Innovate or perish, Slashdot! Come on, I know you can compete if you try.
Sam
disappointed -- try the java cert exam
on
Java Puzzlers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I was excited when I saw the "Java Puzzlers" subject heading. But that byte to char example left me under-whelmed.
Have any other more interesting/fun examples?
If you want some puzzlers, look for copies of the Sun Java Programmer certification exam. There's lots of "we're not testing to see if you're a good programmer, just testing to see if you can find the unexpected result in the insanity-pepper code" snippets there.
Movie makers actually have a good buisness model for the the watch-something-once market i.e. Blockbuster.
Well, they think they do. When I rent a movie from Blockbuster, rip it to my PC with DVDShrink and then I have a copy I can watch whenever I want (even though 99% of the time I only watch it once). What's the difference between that and letting me download the binary version for $2.99? If it saves me the trip to the store and back, I'll use the online service.
Unlike songs, I don't want to *own* movies. Just watch them once.
For me, the cost would have to be the same or less than a movie rental for me to buy in. $8 is too much. I'd say $2.99 is about right -- and I don't care if the $2.99 movie expires after a certain period of time or anything. Like I said, 99% of the time I just watch a movie once.
I think technically it would be illegal for Steve to barter a Pixar distribution deal for content for the Apple ITMS, as it would basically boil down to a conflict of interest.
I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly something he'd have to approve by the Pixar board of directors.
Smells like a strategic partnership between Apple and Pixar. The question from the Pixar board would be, what does Pixar have to gain from pressuring Disney to have enter a TV distribution deal with Apple.
Not sure what the answer is, but interesting that the Pixar shorts are currently available among the $1.99 shows. There must have been some trade off -- like maybe Pixar gets 100% of the revenue for sales of their shorts, or maybe a sweetheart deal of their own when it comes to distributing Pixar movies on iTMS. Or, who knows, free quad-G5s for Pixars rendering farm?
Microsoft will never fully support an open document format. Office is Microsoft's biggest cash cow, and Office's long term success depends on their ownership of the proprietory Office document formats.
Looking at the screen shots, they have sophisticated functionality like drag-and-drag built into this web app.
Can anyone provide a link to a site that describes how to implement these kind of features with AJAX? Also, an explanation of how Google Maps uses AJAX would be great too.
Seriously, the *only* innovations from Microsoft were the mouse scroll-wheel and fast user-switching in XP Home.
Both very fine pieces of technology innovation.
Everything else -- I mean *everything* else -- was a copy of the successful work of a more deserving 1-in-a-thousand startup that suffered through all their hard times only to get stomped by the monopoly in the end.
I defy you to show me a single instance of an undocumented API that makes it possible to create a better spreadsheet or word processor. It's not like the Word programmers knew the secret API WinSpellCheck() and WP didn't. And even if Office did use undocumented APIs, they probably learned about them the same way everybody else does -- reverse engineering. It's not like Office has access to the Windows source code.
Microsoft's Office developers had the same Win API documentation as the Corel developers, but they also had access to the Windows developers brains. Early API documentation always sucks and there's no substitute for going straight to the guy who wrote the API for help. With that kind of inside Windows API info, the MS developers were able to make their Office apps make more efficient use of system resources.
Corel suing Microsoft for using undocumented API calls is a matter of public record -- Microsoft admitted they likely used API calls that were undocumented, but they said it wasn't an attempt to submarine their competition, but it was just the best way to accomplish what they needed done. Also, MS left these sorts of API calls undocumented because they said they didn't necessarily have plans to support them long term.
All of Microsoft's explanations are perfectly reasonable, IMO -- MS programmers laugh at the suggestion that they were in any way organized enough to pull off such a business strategy on purpose. But Corel had a good point that being a big monopolistic organization created an unfair marketing advantage for the Office team.
You're on Baffin Island, surveying a railway line. You need to look at or edit a report.
Yeah. Big computing market those Baffin Island railway workers. Far outwaying the number of people sitting at desks all day with PCs connected to the internet.;-)
Seriously, tho. Google Desktop shows that Google's strategy includes desktop components to their web solutions. Google Office would certainly require a desktop element to allow people to edit/view documents when offline.
I'd guess there'll be a GBrowser with web-browsing, GMail, and GOffice all built into one client that works best when you're online, but has offline capabilities.
Excel "overtook" 1-2-3 and Word overtook Wordperfect in 1993 or 1994... which was BEFORE Windows 95 when Windows became the "hot thing."
PC users were adopting Windows in the early nineties ('90-'91) Windows 3.1 came out in about '92.
During these years everyone used WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. *Everyone*. WordPerfect lost because they were over-confident with their perceived stranglehold on the word processing market and didn't care about producing a Windows version. But people liked the GUI that Windows provided and wanted to move to Windows -- a slow migration to 'Word for Windows' from WordPerfect 5.1 began in about 1992.
For a couple years Corel tried to play catch up with versions of WP for Windows, but they could never compete because of MS's headstart and also because MS had the inside scoop on how to use internal and undocumented Windows APIs (Corel even unsuccessfully sued MS about this).
In fact, in the early pre-Windows years, MS made more money selling Word and Excel for Mac than they ever did selling them for DOS.
Microsoft won by changing the platform and leveraging their control of the platform to their advantage. Google is trying to do the same thing to MS now with their control of the 'web' as a platform.
(Just FYI, I personally know high-ranking ex-Microsoft guys who were there -- this is the way it happened.)
Microsoft didn't win by being the best, they "won" by being the cheapest that works.
Word wasn't "better" than WordPerfect (if you are running a transcription service or something similar, people have the FASTEST results with WP 5.1 than ANY modern system), and Excel wasn't "better" than Lotus 1-2-3. However, they were less than half the price and you could get the bundle for less than either program individually.
With respect, you're wrong. WordPerfect and Lotus were the best office apps for *DOS*. Microsoft couldn't sell *any* copies of Word or Excel for DOS because they were out-done.
Microsoft's business growth depended on selling apps so they devised a strategy to change the platform.
Microsoft created pushed Windows, and Word and Excel were far-and-away the best Office apps for the Windows environment.
They couldn't compete on DOS apps, so they changed the platform. This is exactly what Google is now doing to them. No one in the world can compete with Microsoft on Windows Office apps, so Google is changing the platform to the web.
This is great news. No doubt Google Office will be great.
I think the "GBrower" should be a rich client (ala iTunes) that lets me browse the web and has all the G-apps built in, GOffice, GMail, Picasa, and so on.
Am I the only one who thinks the richness of interfaces you can build with AJAX is being blown way out of proportion?
If I was going to implement "Google Office" I would do it with Java Swing or maybe Macromedia Flex. The idea of implementing an Office suite with HTML, Javascript, and AJAX sounds like the makings of one nasty, ugly, kludgey mess of a GUI.
That man simply does not know the word "iTunes" and was substituting "iPod" for "iTunes Music Store."
Yes, and no. I think to him iTMS/iPod are effectively the same thing. Apple makes a tremendous profit selling iPods so it's in Apple's best interest to sell song on iTMS as cheaply as possible -- so Jobs pushes to keep the 99-cent price.
The music exec is saying they don't get a share of iPod revenue so they have no way to increase their revenue except to increase the price per song.
I'm of two minds on the issue; on the one hand, the market should set the price, not one retailer (iTMS). On an open market, latest hits may go for $2, but old songs might sell for 50-cents. On the other hand, if you put record execs in charge they'll likely price things to the high breaking point, increasing piracy and killing "legal" online distribution altogether.
Uhhh...no. MSN has been revenue positive for about a year now.
Okay, so maybe they are marginally profitable this year -- but they've been hemorrhaging cash since their inception. The only reason MSN exists is because they wanted to kill AOL (predatory!) -- in Steve Case's book he writes about how Bill invited him to the Gates mansion and said, "Sell me AOL or I'll put you out of business."
Ironically Bill is now able to use the AOL acquisition to cut off 25% of Google's revenue.
It makes money the same way the Google does -- by selling targeted ads.
MSN makes money by being the default home page for every IE installation -- Google makes money by providing a great, innovative product.
Acquiring AOL actually does two things: hurt Google, but, more importantly, help MSN.
MSN can't compete with Google, so they're buying the entity that provides 25% of of Google's revenue. Predatory! Illegal! And make no bones about it, MS is afraid of Google because Google threatens MS's ownership of the world's computing platform -- just like Netscape and Java before them (Re: other posts in this thread).
Slashdot Mirror
I work for one of the five biggest software companies in the world, and my CEO wears torn jeans to work.
I gave a demo to about 30 executives yesterday and I wore jeans and a turtleneck sweater.
Anyone who criticizes the way I dress DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY!
Sam
Surely if Apple announces an Intel based iBook, an Intel based Mac Mini will be there too? Or will follow very shortly.
Sam
Slashdot used to represent the shrewdest of technology people -- it's about time Slashdot stepped up to the plate and proved themselves.
Innovate or perish, Slashdot! Come on, I know you can compete if you try.
Sam
Have any other more interesting/fun examples?
If you want some puzzlers, look for copies of the Sun Java Programmer certification exam. There's lots of "we're not testing to see if you're a good programmer, just testing to see if you can find the unexpected result in the insanity-pepper code" snippets there.
boxlight
Well, they think they do. When I rent a movie from Blockbuster, rip it to my PC with DVDShrink and then I have a copy I can watch whenever I want (even though 99% of the time I only watch it once). What's the difference between that and letting me download the binary version for $2.99? If it saves me the trip to the store and back, I'll use the online service.
Sam
I don't get this phenomenon of wanting to watch movies on your cell phone or iPod or even sitting at your desk in from of your computer.
To me, movies are a *big* experience; I want a nice big screen, a great sound system, dim the lights, a big bowl of popcorn and a giant soda.
Watching movies on "cell phone" is contrary to everything I hold dear about the cinematic experience.
Sam
For me, the cost would have to be the same or less than a movie rental for me to buy in. $8 is too much. I'd say $2.99 is about right -- and I don't care if the $2.99 movie expires after a certain period of time or anything. Like I said, 99% of the time I just watch a movie once.
Sam
I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly something he'd have to approve by the Pixar board of directors.
Smells like a strategic partnership between Apple and Pixar. The question from the Pixar board would be, what does Pixar have to gain from pressuring Disney to have enter a TV distribution deal with Apple.
Not sure what the answer is, but interesting that the Pixar shorts are currently available among the $1.99 shows. There must have been some trade off -- like maybe Pixar gets 100% of the revenue for sales of their shorts, or maybe a sweetheart deal of their own when it comes to distributing Pixar movies on iTMS. Or, who knows, free quad-G5s for Pixars rendering farm?
Sam
www.live.com -- the best drag-and-drop web implementation I have ever seen. Everything feels light and slick ... delightful.
Watch out, Google -- MS is on the move. This is an *awesome* implementation of an interactive web interface.
Sam
This revisionist film-making has to stop.
Sam
"Pencil" was the first thing I thought of when I read the article too.
Sam
Never happen. Ever.
Sam
Excellent work, I will definately try out this mail client on my web site!
Stephen
Can anyone provide a link to a site that describes how to implement these kind of features with AJAX? Also, an explanation of how Google Maps uses AJAX would be great too.
Any info is greatly appreciated!
Sam
Both very fine pieces of technology innovation.
Everything else -- I mean *everything* else -- was a copy of the successful work of a more deserving 1-in-a-thousand startup that suffered through all their hard times only to get stomped by the monopoly in the end.
Sam
Microsoft's Office developers had the same Win API documentation as the Corel developers, but they also had access to the Windows developers brains. Early API documentation always sucks and there's no substitute for going straight to the guy who wrote the API for help. With that kind of inside Windows API info, the MS developers were able to make their Office apps make more efficient use of system resources.
Corel suing Microsoft for using undocumented API calls is a matter of public record -- Microsoft admitted they likely used API calls that were undocumented, but they said it wasn't an attempt to submarine their competition, but it was just the best way to accomplish what they needed done. Also, MS left these sorts of API calls undocumented because they said they didn't necessarily have plans to support them long term.
All of Microsoft's explanations are perfectly reasonable, IMO -- MS programmers laugh at the suggestion that they were in any way organized enough to pull off such a business strategy on purpose. But Corel had a good point that being a big monopolistic organization created an unfair marketing advantage for the Office team.
Sam
Yeah. Big computing market those Baffin Island railway workers. Far outwaying the number of people sitting at desks all day with PCs connected to the internet. ;-)
Seriously, tho. Google Desktop shows that Google's strategy includes desktop components to their web solutions. Google Office would certainly require a desktop element to allow people to edit/view documents when offline.
I'd guess there'll be a GBrowser with web-browsing, GMail, and GOffice all built into one client that works best when you're online, but has offline capabilities.
Sam
PC users were adopting Windows in the early nineties ('90-'91) Windows 3.1 came out in about '92.
During these years everyone used WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. *Everyone*. WordPerfect lost because they were over-confident with their perceived stranglehold on the word processing market and didn't care about producing a Windows version. But people liked the GUI that Windows provided and wanted to move to Windows -- a slow migration to 'Word for Windows' from WordPerfect 5.1 began in about 1992.
For a couple years Corel tried to play catch up with versions of WP for Windows, but they could never compete because of MS's headstart and also because MS had the inside scoop on how to use internal and undocumented Windows APIs (Corel even unsuccessfully sued MS about this).
In fact, in the early pre-Windows years, MS made more money selling Word and Excel for Mac than they ever did selling them for DOS.
Microsoft won by changing the platform and leveraging their control of the platform to their advantage. Google is trying to do the same thing to MS now with their control of the 'web' as a platform.
(Just FYI, I personally know high-ranking ex-Microsoft guys who were there -- this is the way it happened.)
Sam
Word wasn't "better" than WordPerfect (if you are running a transcription service or something similar, people have the FASTEST results with WP 5.1 than ANY modern system), and Excel wasn't "better" than Lotus 1-2-3. However, they were less than half the price and you could get the bundle for less than either program individually.
With respect, you're wrong. WordPerfect and Lotus were the best office apps for *DOS*. Microsoft couldn't sell *any* copies of Word or Excel for DOS because they were out-done.
Microsoft's business growth depended on selling apps so they devised a strategy to change the platform.
Microsoft created pushed Windows, and Word and Excel were far-and-away the best Office apps for the Windows environment.
They couldn't compete on DOS apps, so they changed the platform. This is exactly what Google is now doing to them. No one in the world can compete with Microsoft on Windows Office apps, so Google is changing the platform to the web.
Will work. Microsoft is in trouble.
Sam
I think the "GBrower" should be a rich client (ala iTunes) that lets me browse the web and has all the G-apps built in, GOffice, GMail, Picasa, and so on.
Sam
If I was going to implement "Google Office" I would do it with Java Swing or maybe Macromedia Flex. The idea of implementing an Office suite with HTML, Javascript, and AJAX sounds like the makings of one nasty, ugly, kludgey mess of a GUI.
Sam
Yes, and no. I think to him iTMS/iPod are effectively the same thing. Apple makes a tremendous profit selling iPods so it's in Apple's best interest to sell song on iTMS as cheaply as possible -- so Jobs pushes to keep the 99-cent price.
The music exec is saying they don't get a share of iPod revenue so they have no way to increase their revenue except to increase the price per song.
I'm of two minds on the issue; on the one hand, the market should set the price, not one retailer (iTMS). On an open market, latest hits may go for $2, but old songs might sell for 50-cents. On the other hand, if you put record execs in charge they'll likely price things to the high breaking point, increasing piracy and killing "legal" online distribution altogether.
Sam
Re-read the article: "That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent"
and it's not predatory
Er ... yeah, it's practically the very *definition* of predatory business tactics.
Sam
Okay, so maybe they are marginally profitable this year -- but they've been hemorrhaging cash since their inception. The only reason MSN exists is because they wanted to kill AOL (predatory!) -- in Steve Case's book he writes about how Bill invited him to the Gates mansion and said, "Sell me AOL or I'll put you out of business."
Ironically Bill is now able to use the AOL acquisition to cut off 25% of Google's revenue.
It makes money the same way the Google does -- by selling targeted ads.
MSN makes money by being the default home page for every IE installation -- Google makes money by providing a great, innovative product.
Acquiring AOL actually does two things: hurt Google, but, more importantly, help MSN.
MSN can't compete with Google, so they're buying the entity that provides 25% of of Google's revenue. Predatory! Illegal! And make no bones about it, MS is afraid of Google because Google threatens MS's ownership of the world's computing platform -- just like Netscape and Java before them (Re: other posts in this thread).
Sam