You spend all your time focusing on the mom-n-pop's you're putting out of business, and don't look in the rearview mirror to see RedBox or Netflix.
Seriously, Blockbuster lost its karma when it used its size to ink deals with movie studios to stock their shelves on consignment with a percentage of the rental fee going to the studios. This allow BB to stock more movies, while the small local movie rental shops still had to purchase their DVDs at the ridiculously high rental shop price.
This is not an American only attribute. Just look at the EU.
Anyway I agree that American companies have a higher profile, but that's because we have an over abundance of lawyers here. Maybe we should start exporting them.
It wasn't that Ford wasn't maximizing the shareholders profits, instead it was that Ford dramatically changed the operations at Ford Motor Company that violated the company's charter in order to sabotage the Dodge brother's plan of using Ford's dividends to fund their plans to start a competing car company.
Except that these days, if Henry Ford paid his employees more, he'd be sued by his shareholders.
Sure a group of investment bankers could sue Henry Ford, but would they win? On top of that they would actually lower their stock portfolio value from the protracted legal battle that they started not to mention the legal fees that would have to be paid regardless of the outcome.
I think the "shareholders force them to be bad corporations" is a myth.
Bingo. Henry Ford's solution to poverty was to employ more people and pay them more as private corporate policy, and not by giving the "extra" money to the state.
The best way to not give more money to the state is to SPEND more money. Less profit means less taxes. Hiring more employees or spending money on R&D not only lower those profits but also are a good investment and promote the economy. Lowering the taxes on the highest income bracket actually encourages hoarding of money.
The problem with the "trickle down economy" argument is that the small number of the population who are wealthy and not corporations have no interest in hiring. These individuals hide behind the theoretical companies because it's better politics than to say rich people should not have to pay more taxes.
Reality is that most jobs are created by small companies started by upper middle class individuals that take advantage of government incentives designed to promote small businesses.
If you wanted a general purpose home computer, I would agree the Atari ST and Amiga were the better value.
However, Apple sold a complete turnkey solution for desktop publishing. Keep in mind Apple brought desktop publishing to mainstream, since the Mac was specifically built for it. MacPublisher was the first WYSIWYG layout program. Apple also sold a laser printer that was designed with the Macintosh in mind.
When I think of the three computers, the Amiga was way ahead of its time. Unfortunately, Commodore was Amiga's worst enemy.
Bad philosophy considering many of us were printing color documents using computers like Atari or Amiga or Commodore. The inability to do color on 80s Macs made them look inferior.
While I agree that the Mac's inability to do color was a sorely missed feature. I don't think I would go so far as call the Mac inferior. I would say that the Mac was targeted toward the "serious" desktop publishing crowd. Especially since there was better publishing software on the Mac. While the Atari ST and the Amiga were targeted toward games.
I speak as an owner of an Atari ST which I considered an upgrade from my Atari 800. I also worked at a computer store that sold both the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga.
I think your assertion about printing color documents during the 80's a slight exaggeration, but only because the technology was primitive. Both the Atari ST and Amiga were most definitely capable, but I wouldn't count color dot-matrix printers or thermal transfer printers of the time something to take too seriously. Of course you could always go to a typesetter, but the prices weren't as economical as today.
Also I think Apple took IBM more seriously than the assorted home computers and as long as the average office had B/W printing, Jobs felt justified in his thinking.
Steve Jobs was fanatical about WYSIWYG on the Mac. Since there were few color printers available in the 80's, it was common knowledge that Jobs felt that color display violated his WYSIWYG philosophy.
The good old days when Desktop Publishing was the new technology...
Nothing slower than going through the magazine covers and getting distracted...
Anyway it wasn't Popular Mechanics, it was:
Mechanix Illustrated, February 1982.
It was the Quincy-Lynn Centurion that was advertised to have 128 MPG.
Now that I found that issue, that is one less thing floating around in my head. Now if only I can get that stupid song I heard on the radio out of my head...
If that were true don't you think one of the over 100 teams who spent millions of their own money would have done that?
I don't know. Why do the youngsters today re-invent computer technology that we came up with in the 80's give it a snazzier sounding buzzword and act like they discovered penicillin?
Oh just in case you haven't figured it out... I found my alleged magazine article. Now get off my lawn!
Wow! With the need for 2-3 vehicles in the garage, I can see why Progressive Automotive sponsored the X-Prize contest. Just think of the premium checks they'd collect.
I had a "Popular Mechanics" magazine from the early 80's that had an article on how to make a 100 MPG car with a spitfire car frame, molded fiberglass, and a Kubota tractor engine.
It's sad that it would take a X-Prize contest with a 10-million dollar purse to get us back to using the technology discussed in a old magazine.
Congrats to the teams. I'm just commenting about the automobile industry as a whole.
Absolutely! I can't stand leaving gadgets stock, I always HAVE to do SOMETHING to them. Android is the perfect platform for just such a thing:-)
While the rest of us wish we just had a smartphone that worked and didn't require fiddling... This is what makes iPhone more appealing. I'm speaking as an Android user with Cyanogenmod CM6.;)
Oh responsiveness would be a plus... again iPhone has the advantage.
Jeez. You brought this back up from your capture file. This is the exact same quote I replied to half a year ago or so...
Anyway Bill Buxton doesn't complain about Apple receiving accolades about it's multi-touch UI in the iPhone. From your linked article:
In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."
He wanted to make sure that everyone knew that innovation doesn't happen overnight and usually involves pioneers other than the current innovator.
What Apple is rightfully credited with is having a multi-gestured UI where the display is within the tablet and placing it all in a form-factor suitable to used as a cellphone. This involved creating an OS geared toward the task as well as hardware components that would make the weight and size requirements of the design. Not to mention have the targeted battery life.
The Simon shown in the article was the first smartphone with a touch UI, however it only allowed single touch gestures.
Microsoft borrowing ideas from Apple again?
It's probably the other way round. Nice troll though.
Looking at the same article, I see that Microsoft Surface can be traced back to Digital Desk (Pierre Wellner, et.al. '91), Graspable/Tangible Interfaces (University of Toronto '95), Active Desk (University of Toronto '95/'97), T3 (Alias|Wavefront, Toronto), Fingerworks ('98 Newark, Delaware), etc... So I'm highly doubtful it was the other way around.
If anything this should serve as proof on how important academic research is, since almost all of the innovations we are taking advantage of are a result of university research projects across the globe.
It can do a lot a things as a netbook, but won't be able to as many things as a tablet or as well as a dedicated tablet.
That's the problem with the Windows Tablet (and has been for years) not all the programs available will take advantage of the tablet. Programs that do take advantage of the tablet, do it so poorly that you prefer to run it as a netbook. Thus all you end up with is a netbook with a neat gimmick.
There is something to be said about devices that are dedicated tablets. If it runs in Windows then I'm tempted to make a program that can use a keyboard so I can take advantage of an already large audience. There isn't as much temptation with iOS or Android because even though both have access to a keyboard (iOS via bluetooth) the devices do not have a ready made market of legacy devices that were keyboard centric.
Slashdot Mirror
You spend all your time focusing on the mom-n-pop's you're putting out of business, and don't look in the rearview mirror to see RedBox or Netflix.
Seriously, Blockbuster lost its karma when it used its size to ink deals with movie studios to stock their shelves on consignment with a percentage of the rental fee going to the studios. This allow BB to stock more movies, while the small local movie rental shops still had to purchase their DVDs at the ridiculously high rental shop price.
Yet they don't like pickles...
LOL! Problems being that dogs won't eat them, and it may make them sick.
It's much worse than that!
Private equity funds purchase once great brands and marginalize them for profit. Take a look at some of the mattress companies.
This is not an American only attribute. Just look at the EU.
Anyway I agree that American companies have a higher profile, but that's because we have an over abundance of lawyers here. Maybe we should start exporting them.
It wasn't that Ford wasn't maximizing the shareholders profits, instead it was that Ford dramatically changed the operations at Ford Motor Company that violated the company's charter in order to sabotage the Dodge brother's plan of using Ford's dividends to fund their plans to start a competing car company.
Funny since Borland named came up with the name Delphi as a reference to its ability to connect to the Oracle database.
Sure a group of investment bankers could sue Henry Ford, but would they win? On top of that they would actually lower their stock portfolio value from the protracted legal battle that they started not to mention the legal fees that would have to be paid regardless of the outcome.
I think the "shareholders force them to be bad corporations" is a myth.
The best way to not give more money to the state is to SPEND more money. Less profit means less taxes. Hiring more employees or spending money on R&D not only lower those profits but also are a good investment and promote the economy. Lowering the taxes on the highest income bracket actually encourages hoarding of money.
The problem with the "trickle down economy" argument is that the small number of the population who are wealthy and not corporations have no interest in hiring. These individuals hide behind the theoretical companies because it's better politics than to say rich people should not have to pay more taxes.
Reality is that most jobs are created by small companies started by upper middle class individuals that take advantage of government incentives designed to promote small businesses.
Not as funny as the things they created are only relevant because someone else copied it.
If you wanted a general purpose home computer, I would agree the Atari ST and Amiga were the better value.
However, Apple sold a complete turnkey solution for desktop publishing. Keep in mind Apple brought desktop publishing to mainstream, since the Mac was specifically built for it. MacPublisher was the first WYSIWYG layout program. Apple also sold a laser printer that was designed with the Macintosh in mind.
When I think of the three computers, the Amiga was way ahead of its time. Unfortunately, Commodore was Amiga's worst enemy.
Don't confuse obsession with logical thinking...
While I agree that the Mac's inability to do color was a sorely missed feature. I don't think I would go so far as call the Mac inferior. I would say that the Mac was targeted toward the "serious" desktop publishing crowd. Especially since there was better publishing software on the Mac. While the Atari ST and the Amiga were targeted toward games.
I speak as an owner of an Atari ST which I considered an upgrade from my Atari 800. I also worked at a computer store that sold both the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga.
I think your assertion about printing color documents during the 80's a slight exaggeration, but only because the technology was primitive. Both the Atari ST and Amiga were most definitely capable, but I wouldn't count color dot-matrix printers or thermal transfer printers of the time something to take too seriously. Of course you could always go to a typesetter, but the prices weren't as economical as today.
Also I think Apple took IBM more seriously than the assorted home computers and as long as the average office had B/W printing, Jobs felt justified in his thinking.
Steve Jobs was fanatical about WYSIWYG on the Mac. Since there were few color printers available in the 80's, it was common knowledge that Jobs felt that color display violated his WYSIWYG philosophy.
The good old days when Desktop Publishing was the new technology...
Don't make me turn this thread around!
Don't blame us for your attention deficit disorder..
BTW, FORTRAN is cool but wait until I tell you about Ada.
I heard its software is field upgradable without user intervention and works with other USR units to accomplish really big tasks.
For some reason the brochure doesn't say what that really big task is...
Open means Incompetent?
That can't be right. I thought it meant not quite finished and don't expect documentation.
Put the flame throwers down... it's a joke.
I found the magazine issue!
Nothing slower than going through the magazine covers and getting distracted...
Anyway it wasn't Popular Mechanics, it was:
Mechanix Illustrated, February 1982.
It was the Quincy-Lynn Centurion that was advertised to have 128 MPG.
Now that I found that issue, that is one less thing floating around in my head. Now if only I can get that stupid song I heard on the radio out of my head...
I don't know. Why do the youngsters today re-invent computer technology that we came up with in the 80's give it a snazzier sounding buzzword and act like they discovered penicillin?
Oh just in case you haven't figured it out... I found my alleged magazine article. Now get off my lawn!
So? That was around 30 years ago. Has it progressed any more?
Wow! With the need for 2-3 vehicles in the garage, I can see why Progressive Automotive sponsored the X-Prize contest. Just think of the premium checks they'd collect.
I had a "Popular Mechanics" magazine from the early 80's that had an article on how to make a 100 MPG car with a spitfire car frame, molded fiberglass, and a Kubota tractor engine.
It's sad that it would take a X-Prize contest with a 10-million dollar purse to get us back to using the technology discussed in a old magazine.
Congrats to the teams. I'm just commenting about the automobile industry as a whole.
While the rest of us wish we just had a smartphone that worked and didn't require fiddling... This is what makes iPhone more appealing. I'm speaking as an Android user with Cyanogenmod CM6. ;)
Oh responsiveness would be a plus... again iPhone has the advantage.
Jeez. You brought this back up from your capture file. This is the exact same quote I replied to half a year ago or so...
Anyway Bill Buxton doesn't complain about Apple receiving accolades about it's multi-touch UI in the iPhone. From your linked article:
He wanted to make sure that everyone knew that innovation doesn't happen overnight and usually involves pioneers other than the current innovator.
What Apple is rightfully credited with is having a multi-gestured UI where the display is within the tablet and placing it all in a form-factor suitable to used as a cellphone. This involved creating an OS geared toward the task as well as hardware components that would make the weight and size requirements of the design. Not to mention have the targeted battery life.
The Simon shown in the article was the first smartphone with a touch UI, however it only allowed single touch gestures.
Looking at the same article, I see that Microsoft Surface can be traced back to Digital Desk (Pierre Wellner, et.al. '91), Graspable/Tangible Interfaces (University of Toronto '95), Active Desk (University of Toronto '95/'97), T3 (Alias|Wavefront, Toronto), Fingerworks ('98 Newark, Delaware), etc... So I'm highly doubtful it was the other way around.
If anything this should serve as proof on how important academic research is, since almost all of the innovations we are taking advantage of are a result of university research projects across the globe.
It can do a lot a things as a netbook, but won't be able to as many things as a tablet or as well as a dedicated tablet.
That's the problem with the Windows Tablet (and has been for years) not all the programs available will take advantage of the tablet. Programs that do take advantage of the tablet, do it so poorly that you prefer to run it as a netbook. Thus all you end up with is a netbook with a neat gimmick.
There is something to be said about devices that are dedicated tablets. If it runs in Windows then I'm tempted to make a program that can use a keyboard so I can take advantage of an already large audience. There isn't as much temptation with iOS or Android because even though both have access to a keyboard (iOS via bluetooth) the devices do not have a ready made market of legacy devices that were keyboard centric.