Talk directly with each and every member of the IT staff, first as a group and then in private.
...claim to be a straight-shooter, and that whatever you say stays in that room. Then go about firing anyone who didn't claim that it was their lifelong dream to work for your company as well as anyone who voiced any criticism of your company.
(I've seen it happen. Had a manager once who thought it was a good idea to fire anyone who didn't think their current job was his/her "dream job", thereby ensuring only motivated, happy employees. Somehow, it didn't work.)
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you criticize him, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have his shoes."
I don't know who said it, but it's the first thing I think of these days when people talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
Anyhow, for the people criticizing this guy for whining, remember that this is the whole point of the "walk a mile..." saying. Everyone's life is filled with trouble. That's what life is. Some may have it better, and some may have it worse, but if you think anyone has it so good that they deserve to be hurt, then you probably don't understand what that person's life is really like.
I didn't complain that there are too many browsers. Like Linux distros, make as many as you want, but that doesn't mean that all of them will be successful. In fact, what I was saying, I think, goes for Linux distros too.
The point is that we already have sufficient choice that most people aren't sitting around saying, "You know, we need another!" New Linux distributions and web browsers are fine, but there isn't currently a shortage. Therefore, if you're releasing a new one and you want to make a big splash, it'll help if you can differentiate yourself from the herd, and show up-front that there are some clear/strong advantages to your software.
And I'm not even saying that Flock doesn't have it, but I don't really "get it" yet. And I may well be their target audience. It may be a marketing problem, that they're trying to hook into the viral marketing thing of being mysterious by not being very clear of what the vision and features are. Or maybe I just need to spend some more time on the browser and their website to figure it out.
I'm going to predict this will pretty much get a bit of hype, then slowly (or not so slowly) fade away into the mists of the Interweb.
Seriously. If there's one thing I think most people can agree on, it's that the number of successful web browsers seems bounded pretty low. You've pretty much got IE, Firefox/Mozilla, Opera, and Safari. I imagine that those are the only browsers showing up with at least 5% in server logs, but in the past there have been many more, some getting more attention than others.
I don't think it's just a problem of, we have too many browsers, or that this new browser doesn't add any nice features. I think the real question is, is it clear enough what the benefit of using "Flock" is?
I think most people right now think of there being two kinds of browsers: IE, that feature-poor default browser that gets blamed for all the security problems-- and then just "everything else". Firefox, Safari, Camino, and Opera all fit into the "everything else" category, and though they may be different from each other, they all offer the advantages of tabs, pop-up blocking, RSS feeds, and not-being-IE. Everyone has their favorite, but I don't think, for the most part, any of them distinguish themselves greatly enough to be much more than a matter of preference. None of them quite make it to be THE browser to use.
So I think the question might be something like: Are the benefits of Flock clear enough to distinguish itself as THE browser to use, or will Flock become just another on the list of maybes. I think if it sticks on the list of maybes, inertia alone will keep it from displacing any of the other bigger browsers very much.
I'm not talking about whether Flock is good or not, but are the benefits going to be clear to joe-schmoe. With tabs and pop-up blockers, it's rather easy to show those things to my parents and explain, this is why you want this browser. Are the benefits that clear with Flock? I'll tell you, I'm not even sure I understand what's supposed to be good about this new browser yet.
If they can't answer that question, I'd say they'll be trapped with a bit of a marketing problem. There's the niche of technical people who use flickr and blog alot who might appreciate the features, but they can be a tough crowd to hold on to en masse. Without capturing the imagination of a larger audience, I don't know if they'll be able to reach critical mass.
More like, "OSX is a UNIX so you *can* get the good UNIX tools, but the good UNIX apps that run on X11 will look like crap, and fail to use many of the advantages of the operating system"
And what do you mean by "a proprietary GUI version"? It's still open source. OpenOffice always had a GUI. There are already ports to different operating systems (Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, FreeBSD) and different platforms (x86, SPARC, PPC). Yes, there's already an OSX port, but it just uses X11, which is a problem. There's already a working Carbon port which was written, from what I understand, by 2 (yes, only 2) programmers, who were working in their spare time.
If you ask me, the fact that OpenOffice has ignored OSX for so long is a little silly, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have their reasons.
I could understand the "free phone calls" idea. We have text chatting for free, and it's not hard to imagine that voice stuff will become more common there. As far as I can think, the only reason people get away with charging for VoIP is that it needs to transition, at some point, to the normal voice network to get phone calls to people with normal phones. If we're all VoIP, then I don't see how it's any different from other internet transmissions.
What I don't see, however, is the "supported by advertising". Not if, by that, he means that you'll have to listen to advertising before/after/during the call. Maybe if he means in a round about way, like Google's jabber service is run by google, who runs on advertising.
Generally, though, paying for high-bandwidth service should be enough. If we have to, we can make direct connections for voice transmissions. No one needs to be charging me for that beyond my normal ISP price.
It's not nonsense. All I'm saying is, if you need a laptop (not just think laptops are cool, but actually need one), but don't carry your laptop around, you don't represent the majority of people purchasing laptops.
Also, if you need a laptop, carry it around regularly, and: 1) need more power than can be squeezed into a 6 lbs. laptop 2) won't find an extra 4 lbs off-putting (it doesn't sound like a lot, but walk around with it for a while) 3) need the extra screen size with you (meaning you wouldn't be better served by plugging into a larger monitor at home/work) 4) actually need and *make use of* these things, not just that you think it's cool than I would again say you don't represent most of the people who are buying laptops.
As far as external monitors/input, laptops are really bad ergonomically. Either you have to hold the keyboard up somehow (which is bad for you) or you have to hunch over to look at the screen (which is bad for you). If you just need a computer that you can cart around, and you'll want the extra screen for big projects, do yourself a favor and buy a little laptop, and splurge for an external monitor/keyboard/mouse for those big projects.
I'm not even claiming that there aren't a fair number of people who have these other needs, for whom big/heavy laptops are good. Nor am I claiming that the market of people with those needs shouldn't be served. However, when a reviewer writes a review for a product, he's not necessarily going to evaluate the product several different times in the context of every different possible consumer group. Like I said, a thorough reviewer might mention a few possible alternative situations, but most reviewers are going to review for the context of the majority of consumers in their target audience.
So, if your target audience is business users, or even most consumers who will be shopping for a laptop, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a laptop's ratings suffer for being 8 lbs. Some of these 14 pound laptops should probably be outright dismissed without a warning: This laptop is not actually portable; you may as well buy a desktop and duct-tape an lcd to it.
No, it's totally new knowledge. See, now we know that habits are hard to break because of neural patterns. Before, we just thought it had to do with our brains, but now we know it's neural patterns.
Oh yeah, that little "CC" button. It might as well be labeled "CYA". The trick is, don't do anything too ballsy. When your boss sends you a message criticizing the CEO, don't CC the CEO in your response. Nothing like that. It makes you look bad too, because it's obvious you're playing games.
Instead, send out a generic message like, "What are my priorities? Speed, quality, or features?" CC a bunch of people, including peers and your bosses boss. Make it sound like you're just genuinely concerned that you're setting your priorities properly. Wait for the responses.
If your boss and your bosses boss both respond only to you (meaning they haven't seen each other's message), giving conflicting answers, reply again to both of them, perhaps the whole group, asking for clarification. "Dan said speed, but Bill said quality. Which should I follow?" Pretend to be genuinely confused. Play dumb. Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
Please the boss that can give you the raise and fire you.
... and make him give you directions by e-mail. Keep all your e-mail. That way, when following his directions screws everything up and he tells upper-management that it was your fault, you have documentation that you were only following directions.
The word is that they're working on making a Cocoa-based version (which will be really nice for Mac users). In the mean time, NeoOffice is the best thing going for a port of OOo to OS X, though it lags behind the other OOo ports (it's not a port from this newly released OOo 2.0, but more like 1.1.4, I think).
Someone (here?) recently made a very convincing argument that journalists consistently give light-and-thin laptops much better ratings (on average) than heavier notebooks, even though the two are really for two different things. Why? Because all journalists seem to have roughly the same usage pattern - cart laptop around on plane, use it to take notes at the conference, post stories from hotel room using WiFi, and so forth. Thus, journalists need a smaller laptop, and thus give them better reviews, but unfairly bash larger ones as being inadequate. They are - but only if you're a journalist who's running around all the time. A college student who just wants something he can leave on his dorm room desk, but easily take home on break, is probably going to prefer a larger, more powerful notebook or DTR.
It's true enough that the journalists aren't considering every possible need, and a good journalist would take note, at least, that the heavy laptop isn't bad if you're going to leave it on your desk all the time. However, in fairness, for most of us, heavy laptops do stink. Anything over, I don't know exactly, but around 6 lbs.-- it's just not worth carrying anywhere.
So yes, there are instances when these huge and heavy laptops are useful, but it's sort of a niche market. Though it might still warrant mention in a thorough review, most of the people for whom it really makes sense to buy a laptop are those who will want a machine they can pick up and take with them. After going to college during the great laptop revolution, as well as working in IT for several years now, I'd attribute a lot of the heavy-laptop purchases to a sort of laptop fetish. Guys who really want a desktop, but the mere idea of a laptop is too sexy to give up. The result is that they're hunched over their laptops playing some FPS all day (because laptops are inherently bad for ergonomics) and never take the things *anywhere*.
So in my mind, it'd be like a movie reviewer saying, "Doom is a bad movie" rather than "Doom is a bad movie, but if you're in the mood for a dumb, mindless, action movie starring a wrestler and some mutant zombies, you might like it." The first statement isn't wrong, but yes, there might be some people in the mood for a dumb movie.
(disclaimer: I haven't actually seen Doom, but it looks really bad)
There are entire newsrooms, such as the one at Forbes, that consist entirely of Macintoshes. Apparently nobody but me finds this weird.
Why would that be weird? Is it weird if the entire newsroom were Microsoft Machines? Would it be weird if they were all Dells?
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this),
Wait... I just need to stop here. Why do we care if he's ever asked a woman? Ok, forget it, let's go back...
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this), all say that they use a Mac "because it is better." Right. And that attitude doesn't affect coverage now, does it?
Yeah, so when a tech columnist sits down to write an article about new/cool technology (sort of their job), they choose to write about the technology that they, as professionals, believe to be "better". Yeah, I'm still completely failing to see the problem here.
Microsoft should make some headway with this biased crowd once the fanciful Xbox 360 arrives. It's got a creative GUI, is easy to use and navigate, and kind of has a Mac look to it. It also interfaces perfectly with the iPod. "Oh golly gee whiz wow!" And that feature alone will be the clincher.
If he's so utterly unbiased, why does he care so much when Microsoft will 'get their due'. And, well, yes, it's been a while since a release of Windows or Office, so releasing their first major product in several years will probably get them into tech columns. Having a great GUI and the ability to interface with the most popular MP3 player around certainly won't hurt. So... what's all the whining about?
Go off-topic with John C. Dvorak
Oh, he's not just off-topic, he's irrelevant, and apparently a bit out of his mind as well.
According to John Dvorak of PC Mag, no one seems to point out the connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs.
Hmmm.... so people who like Macintoshes enough to use them should be disqualified from voicing their opinions because they've demonstrated a preference for Macs? Any possibility that, you know, they use Macs for good reason?
This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer. With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good.
Ok, so, I think I'm beginning to understand. You need some genius-level technical prowess to get a Windows computer to work, so as coverage is turned over to normal people, they're bound to prefer Macintoshes. Without being Microsoft-biased, Microsoft cannot look good.
The company essentially brought this on itself with various PR and marketing policies that discouraged knowledgeable coverage.
Huh? Which company? Apple? So Apple "brought this on themselves", the 'this' being good press, by various marketing/PR policies? In other words, their marketing/PR is effective? Is that a criticism?
Or does he mean Microsoft brought it on themselves by marketing with FUD? And finally...
He feels the newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias and are also Mac users.
From the news I see, I'd say editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see any of their biases. Or else they're paid off by their advertisers, as PC Magazine seems to be.
I see what you mean. Still, the question from the OP was, "why not have word processors use it??" In response, I would say you *could* use html+css as the default format for exchanging text information, but it just isn't an ideal solution. html+css wasn't created for the purpose and wouldn't hold all the right information properly. (or else it'd take a lot of trickery to hide things, and maybe embed javascript and such)
That wouldn't prevent someone from making a web browser plugin that could translate the XML of the known filetype into a readable web page, however. The XML format just has to be supported.
I think I specified without "buying extra hardware". Many computers (I would say "most") don't have SD card readers. Palms connect with USB already. Why can't they make the Palm work as an efficient SD card reader as well? Why should I have to buy an SD card reader to allow me to access files from a device that reads SD cards and connects through my computer already? It's looney.
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that you need to separate the people who lay down the lines and the people who provide the service?
I'm not proposing a solution. I don't understand enough to know what the solution is, but everyone seems to be saying that the problem is that one company puts down the infrastructure, and that company then has a monopoly to provide service. Would it help if (hypothetically) we had a public/shared infrastructure (cabling and such), through which various companies were able to provide support, DNS, web hosting, etc.? For example, there are other ISPs that run on top of Verizon's infrastructure, right? If Verizon were forbidden (just as a hypothetical) from serving as an ISP, if they were given a choice, either you can rent out the infrastructure, or you can provide services, but not both, would that help at all?
Or is there an argument to be made that the Internet infrastructure is like our roads? It's infrastructure necessary for economic sustenance, and therefore properly a public work? What if there were a federal program to ensure some free infrastructure nationwide, similar to our interstate highway system, and local areas controlled local connections the same way as local roads, and private companies controlled whatever was metaphorically equivalent to our driveways?
It just makes sense to me that giving one ISP a monopoly in an area is just as bad as having the government run it. Worse, maybe, because there's a conflict of interest when it comes to upgrading infrastructure. A company is focused on profits, and it will rarely be profitable for a monopoly to upgrade infrastructure unless it they can increase the price. People will need an internet connection, and if you're the only game in town, they're paying you pretty much whatever price you set. The only motivation to lower prices is to increase subscribers who might otherwise opt to "do without", but these days, you practically need an internet connection.
Believe me, I'm not any kind of a socialist. I generally think we should keep the government out of as many issues as possible. But is it true that we need to somehow separate the ISPs (which are "Internet *Service* Providers") from the Internet infrastructure providers? If so, is there a practical way to do this without the infrastructure being dealt with like our other infrastructures (roads)? Must the government impose an antitrust restriction between those who provide the network and those who provide the services/content? Can we achieve this separation, as consumers, through a free market?
Yeah, I completely understand. I meant it when I said "good idea". It doesn't seem like it'd be hard for them to do, but it makes sense that if they're willing to offer the whole season for $35 (which is what they're asking for the first seasons of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives"), then why not offer it ahead of time, as a subscription model?
If Apple has any hope for this to become a real alternative distribution method for TV shows, they'll have to improve the store some more. I think they know this, and the current form of the TV sales and video on the iPod are, in Steve Jobs' mind, stepping stones. They're testing the waters. To take over the world, they'll eventually need to have a huge selection of shows at higher resolutions than 320x240. They might have to drop prices some, make a method of easy streaming to TV, improve the buying experience, and probably some other things. Apple seems very concerned with the end-user experience, and I'm sure they're trying to work it all out.
In fact, I'm probably going to submit the same request (for a subscription model for purchasing shows). It's not just about giving them the idea, but showing that a multitude of users want the feature. Even though I don't anticipate subscribing to anything, it's a good idea, and it'd be nice to have the option.
It certainly helps, but that doesn't really get around the problem we experience on the web all the time: different web browsers display the same HTML[+CSS] differently. Plus there are different HTML standards (the different versions, strict/transitional, XHTML).
So, if you wanted to use HTML, it would help to create a stricter version of something like XHTML that was more focused on dealing with the issues of office document creation/editing/viewing. Instead of being clever, I'll come out and say it: XML. It's the conclusion that most everyone has come to, including Microsoft. (Microsoft has just caught some flack for putting binary data into their XML, meaning it still isn't open)
Sure, you're correct to point out that CSS allows for formatting for different media, including the printed page. However, even HTML+CSS does not (yet) give you the consistency, flexibility, and features that most people demand from an office suite. Maybe it will after some more revisions of those standards, but I think these developers are doing the appropriate thing to be creating their own custom XML schemas.
It doesn't need to be anything that should be in the format. They could have some feature in Word that only works if you're dealing with a Word.doc document. Of course, I can't think of any new features since Office 97 that I use anyway. If it let's me type, do some formatting, spell-check, and print, I'm good.
But, you know, they could claim that there's some obscure language setting embedded in the document, and without that, new versions of Word won't do spell-checking or word count, and fonts will randomly switch to other fonts. Like I said, it doesn't have to make any sense. They just have to do it, and absorb any lawsuit settlements as "cost of doing business".
What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.
And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.
There is another possibility here. Sometimes people voice extreme views like this because they're stupid enough to think it will convince people. On the other hand, some people do it knowing that no one will be convinced. His goal may not be to convince either the video game players or the people who already think video games are dangerous. He may be purposefully inciting animosity between the two groups. If he's looking for a way to seize some sort of political power by scaring the crap out of people who are afraid of video games and feeding their paranoia, this all might be a rather successful venture. Inciting passionate and hateful responses from the opposition will serve to reenforce the fear that he needs to gain support.
Oh, well, because you have a web site that agrees with you, you must be right!
More seriously, your complaints (as well as the person who wrote for this web site) are more appropriately considered complaints about some viewer or another. "Interface standards"? PDFs don't have interfaces. "It won't all display on one screen"? You must be using a crappy viewer.
Now, I'll agree that if you're talking about most cases of information being viewed on the web through a web browser, than HTML is going to be a superior choice.
However, HTML doesn't allow you to have a single file, containing all design elements (including embedded pictures and fonts), that will show with exactly the same formatting/layout no matter what platform you view it from.
It's all about using the correct format for the task. If I'm posting some text on my web site, I should use HTML. If I'm sending a document via e-mail, I want a single document that will maintain my layout and design very strictly, and I don't really care if the recipient can edit the file easily, PDF is probably a much better choice. HTML will force you to transmit a bunch of different files, and different browsers will display the same HTML very differently.
When you get down to it, the PDF standard does a very good job for what it is intended to do. It creates a single file with strict enough layout information that you can be assured that it should display the same on any computer, and also on printed media. Your complaints about Adobe Acrobat as a viewer, while valid, are a different matter.
Advertising, in my opinion, is a huge reason behind the controversy.
Of course it is. From the viewer's point of view, the TV show is the product which we're getting for free, or for the price of cable. Commercials are some annoying things that interrupt the show. From the TV network's point of view, the show is advertising, and you are the product being sold to advertisers. I didn't come up with this idea myself, but just think about it for a second. According to the network's business, ultimately, you are not the customer. Advertisers are the customers, and your viewership is what they're selling. Your time, your eyes, your attention.
Take advertising out of the equation, and the whole business changes. Ok, so maybe it won't change too much from the HBO/pay-per-view model, but for ABC it certainly does.
Now, I'm not saying that it's all good or that it's all bad. I have no idea what effect this will really have. But if you ask, "will a new distribution model which cuts affiliates and advertisers out of TV change TV?" the answer is, of course, yes. It will thrill some people, piss off others. Some business will boom, and some will fall apart. Most likely, a lot of advertising will switch from commercial interruptions to product-placement. Some people will be just as happy to do away with interruptions, and some people will be annoyed that product-placement ruins the artistic integrity of the show; some advertisers will love the opportunity to be creative with product placement, and some advertisers will be upset at the loss of revenue that interruptions represented.
One question I have is, how will this effect the creation of new shows? Let's assume for a second that pay-per-episode distribution becomes dominant (which isn't a safe assumption). Right now, new shows, struggling to find an audience, survive for a while because networks need to fill the time slot. No matter what, they're showing ads, so the show is generating some sort of revenue right away. People will give a new show a change "because it's on". (admit it, there have been shows or movies that you've watched longer than you wanted to because that just happened to be on)
So, hypothetically, will this distribution model shorten the window between release of a new show and when it needs to find it's audience? I don't know. There are plenty of things to consider here, including the fact that TV networks will pull a show because it's not performing well enough, whereas they'd have no real reason to pull a download from availability merely because there aren't enough viewers. Maybe it would lengthen the window new shows have to prove themselves.
Maybe it will break the control networks have over television shows in general. Networks wouldn't be in a position (or need) to pick and choose shows the same way. If a show had sufficient funding/sales, it would exist. Things like the cancellation of Serenity and Farscape might not happen. A cult following might be enough to keep them in business, so long as they can keep their budget in a range that the cult-following can support. I guess that's what it comes down to for me: Would this distribution method raise or lower the quality of programming available? It's not so clear to me.
I mean, I see where I can order the Season 1 of stuff, like Lost, but where is the option to order the season up front? It would be a lot nicer to get the discount and the timeliness all at once. Like if I wanted to subscribe to get all of Lost Season 2, I can't seem to find that (although I actually don't watch Lost).
Good idea. Submit a request to apple for allowing you to buy subscriptions to shows upfront.
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it soon. They probably haven't thought of it because (I bet) they don't really expect people to actually buy whole seasons (at least not yet). If I were going to buy a whole season, I'd probably buy the DVDs. I'm more likely to try to catch my episodes of Lost as they run, and use iTMS to catch the occasional episodes I've missed.
However, if this really does catch on, and they get more shows on board, I'd expect they'll improve the process a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
...claim to be a straight-shooter, and that whatever you say stays in that room. Then go about firing anyone who didn't claim that it was their lifelong dream to work for your company as well as anyone who voiced any criticism of your company.
(I've seen it happen. Had a manager once who thought it was a good idea to fire anyone who didn't think their current job was his/her "dream job", thereby ensuring only motivated, happy employees. Somehow, it didn't work.)
I don't know who said it, but it's the first thing I think of these days when people talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
Anyhow, for the people criticizing this guy for whining, remember that this is the whole point of the "walk a mile..." saying. Everyone's life is filled with trouble. That's what life is. Some may have it better, and some may have it worse, but if you think anyone has it so good that they deserve to be hurt, then you probably don't understand what that person's life is really like.
(That's one idea, anyway)
The point is that we already have sufficient choice that most people aren't sitting around saying, "You know, we need another!" New Linux distributions and web browsers are fine, but there isn't currently a shortage. Therefore, if you're releasing a new one and you want to make a big splash, it'll help if you can differentiate yourself from the herd, and show up-front that there are some clear/strong advantages to your software.
And I'm not even saying that Flock doesn't have it, but I don't really "get it" yet. And I may well be their target audience. It may be a marketing problem, that they're trying to hook into the viral marketing thing of being mysterious by not being very clear of what the vision and features are. Or maybe I just need to spend some more time on the browser and their website to figure it out.
Seriously. If there's one thing I think most people can agree on, it's that the number of successful web browsers seems bounded pretty low. You've pretty much got IE, Firefox/Mozilla, Opera, and Safari. I imagine that those are the only browsers showing up with at least 5% in server logs, but in the past there have been many more, some getting more attention than others.
I don't think it's just a problem of, we have too many browsers, or that this new browser doesn't add any nice features. I think the real question is, is it clear enough what the benefit of using "Flock" is?
I think most people right now think of there being two kinds of browsers: IE, that feature-poor default browser that gets blamed for all the security problems-- and then just "everything else". Firefox, Safari, Camino, and Opera all fit into the "everything else" category, and though they may be different from each other, they all offer the advantages of tabs, pop-up blocking, RSS feeds, and not-being-IE. Everyone has their favorite, but I don't think, for the most part, any of them distinguish themselves greatly enough to be much more than a matter of preference. None of them quite make it to be THE browser to use.
So I think the question might be something like: Are the benefits of Flock clear enough to distinguish itself as THE browser to use, or will Flock become just another on the list of maybes. I think if it sticks on the list of maybes, inertia alone will keep it from displacing any of the other bigger browsers very much.
I'm not talking about whether Flock is good or not, but are the benefits going to be clear to joe-schmoe. With tabs and pop-up blockers, it's rather easy to show those things to my parents and explain, this is why you want this browser. Are the benefits that clear with Flock? I'll tell you, I'm not even sure I understand what's supposed to be good about this new browser yet.
If they can't answer that question, I'd say they'll be trapped with a bit of a marketing problem. There's the niche of technical people who use flickr and blog alot who might appreciate the features, but they can be a tough crowd to hold on to en masse. Without capturing the imagination of a larger audience, I don't know if they'll be able to reach critical mass.
And what do you mean by "a proprietary GUI version"? It's still open source. OpenOffice always had a GUI. There are already ports to different operating systems (Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, FreeBSD) and different platforms (x86, SPARC, PPC). Yes, there's already an OSX port, but it just uses X11, which is a problem. There's already a working Carbon port which was written, from what I understand, by 2 (yes, only 2) programmers, who were working in their spare time.
If you ask me, the fact that OpenOffice has ignored OSX for so long is a little silly, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have their reasons.
What I don't see, however, is the "supported by advertising". Not if, by that, he means that you'll have to listen to advertising before/after/during the call. Maybe if he means in a round about way, like Google's jabber service is run by google, who runs on advertising.
Generally, though, paying for high-bandwidth service should be enough. If we have to, we can make direct connections for voice transmissions. No one needs to be charging me for that beyond my normal ISP price.
It's not nonsense. All I'm saying is, if you need a laptop (not just think laptops are cool, but actually need one), but don't carry your laptop around, you don't represent the majority of people purchasing laptops.
Also, if you need a laptop, carry it around regularly, and:
1) need more power than can be squeezed into a 6 lbs. laptop
2) won't find an extra 4 lbs off-putting (it doesn't sound like a lot, but walk around with it for a while)
3) need the extra screen size with you (meaning you wouldn't be better served by plugging into a larger monitor at home/work)
4) actually need and *make use of* these things, not just that you think it's cool
than I would again say you don't represent most of the people who are buying laptops.
As far as external monitors/input, laptops are really bad ergonomically. Either you have to hold the keyboard up somehow (which is bad for you) or you have to hunch over to look at the screen (which is bad for you). If you just need a computer that you can cart around, and you'll want the extra screen for big projects, do yourself a favor and buy a little laptop, and splurge for an external monitor/keyboard/mouse for those big projects.
I'm not even claiming that there aren't a fair number of people who have these other needs, for whom big/heavy laptops are good. Nor am I claiming that the market of people with those needs shouldn't be served. However, when a reviewer writes a review for a product, he's not necessarily going to evaluate the product several different times in the context of every different possible consumer group. Like I said, a thorough reviewer might mention a few possible alternative situations, but most reviewers are going to review for the context of the majority of consumers in their target audience.
So, if your target audience is business users, or even most consumers who will be shopping for a laptop, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a laptop's ratings suffer for being 8 lbs. Some of these 14 pound laptops should probably be outright dismissed without a warning: This laptop is not actually portable; you may as well buy a desktop and duct-tape an lcd to it.
No, it's totally new knowledge. See, now we know that habits are hard to break because of neural patterns. Before, we just thought it had to do with our brains, but now we know it's neural patterns.
Oh yeah, that little "CC" button. It might as well be labeled "CYA". The trick is, don't do anything too ballsy. When your boss sends you a message criticizing the CEO, don't CC the CEO in your response. Nothing like that. It makes you look bad too, because it's obvious you're playing games.
Instead, send out a generic message like, "What are my priorities? Speed, quality, or features?" CC a bunch of people, including peers and your bosses boss. Make it sound like you're just genuinely concerned that you're setting your priorities properly. Wait for the responses.
If your boss and your bosses boss both respond only to you (meaning they haven't seen each other's message), giving conflicting answers, reply again to both of them, perhaps the whole group, asking for clarification. "Dan said speed, but Bill said quality. Which should I follow?" Pretend to be genuinely confused. Play dumb. Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
... and make him give you directions by e-mail. Keep all your e-mail. That way, when following his directions screws everything up and he tells upper-management that it was your fault, you have documentation that you were only following directions.
BTW, what's IMAO?
It's true enough that the journalists aren't considering every possible need, and a good journalist would take note, at least, that the heavy laptop isn't bad if you're going to leave it on your desk all the time. However, in fairness, for most of us, heavy laptops do stink. Anything over, I don't know exactly, but around 6 lbs.-- it's just not worth carrying anywhere.
So yes, there are instances when these huge and heavy laptops are useful, but it's sort of a niche market. Though it might still warrant mention in a thorough review, most of the people for whom it really makes sense to buy a laptop are those who will want a machine they can pick up and take with them. After going to college during the great laptop revolution, as well as working in IT for several years now, I'd attribute a lot of the heavy-laptop purchases to a sort of laptop fetish. Guys who really want a desktop, but the mere idea of a laptop is too sexy to give up. The result is that they're hunched over their laptops playing some FPS all day (because laptops are inherently bad for ergonomics) and never take the things *anywhere*.
So in my mind, it'd be like a movie reviewer saying, "Doom is a bad movie" rather than "Doom is a bad movie, but if you're in the mood for a dumb, mindless, action movie starring a wrestler and some mutant zombies, you might like it." The first statement isn't wrong, but yes, there might be some people in the mood for a dumb movie.
(disclaimer: I haven't actually seen Doom, but it looks really bad)
Why would that be weird? Is it weird if the entire newsroom were Microsoft Machines? Would it be weird if they were all Dells?
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this),
Wait... I just need to stop here. Why do we care if he's ever asked a woman? Ok, forget it, let's go back...
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this), all say that they use a Mac "because it is better." Right. And that attitude doesn't affect coverage now, does it?
Yeah, so when a tech columnist sits down to write an article about new/cool technology (sort of their job), they choose to write about the technology that they, as professionals, believe to be "better". Yeah, I'm still completely failing to see the problem here.
Microsoft should make some headway with this biased crowd once the fanciful Xbox 360 arrives. It's got a creative GUI, is easy to use and navigate, and kind of has a Mac look to it. It also interfaces perfectly with the iPod. "Oh golly gee whiz wow!" And that feature alone will be the clincher.
If he's so utterly unbiased, why does he care so much when Microsoft will 'get their due'. And, well, yes, it's been a while since a release of Windows or Office, so releasing their first major product in several years will probably get them into tech columns. Having a great GUI and the ability to interface with the most popular MP3 player around certainly won't hurt. So... what's all the whining about?
Go off-topic with John C. Dvorak
Oh, he's not just off-topic, he's irrelevant, and apparently a bit out of his mind as well.
Hmmm.... so people who like Macintoshes enough to use them should be disqualified from voicing their opinions because they've demonstrated a preference for Macs? Any possibility that, you know, they use Macs for good reason?
This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer. With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good.
Ok, so, I think I'm beginning to understand. You need some genius-level technical prowess to get a Windows computer to work, so as coverage is turned over to normal people, they're bound to prefer Macintoshes. Without being Microsoft-biased, Microsoft cannot look good.
The company essentially brought this on itself with various PR and marketing policies that discouraged knowledgeable coverage.
Huh? Which company? Apple? So Apple "brought this on themselves", the 'this' being good press, by various marketing/PR policies? In other words, their marketing/PR is effective? Is that a criticism?
Or does he mean Microsoft brought it on themselves by marketing with FUD? And finally...
He feels the newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias and are also Mac users.
From the news I see, I'd say editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see any of their biases. Or else they're paid off by their advertisers, as PC Magazine seems to be.
That wouldn't prevent someone from making a web browser plugin that could translate the XML of the known filetype into a readable web page, however. The XML format just has to be supported.
I think I specified without "buying extra hardware". Many computers (I would say "most") don't have SD card readers. Palms connect with USB already. Why can't they make the Palm work as an efficient SD card reader as well? Why should I have to buy an SD card reader to allow me to access files from a device that reads SD cards and connects through my computer already? It's looney.
I'm not proposing a solution. I don't understand enough to know what the solution is, but everyone seems to be saying that the problem is that one company puts down the infrastructure, and that company then has a monopoly to provide service. Would it help if (hypothetically) we had a public/shared infrastructure (cabling and such), through which various companies were able to provide support, DNS, web hosting, etc.? For example, there are other ISPs that run on top of Verizon's infrastructure, right? If Verizon were forbidden (just as a hypothetical) from serving as an ISP, if they were given a choice, either you can rent out the infrastructure, or you can provide services, but not both, would that help at all?
Or is there an argument to be made that the Internet infrastructure is like our roads? It's infrastructure necessary for economic sustenance, and therefore properly a public work? What if there were a federal program to ensure some free infrastructure nationwide, similar to our interstate highway system, and local areas controlled local connections the same way as local roads, and private companies controlled whatever was metaphorically equivalent to our driveways?
It just makes sense to me that giving one ISP a monopoly in an area is just as bad as having the government run it. Worse, maybe, because there's a conflict of interest when it comes to upgrading infrastructure. A company is focused on profits, and it will rarely be profitable for a monopoly to upgrade infrastructure unless it they can increase the price. People will need an internet connection, and if you're the only game in town, they're paying you pretty much whatever price you set. The only motivation to lower prices is to increase subscribers who might otherwise opt to "do without", but these days, you practically need an internet connection.
Believe me, I'm not any kind of a socialist. I generally think we should keep the government out of as many issues as possible. But is it true that we need to somehow separate the ISPs (which are "Internet *Service* Providers") from the Internet infrastructure providers? If so, is there a practical way to do this without the infrastructure being dealt with like our other infrastructures (roads)? Must the government impose an antitrust restriction between those who provide the network and those who provide the services/content? Can we achieve this separation, as consumers, through a free market?
If Apple has any hope for this to become a real alternative distribution method for TV shows, they'll have to improve the store some more. I think they know this, and the current form of the TV sales and video on the iPod are, in Steve Jobs' mind, stepping stones. They're testing the waters. To take over the world, they'll eventually need to have a huge selection of shows at higher resolutions than 320x240. They might have to drop prices some, make a method of easy streaming to TV, improve the buying experience, and probably some other things. Apple seems very concerned with the end-user experience, and I'm sure they're trying to work it all out.
In fact, I'm probably going to submit the same request (for a subscription model for purchasing shows). It's not just about giving them the idea, but showing that a multitude of users want the feature. Even though I don't anticipate subscribing to anything, it's a good idea, and it'd be nice to have the option.
So, if you wanted to use HTML, it would help to create a stricter version of something like XHTML that was more focused on dealing with the issues of office document creation/editing/viewing. Instead of being clever, I'll come out and say it: XML. It's the conclusion that most everyone has come to, including Microsoft. (Microsoft has just caught some flack for putting binary data into their XML, meaning it still isn't open)
Sure, you're correct to point out that CSS allows for formatting for different media, including the printed page. However, even HTML+CSS does not (yet) give you the consistency, flexibility, and features that most people demand from an office suite. Maybe it will after some more revisions of those standards, but I think these developers are doing the appropriate thing to be creating their own custom XML schemas.
But, you know, they could claim that there's some obscure language setting embedded in the document, and without that, new versions of Word won't do spell-checking or word count, and fonts will randomly switch to other fonts. Like I said, it doesn't have to make any sense. They just have to do it, and absorb any lawsuit settlements as "cost of doing business".
And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.
There is another possibility here. Sometimes people voice extreme views like this because they're stupid enough to think it will convince people. On the other hand, some people do it knowing that no one will be convinced. His goal may not be to convince either the video game players or the people who already think video games are dangerous. He may be purposefully inciting animosity between the two groups. If he's looking for a way to seize some sort of political power by scaring the crap out of people who are afraid of video games and feeding their paranoia, this all might be a rather successful venture. Inciting passionate and hateful responses from the opposition will serve to reenforce the fear that he needs to gain support.
More seriously, your complaints (as well as the person who wrote for this web site) are more appropriately considered complaints about some viewer or another. "Interface standards"? PDFs don't have interfaces. "It won't all display on one screen"? You must be using a crappy viewer.
Now, I'll agree that if you're talking about most cases of information being viewed on the web through a web browser, than HTML is going to be a superior choice.
However, HTML doesn't allow you to have a single file, containing all design elements (including embedded pictures and fonts), that will show with exactly the same formatting/layout no matter what platform you view it from.
It's all about using the correct format for the task. If I'm posting some text on my web site, I should use HTML. If I'm sending a document via e-mail, I want a single document that will maintain my layout and design very strictly, and I don't really care if the recipient can edit the file easily, PDF is probably a much better choice. HTML will force you to transmit a bunch of different files, and different browsers will display the same HTML very differently.
When you get down to it, the PDF standard does a very good job for what it is intended to do. It creates a single file with strict enough layout information that you can be assured that it should display the same on any computer, and also on printed media. Your complaints about Adobe Acrobat as a viewer, while valid, are a different matter.
Of course it is. From the viewer's point of view, the TV show is the product which we're getting for free, or for the price of cable. Commercials are some annoying things that interrupt the show. From the TV network's point of view, the show is advertising, and you are the product being sold to advertisers. I didn't come up with this idea myself, but just think about it for a second. According to the network's business, ultimately, you are not the customer. Advertisers are the customers, and your viewership is what they're selling. Your time, your eyes, your attention.
Take advertising out of the equation, and the whole business changes. Ok, so maybe it won't change too much from the HBO/pay-per-view model, but for ABC it certainly does.
Now, I'm not saying that it's all good or that it's all bad. I have no idea what effect this will really have. But if you ask, "will a new distribution model which cuts affiliates and advertisers out of TV change TV?" the answer is, of course, yes. It will thrill some people, piss off others. Some business will boom, and some will fall apart. Most likely, a lot of advertising will switch from commercial interruptions to product-placement. Some people will be just as happy to do away with interruptions, and some people will be annoyed that product-placement ruins the artistic integrity of the show; some advertisers will love the opportunity to be creative with product placement, and some advertisers will be upset at the loss of revenue that interruptions represented.
One question I have is, how will this effect the creation of new shows? Let's assume for a second that pay-per-episode distribution becomes dominant (which isn't a safe assumption). Right now, new shows, struggling to find an audience, survive for a while because networks need to fill the time slot. No matter what, they're showing ads, so the show is generating some sort of revenue right away. People will give a new show a change "because it's on". (admit it, there have been shows or movies that you've watched longer than you wanted to because that just happened to be on)
So, hypothetically, will this distribution model shorten the window between release of a new show and when it needs to find it's audience? I don't know. There are plenty of things to consider here, including the fact that TV networks will pull a show because it's not performing well enough, whereas they'd have no real reason to pull a download from availability merely because there aren't enough viewers. Maybe it would lengthen the window new shows have to prove themselves.
Maybe it will break the control networks have over television shows in general. Networks wouldn't be in a position (or need) to pick and choose shows the same way. If a show had sufficient funding/sales, it would exist. Things like the cancellation of Serenity and Farscape might not happen. A cult following might be enough to keep them in business, so long as they can keep their budget in a range that the cult-following can support. I guess that's what it comes down to for me: Would this distribution method raise or lower the quality of programming available? It's not so clear to me.
Good idea. Submit a request to apple for allowing you to buy subscriptions to shows upfront.
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it soon. They probably haven't thought of it because (I bet) they don't really expect people to actually buy whole seasons (at least not yet). If I were going to buy a whole season, I'd probably buy the DVDs. I'm more likely to try to catch my episodes of Lost as they run, and use iTMS to catch the occasional episodes I've missed.
However, if this really does catch on, and they get more shows on board, I'd expect they'll improve the process a lot.
You mean, "hacked just as easily"?