We don't all spend our time next to our PC, or wifi.
that's why i called you a niche. most people do have a PC in their home where they return every night at least.
Driving for instance is an example where 3G data caps make a huge difference.
so, 16GB of music isn't enough to last you through a drive? 16GB is about 4,000 thousand songs you know.
So for many of us at least; no we cannot transfer it "several times", but I suspect you already knew this and just wanted to make a point.
what i suspect is that you are turning to nit picking details to try and salvage yourself in this conversation. does this argument fall apart if you can't transfer hundreds of GBs of music files over the network? i never said anything about the cloud until you brought it up out of the blue. forget the cloud. anyone that has a music library has it backed up on a PC. so use that cable thingy i mentioned. no cloud required.
If there was technical uncertainty before they embarked on the HTML5 route - why wouldn't they have done extensive feasibility testing before commencing? Lord knows they have the resources.
good point. and moreover, why not just build both native and web and see what people like? they have the cash.
probably not, since websockets are only supported on modern browsers (IE just started supporting it in v10), and facebook has to support, well, everything.
if you have GB's of data on your iPod classic, it's not in a vacuum. it's sync'd there from your PC. they have this thing called a cable that allows you to transfer your music to your player without the cloud. an amazing little invention really.
also, did you know that every mobile device including the ipod touch supports wifi? the bandwidth caps on wifi are so high that transferring your entire music library back and forth several times would be insignificant.
Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions. The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone. Again, not an easy task at all.
but i thought HTML5 was going to fix all of this. with it being one number higher than HTML4 and all.
the IPO was a massive success for facebook. all the money they collected by selling those stocks is now operating capital. that money belongs to facebook for whatever... expansion, talent, warchest, etc.
and, that's the goal of ANY IPO- get as much money as you can. if zuck did any different he'd be grossly negligent in his duties. yes OBVIOUSLY the company has to continue to grow and make money, which is true regardless of the result of the IPO. yes obviously, the company is betting on future success. that's what any company does.
what would you have had him do? come out publicly and say "look, even though demand sets our stock price at $38, i'm only going to charge $20, because honestly i want all of you to have low expectations of the company and it's growth potential."?
any billionaire male, especially a young reasonably hip one, has women lined up for miles waiting for a chance. this is too much for a mere mortal man to cope with. by the same token, knowing that she can walk away with billions (?) in her name (at some point) is not a lot of incentive to stick it out through the rough times.
so yes, it's a good bet it won't last. of course anything is possible.
Just out of curiosity, have you tried installing a generic copy of Windows on generic hardware? I have. It's not a pleasant experience.
you must have put a lot of work to find PC hardware that didn't support windows.
If you want proper hardware support, either make sure the machine you buy supports Linux
which are essentially non-existent. i went through the exercise of trying to find a laptop that would work well with linux, and i gave up. the web is full of misinformation and outdated workaround for problems. try googling for "gateway linux laptop", you get this page,
Speak for yourself. I develop stuff on Linux, so I'm a developer and user. Much of what you suggest would make it an inferior system, or are plain wrong.
do you even know the article you are responding to? it's about linux desktop adoption rate. good for freaking you that you are a developer, but this article is questioning what linux needs to be adopted by the masses.
the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. if you are good with linux's zero percent desktop penetration, then go along your merry way please.
i know how to FAIL getting traction for linux: blame MSFT. windows (7) isn't perfect but for the most part it just works. the same cannot be said for linux.
my last linux attempt has these problems,
1. DVD writer didn't work 2. screen would never turn off (it'd just go black) 3. battery lastest about 40 minutes 4. video playback looked like it was in 256 colors 5. wouldn't mount the SD card reader media 6. couldn't play DVDs 7. volume keys didn't work, nor did any of the other multimedia keys 7-109.
you fix the linux desktop in the same way OSX fixed unix: by providing an integrated hardware / software platform where everything works together. linux desktop fails because the average person doesn't enjoy spending their nights and weekends chasing down drivers and editing config files.
the linux software itself is fine. the linux desktop experience is fine. the problem is compatibility and amateur drivers. if someone sold a linux laptop at about the same price as a windows laptop and in a package where everything worked together, i'd buy it. but i won't ever again buy a laptop and hope that linux will give me a reasonably untroubled desktop experience.
yes, i hate to admit it, but apple has this magical compression algorithm so they can transfer the same data but use 1/4 the bandwidth. unfortunately, they have patented that so no one else can use it.
Unless you're going to graphics heavy pages, streaming video, or streaming audio for significant time while off wifi then sure - you need more data. But for the non-streaming user, 250MB of mobile data a month is going to cover almost all of it. I would happily jump at a $50/yr plan on my iPad and my phone if I were limited to "only" 250MB/mo.
and what is the kindle fire's purpose? reading web pages with lynx and accessing content from your SD card? it's a content consumption device. it's made to access amazon's store front to purchase and play digital media from amazon. but right, you wouldn't expect anyone to say want to stream a movie from AMAZON video on demand or AMAZON cloud drive, right?
the kindle fire is promoted as a content consumption device. that means cloud based apps, online gaming, music, video, movies, and streaming. with that type of usage, 250MB is nothing.
yes, i said that. that's why it's fairly worthless, and misleading. the fire is promoted as a general-purpose content consumption device for music, video, apps and games, not an e-reader.
also, a 1/2 hour video optimized for mobile playback will exceed 250MB. your comment about blue-ray quality is misleading.
i guess you might not ever know, but if the mined data actually got used in any way, people would start figuring out who's leaking it. if they never used the data against us, i could care less.
that's goes for privacy in general. i don't care what they know about me as long as they don't use it against me. we should be focusing on laws prohibiting the use of personal data. i.e., you aren't allowed to deny me healthcare because of a pre-existing condition, vs. betting you can hide the fact that you have a pre-existing condition. actually keeping the data secret is nigh impossible today and will get 1k times harder in the coming decades.
that, and facebook is not run like a top secret govt agency. things like this tend to get leaked by disgruntled or just honorable employees and ex-employees
so basically, 250MB is plenty as long as you never need to use it. fine, use wifi at home, but if you are actually ever on the road, 250MB isn't enough to do anything but light surfing and download an ebook or two. pay your $50 / year and hundreds of dollars more up front for a service you don't need.
facebook has different motivations than the FBI. facebook wants to make money- that is all. to make money, the need as large of a user base as possible. sharing data w/ the FBI would almost certainly reduce their user base.
on my phone, i use 250MB in 3 days or so. i just checked my nexus 7, and it has used 2GB is a week, and it's sitting idle 90% of the day. if you just left a tablet idle for a month it'd use over 250MB (because of various apps that are performing background data transfers... like email, IM, weather, news, and other basic things everyone has on their device).
250MB is enough to download e-books and read email occasionally. you are SOL of you have ideas of downloading music or movies or streaming anything or playing online games.
Of course there are lots of examples of great tech entrepreneurs who can't write a single line of code, so it's obviously it's not a requirement.
are there examples where the technology in question wasn't built with software? it seems unlikely to me, but i'm more asking a question than anything else. and by tech entrepreneurs, we mean founders, not people that swooped in later with some cash and bought a share of the company.
steve jobs? coder. bill gates? coder. sergey brin? coder. larry ellison? coder. mark z? coder.
like many cities san jose was and is struggling its budget and has laid off workers, cut worker wages, cut pensions and benefits, and cut city services. that didn't stop them from building a new $400M city hall right at the peak of the economic downturn.
the old offices were *fine* (i live across the street from them), and if they needed more space there were (and still are) literally hundreds of large vacant office buildings in san jose that could have been had for cheap.
It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.
right, and when people vote to spend your tax dollars on free donuts and coffee for your city and personal massages for all residents, what will you do then?
The question of which countries' laws should be heeded (if we move beyond just heeding U.S. laws) is complicated, but I think it would have to be the app publisher's country.
actually, it has to be the lowest common denominator of the laws in all countries where the app is available. they aren't going to allow an app with full XXX action for all countries just because it's legal in the publisher's home.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't all spend our time next to our PC, or wifi.
that's why i called you a niche. most people do have a PC in their home where they return every night at least.
Driving for instance is an example where 3G data caps make a huge difference.
so, 16GB of music isn't enough to last you through a drive? 16GB is about 4,000 thousand songs you know.
So for many of us at least; no we cannot transfer it "several times", but I suspect you already knew this and just wanted to make a point.
what i suspect is that you are turning to nit picking details to try and salvage yourself in this conversation. does this argument fall apart if you can't transfer hundreds of GBs of music files over the network? i never said anything about the cloud until you brought it up out of the blue. forget the cloud. anyone that has a music library has it backed up on a PC. so use that cable thingy i mentioned. no cloud required.
If there was technical uncertainty before they embarked on the HTML5 route - why wouldn't they have done extensive feasibility testing before commencing? Lord knows they have the resources.
good point. and moreover, why not just build both native and web and see what people like? they have the cash.
Handshaking on websockets?
probably not, since websockets are only supported on modern browsers (IE just started supporting it in v10), and facebook has to support, well, everything.
if you have GB's of data on your iPod classic, it's not in a vacuum. it's sync'd there from your PC. they have this thing called a cable that allows you to transfer your music to your player without the cloud. an amazing little invention really.
also, did you know that every mobile device including the ipod touch supports wifi? the bandwidth caps on wifi are so high that transferring your entire music library back and forth several times would be insignificant.
Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions. The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone. Again, not an easy task at all.
but i thought HTML5 was going to fix all of this. with it being one number higher than HTML4 and all.
the IPO was a massive success for facebook. all the money they collected by selling those stocks is now operating capital. that money belongs to facebook for whatever ... expansion, talent, warchest, etc.
and, that's the goal of ANY IPO- get as much money as you can. if zuck did any different he'd be grossly negligent in his duties. yes OBVIOUSLY the company has to continue to grow and make money, which is true regardless of the result of the IPO. yes obviously, the company is betting on future success. that's what any company does.
what would you have had him do? come out publicly and say "look, even though demand sets our stock price at $38, i'm only going to charge $20, because honestly i want all of you to have low expectations of the company and it's growth potential."?
any billionaire male, especially a young reasonably hip one, has women lined up for miles waiting for a chance. this is too much for a mere mortal man to cope with. by the same token, knowing that she can walk away with billions (?) in her name (at some point) is not a lot of incentive to stick it out through the rough times.
so yes, it's a good bet it won't last. of course anything is possible.
needing access to 160GB of music files in the middle of nowhere? that's the definition of niche. thanks for proving my point.
I sure hope so, because HDD based players are getting harder and harder to find.
well, yes because they are more expensive to build, use much more battery, and are larger. surprise.
Just out of curiosity, have you tried installing a generic copy of Windows on generic hardware? I have. It's not a pleasant experience.
you must have put a lot of work to find PC hardware that didn't support windows.
If you want proper hardware support, either make sure the machine you buy supports Linux
which are essentially non-existent. i went through the exercise of trying to find a laptop that would work well with linux, and i gave up. the web is full of misinformation and outdated workaround for problems. try googling for "gateway linux laptop", you get this page,
http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/gateway.html
straight out of 1995. i clicked on two links. one was a 404 and the other brought me to an ad portal.
Speak for yourself. I develop stuff on Linux, so I'm a developer and user. Much of what you suggest would make it an inferior system, or are plain wrong.
do you even know the article you are responding to? it's about linux desktop adoption rate. good for freaking you that you are a developer, but this article is questioning what linux needs to be adopted by the masses.
the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. if you are good with linux's zero percent desktop penetration, then go along your merry way please.
i know how to FAIL getting traction for linux: blame MSFT. windows (7) isn't perfect but for the most part it just works. the same cannot be said for linux.
my last linux attempt has these problems,
1. DVD writer didn't work
2. screen would never turn off (it'd just go black)
3. battery lastest about 40 minutes
4. video playback looked like it was in 256 colors
5. wouldn't mount the SD card reader media
6. couldn't play DVDs
7. volume keys didn't work, nor did any of the other multimedia keys
7-109.
you fix the linux desktop in the same way OSX fixed unix: by providing an integrated hardware / software platform where everything works together. linux desktop fails because the average person doesn't enjoy spending their nights and weekends chasing down drivers and editing config files.
the linux software itself is fine. the linux desktop experience is fine. the problem is compatibility and amateur drivers. if someone sold a linux laptop at about the same price as a windows laptop and in a package where everything worked together, i'd buy it. but i won't ever again buy a laptop and hope that linux will give me a reasonably untroubled desktop experience.
yes, i hate to admit it, but apple has this magical compression algorithm so they can transfer the same data but use 1/4 the bandwidth. unfortunately, they have patented that so no one else can use it.
Unless you're going to graphics heavy pages, streaming video, or streaming audio for significant time while off wifi then sure - you need more data. But for the non-streaming user, 250MB of mobile data a month is going to cover almost all of it. I would happily jump at a $50/yr plan on my iPad and my phone if I were limited to "only" 250MB/mo.
and what is the kindle fire's purpose? reading web pages with lynx and accessing content from your SD card? it's a content consumption device. it's made to access amazon's store front to purchase and play digital media from amazon. but right, you wouldn't expect anyone to say want to stream a movie from AMAZON video on demand or AMAZON cloud drive, right?
the kindle fire is promoted as a content consumption device. that means cloud based apps, online gaming, music, video, movies, and streaming. with that type of usage, 250MB is nothing.
yes, i said that. that's why it's fairly worthless, and misleading. the fire is promoted as a general-purpose content consumption device for music, video, apps and games, not an e-reader.
also, a 1/2 hour video optimized for mobile playback will exceed 250MB. your comment about blue-ray quality is misleading.
i guess you might not ever know, but if the mined data actually got used in any way, people would start figuring out who's leaking it. if they never used the data against us, i could care less.
that's goes for privacy in general. i don't care what they know about me as long as they don't use it against me. we should be focusing on laws prohibiting the use of personal data. i.e., you aren't allowed to deny me healthcare because of a pre-existing condition, vs. betting you can hide the fact that you have a pre-existing condition. actually keeping the data secret is nigh impossible today and will get 1k times harder in the coming decades.
that, and facebook is not run like a top secret govt agency. things like this tend to get leaked by disgruntled or just honorable employees and ex-employees
so basically, 250MB is plenty as long as you never need to use it. fine, use wifi at home, but if you are actually ever on the road, 250MB isn't enough to do anything but light surfing and download an ebook or two. pay your $50 / year and hundreds of dollars more up front for a service you don't need.
I just don't understand it.
facebook has different motivations than the FBI. facebook wants to make money- that is all. to make money, the need as large of a user base as possible. sharing data w/ the FBI would almost certainly reduce their user base.
That's a pretty impressive arrangement.
not so much.
on my phone, i use 250MB in 3 days or so. i just checked my nexus 7, and it has used 2GB is a week, and it's sitting idle 90% of the day. if you just left a tablet idle for a month it'd use over 250MB (because of various apps that are performing background data transfers ... like email, IM, weather, news, and other basic things everyone has on their device).
250MB is enough to download e-books and read email occasionally. you are SOL of you have ideas of downloading music or movies or streaming anything or playing online games.
Of course there are lots of examples of great tech entrepreneurs who can't write a single line of code, so it's obviously it's not a requirement.
are there examples where the technology in question wasn't built with software? it seems unlikely to me, but i'm more asking a question than anything else. and by tech entrepreneurs, we mean founders, not people that swooped in later with some cash and bought a share of the company.
steve jobs? coder.
bill gates? coder.
sergey brin? coder.
larry ellison? coder.
mark z? coder.
i can top that.
like many cities san jose was and is struggling its budget and has laid off workers, cut worker wages, cut pensions and benefits, and cut city services. that didn't stop them from building a new $400M city hall right at the peak of the economic downturn.
the old offices were *fine* (i live across the street from them), and if they needed more space there were (and still are) literally hundreds of large vacant office buildings in san jose that could have been had for cheap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_City_Hall
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/04/29/story2.html?page=all
It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.
right, and when people vote to spend your tax dollars on free donuts and coffee for your city and personal massages for all residents, what will you do then?
The question of which countries' laws should be heeded (if we move beyond just heeding U.S. laws) is complicated, but I think it would have to be the app publisher's country.
actually, it has to be the lowest common denominator of the laws in all countries where the app is available. they aren't going to allow an app with full XXX action for all countries just because it's legal in the publisher's home.
in the US, you are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not the happiness.
RTFA. 3G/4G optional. so no, you don't need a phone. if you are a photography buff, this can be your phone.