well, price is certainly a major aspect of it, but it's not the only issue. my point is, casual computer users are becoming a significant market segment independent of business and hobbyist computer users. they have very different needs that aren't really being served by the current focus on increasing processing power.
also, casual users are still being forced to follow the upgrade cycles of hobbyist and high-end professional users just to run mundane software that's just as slow as before because of inefficient programming. there's no reason/justification for this, and they are not seeing any real benefit from such "progress" in computer technology.
i think ASUS's EEE Box ($299) is a step in the right direction. it's small, cheap, low-powered, and boots in just 7 seconds. and although i didn't know this until TrekkieTechie pointed me to the existing NetTops already being sold, it seems that both Intel and AMD have entered the ultra low-power/embedded x86 market that VIA previously had a monopoly on.
i know it's hard to understand this approach from the perspective of a power user. for you, i'm sure "casual computing" includes running a ton of processor-intensive apps that require a 2 GHZ+ processor and 2 GB of RAM, and it's worth for you to shell out an extra few hundred dollars to have the flexibility that you actually require. but consider the people for whom a few hundred extra dollars USD is a lot of money, and who won't actually use the extra power.
ah, thanks bringing these to my attention. i had suspected that such computers were out there somewhere since all the hardware components exist in one form or another, but i didn't realize that there was actually a formal name for these category of devices.
i said create a new category of low-power PCs, not make all computers low-powered.
you think it's the 50-year-old grandmother who uses AOL to check her e-mail and look up cooking recipes that's pushing the limits of computing technology?
and 15 years ago casual computing didn't exist. home PCs were an esoteric gadget for a very small segment of the population. home PCs didn't become popular until Windows 95 came around, and it wasn't until AOL that the internet became popular and made the home PC a standard appliance in every home. it also helped established the boundaries and applications of casual computing as distinct from hobbyist computing.
it's pretty silly to think that simply increasing clock cycles and power consumption is an indication of technological progress. no one is suggesting that people go back to using CRT monitors, ball mouse, wired keyboards, or pentium I processors. but technology should be refined in ways that increase their utility and improve user experience.
building low power systems that can perform casual computing tasks with less load times, heat output, noise, and take up less space would be a step forward. it's just a step forward in a slightly different direction. i mean, would you consider netbooks, smartphones, internet tablets, and other information appliances steps backward in technology just because they're not using the latest quad core CPUs and $1000 video cards?
save your straw man and red herring arguments. if everyone wanted more expensive computers just to run bloated OSes that provided no performance increase then Windows Vista would be flying off the shelves. but that is not progress in most people's eyes. if casual computing evolves to include more processor/resource-intensive applications in the future then of course baseline processor speeds would have to be increased. but right now it's decreasing software efficiency that's driving hardware upgrades in the casual computing market, not more advanced applications such as in the fields of PC gaming/media design/etc.
perhaps you should learn to read more carefully instead making flawed analogies that have nothing to do with the issue. no one is arguing against technological progress or high end systems. but it doesn't take a quad core workstation with 4 GB of RAM to run Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer when these applications are already starting to show up on cellphones and other $200-300 portable devices.
what exactly is Pikiwedia? just a static non-editable version of Wikipedia? it looks exactly like Wikipedia but with all collaborative editing features/links, Wikipedia branding, and basic navigation elements(i.e. search) removed.
the content is copied directly from Wikipedia, and though it doesn't seem completely up to date, it's only about a month outdated. therefore it's not completely static, so you wouldn't be able to cite Pikiwedia pages as a fixed source any more than you could Wikipedia.
at least Answers.com adds additional content/features (dictionary results & pronounciation audio clips) to the Wikipedia articles--and they also have a search feature. frankly, i don't see what value Pikiwedia has aside from being yet another Wikipedia mirror.
this is why i think vendors need to create a category of lower power computers--not just laptops/subnotebooks/tablets. the average user is not using their desktop PC for CAD work, 3d/graphic design, video editing, or playing the latest FPS. most people simply need a computer that can efficiently surf the web, check their e-mail, do spreadsheets/word processing/presentations, play music, and watch the occasional DVD.
instead of developing more and more bloated software that negate simultaneous increases in hardware processing power/speed, we should be making software more efficient so that casual computing can be done on cheaper and cheaper systems that require less power & energy rather than more.
the average user should be able to accomplish everything they need to do using a 700-800 MHz low-power processor with 256 MB of RAM. they'd not only save on their electric bill, but we'd be creating a more sustainable society. besides, unlike the PC gamer, media/graphic design professional, the casual computer user shouldn't need to upgrade their hardware every single year to keep up with increasing resource intensive software.
using a simple & efficient OS tailored to the casual computing, the average consumer could use a cheaper, less powerful machine that still boots up in seconds. but that would require that PC vendors stop pre-installing their systems with cruftware by their software partners.
well, to be fair, if they had to hold your hand through the entire process it'd take a lot more time--since these are usually more complicated inventions than those in Dr. Lee's videos--and so fewer speakers would be able to share their research. i mean, they're seminars not workshops. scientific seminars usually aren't aimed at laymen audiences, so you're expected to have a certain level of knowledge and scientific background. that way speakers can just gloss over the nonessential steps that other researchers involved in the field could be expected to solve on their own. and if you do need clarification, couldn't you just approach the speaker after the presentation?
of course, if the speaker misjudges the education-level/knowledgeability/scientific background of his audience, then he would be wasting his time and everyone else's. so it's important not to assume that the audience already knows everything that you know about the mechanism/method you use to demonstrate your invention or idea. and it's just as important to court the right audience for your seminar.
so true. you have to wonder what cellular networks would be like if they were not closed proprietary infrastructure.
of course there are the obvious things like:
retail phones with mp3 players would actually let you use mp3s as ringtones, instead of forcing you to buy short, low-quality clips of the same songs from your service carrier at a higher cost than the actual song.
calls & text messaging rates would correspond to their actual network costs--the same way e-mails, IMs, voice chat, etc. on the internet do not cost anything extra, but are covered by your ISP fees.
retail phones come with original unrestricted firmware rather than the crippled carrier-rebranded interface that users see.
but there'd be other less-obvious indirect benefits, such as:
better nationwide network coverage--since we'd be using open public networks, cellphone towers would have a natural & more even distribution covering all parts of the country rather than having lots of redundant/competing infrastructure consisting of a bunch of small concentrated clumps of cellular coverage in urban areas with lucrative markets and almost no coverage at all in poorer, more sparsely populated areas.
lower cost of entry to the handset market due to anyone being able to develop devices to use the open networks without carrier approval ($$$). this would lead to more handset makers, meaning lower handset costs & wider selections.
boundless technological innovation and creativity. being unhampered by the draconian rule of the telecoms over their proprietary networks, anyone and everyone will be free to develop new and useful applications for the network. that is what propelled the internet from its primitive beginnings to the thriving online digital ecosystem it is today. such technological process is nonexistent on today's cellular networks because it's up to the carriers alone to implement new cellular applications, and they are adversed to experimenting with new technology prevent.
the development of mobile communications networks would be put back into the hands of the people. right now people only get to pick their handset from a list of preapproved models allowed by their carrier. useless, poorly designed and unncessary technologies (WAP) continue to be forced on consumers. instead of this, consumer demand would drive the adoption of new/useful technology, while bad products/services designed solely to exploit consumers would be immediately dispensed with.
this may seem like a pipe dream right now, but it might happen if wireless access internet becomes a basic public utility like roads and sidewalks. VoIP services like Vonage are already stealling business customers from conventional telecoms because of their competitive pricing. old business models will no longer be viable in the information age as closed proprietary specialized communication networks are assimilated by the open and public internet, which is a generalized communication network that can serve the needs of telecommunication, radio broadcast, TV broadcast, etc.
his point is that the troll's blatant flamebaiting:
This would be an easy fix if users actually had access to things like source that they could compile themselves on the face. Unfortunately, Android is just as locked down and anti-user as anything by Apple, in spite of Google's "open platform" hype.
is untrue.
users do in fact have access to the source and can compile it themselves. whether your phone is currently supported or has open hardware is a different and unrelated matter. you're flaming him on a completely inapt issue. just because he can't compile the linux kernal himself doesn't mean that it's not open source. or just because my copy of Microsoft Word won't read ODF doesn't mean it's not an open format.
not everything, just the popular services that use cloud computing to support tens of thousands of simultaneous users. and i didn't come up with the definition. i just use what's been accepted by the IT community:
Cloud computing is Internet-based ("cloud") development and use of computer technology ("computing"). The cloud is a metaphor for the Internet (based on how it is depicted in computer network diagrams) and is an abstraction for the complex infrastructure it conceals. It is a style of computing in which IT-related capabilities are provided "as a service", allowing users to access technology-enabled services from the Internet ("in the cloud") without knowledge of, expertise with, or control over the technology infrastructure that supports them. Another definition given in a 2008 paper published by IEEE Internet Computing is: "Cloud Computing is a paradigm in which information is permanently stored in servers on the Internet and cached temporarily on clients that include desktops, entertainment centers, table computers, notebooks, wall computers, handhelds, sensors, monitors, etc."
Cloud computing is a general concept that incorporates software as a service (SaaS), Web 2.0 and other recent, well-known technology trends, in which the common theme is reliance on the Internet for satisfying the computing needs of the users. For example, Google Apps provides common business applications online that are accessed from a web browser, while the software and data are stored on the servers.
yes, changing your desktop wallpaper is a sure sign of intelligence and creativity. i approve of the logic of your statement.
i mean, changing your desktop from its default background is much more important than configuring your firewall, re-installing device drivers/your personal applications, restoring backed up files & documents, or setting up your network connection.
and nothing says "i'm a tech savvy hipster" like changing your desktop background to one of the throwback stock wallpapers that came with your OS--like a close-up shot up of wet leaves of grass/a frog/a butterfly, wind-blown sand dunes, tranquil autumn leaves, or any of the other kitsch backgrounds that expresses your personality--after all, what better way to show your sense of individuality than by personalizing your computer with a determined set of wallpapers, user avatars, and desktop icons?
so are you the skateboarder, guitar, soccer ball, or the chess pieces?
::sigh::, Romero could have scored at least another 10 points if he'd only kept his majestic pony-like mane. he's like Samson. his hair is the source of his superhuman powers, and without his glorious chevelure he is just a mere mortal.
i'm not assuming anything. i'm suggesting that it would be a good move on the part of both companies. that doesn't mean that i think either of them will go for it. in fact, it's very unlikely that such a deal would occur. and you seem to immediately contradict yourself right after your first sentence. first you imply that Sony would not accept a partnership with Amazon's ebook distribution system without offering any kind reason for thinking so. then you go on to state that the Sony reader has a nice design, but lacks content, whereas the Kindle looks homely but has "a MASSIVE selection of content and a terrific distribution system." well isn't that exactly what Sony needs/is missing? if a lack of content and distribution system is what's preventing the Sony Reader from succeeding, then why would they not partner up with Amazon? it seems like that would be the only logical thing for them to do.
the fact that the current Kindle doesn't use WiFi doesn't play any part in this deal. Sony Reader/PSP/Zune/iPhone users can just access the Kindle Store website. it's not like EVDO is required to purchase ebooks from the Kindle Store.
and while Apple is currently making most of its money from selling iPods, the iTunes store is quickly dominating the music retail industry. in 2007 they became the 3rd largest music retailer in the U.S. with 10% market share. in 2008 it accounted for 70% of worldwide digital music sales. and despite the RIAA's claims to the otherwise, iTunes has revitalized the music industry and driven net profits up. our indie record label now receives over 75% of our music sales from iTunes alone.
so while iPod sales generated $3.36 billion in revenue for Apple in 2007, the iTunes Store brought in $1.9 billion of Apple's $2.7 billion in total music-related revenue in 2007. and iPod sales appear to be tapering off while iTunes is experiencing continued growth. so it's not inconceivable that iTunes will become an even bigger revenue stream for Apple in the future.
but i agree with you that the PSP/iPhone are not the ideal ebook reader for everyone. my Dad, for instance, simply can't read text printed on the PSP. so he can't really use his PSP as a web browser or an e-book reader. but that doesn't stop millions of young people from using their PSPs and cellphones to read books (if they can read web pages, then why not e-books?). the Japanese have even created an entire literary genre of serial literature that's distributed and consumed entirely by cellphones.
for older users with poorer eyesight or who have to read long, dense technical materials, a dedicated ebook reader like the Kindle is definitely a must. but that's still a niche market. and for the majority of young people whom the PSP & iPhone are aimed at, being able to read e-books on their portable devices would be a huge value add--it's actually my favorite use for the PSP.
there's a difference between software as a service and renting software. when you use the postal system you're not renting the postal network. you're simply using their service. and when you subscribe to broadband, you're not renting the ISP's broadband network. and there's nothing wrong with renting as a payment/service model. when you pay for whether shared or dedicated web hosting, it's rented disk space, hardware use, etc. just like when you rent a house, you keep vital possessions in it without worrying about losing it because you happen to be renting.
those are illogical and unrelated concerns. even if you keep all your data on your own hard drive and run your software on your PC, the PC or hard drive can breakdown; the software vendor can stop supporting your application; and their EULA can have a vendor lock-in clause that prevents you from exporting your own data to an open/accessible format.
all of these problems can be avoided with common sense whether you're using cloud computing or not. if you're hosting an enterprise application on a cloud server, you'll probably have your host perform regular backups. you can even have them send you the back ups so you can have a local copy. but cloud computing has built-in redundancy that should prevent most catastrophic failures. whereas, if your company is running its own web server and it goes down, whether because of a DDoS attack or admin screwup, your business is out of commission until that server is back up; same with vital databases or other production servers.
cloud computing is inherently scalable and reliable--redundant sites make it ideal for business continuity and disaster recovery. they are also arguably more sustainable/carbon-neutral. so people knocking cloud computing generally don't understand the needs of companies like Google who benefit, and actually need, cloud computing. the average end-user does see the importance of cloud computing because they have no web applications that need to be hosted on a cloud. but they rely on cloud computing everyday without knowing it.
the average user uses everyday web service like Gmail, Google, Google Calendar, flickr, digg, Wikipedia, facebook, BitTorrent, SETI@Home, etc. these are all cloud applications. they wouldn't be possible without cloud computing. even if you use Google Apps like Google Docs, if you choose an ethical company like Google who respects consumer rights and gives you the freedom to take you data with you wherever you want, whenever you want (they still treat it as the user's data), you're better off than if you simply used a desktop application. you can still save your Google Docs onto your hard drive, but it also lets you access your files from any computer you want. it has an autosave feature to prevent data loss, a revision history to revert unwanted changes, allows real-time online collaboration, and it lets you tag and archive documents for organization purposes.
network outages are a problem regardless of whether you use cloud computing or not, just like power outages are no reason to not use computers for for crucial business applications. for consumers who aren't living in 3rd world countries with shoddy internet access, cloud applications provide freedom, reliability, redundancy, and other advantages over desktop applications. the occasional internet outage isn't a problem if you have the common sense to keep local copies of crucial documents.
well, Android Market takes 30% as well. according to Google, developers are required to pay a one time $25 application fee when they register, after which they're free to upload their applications without any need for validation or approval. so instead of having to go through Apple's block box approval process, quality control will be implemented through a collaborative filtering system (user ratings) similar to Mozilla's extensions library.
it's been stated that developers will receive 70% of the revenue from each purchase, so that's inline with Apple's 30% service fee. though apparently Google doesn't receive any of the money made from Android Market:
developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees--Google does not take a percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers, and carriers.
so again it looks like the cellphone carriers are trying to get their grubby little fingers on other people's money solely on the basis that they control the proprietary cellular networks the public depends on. well, at least it's good that Google is encouraging innovation and opening the platform to independent developers.
with the collective weight of the Open Handset Alliance (which is composed of pretty much all of the major players in the mobile phone/smart devices industry) behind the Android platform, it has a good chance over overtaking Windows Mobile and dominating the mobile devices market. i mean, Android has pretty much vertical as well as horizontal integration. they've got all the major mobile carriers, software developers, handset manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers, and handset manufacturers. the only big names companies that aren't behind Android are Apple, Microsoft, and Verizon. personally, i don't think they stand much of a chance against the OHA.
Apple gets their iPhone processor/chipset from Samsung and Marvell, both of who are now member of the OHA. and HTC, a major Taiwanese ODM that develops many popular Windows Mobile-based carrier-rebranded handsets has also joined the OHA. we know that their recently released T-Mobile G1/HTC Dream's Qualcomm MSM7201A processors (shared by the Palm Trio Pro) supports Android, so it's likely that other Qualcomm MSM line processors will also run Android. and it's reported that the HTC Vogue/Touch (Vodafone VDA Touch, Okta Touch, O2 XDA Nova, T-Mobile MDA Touch) can also run Android on is TI OMAP 850 processor. so chances are, other handsets based on the OMAP line will also support Android.
in fact, _all_ of HTC's smartphones, which represent a major segement of Windows Mobile handsets, use CPUs designed by other OHA members, including Texas Instruments, Intel, Samsung, Marvell, and Qualcomm. and if the one of HTC's Windows Mobile-based devices already runs Android, then the rest may will likely follow.
and a look at other Windows Mobile Smartphones shows that they all pretty much run on the same TI, Intel, Marvell, Qualcomm CPUs. so it seems these OHA members produce the vast majority (if not all) the CPUs used in mobile devices--or at least those currently running Windows Mobile. under these circumstances, i would not be surprised at all if Android starts supporting replacing Windows Mobile as the dominant mobile operating system.
that would be a really stupid business model--trying to dominate two markets at once. interoperability is good for consumers and good for business. they should support as many devices as possible: use an open format (unfortunately, PDF seems like the best choice right now).
if i were them, i'd partner up with Sony. have their e-book server interoperable with the Sony Reader + the PSP. even though the PSP isn't designed as an e-book reader, it does work quite well for casual users. using homebrew apps i can already read most PDF ebooks and magazines on it with ease (and it's actually more useful as an e-book reader than a web browser).
right now e-book readers are still an overpriced niche product. but opening it up to devices like the PSP, the iPhone, Archos, and other smart devices/phones, you'd create a much larger pre-installed customer base for the e-book service. it'd be a win-win situation for both Amazon and Sony, not to mention for consumers.
most of these portable devices already have WiFi capabilities, so they can download the e-books directly from Amazon's site. and as iTunes has proven that integrating a content distribution service into portable media devices is a great idea. it delivers convenience to users and increased revenue to the content distributor. i mean, doesn't Apple make more money off of iTunes than they do with iPod sales anyway? so why not dominate the ebook distribution market right now while they have a chance by signing a deal with Apple, Sony, and Archos, and smartphone/smart device vendors?
i would love to have an official built-in e-book reader for the PSP. and i'd probably use the Amazon service if it were reasonably priced and DRM-free.
some buzzwords are just fashion words that are meaningless phrases used to create a pretense of knowledge. but some buzzwords have real meaning and are not buzzwords in certain contexts.
for instance, these are all considered buzzwords: Dynamic, Emergence, Empowerment, Enterprise, Framework, Immersion, Leverage, Long Tail, NanotechnologyNext Generation, Paradigm, Paradigm shift, Proactive, Social Networking, SasS (Software as a Service), Synergy, and of course Web 2.0. but are all of these words completely meaningless and without useful applications?
i would say that it largely depends on who's speaking the "buzzword." when a marketing rep stands in front of a board of directors and says, "our new site is Web 2.0 compliant, using the latest AJAX technology to create a Next Generation web experience leveraging the Long Tail with the current Paradigm Shift in Enterprise markets trends," then he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and is merely using buzzwords to hide the utter lack of substance in his speech.
whereas, if a web developer says, "the application trends that characterize the transition to Web 2.0 suggests that the users are looking to the web for a more interactive experience. increasingly Web 2.0 is showing that user participation and social interaction are the reason for the internet's increased cultural significance. Social Networking sites opened the door for Next Generation applications centered around user-generated content, to which collaborative filtering/editing are natural extensions. all of these developments have helped spread the Software as a Service business Paradigm," then his use of those "buzzwords" to express meaningful concepts is appropriate.
in my experience, it's usually people who don't actually work in the field that these buzzword/jargons apply to who are the quickest to rant about how meaningless such phrases are (usually accompanied by a gross oversimplification or equivocation of the concept that demonstrates their ignorance.)
i'm not talking about ethics here, since that clearly isn't a language that the corporate world understand. i'm talking about economic realities, not trying to be a piracy apologist. i'm just saying that if i were a Sony executive, i wouldn't make corporate policies that actually contribute to piracy (regardless of whether that piracy is justified or not). i mean, you can argue all day long about how unethical/immoral piracy is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's counter-productive to create policies that ultimately encourage piracy and decrease sales.
let me ask you this: should a business operate based on "principles" or profit margins (i.e. the bottom line)? in principle piracy should not go unopposed & unpunished. but if the actions you take based on the principle that "piracy must be combated" actually alienates a large portion of your good & loyal customers--thereby hurting sales and creating more piracy--then is that really the right coarse of action? it's cutting off the nose to spite the face. and this combative attitude has proven to be completely fruitless and detrimental to the success of the PSP and the company, so why not try a different tact? here's my suggestion:
make a distinction between homebrew and piracy.
open up the PSP to eliminate the need for CFW
embrace homebrew development.
???
PROFIT!
current policies create a lot of collateral damage. by doing #1, they can better focus their resources on tackling what is actually hurting their business without alienating a significant (and valuable) user base that actually makes them more money in addition to improving the PSP/making it more appealing.
by opening up the PSP with #2 you set it apart from other portable entertainment devices/media players. not only is this a public relations coup, but it makes the PSP a more attractive platform and easier to develop for. a well documented API would allow 3rd-party add-ons/services/devices to be developed for the PSP, extending its usefulness and potential applications--for instance, added support for different file formats (OGG, XviD, M4B, PDF, ODF, CBR), an extensible plug-in system, and implement a wireless file transfer protocol based on open standards.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (like i said, i'm speaking in terms of business sense, not ethics). Microsoft has used this famous strategy to dominate competitors, which right now Sony considers CFW/homebrew developers as. and by embracing homebrew & CFW with #3, Sony can appropriate all of their efforts to improve the PSP, like the plug-in system and PopLoader. this also goes along with #2 by eliminating the demand for CFW.
not only can you already run homebrew without hacking your PSP, but now the official firmware updates include your favorite CFW features, like being able to run games off of your memory stick (eliminating UMD load times) and allowing you to listen to your own music collection while playing games. now, also start incorporating features from people's favorite homebrew applications and integrating them directly into the official firmware--why would i run a ghetto-looking homebrew audio player just for its advanced media browsing features when Sony has also added such features to their slick-looking XMB media player?
by setting up a PSP homebrew community/code repository, Sony can easily keep track of, manage, direct the homebrew movement to their advantage. if there's an official PSP homebrew repository & developers network (like Mozilla's Add-On library and Mozilla Development Center) any homebrew project that wants public exposure will have to go through Sony's site. Sony can then use this control to focus their development efforts and stay a step ahead of homebrew projects. heck, they could even recruit homebrew developers and firmware hackers to help make the PSP's official firmware better.
additionally, adding a bug tracker and feature request forum would also keep the official PSP firmware up to user expectations. and an Android Market-type store would allow Sony to control and profit from 3rd-party/homebrew applications. just look at the success of the iPhone since they opened it up to 3rd party applications.
definitely. a lot of gaming companies are focusing more on combating homebrew/piracy, which they can't stop, rather than actually improving their product, which would drive up sales & increase profits.
the PSP is in a similar situation to what you describe. the PSP is actually very well engineered by Sony, but its lacks the software to take advantage of the hardware. the XMB looks beautiful, is very easy to use, and is well-designed in general. but its built-in media player is extremely primitive. compared to the iPod/iPhone, Zune, Archos, Sony Walkman, or just about any other portable media player on the market, the PSP's audio player is missing a ton of core features.
aside from the bare minimum stop/play/pause/forward/rewind functions, the PSP is utterly outdated and lacking in the most basic features expected of all modern media players, including but not limited to:
playlist support/management
a media browser (ability to organize tracks by artist/album/genre/etc.)
support of ID3 tags
track normalization
FLAC, OGG support
equalizer (the PSP's default audio setting is too low for public use w/o headphones)
shuffle mode
audiobook support
bookmark/chapter marking
don't get me wrong, the XMB is a very beautiful and elegant interface. but it's all flash and so substance. i can honestly say the PSP's built-in media player is the least functional of all the major PMPs. that's why i wish Rockbox would be ported over to the PSP so we'd have a decent media player to use.
not to mention the PSP's built-in web browser is useless since it runs out of memory every 15 minutes (less when browsing more media-intensive sites) requiring the system to be restarted. this is something that can easily be fixed by implementing a swap file to page memory to the memory stick. but Sony still insists on wasting their resources on trying to lock down the PSP rather than fixing its flaws or improving on it (wireless file syncing/sharing like the Zune would be a very welcomed feature).
blind greed is often irrational and counter-productive.
for instance, many people were motivated to buy the PSP because it was advertised as being able to play PSX games, though these games need to be purchased from Sony's Playstation Store/PSN. that's fine and all, but Sony's executives decided to block the PSP's browser from directly connecting to the PSN. instead, they made it necessary for PSP owners to also purchase a PS3 through which their PSP would access PSN content.
it took them about 2 years to finally realize that this was an idiotic policy and with the recently released 5.0 firmware they're finally allowing the PSP to connect directly to the PSN. (though a PC version of the PSN/Playstation Store was created in late September 2007, it was restricted to Windows XP and Internet Explorer users. it also required a proprietary downloader & DRM tool which many users reported having problems with.)
as a result of their anti-consumer attitude & policies, Sony executives drove many PSP users to obtain PSX games for their PSP from file sharing sites. it's simply a matter of convenience. whether you use OS X, Linux, Windows XP, surfed the web with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, or any other browser, you can easily grab PSX games for your PSP from a file sharing site without any of the hassles that Sony's system required.
requiring PSP owners to also purchase a PS3 just to access a core feature of their PSP is just plain insulting. this kind of short-sighted greed and blatant anti-consumer attitude only serves to alienate customers and destroy good will. Sony should have instead released a tool that allows PSP owners to rip their old PSX discs and load them onto their PSP, so they wouldn't have to re-purchase games they already own off of the, largely inaccessible, Playstation Store. but instead Sony made it easier/more convenient for PSP users to just download pre-converted PSX games off of file sharing sites. well, if you're already used to getting your PSX games off of BitTorrent, then you're also likely to get into the habit of downloading games you didn't purchase--especially with the lack of goodwill between Sony and their customers.
what on earth are you talking about? so some locksmith who spend 2 years to design a lock that a thief cracks in 2 minutes means that the thief spent 2 years and 8 hours to crack the lock? i'm sorry, but your logic is severely wanting.
crackers don't take credit for the new features that hardware vendors add to firmware updates (if there are any), they're merely credited for bypassing the security/DRM/defective-by-design (pick your favorite) mechanisms the vendor added to prevent users from running homebrew. in the case of PSP, most firmware updates don't add any real value to the PSP. they're merely released to break the forward-compatibility of old/cracked firmwares so that users would have to update to OFW to play newly released games. that's why many people simply continue to run CFW based off of an older firmware version.
if vendors didn't intentionally cripple their devices in firmware then hackers wouldn't have to crack the firmware to enable homebrew development on these platforms. both the vendor and the homebrew developers' time and resources could be better spent on improving the platform rather than participating in this fruitless arms race. and often it's homebrew developers that add more value to a system through CFW than the official firmware updates that just cripple the system.
for instance, the M33 CFW for the PSP allowed early adopters who purchased the PSP-1000 (which Sony has apparently turned their backs on) to actually use VoIP (Furikup) on their PSP--a feature that the Sony update only gave to the PSP-2000. and Furikup actually has more robust features than the Skype add-on of Sony's OFW.
what's silly is someone who obviously has no clue about how homebrew works, or what it is, commenting about homebrew development and the efforts of the hackers who make it possible.
and it's not just an issue of advertised speed. it's an issue of quality of service--bandwidth caps, overselling, traffic throttling/shaping, packet monitoring & other usage restrictions. and all of these ultimately tie to _value_, which is what we need to compare.
we don't need to be faster than everyone else or as fast as Japan and Korea. that's not what i'm arguing. but we shouldn't be paying more for less. Japan is far and ahead of the U.S. because their government has focused on developing this vital infrastructure through government subsidies and technology initiative. in the U.S., we tax payers are still subsidizing the ISPs & telecoms but we're not getting anything out of it because our government cares only about business interests.
even BusinessWeek puts us at #16 out 46 surveyed countries. even countries like Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia are doing better than U.S. in terms of broadband quality. but more importantly, if we are to be a technology leader, or just continue to be relevant in the information age, we need more competitive broadband pricing. the current business model used by U.S. ISPs is basically preventing our broadband infrastructure from being upgraded in step with growing demand.
the blind greed of corporations is not driving technology forward. it's ever-growing consumer demand that is usually the driving force behind technological progress. but now ISPs are trying to suppress that demand by villanizing power users and manipulating internet usage. not only that, but the lack of industry regulation means ISPs can abuse their monopoly to artificially inflate broadbandprices, thereby further manipulating bandwidth usage/demand economically.
while AJAX & Web 2.0 are overused as marketing buzzwords, that doesn't take away their value as terms that usefully describe meaningful ideas or concepts.
if you're not web developer, then these words are naturally meaningless to you. so VCs, managers/CEOs, and general "armchair web developers" have no business speaking about these terms most of the time.
to actual web developers, the term Web 2.0 usefully describes the maturing of the web as an application development platform. compared with websites from 1992, modern websites are much more advanced/complex, interactive, and useful beyond just serving up static documents. this includes the rise of social networking, collaborative editing/filtering, and other web applications that are centered around user-generated content.
similarly, AJAX allows developers to create much more responsive web interfaces that behavior more like desktop applications. compared to iframe+JavaScript hacks used in the past to attempt to emulate these characteristics, AJAX is much more elegant and effective because it establishes a standardized technique for integrating various existing technologies in a seamless/transparent manner. this opens the web to new programming paradigms that has in part been responsible for the Web 2.0 phenomenon.
i think it's useful to have a term that describes these significant changes in web development. the web is no longer just a place to look up video game cheat codes & cooking recipes, or a haven for geeks and computer nerds, but it's actually becoming increasingly integrated into the everyday life of the average person. just look at the rise of Smartphones and other smart devices/web appliances. this is all at least partly due to the web growing beyond just a collection of static HTML pages.
and as more and more cities roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax networks and wireless internet access becomes just another basic public infrastructure, we'll see another revolution of internet applications--smart VoIP handsets replacing carrier-locked cellular phones, portable internet radio receivers giving you access to thousands of internet radio streams, digital cameras that upload your snapshots to a Google Maps mashup letting your friends follow your travels with an online map, and countless other applications that integrate the web/internet into our daily lives.
that's bullshit. the average price of U.S. per Mbps is about 10 times higher than countries like Sweden, Korea, and Japan, and it's still 2-3 times that of most other developed nations. just because the telecom/ISP monopolies charge extortionate rates for decent quality service doesn't mean that's what it costs to provide.
consumers expect what they paid for--what was advertise by the ISPs. if they'd been honest about the broadband service in the first place, this conflict would not have occurred. trying to shift blame onto consumers and use traffic throttling & package shaping to manipulate demand is counter to good business sense. while we're trying to scapegoat "power users," countries like Japan are upping their infrastructure to meet public demand. that's how technology usually works--you increase supply (speeds, capacity, etc.) to meet public demand. you don't artificially decrease demand to meet the supply.
unlike you, most intelligent internet users don't subscribe to this pay more for less mentality. and if you actually did some research into how other broadband networks/services are run, you'd see how much we're being completely screwed over. Japan's already rolling out 100 Mbps connections to all homes, and many are being offered 1 Gbps for £28($43). meanwhile ISP greed and incompetence is leaving our countries in the dust.
but, hey, let's spend more packet shaping technology analyzing user traffic to increase unnecessary overhead. that's a much better use of resources than actually increasing network speed/capacity and providing better value to customers.
A major anti-terrorism bill now being considered by the US government has been criticised for disproportionately targeting low-level computer intruders, making small crimes punishable by a penalty of life in prison.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the main civil liberties group in the US focussing on the digital world, condemned parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) now in Congress, which would treat all computer trespass as terrorism. "Treating low-level computer crimes as terrorist acts is not an appropriate response to recent events," said EFF executive director Shari Steele in a statement. "A relatively harmless online prankster should not face a potential life sentence in prison."... In the US, the EFF criticised the portion of the new bill that adds low-level computer intrusion -- which could be something as innocuous as a teenager having a look around a commercial Web server -- to the list of "federal terrorism offences". Such offences carry penalties of up to life imprisonment, and give investigators broad powers of asset seizure, as well as threatening those who "harbour" offenders.
Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban convicted of killing severely wounded 16-year-old Iraqi during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. Sentenced to one year's confinement, demoted to private and given bad-conduct discharge.
Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne Jr. pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder in same case as Alban. Sentenced to three years in prison, had rank reduced to private and given dishonorable discharge. Horne's prison sentence later reduced to one year.
Cpl. Dustin Berg convicted and sentenced to 18 months in military prison for shooting death of Iraqi police officer.
Spc. Rami Dajani convicted of making a false statement following fatal shooting of Iraqi translator. Sentenced to 18 months' confinement and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge.
Spc. Charley L. Hooser convicted of involuntary manslaughter in same case involving Dajani. Hooser sentenced to three years in prison and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge.
Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet convicted of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in shooting death of wounded Iraqi. Dismissed from armed forces.
Marine Maj. Clarke Paulus convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment in case stemming from death of Iraqi prisoner who was dragged out of holding cell by the
Slashdot Mirror
well, price is certainly a major aspect of it, but it's not the only issue. my point is, casual computer users are becoming a significant market segment independent of business and hobbyist computer users. they have very different needs that aren't really being served by the current focus on increasing processing power.
also, casual users are still being forced to follow the upgrade cycles of hobbyist and high-end professional users just to run mundane software that's just as slow as before because of inefficient programming. there's no reason/justification for this, and they are not seeing any real benefit from such "progress" in computer technology.
i think ASUS's EEE Box ($299) is a step in the right direction. it's small, cheap, low-powered, and boots in just 7 seconds. and although i didn't know this until TrekkieTechie pointed me to the existing NetTops already being sold, it seems that both Intel and AMD have entered the ultra low-power/embedded x86 market that VIA previously had a monopoly on.
i know it's hard to understand this approach from the perspective of a power user. for you, i'm sure "casual computing" includes running a ton of processor-intensive apps that require a 2 GHZ+ processor and 2 GB of RAM, and it's worth for you to shell out an extra few hundred dollars to have the flexibility that you actually require. but consider the people for whom a few hundred extra dollars USD is a lot of money, and who won't actually use the extra power.
ah, thanks bringing these to my attention. i had suspected that such computers were out there somewhere since all the hardware components exist in one form or another, but i didn't realize that there was actually a formal name for these category of devices.
i said create a new category of low-power PCs, not make all computers low-powered.
you think it's the 50-year-old grandmother who uses AOL to check her e-mail and look up cooking recipes that's pushing the limits of computing technology?
and 15 years ago casual computing didn't exist. home PCs were an esoteric gadget for a very small segment of the population. home PCs didn't become popular until Windows 95 came around, and it wasn't until AOL that the internet became popular and made the home PC a standard appliance in every home. it also helped established the boundaries and applications of casual computing as distinct from hobbyist computing.
it's pretty silly to think that simply increasing clock cycles and power consumption is an indication of technological progress. no one is suggesting that people go back to using CRT monitors, ball mouse, wired keyboards, or pentium I processors. but technology should be refined in ways that increase their utility and improve user experience.
building low power systems that can perform casual computing tasks with less load times, heat output, noise, and take up less space would be a step forward. it's just a step forward in a slightly different direction. i mean, would you consider netbooks, smartphones, internet tablets, and other information appliances steps backward in technology just because they're not using the latest quad core CPUs and $1000 video cards?
save your straw man and red herring arguments. if everyone wanted more expensive computers just to run bloated OSes that provided no performance increase then Windows Vista would be flying off the shelves. but that is not progress in most people's eyes. if casual computing evolves to include more processor/resource-intensive applications in the future then of course baseline processor speeds would have to be increased. but right now it's decreasing software efficiency that's driving hardware upgrades in the casual computing market, not more advanced applications such as in the fields of PC gaming/media design/etc.
perhaps you should learn to read more carefully instead making flawed analogies that have nothing to do with the issue. no one is arguing against technological progress or high end systems. but it doesn't take a quad core workstation with 4 GB of RAM to run Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer when these applications are already starting to show up on cellphones and other $200-300 portable devices.
what exactly is Pikiwedia? just a static non-editable version of Wikipedia? it looks exactly like Wikipedia but with all collaborative editing features/links, Wikipedia branding, and basic navigation elements(i.e. search) removed.
the content is copied directly from Wikipedia, and though it doesn't seem completely up to date, it's only about a month outdated. therefore it's not completely static, so you wouldn't be able to cite Pikiwedia pages as a fixed source any more than you could Wikipedia.
at least Answers.com adds additional content/features (dictionary results & pronounciation audio clips) to the Wikipedia articles--and they also have a search feature. frankly, i don't see what value Pikiwedia has aside from being yet another Wikipedia mirror.
in reply to both of your comments:
this is why i think vendors need to create a category of lower power computers--not just laptops/subnotebooks/tablets. the average user is not using their desktop PC for CAD work, 3d/graphic design, video editing, or playing the latest FPS. most people simply need a computer that can efficiently surf the web, check their e-mail, do spreadsheets/word processing/presentations, play music, and watch the occasional DVD.
instead of developing more and more bloated software that negate simultaneous increases in hardware processing power/speed, we should be making software more efficient so that casual computing can be done on cheaper and cheaper systems that require less power & energy rather than more.
the average user should be able to accomplish everything they need to do using a 700-800 MHz low-power processor with 256 MB of RAM. they'd not only save on their electric bill, but we'd be creating a more sustainable society. besides, unlike the PC gamer, media/graphic design professional, the casual computer user shouldn't need to upgrade their hardware every single year to keep up with increasing resource intensive software.
using a simple & efficient OS tailored to the casual computing, the average consumer could use a cheaper, less powerful machine that still boots up in seconds. but that would require that PC vendors stop pre-installing their systems with cruftware by their software partners.
well, to be fair, if they had to hold your hand through the entire process it'd take a lot more time--since these are usually more complicated inventions than those in Dr. Lee's videos--and so fewer speakers would be able to share their research. i mean, they're seminars not workshops. scientific seminars usually aren't aimed at laymen audiences, so you're expected to have a certain level of knowledge and scientific background. that way speakers can just gloss over the nonessential steps that other researchers involved in the field could be expected to solve on their own. and if you do need clarification, couldn't you just approach the speaker after the presentation?
of course, if the speaker misjudges the education-level/knowledgeability/scientific background of his audience, then he would be wasting his time and everyone else's. so it's important not to assume that the audience already knows everything that you know about the mechanism/method you use to demonstrate your invention or idea. and it's just as important to court the right audience for your seminar.
heh, i actually used to those blue glowing mushrooms as my wallpaper throughout college. i like the Albert Hofmann idea though.
so true. you have to wonder what cellular networks would be like if they were not closed proprietary infrastructure.
of course there are the obvious things like:
but there'd be other less-obvious indirect benefits, such as:
this may seem like a pipe dream right now, but it might happen if wireless access internet becomes a basic public utility like roads and sidewalks. VoIP services like Vonage are already stealling business customers from conventional telecoms because of their competitive pricing. old business models will no longer be viable in the information age as closed proprietary specialized communication networks are assimilated by the open and public internet, which is a generalized communication network that can serve the needs of telecommunication, radio broadcast, TV broadcast, etc.
his point is that the troll's blatant flamebaiting:
is untrue.
users do in fact have access to the source and can compile it themselves. whether your phone is currently supported or has open hardware is a different and unrelated matter. you're flaming him on a completely inapt issue. just because he can't compile the linux kernal himself doesn't mean that it's not open source. or just because my copy of Microsoft Word won't read ODF doesn't mean it's not an open format.
not everything, just the popular services that use cloud computing to support tens of thousands of simultaneous users. and i didn't come up with the definition. i just use what's been accepted by the IT community:
--Wikipedia article on "Cloud computing"
of course, if you have a better definition that you think is more meaningful, i'm eager to hear it from you.
yes, changing your desktop wallpaper is a sure sign of intelligence and creativity. i approve of the logic of your statement.
i mean, changing your desktop from its default background is much more important than configuring your firewall, re-installing device drivers/your personal applications, restoring backed up files & documents, or setting up your network connection.
and nothing says "i'm a tech savvy hipster" like changing your desktop background to one of the throwback stock wallpapers that came with your OS--like a close-up shot up of wet leaves of grass/a frog/a butterfly, wind-blown sand dunes, tranquil autumn leaves, or any of the other kitsch backgrounds that expresses your personality--after all, what better way to show your sense of individuality than by personalizing your computer with a determined set of wallpapers, user avatars, and desktop icons?
so are you the skateboarder, guitar, soccer ball, or the chess pieces?
ah, the battle of the Johns...
John Carmack:
John Romero:
Total:
Carmack 15
Romero 11
::sigh::, Romero could have scored at least another 10 points if he'd only kept his majestic pony-like mane. he's like Samson. his hair is the source of his superhuman powers, and without his glorious chevelure he is just a mere mortal.
i'm not assuming anything. i'm suggesting that it would be a good move on the part of both companies. that doesn't mean that i think either of them will go for it. in fact, it's very unlikely that such a deal would occur. and you seem to immediately contradict yourself right after your first sentence. first you imply that Sony would not accept a partnership with Amazon's ebook distribution system without offering any kind reason for thinking so. then you go on to state that the Sony reader has a nice design, but lacks content, whereas the Kindle looks homely but has "a MASSIVE selection of content and a terrific distribution system." well isn't that exactly what Sony needs/is missing? if a lack of content and distribution system is what's preventing the Sony Reader from succeeding, then why would they not partner up with Amazon? it seems like that would be the only logical thing for them to do.
the fact that the current Kindle doesn't use WiFi doesn't play any part in this deal. Sony Reader/PSP/Zune/iPhone users can just access the Kindle Store website. it's not like EVDO is required to purchase ebooks from the Kindle Store.
and while Apple is currently making most of its money from selling iPods, the iTunes store is quickly dominating the music retail industry. in 2007 they became the 3rd largest music retailer in the U.S. with 10% market share. in 2008 it accounted for 70% of worldwide digital music sales. and despite the RIAA's claims to the otherwise, iTunes has revitalized the music industry and driven net profits up. our indie record label now receives over 75% of our music sales from iTunes alone.
so while iPod sales generated $3.36 billion in revenue for Apple in 2007, the iTunes Store brought in $1.9 billion of Apple's $2.7 billion in total music-related revenue in 2007. and iPod sales appear to be tapering off while iTunes is experiencing continued growth. so it's not inconceivable that iTunes will become an even bigger revenue stream for Apple in the future.
but i agree with you that the PSP/iPhone are not the ideal ebook reader for everyone. my Dad, for instance, simply can't read text printed on the PSP. so he can't really use his PSP as a web browser or an e-book reader. but that doesn't stop millions of young people from using their PSPs and cellphones to read books (if they can read web pages, then why not e-books?). the Japanese have even created an entire literary genre of serial literature that's distributed and consumed entirely by cellphones.
for older users with poorer eyesight or who have to read long, dense technical materials, a dedicated ebook reader like the Kindle is definitely a must. but that's still a niche market. and for the majority of young people whom the PSP & iPhone are aimed at, being able to read e-books on their portable devices would be a huge value add--it's actually my favorite use for the PSP.
there's a difference between software as a service and renting software. when you use the postal system you're not renting the postal network. you're simply using their service. and when you subscribe to broadband, you're not renting the ISP's broadband network. and there's nothing wrong with renting as a payment/service model. when you pay for whether shared or dedicated web hosting, it's rented disk space, hardware use, etc. just like when you rent a house, you keep vital possessions in it without worrying about losing it because you happen to be renting.
those are illogical and unrelated concerns. even if you keep all your data on your own hard drive and run your software on your PC, the PC or hard drive can breakdown; the software vendor can stop supporting your application; and their EULA can have a vendor lock-in clause that prevents you from exporting your own data to an open/accessible format.
all of these problems can be avoided with common sense whether you're using cloud computing or not. if you're hosting an enterprise application on a cloud server, you'll probably have your host perform regular backups. you can even have them send you the back ups so you can have a local copy. but cloud computing has built-in redundancy that should prevent most catastrophic failures. whereas, if your company is running its own web server and it goes down, whether because of a DDoS attack or admin screwup, your business is out of commission until that server is back up; same with vital databases or other production servers.
cloud computing is inherently scalable and reliable--redundant sites make it ideal for business continuity and disaster recovery. they are also arguably more sustainable/carbon-neutral. so people knocking cloud computing generally don't understand the needs of companies like Google who benefit, and actually need, cloud computing. the average end-user does see the importance of cloud computing because they have no web applications that need to be hosted on a cloud. but they rely on cloud computing everyday without knowing it.
the average user uses everyday web service like Gmail, Google, Google Calendar, flickr, digg, Wikipedia, facebook, BitTorrent, SETI@Home, etc. these are all cloud applications. they wouldn't be possible without cloud computing. even if you use Google Apps like Google Docs, if you choose an ethical company like Google who respects consumer rights and gives you the freedom to take you data with you wherever you want, whenever you want (they still treat it as the user's data), you're better off than if you simply used a desktop application. you can still save your Google Docs onto your hard drive, but it also lets you access your files from any computer you want. it has an autosave feature to prevent data loss, a revision history to revert unwanted changes, allows real-time online collaboration, and it lets you tag and archive documents for organization purposes.
network outages are a problem regardless of whether you use cloud computing or not, just like power outages are no reason to not use computers for for crucial business applications. for consumers who aren't living in 3rd world countries with shoddy internet access, cloud applications provide freedom, reliability, redundancy, and other advantages over desktop applications. the occasional internet outage isn't a problem if you have the common sense to keep local copies of crucial documents.
well, Android Market takes 30% as well. according to Google, developers are required to pay a one time $25 application fee when they register, after which they're free to upload their applications without any need for validation or approval. so instead of having to go through Apple's block box approval process, quality control will be implemented through a collaborative filtering system (user ratings) similar to Mozilla's extensions library.
it's been stated that developers will receive 70% of the revenue from each purchase, so that's inline with Apple's 30% service fee. though apparently Google doesn't receive any of the money made from Android Market:
so again it looks like the cellphone carriers are trying to get their grubby little fingers on other people's money solely on the basis that they control the proprietary cellular networks the public depends on. well, at least it's good that Google is encouraging innovation and opening the platform to independent developers.
with the collective weight of the Open Handset Alliance (which is composed of pretty much all of the major players in the mobile phone/smart devices industry) behind the Android platform, it has a good chance over overtaking Windows Mobile and dominating the mobile devices market. i mean, Android has pretty much vertical as well as horizontal integration. they've got all the major mobile carriers, software developers, handset manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers, and handset manufacturers. the only big names companies that aren't behind Android are Apple, Microsoft, and Verizon. personally, i don't think they stand much of a chance against the OHA.
Apple gets their iPhone processor/chipset from Samsung and Marvell, both of who are now member of the OHA. and HTC, a major Taiwanese ODM that develops many popular Windows Mobile-based carrier-rebranded handsets has also joined the OHA. we know that their recently released T-Mobile G1/HTC Dream's Qualcomm MSM7201A processors (shared by the Palm Trio Pro) supports Android, so it's likely that other Qualcomm MSM line processors will also run Android. and it's reported that the HTC Vogue/Touch (Vodafone VDA Touch, Okta Touch, O2 XDA Nova, T-Mobile MDA Touch) can also run Android on is TI OMAP 850 processor. so chances are, other handsets based on the OMAP line will also support Android.
in fact, _all_ of HTC's smartphones, which represent a major segement of Windows Mobile handsets, use CPUs designed by other OHA members, including Texas Instruments, Intel, Samsung, Marvell, and Qualcomm. and if the one of HTC's Windows Mobile-based devices already runs Android, then the rest may will likely follow.
and a look at other Windows Mobile Smartphones shows that they all pretty much run on the same TI, Intel, Marvell, Qualcomm CPUs. so it seems these OHA members produce the vast majority (if not all) the CPUs used in mobile devices--or at least those currently running Windows Mobile. under these circumstances, i would not be surprised at all if Android starts supporting replacing Windows Mobile as the dominant mobile operating system.
that would be a really stupid business model--trying to dominate two markets at once. interoperability is good for consumers and good for business. they should support as many devices as possible: use an open format (unfortunately, PDF seems like the best choice right now).
if i were them, i'd partner up with Sony. have their e-book server interoperable with the Sony Reader + the PSP. even though the PSP isn't designed as an e-book reader, it does work quite well for casual users. using homebrew apps i can already read most PDF ebooks and magazines on it with ease (and it's actually more useful as an e-book reader than a web browser).
right now e-book readers are still an overpriced niche product. but opening it up to devices like the PSP, the iPhone, Archos, and other smart devices/phones, you'd create a much larger pre-installed customer base for the e-book service. it'd be a win-win situation for both Amazon and Sony, not to mention for consumers.
most of these portable devices already have WiFi capabilities, so they can download the e-books directly from Amazon's site. and as iTunes has proven that integrating a content distribution service into portable media devices is a great idea. it delivers convenience to users and increased revenue to the content distributor. i mean, doesn't Apple make more money off of iTunes than they do with iPod sales anyway? so why not dominate the ebook distribution market right now while they have a chance by signing a deal with Apple, Sony, and Archos, and smartphone/smart device vendors?
i would love to have an official built-in e-book reader for the PSP. and i'd probably use the Amazon service if it were reasonably priced and DRM-free.
some buzzwords are just fashion words that are meaningless phrases used to create a pretense of knowledge. but some buzzwords have real meaning and are not buzzwords in certain contexts.
for instance, these are all considered buzzwords: Dynamic, Emergence, Empowerment, Enterprise, Framework, Immersion, Leverage, Long Tail, Nanotechnology Next Generation, Paradigm, Paradigm shift, Proactive, Social Networking, SasS (Software as a Service), Synergy, and of course Web 2.0. but are all of these words completely meaningless and without useful applications?
i would say that it largely depends on who's speaking the "buzzword." when a marketing rep stands in front of a board of directors and says, "our new site is Web 2.0 compliant, using the latest AJAX technology to create a Next Generation web experience leveraging the Long Tail with the current Paradigm Shift in Enterprise markets trends," then he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and is merely using buzzwords to hide the utter lack of substance in his speech.
whereas, if a web developer says, "the application trends that characterize the transition to Web 2.0 suggests that the users are looking to the web for a more interactive experience. increasingly Web 2.0 is showing that user participation and social interaction are the reason for the internet's increased cultural significance. Social Networking sites opened the door for Next Generation applications centered around user-generated content, to which collaborative filtering/editing are natural extensions. all of these developments have helped spread the Software as a Service business Paradigm," then his use of those "buzzwords" to express meaningful concepts is appropriate.
in my experience, it's usually people who don't actually work in the field that these buzzword/jargons apply to who are the quickest to rant about how meaningless such phrases are (usually accompanied by a gross oversimplification or equivocation of the concept that demonstrates their ignorance.)
i'm not talking about ethics here, since that clearly isn't a language that the corporate world understand. i'm talking about economic realities, not trying to be a piracy apologist. i'm just saying that if i were a Sony executive, i wouldn't make corporate policies that actually contribute to piracy (regardless of whether that piracy is justified or not). i mean, you can argue all day long about how unethical/immoral piracy is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's counter-productive to create policies that ultimately encourage piracy and decrease sales.
let me ask you this: should a business operate based on "principles" or profit margins (i.e. the bottom line)? in principle piracy should not go unopposed & unpunished. but if the actions you take based on the principle that "piracy must be combated" actually alienates a large portion of your good & loyal customers--thereby hurting sales and creating more piracy--then is that really the right coarse of action? it's cutting off the nose to spite the face. and this combative attitude has proven to be completely fruitless and detrimental to the success of the PSP and the company, so why not try a different tact? here's my suggestion:
current policies create a lot of collateral damage. by doing #1, they can better focus their resources on tackling what is actually hurting their business without alienating a significant (and valuable) user base that actually makes them more money in addition to improving the PSP/making it more appealing.
by opening up the PSP with #2 you set it apart from other portable entertainment devices/media players. not only is this a public relations coup, but it makes the PSP a more attractive platform and easier to develop for. a well documented API would allow 3rd-party add-ons/services/devices to be developed for the PSP, extending its usefulness and potential applications--for instance, added support for different file formats (OGG, XviD, M4B, PDF, ODF, CBR), an extensible plug-in system, and implement a wireless file transfer protocol based on open standards.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish (like i said, i'm speaking in terms of business sense, not ethics). Microsoft has used this famous strategy to dominate competitors, which right now Sony considers CFW/homebrew developers as. and by embracing homebrew & CFW with #3, Sony can appropriate all of their efforts to improve the PSP, like the plug-in system and PopLoader. this also goes along with #2 by eliminating the demand for CFW.
not only can you already run homebrew without hacking your PSP, but now the official firmware updates include your favorite CFW features, like being able to run games off of your memory stick (eliminating UMD load times) and allowing you to listen to your own music collection while playing games. now, also start incorporating features from people's favorite homebrew applications and integrating them directly into the official firmware--why would i run a ghetto-looking homebrew audio player just for its advanced media browsing features when Sony has also added such features to their slick-looking XMB media player?
by setting up a PSP homebrew community/code repository, Sony can easily keep track of, manage, direct the homebrew movement to their advantage. if there's an official PSP homebrew repository & developers network (like Mozilla's Add-On library and Mozilla Development Center) any homebrew project that wants public exposure will have to go through Sony's site. Sony can then use this control to focus their development efforts and stay a step ahead of homebrew projects. heck, they could even recruit homebrew developers and firmware hackers to help make the PSP's official firmware better.
additionally, adding a bug tracker and feature request forum would also keep the official PSP firmware up to user expectations. and an Android Market-type store would allow Sony to control and profit from 3rd-party/homebrew applications. just look at the success of the iPhone since they opened it up to 3rd party applications.
definitely. a lot of gaming companies are focusing more on combating homebrew/piracy, which they can't stop, rather than actually improving their product, which would drive up sales & increase profits.
the PSP is in a similar situation to what you describe. the PSP is actually very well engineered by Sony, but its lacks the software to take advantage of the hardware. the XMB looks beautiful, is very easy to use, and is well-designed in general. but its built-in media player is extremely primitive. compared to the iPod/iPhone, Zune, Archos, Sony Walkman, or just about any other portable media player on the market, the PSP's audio player is missing a ton of core features.
aside from the bare minimum stop/play/pause/forward/rewind functions, the PSP is utterly outdated and lacking in the most basic features expected of all modern media players, including but not limited to:
don't get me wrong, the XMB is a very beautiful and elegant interface. but it's all flash and so substance. i can honestly say the PSP's built-in media player is the least functional of all the major PMPs. that's why i wish Rockbox would be ported over to the PSP so we'd have a decent media player to use.
not to mention the PSP's built-in web browser is useless since it runs out of memory every 15 minutes (less when browsing more media-intensive sites) requiring the system to be restarted. this is something that can easily be fixed by implementing a swap file to page memory to the memory stick. but Sony still insists on wasting their resources on trying to lock down the PSP rather than fixing its flaws or improving on it (wireless file syncing/sharing like the Zune would be a very welcomed feature).
blind greed is often irrational and counter-productive.
for instance, many people were motivated to buy the PSP because it was advertised as being able to play PSX games, though these games need to be purchased from Sony's Playstation Store/PSN. that's fine and all, but Sony's executives decided to block the PSP's browser from directly connecting to the PSN. instead, they made it necessary for PSP owners to also purchase a PS3 through which their PSP would access PSN content.
it took them about 2 years to finally realize that this was an idiotic policy and with the recently released 5.0 firmware they're finally allowing the PSP to connect directly to the PSN. (though a PC version of the PSN/Playstation Store was created in late September 2007, it was restricted to Windows XP and Internet Explorer users. it also required a proprietary downloader & DRM tool which many users reported having problems with.)
as a result of their anti-consumer attitude & policies, Sony executives drove many PSP users to obtain PSX games for their PSP from file sharing sites. it's simply a matter of convenience. whether you use OS X, Linux, Windows XP, surfed the web with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, or any other browser, you can easily grab PSX games for your PSP from a file sharing site without any of the hassles that Sony's system required.
requiring PSP owners to also purchase a PS3 just to access a core feature of their PSP is just plain insulting. this kind of short-sighted greed and blatant anti-consumer attitude only serves to alienate customers and destroy good will. Sony should have instead released a tool that allows PSP owners to rip their old PSX discs and load them onto their PSP, so they wouldn't have to re-purchase games they already own off of the, largely inaccessible, Playstation Store. but instead Sony made it easier/more convenient for PSP users to just download pre-converted PSX games off of file sharing sites. well, if you're already used to getting your PSX games off of BitTorrent, then you're also likely to get into the habit of downloading games you didn't purchase--especially with the lack of goodwill between Sony and their customers.
what on earth are you talking about? so some locksmith who spend 2 years to design a lock that a thief cracks in 2 minutes means that the thief spent 2 years and 8 hours to crack the lock? i'm sorry, but your logic is severely wanting.
crackers don't take credit for the new features that hardware vendors add to firmware updates (if there are any), they're merely credited for bypassing the security/DRM/defective-by-design (pick your favorite) mechanisms the vendor added to prevent users from running homebrew. in the case of PSP, most firmware updates don't add any real value to the PSP. they're merely released to break the forward-compatibility of old/cracked firmwares so that users would have to update to OFW to play newly released games. that's why many people simply continue to run CFW based off of an older firmware version.
if vendors didn't intentionally cripple their devices in firmware then hackers wouldn't have to crack the firmware to enable homebrew development on these platforms. both the vendor and the homebrew developers' time and resources could be better spent on improving the platform rather than participating in this fruitless arms race. and often it's homebrew developers that add more value to a system through CFW than the official firmware updates that just cripple the system.
for instance, the M33 CFW for the PSP allowed early adopters who purchased the PSP-1000 (which Sony has apparently turned their backs on) to actually use VoIP (Furikup) on their PSP--a feature that the Sony update only gave to the PSP-2000. and Furikup actually has more robust features than the Skype add-on of Sony's OFW.
what's silly is someone who obviously has no clue about how homebrew works, or what it is, commenting about homebrew development and the efforts of the hackers who make it possible.
that depends on which European country you're talking about.
and it's not just an issue of advertised speed. it's an issue of quality of service--bandwidth caps, overselling, traffic throttling/shaping, packet monitoring & other usage restrictions. and all of these ultimately tie to _value_, which is what we need to compare.
we don't need to be faster than everyone else or as fast as Japan and Korea. that's not what i'm arguing. but we shouldn't be paying more for less. Japan is far and ahead of the U.S. because their government has focused on developing this vital infrastructure through government subsidies and technology initiative. in the U.S., we tax payers are still subsidizing the ISPs & telecoms but we're not getting anything out of it because our government cares only about business interests.
even BusinessWeek puts us at #16 out 46 surveyed countries. even countries like Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia are doing better than U.S. in terms of broadband quality. but more importantly, if we are to be a technology leader, or just continue to be relevant in the information age, we need more competitive broadband pricing. the current business model used by U.S. ISPs is basically preventing our broadband infrastructure from being upgraded in step with growing demand.
the blind greed of corporations is not driving technology forward. it's ever-growing consumer demand that is usually the driving force behind technological progress. but now ISPs are trying to suppress that demand by villanizing power users and manipulating internet usage. not only that, but the lack of industry regulation means ISPs can abuse their monopoly to artificially inflate broadband prices, thereby further manipulating bandwidth usage/demand economically.
while AJAX & Web 2.0 are overused as marketing buzzwords, that doesn't take away their value as terms that usefully describe meaningful ideas or concepts.
if you're not web developer, then these words are naturally meaningless to you. so VCs, managers/CEOs, and general "armchair web developers" have no business speaking about these terms most of the time.
to actual web developers, the term Web 2.0 usefully describes the maturing of the web as an application development platform. compared with websites from 1992, modern websites are much more advanced/complex, interactive, and useful beyond just serving up static documents. this includes the rise of social networking, collaborative editing/filtering, and other web applications that are centered around user-generated content.
similarly, AJAX allows developers to create much more responsive web interfaces that behavior more like desktop applications. compared to iframe+JavaScript hacks used in the past to attempt to emulate these characteristics, AJAX is much more elegant and effective because it establishes a standardized technique for integrating various existing technologies in a seamless/transparent manner. this opens the web to new programming paradigms that has in part been responsible for the Web 2.0 phenomenon.
i think it's useful to have a term that describes these significant changes in web development. the web is no longer just a place to look up video game cheat codes & cooking recipes, or a haven for geeks and computer nerds, but it's actually becoming increasingly integrated into the everyday life of the average person. just look at the rise of Smartphones and other smart devices/web appliances. this is all at least partly due to the web growing beyond just a collection of static HTML pages.
and as more and more cities roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax networks and wireless internet access becomes just another basic public infrastructure, we'll see another revolution of internet applications--smart VoIP handsets replacing carrier-locked cellular phones, portable internet radio receivers giving you access to thousands of internet radio streams, digital cameras that upload your snapshots to a Google Maps mashup letting your friends follow your travels with an online map, and countless other applications that integrate the web/internet into our daily lives.
that's bullshit. the average price of U.S. per Mbps is about 10 times higher than countries like Sweden, Korea, and Japan, and it's still 2-3 times that of most other developed nations. just because the telecom/ISP monopolies charge extortionate rates for decent quality service doesn't mean that's what it costs to provide.
consumers expect what they paid for--what was advertise by the ISPs. if they'd been honest about the broadband service in the first place, this conflict would not have occurred. trying to shift blame onto consumers and use traffic throttling & package shaping to manipulate demand is counter to good business sense. while we're trying to scapegoat "power users," countries like Japan are upping their infrastructure to meet public demand. that's how technology usually works--you increase supply (speeds, capacity, etc.) to meet public demand. you don't artificially decrease demand to meet the supply.
unlike you, most intelligent internet users don't subscribe to this pay more for less mentality. and if you actually did some research into how other broadband networks/services are run, you'd see how much we're being completely screwed over. Japan's already rolling out 100 Mbps connections to all homes, and many are being offered 1 Gbps for £28($43). meanwhile ISP greed and incompetence is leaving our countries in the dust.
but, hey, let's spend more packet shaping technology analyzing user traffic to increase unnecessary overhead. that's a much better use of resources than actually increasing network speed/capacity and providing better value to customers.
i probably shouldn't feed trolls, but i'll humor you...
seems like greed-driven malware writers, spammers, and other digital bottom-feeders go free with a slap to the wrist while harmless teenage hackers get the book thrown at them. from a ZDNet article, "US bill would treat all hackers as terrorists":
meanwhile violent offenders face much lighter sentences: