The controller apparently incorporates a touchpad into the service to make it easier to play games designed for touchscreens. They are offering extra controllers for $30. That's a blue tooth controller with integrated touchpad for $30. It's this that screams Phantom to me. A fairly generic BT controller alone already costs around thirty bucks. How can they hope to sell their fancy version for the same amount?
In a perfect world, they pull it off, create a minor storm in the gaming world and fulfil everyone's orders, but it's entirely possible this ends up with nobody getting anything, except for the company employees who've had their wages funded for a year or two.
Until quite recently there were still people waiting to receive their Pandora console, two years late and that was, arguably, a substantially less ambitious project but one also funded by pre-orders. To their credit the Pandora devs ended up having to invest a lot of their own money and despite facing some incredible set-backs and hurdles they managed to create their dream handheld - albeit one that is now several years behind the loop compared to what the originally envisaged.
Assuming design, packaging, shipping and royalties are free
Royalties to whom?
Royalties to the inevitable patent trolls that try to litigate them out of existence. $5 million would probably cover the legal department's canteen bill for the real players in this market, like MS, Sony and Apple.
Just wondering if getting rid of iGoogle, which I was never a fan of but which didn't seem heinous either, has anything to do with the "Google Now" app on Android.
If I had bought 10% of Facebook at the start, I expect to own 10% no matter how many shares are issued. Where are these shares coming from, MZ's own portion?
Doesn't work like that. You invest early and own 10% of the shares. Company runs out of money and needs more investment, say. Your 10% investment now become 10% of a company that won't stay afloat without more money, so you bring in a second round investor and your share gets diluted. Happens all the time. The real joke is that there's a ten to 1 bias against new shares when it comes to voting rights, so investors are effectively paying for a stake in a company that the majority of paper share-holders could still have no control over. So MZ has a large minority share-holding but 56% of the voting rights - hence the stunning Instagram decision. I really can't wait for this IPO to happen - it will be epic.
The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea. I can't find a single piece that argues for buying FB shares now (if you do, can you please share?). So I'm wondering, if there is such an overwhelming negativity against the shares, what's driving this demand up and making fb add more shares?! brokerage firms are offering pre-orders for pre-screened buyers with a minimum number of orders and still are not guaranteeing issuance of shares. If so many people are saying don't do it, who are all the people who are doing it, and why? I find it hard to believe that so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?
what's the pro argument for fb shares?
The people paying for the shares don't read tech stories off the Internet. The brokers punting the share to their customers make a commission regardless of what happens to the share after IPO. Obviously some investors will actually be hoping to make a quick buck by turning the shares around same day - and the demand suggests this will be very possible. Groupon and Glencore (mining firm) both closed above offer price on the day of their IPO, but look at them now. Of course that doesn't answer the question why so many investors are bullish on Facebook - even the fact the company is releasing more shares, when they can't possibly NEED the extra money, suggests they may see this as the optimum time to maximize their return. When tech shares fall, they fall hard.
If my great, great, great, great, great grandfather paid a thief to steal a car for him then (a) how is it MY fault and (b) who even had cars back then? Your car theory falls apart unless we stole time travel from Africa as well as the elephant feet. Pfft.
With the average size of a web page getting close to 1Mb in size. So 20 page views a day and you're in danger of exceeding your subscriber data cap and heading into charged territory.
Seems like overkill for these when you can already create an infinite variety of shoes and clothing with nothing but a bunch of plastic garbage bags and a roll of duct tape.
I field calls from companies claiming to be Google at least once a week. They aren't Google, they're people wanting to intermediate between a customer and eg Adwords. It's a scam, pure and simple. Whether this is the case here I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if it was official Google policy.
I ask because the public library services pays a yearly fee and the small print in most books prohibits lending without permission. Just throwing that out there. I'd say go for it, but I lack moral guidance.
For some reason belief in an invisible power beyond normal human understanding is considered silly in the UK. So some people from a Christian background put down "Jedi" as a more sensible option.
I've an issue with the term "Jedi Knight" used in the article. Becoming a Jedi Knight requires upwards of ten years training from a young age. Therefore most people claiming to be Jedi, are most likely simple believers in the Force, or, at best, Padawans.
Is to support the legal position that a citizen of an EU member state cannot be restricted from purchasing goods or services from any other member state - this is a rule that has been in position for years, and the FA were trying to have it not applied to their TV rights (as they gain billions from UK tv rights to Sky, which are now massively devalued).>
Killing exclusivity would devalue the rights, but you could have effective exclusivity. eg it would not be in the interests of a sporting governing body (or whoever negotiates the TV rights) to sell the same package to two different broadcasters if the income from the two deals was less than the income from a single exclusive partner. So you could negotiate non-exclusive rights with eg a Satellite firm, on the understanding that anybody else that wanted rights would have to buy the same package, effectively pricing the competition out of the picture. It might even INCREASE the value of the rights, though ultimately hitting consumers.
Well, I guess you let them "settle" and the hydrogen will rise to the top where it can be pumped off and compressed. Presumably the oxygen can be bottled as well, though I expect demand for it is lower. I imagine more oxygen in the atmosphere is a good thing, right?
Not quite that simple. There are a couple of games in the top ten with low review scores but are from popular franchises - Tron and Star Wars. There's also at least one, Two Worlds 2, that had a staggered release with a gap of several months between territories.
Every time I see one of these stories where a lobbyist jumps into a watchdog or Government post, or vice versa, I get a little more sympathetic towards downloading a TV show or MP3. It's like that Tinkerbell fairies thing from Peter Pan, except every time they abuse their powers a little bit of my moral compass dies.
Slashdot Mirror
The controller apparently incorporates a touchpad into the service to make it easier to play games designed for touchscreens. They are offering extra controllers for $30. That's a blue tooth controller with integrated touchpad for $30. It's this that screams Phantom to me. A fairly generic BT controller alone already costs around thirty bucks. How can they hope to sell their fancy version for the same amount?
In a perfect world, they pull it off, create a minor storm in the gaming world and fulfil everyone's orders, but it's entirely possible this ends up with nobody getting anything, except for the company employees who've had their wages funded for a year or two.
Until quite recently there were still people waiting to receive their Pandora console, two years late and that was, arguably, a substantially less ambitious project but one also funded by pre-orders. To their credit the Pandora devs ended up having to invest a lot of their own money and despite facing some incredible set-backs and hurdles they managed to create their dream handheld - albeit one that is now several years behind the loop compared to what the originally envisaged.
Assuming design, packaging, shipping and royalties are free
Royalties to whom?
Royalties to the inevitable patent trolls that try to litigate them out of existence. $5 million would probably cover the legal department's canteen bill for the real players in this market, like MS, Sony and Apple.
Just wondering if getting rid of iGoogle, which I was never a fan of but which didn't seem heinous either, has anything to do with the "Google Now" app on Android.
Good point. Drinking poison and exposure to human sexuality are very similar experiences
They can both cause a gag reflex.
If I had bought 10% of Facebook at the start, I expect to own 10% no matter how many shares are issued. Where are these shares coming from, MZ's own portion?
Doesn't work like that. You invest early and own 10% of the shares. Company runs out of money and needs more investment, say. Your 10% investment now become 10% of a company that won't stay afloat without more money, so you bring in a second round investor and your share gets diluted. Happens all the time. The real joke is that there's a ten to 1 bias against new shares when it comes to voting rights, so investors are effectively paying for a stake in a company that the majority of paper share-holders could still have no control over. So MZ has a large minority share-holding but 56% of the voting rights - hence the stunning Instagram decision. I really can't wait for this IPO to happen - it will be epic.
The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea. I can't find a single piece that argues for buying FB shares now (if you do, can you please share?). So I'm wondering, if there is such an overwhelming negativity against the shares, what's driving this demand up and making fb add more shares?! brokerage firms are offering pre-orders for pre-screened buyers with a minimum number of orders and still are not guaranteeing issuance of shares. If so many people are saying don't do it, who are all the people who are doing it, and why? I find it hard to believe that so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?
what's the pro argument for fb shares?
The people paying for the shares don't read tech stories off the Internet. The brokers punting the share to their customers make a commission regardless of what happens to the share after IPO. Obviously some investors will actually be hoping to make a quick buck by turning the shares around same day - and the demand suggests this will be very possible. Groupon and Glencore (mining firm) both closed above offer price on the day of their IPO, but look at them now. Of course that doesn't answer the question why so many investors are bullish on Facebook - even the fact the company is releasing more shares, when they can't possibly NEED the extra money, suggests they may see this as the optimum time to maximize their return. When tech shares fall, they fall hard.
If my great, great, great, great, great grandfather paid a thief to steal a car for him then (a) how is it MY fault and (b) who even had cars back then? Your car theory falls apart unless we stole time travel from Africa as well as the elephant feet. Pfft.
These days Intelligent Design is science and Hercules is history. Deal with it. Nothing good ever came of facts.
I wondered what all the suedeheads had been up to since the 70s.
... by throwing more money and resources at it, right?
Who is going to keep an eye on the passenger advocates?
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea Hath smaller fleas that on him prey, And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum."
With the average size of a web page getting close to 1Mb in size. So 20 page views a day and you're in danger of exceeding your subscriber data cap and heading into charged territory.
"American Inventor"
such as shoes, clothing
Seems like overkill for these when you can already create an infinite variety of shoes and clothing with nothing but a bunch of plastic garbage bags and a roll of duct tape.
I field calls from companies claiming to be Google at least once a week. They aren't Google, they're people wanting to intermediate between a customer and eg Adwords. It's a scam, pure and simple. Whether this is the case here I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if it was official Google policy.
I ask because the public library services pays a yearly fee and the small print in most books prohibits lending without permission. Just throwing that out there. I'd say go for it, but I lack moral guidance.
For some reason belief in an invisible power beyond normal human understanding is considered silly in the UK. So some people from a Christian background put down "Jedi" as a more sensible option.
I've an issue with the term "Jedi Knight" used in the article. Becoming a Jedi Knight requires upwards of ten years training from a young age. Therefore most people claiming to be Jedi, are most likely simple believers in the Force, or, at best, Padawans.
What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?
Is to support the legal position that a citizen of an EU member state cannot be restricted from purchasing goods or services from any other member state - this is a rule that has been in position for years, and the FA were trying to have it not applied to their TV rights (as they gain billions from UK tv rights to Sky, which are now massively devalued).>
Killing exclusivity would devalue the rights, but you could have effective exclusivity. eg it would not be in the interests of a sporting governing body (or whoever negotiates the TV rights) to sell the same package to two different broadcasters if the income from the two deals was less than the income from a single exclusive partner. So you could negotiate non-exclusive rights with eg a Satellite firm, on the understanding that anybody else that wanted rights would have to buy the same package, effectively pricing the competition out of the picture. It might even INCREASE the value of the rights, though ultimately hitting consumers.
the retirement age is 65. Don't expect that to last.
Well, I guess you let them "settle" and the hydrogen will rise to the top where it can be pumped off and compressed. Presumably the oxygen can be bottled as well, though I expect demand for it is lower. I imagine more oxygen in the atmosphere is a good thing, right?
Not quite that simple. There are a couple of games in the top ten with low review scores but are from popular franchises - Tron and Star Wars. There's also at least one, Two Worlds 2, that had a staggered release with a gap of several months between territories.
And before Cinavia.
He doesn't need to prove anything. They have to prove he stole/downloaded/copied it.
Except for Slashdot's credibility.
Every time I see one of these stories where a lobbyist jumps into a watchdog or Government post, or vice versa, I get a little more sympathetic towards downloading a TV show or MP3. It's like that Tinkerbell fairies thing from Peter Pan, except every time they abuse their powers a little bit of my moral compass dies.