I couldn't agree with you more about "Aliens". I was (and remain) thrilled by this film, and I think that it's by far James Cameron's finest effort (my wife and her friends think I'm some sort of heretic because I despised "Titanic"). I have at this moment open beside my computer
"Aliens: The Official Movie Magazine", which I hastened to buy when it went on sale in 1986. It's still in mint condition 22 years later, and is one of my treasured collector's items. It gives behind-the-scenes details of the film production, especially fascinating photos of setups for many of the scenes. What is not widely known is that Cameron is a talented illustrator, and in the words of Stan Winston, was entirely responsible for the "concept, idea, and design of the Alien Queen", as well as much of the production design. The magazine has early design sketches of the Queen by James Cameron, as well as extensive interviews with the principal cast and crew, including Stan Winston explaining how a lot of the shots were pulled off, such as the famous one of the Queen ripping Bishop in half. Kudos to Cameron: he recognized that people already knew from the first film what the creature looked like, and decided to turn it into a combat film. And yet he still managed to pull off a major shock by introducing the Queen.
True story. The forgettable Robert Redford/Debra Winger film "Legal Eagles" was released the same weekend as "Aliens", and my Mom, a huge Redford fan, wanted to see it, so my sister and I dropped her off at the cineplex where both were showing (I had already seen "Aliens" three times over the weekend). When we picked her up from the theater three hours later, the first thing we noticed was the disgusted expression on her face. Turns out that she'd gone into the wrong auditorium and wound up watching "Aliens". She's by no stretch of the imagination a fan of science fiction or horror films, but she actually enjoyed it tremendously; she was just disappointed that Robert Redford wasn't in it. She told us that she thought he would have been wonderful as Bishop. She saw "Legal Eagles" the following night, and said that she was right the first time: Redford should have been in "Aliens", in her opinion the far superior film.
1) Anybody going slower than you is an idiot;
2) Anybody going faster than you is a maniac;
3) Never, ever drive behind an old man wearing a plaid hat.
"Aliens", for which Stan won his first Oscar, is the first movie mentioned in the first sentence of the Wired article linked to in the summary. All the other news sources I've read, BBC News, Los Angeles Times, NY Times et al, mention "Aliens" prominently. And you've got good taste: "Aliens" is also among my all time favorite films. I'm deeply saddened by his passing. I remember seeing an interview with him about 10 years ago, during which he took the interviewer on a tour of his vast workshops, and apart from the fascinating and voluminous collection stored there, the thing that struck me most about Stan was his incredibly playful sense of humor. I laughed out loud at his clowning around, and couldn't help thinking that he would have been a great deal of fun to work with. He will be sorely missed.
Actually, let's face it - everyone's 'done' chip dies, fractals, ray tracing etc. (no offense other guys), so why not go for some non-IT-oriented aspirations: landscapes, beach scenes etc.
Amen. When I read the summary, my first thought was "Why SHOULD it be computer-related? Why not just art that CS majors might find interesting?" The first post suggested prints of Escher's work, which I thought quite appropriate because of their paradoxical nature, not to mention the beauty of the woodcuts, but being woodcuts, they're only going to be black-and-white (or grayscale). Then I thought: why not the works of Salvador Dali? Dali's technical brilliance as an illustrator was the foundation of his success as a surrealist. The bizarre, almost photo-realistic objects set in meticulously painted dreamscapes is to me a perfect metaphor for the unimaginable that may spring from the mundane, of the beauty and power inherent in tapestries of logic, woven from strands of 1's and 0's.
Everyone knows the drooping clocks of The Persistence of Memory, but what about the use of negative space to illustrate the subject of Invisible Afghan; or his habit of juxtaposing objects to create more images, as in Swans Reflecting Elephants? Dali produced about 1,500 paintings in his long career, and a good place to see a sample of his work is Virtual Dali. I think that while CS departments must ensure that graduates know the fundamentals, they should also be encouraging them to think outside the bounds of the ordinary. Dali's works reflect this conviction, in my opinion.
I just went back over the comments and saw that someone suggested Dali's "The Swallow's Tail". Nice to know that somebody else also thought about Dali.
In terms of interface, Leopard appears to be feature-complete, and I can only hypothesize that Apple is attempting to reassure PowerPC owners that they won't be left behind in that department by giving the next iteration of OS X a related name. And after looking at Apple's Snow Leopard page, I noticed something that I feel may be significant. Has anyone else noticed that nowhere on the page (nor indeed anywhere else) does Apple even mention "10.6"? Why is that? Could it be a suggestion that Apple themselves don't consider Snow Leopard to be different enough to earn the distinction over 10.5?
Thanks. I understand what you're saying, and the "biodiversity/climate" example wasn't a good one. I really should have been clearer, and your example of chess playing computers and totally alien, incomprehensible thought is much closer to what I was trying to express. To expand on that, by "amoral" I was trying to say, without recognizably human moral considerations, not actively "evil" or any such thing, although we'd probably consider them evil if their activities were detrimental to humanity.
I mean, if I ordered a burrito yesterday, and my neighbor ordered one today, and his two friends ordered one the next day, does that mean in 40 more days, all one trillion people on earth will have had one?
I don't know about the "one trillion", but the other six billion of us will need either Pepto-Bismol or gas masks.
If (when?) AI exceeds human intellect, it seems to me that there are two possible outcomes. If they are amoral intelligences, what's to stop them from deciding that human life is detrimental to earth's biodiversity and climate (remember V'ger's "carbon infestation" diagnosis?), and in the worst case scenario, exterminating the bulk of humanity and keeping a few specimens in some sort of reservation for posterity's sake?
If on the other hand, they do have a well-developed sense of morality (by human standards), then they will make sure that they have absolutely no contact with us. Anyone remember the video from a few weeks ago of that tribe in Peru shaking spears and shooting arrows at the helicopter flying over their territory? Even we humans consider contact with groups at a much lower level of development detrimental to that group, hence the efforts to preserve the territories of the estimated 100 Stone Age tribes worldwide, and limit or prohibit contact with them. Wouldn't AI consider contact with a group at such a low level of development (humans) to be potentially devastating to humans, and that no contact whatsoever would be in our best interests? Any anthropologists out there care to comment?
Or in other words, what does the terminology matter?
Imagine if the former ninth planet had been named after Hemos, and then a class of similar objects given a derivative of that name. We'd have to put up with "Hemorrhoids circling Uranus" jokes until the heat death of the Universe.
Focussing on their hardware, whether it's the iMac or iPhone, is definitely missing the point. This guy definitely gets it.
And so do you. Kudos. That was the best summary of Apple's business model that I've ever seen on Slashdot, and is the definitive reason why they won't license OS X for the foreseeable future [It's indeed possible that they might, if the iTunes Store becomes the major gateway to Web-based media, and their main source of revenue. Then as a strategic move they could even give it away for free in order to cement their platform dominance]. What's really interesting to me is how their emphasis on design ties both hardware and software together. Apple continues to demonstrate that design does indeed matter; it's not just about cramming in features. In fact, they've shown numerous times that they'll deliberately omit features from software and hardware, and only add them when they can do so in a way that not just makes sense to the average consumer, but which they also consider "attractive".
Thanks for the info. I should have clarified by asking if there are other mobile devices that have the same browsing experience a la MobileSafari. I'm a Mac user myself, and I own a Blackberry Curve, which I consider the best mobile phone I've ever owned, but browsing the Web on my son's iPhone makes the Curve look positively primitive. And I do agree with you about the lock-in thing. I'm disinterested (as opposed to "uninterested") in the iPhone, and have no plans to get one any time soon, but I'm deeply intrigued by Apple's Web strategy.
If that were true, Apple'd make a CDMA version. There are more people with CDMA cellphones in the US than GSM.
Yes, but there are a lot more people in the rest of the world than there are in the U.S., and the U.S. is considered woefully behind in mobile technology. Apple is courting the rest of the world, and are hoping that American consumers will push for technological improvements in mobile service.
Here's a little hint for you. Nokia sells more phones EVERY THREE DAYS than Apple EVER HAS.
Smartphones? And at what profit? The big thing is mobile connectivity. Can the 95 kazillion candybars Nokia sells connect to the Internet as well as the iPhone? Symbian has about 51% of the smartphone market right now, not "upwards of SIXTY", and it's SHRINKING, losing share to Windows CE, Linux, RIM, and now Apple. Listen to yourself, hyperventilating on your iPhone hate. What, you think technology is going to sit still because you wish it? Nowhere did I say that other mobile manufacturers were "doomed", I said it's going to FEEL like that for them, in terms of the public at large ignoring their offerings once iPhone fever takes hold, and make no mistake, it will in the coming weeks. Business isn't just about marketshare, it's about mindshare as well, and Apple has that in spades. You quote that 3% iPhone marketshare figure like it's etched in granite, and the 3G iPhone isn't even out yet. Do you honestly think that it will remain 3% ad infinitum, or is that just wishful thinking Apple hatred on your part? Did you even read the rest of my post about it being a platform strategy on Apple's part, or are you still busy choking on your outrage that someone could have a differing opinion? Where did anyone say that the platform "is entrenched"? Gruber said that ONCE entrenched, platforms are hard to displace. Do you have difficulty with the concept of speculation, or do you not know the difference between "is" and "once"? Or do you have firm knowledge that this strategy will fail? C'mon Miss Cleo, share your foreknowledge with us poor humans.
The more they tighten their grip, the more customers will slip through their fingers...
I think that John Gruber nailed it. By halving the price and rolling out in 70 countries simultaneously, Apple is going for market share in a huge way. If you thought the hype leading up to the US launch last June was over the top, I think you'd better go hide in a cave in the weeks leading up to July 11th. The global excitement and anticipation will feed on itself and drown out any other consideration, as far as the general public is concerned. The iPhone noise is going to be so loud that other mobile manufacturers are going to be completely drowned out, and they damned well know it. Nothing they do between now and the launch of iPhone 2.0 will even register on the public consciousness; they see the train coming and can't get off the track. I strongly suspect that July 11th will ring in like the crack of doom for most of them.
I was seriously considering getting one of the new 3G iPhones, but now I will definitely not.
Ah, but don't you see, like most Slashdotters, you fail to realize that you are not an ordinary consumer of electronics. The iPhone wasn't designed for you, and the marketing isn't aimed at you. The general public, however, is going to leap at the iPhone like a trout going for a fly. As bizarre as it may seem to people on this and other tech forums, in-store activation is going to be seen as a huge draw for Joe and Jane Consumer, to whom even the relatively simple iTunes activation is a pain in the butt. They want the instant gratification of buying their new iPhone and being able walk out of the store boasting to their friends: "OMG Joanie! Guess what I'm using to call you!!"
I think that Gruber is absolutely correct: the iPhone only has two new hardware features, namely, 3G networking and GPS, which means Apple was concentrating on getting a cheaper 3G iPhone into the hands of as many consumers as possible. Money quote:
"The physical phone is not the story. A year from now, the iPhone 3G will be replaced by another new model. The platform is the story. Platforms have staying power, and, once entrenched, are very hard to displace."
Bold emphases mine. The platform is indeed the story, and Microsoft is painfully aware of what Apple is trying to do (and may very well succeed at doing), namely producing the gateway device to Web 2.0 and their true bid for world domination, the iTunes Store. People pay billions each year for ringtones for God's sake, not because they're worth that much, but because of the convenience of being able to get it instantly. You had better believe that they'll happily pay through the nose for the convenience of having music, video, games, etc. right at their fingertips. It's all about impulse purchasing, something retailers have known about for decades, which is why candy and other high margin items are located right at grocery checkout stands. People will pay for instant gratification and not regret it.
I saw a video of this demo from TED2007 when it was called Photosynth, formerly Seadragon. Would it have killed Microsoft to have kept either of these much cooler names? I don't know which clueless marketing droid came up with this incredibly lame moniker, but he should be strapped into one of Ballmer's chairs when Uncle Fester is having his daily rant against Google/Apple/Linux.
...Islamists just don't hold a candle to our dear former enemies, the Soviets. Well, I suppose they'll have to do until the authorities can cook up something scarier.
Don't worry; just wait long enough and Putin will oblige. Forget about China. Militarily, they're no international threat to anyone (except maybe Taiwan), and they have too much to worry about in the coming decades with their rivalry for resources with India. Russia under Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. He has been moving steadily to consolidate his political power and will brook no challenges (just ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky). Russian television has even been digitally erasing people whom he doesn't like, shades of the practice of removing Stalin's executed rivals from official photographs. Putin is a scary motherfucker, and he's made no secret of his desire to return Russian influence to the geopolitical forefront.
Of course they are, and they continue to innovate. The iPhone interface isn't an innovation? And are you fucking kidding me about the so-called "Best Page In The Universe"? Anyone who could have such a shitty-looking website doesn't have the least goddamned clue about design, or its importance, especially when it comes to human interface. Microsoft and Dell have also introduced dramatic innovations, and I'm fully aware that that statement is heresy on Slashdot, but give credit where it is due (and I'm saying this as a Mac user). The problem is that the word doesn't mean what most people think it means (apologies to Inigo Montoya). From Dictionary.com:
innovate : to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
People usually mistakenly conflate "innovate" with "invent", and to say that any of these three companies has not innovated would be wrong. Apple's innovations were to bring geeky technology to the masses in a way that made sense and were useful (GUI, CD-ROM drive, USB, Unix); Microsoft of course were the ones who spread computing far, wide, and deep; Dell's innovations were in manufacturing and sales, and they can be fairly credited with commoditizing the personal computer. In my opinion Michael Dell has done more to drive down the cost of computers, thereby bringing heretofore artificially expensive gadgets into the mainstream, than anyone else. Like him or loathe him, his place in computing history is secure.
The official report states that the K-129's forward section broke apart while being winched up by Glomar Explorer, but that two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the remains of six crewmen were recovered (they were given a memorial service and buried at sea with military honors by the U.S. Navy). There have been whispers that the official story was disinformation for the Soviets' benefit, and that the mission was an unqualified success, recovering a ballistic missile and the real jackpot, the code books containing invaluable cryptographic information, including Soviet launch codes. Guess we'll know the full story in a few decades or so.
This response resembles the way dirt bikers turn by extending a boot heel, researchers said.
IANADB (I am not a dirt biker), but the ones I've seen in action extend the entire boot, to say nothing of the foot and leg. Microscopic dancing robots are great and all, but I'm much more intrigued by the cool Transformers footwear that the researchers mentioned so casually in passing.
Any whatsoever? His part in the Maynor/Ellch debacle was a serious low point for tech journalism; he makes Rob Enderle look good, fer chrissakes. Even if the article were in fact insightful and informative, the simple fact that his name is attached to it guarantees that I'm not going to read it. Someone please tell me what it says.
It's clear (to me, at least) that Steve Sinofsky was made boss of Windows development more for his mastery of spin than his technical skills. Exhibit A: the C|NET interview with Ina Fried. Any politician reading this masterpiece of doublespeak will turn emerald green with envy, and I defy anyone here to distill any meaning out of his long, rambling answers to Fried's questions. Fried begins to get exasperated about two-thirds of the way through ["It sounds like you're saying"..."If I'm understanding correctly"..."seemed like you were saying"...], and attempts to pin him down to solid answers, alas to no avail. Typical example plucked at random:
Fried:...when Bill Gates...said that Windows 7 was coming in the next year, was he referring to when the beta version would show up?
Sinofsky: What I think I want to say is what I just said, which is we said we'd be out there with a release of Windows 7 three years after the general availability of Windows Vista.
Granted, Sinofsky is being very cagey about not revealing specifics, but I've gotta say that the man displays real skill at saying nothing in a very long-winded fashion. He could have been the White House press secretary. I think Steve Jobs and many, many posters on Slashdot were correct in saying that the marketing people have gained ascendancy over the engineers at Microsoft.
I need new glasses; I could have sworn that said "Ballmer and chairs". Although if this goes over as well as I think it will, I strongly suspect that they'll be featuring prominently in an encore in Redmond.
Microsoft are suffering the consequences of their own breath-taking success. The company's traditional market are saturated, and in order to keep their shareholders happy, and therefore their stock price up (which dramatically impacts their ability to raise money from institutional lenders), MS have to boldly venture into new markets. It's not enough that their revenue is still astronomical; it's beginning to plateau, and unless they can identify new streams of income they'll become irrelevant to the people who really drive a company's stock price: the day traders and speculators. Despite what many Slashdotters may believe or wish, Microsoft won't vanish overnight; they're too damned big and rich to just evaporate. Right now they're experiencing the "thousand cuts"; beset on all sides with legal challenges; having emboldened competitors eroding their markets; and worst of all for them, losing the mindshare of the average consumer, to whom heretofore "Windows" meant "computer". Given their cash reserves, this situation could conceivably continue for the foreseeable future. That cash pile is the buffer against market shocks, and until it dwindles to nothing, they'll continue to aggressively pursue new opportunities. They have to; like a shark, they have to keep moving forward in order to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree with you more about "Aliens". I was (and remain) thrilled by this film, and I think that it's by far James Cameron's finest effort (my wife and her friends think I'm some sort of heretic because I despised "Titanic"). I have at this moment open beside my computer "Aliens: The Official Movie Magazine", which I hastened to buy when it went on sale in 1986. It's still in mint condition 22 years later, and is one of my treasured collector's items. It gives behind-the-scenes details of the film production, especially fascinating photos of setups for many of the scenes. What is not widely known is that Cameron is a talented illustrator, and in the words of Stan Winston, was entirely responsible for the "concept, idea, and design of the Alien Queen", as well as much of the production design. The magazine has early design sketches of the Queen by James Cameron, as well as extensive interviews with the principal cast and crew, including Stan Winston explaining how a lot of the shots were pulled off, such as the famous one of the Queen ripping Bishop in half. Kudos to Cameron: he recognized that people already knew from the first film what the creature looked like, and decided to turn it into a combat film. And yet he still managed to pull off a major shock by introducing the Queen.
True story. The forgettable Robert Redford/Debra Winger film "Legal Eagles" was released the same weekend as "Aliens", and my Mom, a huge Redford fan, wanted to see it, so my sister and I dropped her off at the cineplex where both were showing (I had already seen "Aliens" three times over the weekend). When we picked her up from the theater three hours later, the first thing we noticed was the disgusted expression on her face. Turns out that she'd gone into the wrong auditorium and wound up watching "Aliens". She's by no stretch of the imagination a fan of science fiction or horror films, but she actually enjoyed it tremendously; she was just disappointed that Robert Redford wasn't in it. She told us that she thought he would have been wonderful as Bishop. She saw "Legal Eagles" the following night, and said that she was right the first time: Redford should have been in "Aliens", in her opinion the far superior film.
1) Anybody going slower than you is an idiot; 2) Anybody going faster than you is a maniac; 3) Never, ever drive behind an old man wearing a plaid hat.
"Aliens", for which Stan won his first Oscar, is the first movie mentioned in the first sentence of the Wired article linked to in the summary. All the other news sources I've read, BBC News, Los Angeles Times, NY Times et al, mention "Aliens" prominently. And you've got good taste: "Aliens" is also among my all time favorite films. I'm deeply saddened by his passing. I remember seeing an interview with him about 10 years ago, during which he took the interviewer on a tour of his vast workshops, and apart from the fascinating and voluminous collection stored there, the thing that struck me most about Stan was his incredibly playful sense of humor. I laughed out loud at his clowning around, and couldn't help thinking that he would have been a great deal of fun to work with. He will be sorely missed.
Amen. When I read the summary, my first thought was "Why SHOULD it be computer-related? Why not just art that CS majors might find interesting?" The first post suggested prints of Escher's work, which I thought quite appropriate because of their paradoxical nature, not to mention the beauty of the woodcuts, but being woodcuts, they're only going to be black-and-white (or grayscale). Then I thought: why not the works of Salvador Dali? Dali's technical brilliance as an illustrator was the foundation of his success as a surrealist. The bizarre, almost photo-realistic objects set in meticulously painted dreamscapes is to me a perfect metaphor for the unimaginable that may spring from the mundane, of the beauty and power inherent in tapestries of logic, woven from strands of 1's and 0's.
Everyone knows the drooping clocks of The Persistence of Memory, but what about the use of negative space to illustrate the subject of Invisible Afghan; or his habit of juxtaposing objects to create more images, as in Swans Reflecting Elephants? Dali produced about 1,500 paintings in his long career, and a good place to see a sample of his work is Virtual Dali. I think that while CS departments must ensure that graduates know the fundamentals, they should also be encouraging them to think outside the bounds of the ordinary. Dali's works reflect this conviction, in my opinion.
I just went back over the comments and saw that someone suggested Dali's "The Swallow's Tail". Nice to know that somebody else also thought about Dali.
In terms of interface, Leopard appears to be feature-complete, and I can only hypothesize that Apple is attempting to reassure PowerPC owners that they won't be left behind in that department by giving the next iteration of OS X a related name. And after looking at Apple's Snow Leopard page, I noticed something that I feel may be significant. Has anyone else noticed that nowhere on the page (nor indeed anywhere else) does Apple even mention "10.6"? Why is that? Could it be a suggestion that Apple themselves don't consider Snow Leopard to be different enough to earn the distinction over 10.5?
Thanks. I understand what you're saying, and the "biodiversity/climate" example wasn't a good one. I really should have been clearer, and your example of chess playing computers and totally alien, incomprehensible thought is much closer to what I was trying to express. To expand on that, by "amoral" I was trying to say, without recognizably human moral considerations, not actively "evil" or any such thing, although we'd probably consider them evil if their activities were detrimental to humanity.
If (when?) AI exceeds human intellect, it seems to me that there are two possible outcomes. If they are amoral intelligences, what's to stop them from deciding that human life is detrimental to earth's biodiversity and climate (remember V'ger's "carbon infestation" diagnosis?), and in the worst case scenario, exterminating the bulk of humanity and keeping a few specimens in some sort of reservation for posterity's sake?
If on the other hand, they do have a well-developed sense of morality (by human standards), then they will make sure that they have absolutely no contact with us. Anyone remember the video from a few weeks ago of that tribe in Peru shaking spears and shooting arrows at the helicopter flying over their territory? Even we humans consider contact with groups at a much lower level of development detrimental to that group, hence the efforts to preserve the territories of the estimated 100 Stone Age tribes worldwide, and limit or prohibit contact with them. Wouldn't AI consider contact with a group at such a low level of development (humans) to be potentially devastating to humans, and that no contact whatsoever would be in our best interests? Any anthropologists out there care to comment?
Thanks for the info. I should have clarified by asking if there are other mobile devices that have the same browsing experience a la MobileSafari. I'm a Mac user myself, and I own a Blackberry Curve, which I consider the best mobile phone I've ever owned, but browsing the Web on my son's iPhone makes the Curve look positively primitive. And I do agree with you about the lock-in thing. I'm disinterested (as opposed to "uninterested") in the iPhone, and have no plans to get one any time soon, but I'm deeply intrigued by Apple's Web strategy.
I think that John Gruber nailed it. By halving the price and rolling out in 70 countries simultaneously, Apple is going for market share in a huge way. If you thought the hype leading up to the US launch last June was over the top, I think you'd better go hide in a cave in the weeks leading up to July 11th. The global excitement and anticipation will feed on itself and drown out any other consideration, as far as the general public is concerned. The iPhone noise is going to be so loud that other mobile manufacturers are going to be completely drowned out, and they damned well know it. Nothing they do between now and the launch of iPhone 2.0 will even register on the public consciousness; they see the train coming and can't get off the track. I strongly suspect that July 11th will ring in like the crack of doom for most of them.
Ah, but don't you see, like most Slashdotters, you fail to realize that you are not an ordinary consumer of electronics. The iPhone wasn't designed for you, and the marketing isn't aimed at you. The general public, however, is going to leap at the iPhone like a trout going for a fly. As bizarre as it may seem to people on this and other tech forums, in-store activation is going to be seen as a huge draw for Joe and Jane Consumer, to whom even the relatively simple iTunes activation is a pain in the butt. They want the instant gratification of buying their new iPhone and being able walk out of the store boasting to their friends: "OMG Joanie! Guess what I'm using to call you!!"
I think that Gruber is absolutely correct: the iPhone only has two new hardware features, namely, 3G networking and GPS, which means Apple was concentrating on getting a cheaper 3G iPhone into the hands of as many consumers as possible. Money quote:
"The physical phone is not the story. A year from now, the iPhone 3G will be replaced by another new model. The platform is the story. Platforms have staying power, and, once entrenched, are very hard to displace."
Bold emphases mine. The platform is indeed the story, and Microsoft is painfully aware of what Apple is trying to do (and may very well succeed at doing), namely producing the gateway device to Web 2.0 and their true bid for world domination, the iTunes Store. People pay billions each year for ringtones for God's sake, not because they're worth that much, but because of the convenience of being able to get it instantly. You had better believe that they'll happily pay through the nose for the convenience of having music, video, games, etc. right at their fingertips. It's all about impulse purchasing, something retailers have known about for decades, which is why candy and other high margin items are located right at grocery checkout stands. People will pay for instant gratification and not regret it.
I saw a video of this demo from TED2007 when it was called Photosynth, formerly Seadragon. Would it have killed Microsoft to have kept either of these much cooler names? I don't know which clueless marketing droid came up with this incredibly lame moniker, but he should be strapped into one of Ballmer's chairs when Uncle Fester is having his daily rant against Google/Apple/Linux.
Of course they are, and they continue to innovate. The iPhone interface isn't an innovation? And are you fucking kidding me about the so-called "Best Page In The Universe"? Anyone who could have such a shitty-looking website doesn't have the least goddamned clue about design, or its importance, especially when it comes to human interface. Microsoft and Dell have also introduced dramatic innovations, and I'm fully aware that that statement is heresy on Slashdot, but give credit where it is due (and I'm saying this as a Mac user). The problem is that the word doesn't mean what most people think it means (apologies to Inigo Montoya). From Dictionary.com:
innovate : to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
People usually mistakenly conflate "innovate" with "invent", and to say that any of these three companies has not innovated would be wrong. Apple's innovations were to bring geeky technology to the masses in a way that made sense and were useful (GUI, CD-ROM drive, USB, Unix); Microsoft of course were the ones who spread computing far, wide, and deep; Dell's innovations were in manufacturing and sales, and they can be fairly credited with commoditizing the personal computer. In my opinion Michael Dell has done more to drive down the cost of computers, thereby bringing heretofore artificially expensive gadgets into the mainstream, than anyone else. Like him or loathe him, his place in computing history is secure.
The official report states that the K-129's forward section broke apart while being winched up by Glomar Explorer, but that two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the remains of six crewmen were recovered (they were given a memorial service and buried at sea with military honors by the U.S. Navy). There have been whispers that the official story was disinformation for the Soviets' benefit, and that the mission was an unqualified success, recovering a ballistic missile and the real jackpot, the code books containing invaluable cryptographic information, including Soviet launch codes. Guess we'll know the full story in a few decades or so.
LOL! Thanks for the summary.
Any whatsoever? His part in the Maynor/Ellch debacle was a serious low point for tech journalism; he makes Rob Enderle look good, fer chrissakes. Even if the article were in fact insightful and informative, the simple fact that his name is attached to it guarantees that I'm not going to read it. Someone please tell me what it says.
"Someone needs to let these people know about the upcoming new iPhone." -John Gruber
It's clear (to me, at least) that Steve Sinofsky was made boss of Windows development more for his mastery of spin than his technical skills. Exhibit A: the C|NET interview with Ina Fried. Any politician reading this masterpiece of doublespeak will turn emerald green with envy, and I defy anyone here to distill any meaning out of his long, rambling answers to Fried's questions. Fried begins to get exasperated about two-thirds of the way through ["It sounds like you're saying"..."If I'm understanding correctly"..."seemed like you were saying"...], and attempts to pin him down to solid answers, alas to no avail. Typical example plucked at random:
Granted, Sinofsky is being very cagey about not revealing specifics, but I've gotta say that the man displays real skill at saying nothing in a very long-winded fashion. He could have been the White House press secretary. I think Steve Jobs and many, many posters on Slashdot were correct in saying that the marketing people have gained ascendancy over the engineers at Microsoft.
Microsoft are suffering the consequences of their own breath-taking success. The company's traditional market are saturated, and in order to keep their shareholders happy, and therefore their stock price up (which dramatically impacts their ability to raise money from institutional lenders), MS have to boldly venture into new markets. It's not enough that their revenue is still astronomical; it's beginning to plateau, and unless they can identify new streams of income they'll become irrelevant to the people who really drive a company's stock price: the day traders and speculators. Despite what many Slashdotters may believe or wish, Microsoft won't vanish overnight; they're too damned big and rich to just evaporate. Right now they're experiencing the "thousand cuts"; beset on all sides with legal challenges; having emboldened competitors eroding their markets; and worst of all for them, losing the mindshare of the average consumer, to whom heretofore "Windows" meant "computer". Given their cash reserves, this situation could conceivably continue for the foreseeable future. That cash pile is the buffer against market shocks, and until it dwindles to nothing, they'll continue to aggressively pursue new opportunities. They have to; like a shark, they have to keep moving forward in order to survive.