Developers who want to starve, sure. A 3% market share can only support so many developers. Agreed. However...
First, it depends on the markets you wish to serve and what they are using. Marketshare in different markets that you are selling your software into matters. For example, graphic artists tend to use Macintoshes. Apple's marketshare in this market is well above 3% and, sure enough, if you look at software aimed towards graphics artists, you'll find lots of Mac software out there.
Second, the 3% number you quote is the worldwide marketshare. Consider Macintosh use in the markets you are trying to penetrate. For example, the fact that Macintosh use in, say, mainland China is negligible means that I probably won't sell much of my software over there. Of course, I probably won't sell much of my Windows software over there, either (because of piracy, marketing limitations, localization costs, etc.). So it's not necessarily a market that I'm all that interested in.
Finally, the old Macintosh standby when marketshare is brought up--suitability. For example, we have a PC in the office that we use with our shipper's software (UPS). Is this PC a target for our software? Nope. But it counts as one of the sales. Nobody is interested in color management for cash register displays.
By the way, I've been a Macintosh developer for almost 20 years. And the only reason I'm starving is that my co-worker hasn't brought back lunch yet...:^)
Actually, some car companies just decide not to sell...
As I understand it, Audi stopped selling their TT for model year 2006 because it didn't meet California smog requirements and it would have been too expensive to make it meet the requirements. Audi was getting ready to redesign the TT for 2007 (which would fit the requirements) so they decided to not sell the 2006 in California.
their four seasons are Wildfire, Mudslide, Earthquake, and Smog [...] But the beautiful thing is how they merge. Why, just last week, an earthquake caused a mudslide which put out the wildfire in my backyard...
Microsoft's viral campaign against the PS3 [...] uses paid bloggers and commenters to inspire more hate against the PS3? Is Sony prepared to do something about it? More specifically, is Sony prepared to pay me money to say nice things about the PS3? And how much are they willing to pay?
Those who played the racing game showed more agressive behavior (in a formal driving simulator) regardless of their video gaming history. Ah, there's the rub.
So, first they put the subjects in a video game (the driving simulator) to establish a baseline. Then they put the subjects into another video game where driving fast was the key. Then they stuck them back in the first video game and noticed that they drove the same way.
Why? Because there were no consequences.
When I was about 10, my Mom and sisters went away for the weekend and my Dad and I were left to "batch" (ie, "bachelor") it for the weekend. This meant going out for fast food. Right by the fast food place was a go-cart track, so my Dad and I hit the go-carts. My Dad was not an aggressive driver at first, and I built up a pretty good lead. But once he had a feel for the go-cart, he caught up and passed me pretty easily. We had a heck of a good time zooming around the track. Then we got in the car and went home.
Coming off the freeway (through a green light) my Dad took the turn a little too fast. No harm, but there was definitely the sound of screeching tires and I was pushed against the passenger door (neither of us were wearing seatbelts). We made the turn, but I remember my Dad saying, "Oops. Guess I'm not in the go-cart anymore. Sorry." We went home without any other incidents.
Driving a simulator generally doesn't give you the centrifugal forces and other sensory effects of actually driving. And if you mess up, you know there's no consequences. So I have no problem believing the outcome of their tests because there was nothing to force the driver back to reality. I'd probably do the same thing.
I like playing car racing games. But when I get behind the wheel of a real car, I have plenty of reminders that this is not a game. Whenever I consider doing something that might be dangerous, I usually ask myself, "Is it worth dieing for?" What are the consequences in a "driving simulator?" Some tsking from the guy running the test? Bah...
Add some serious consequences to the driving simulator and I'd be willing to bet you'd see the aggressive driving stats fall off.
I'll agree. Though as I understand it (and I may be wrong), at least part of the reason that the rovers were spec'ed for 90 days was that NASA believed that the solar panels would end up covered in dust and be unable to generate power. Conveniently enough, there appears to be a nice breeze which is blowing dust off the solar panels so that they can continue to work.
I wonder what might happen when they drive the rover into the crater. If the end up driving it somewhere where this isn't much of a wind, will the solar panels get covered in dust and stop working?
Also--raging personal opinion based on no facts whatsoever--I think NASA low-balled on purpose. It's easier to ask for money to "extend the mission" than it is to ask for the money in the first place. If NASA had asked for the money to run two rovers around Mars for three years, they'd've been shot down. But once you have the rover on the surface and it's running, it's easier to go and say, "Hey, we've already spent this money and the equipment is still working so can we have more money to keep it running?"
It's a good way to deal with government bureaucracy...
I think the way they're defining "the solar system" is basically the area where planets orbit--say, out to Neptune. After that, you are "outside" the solar system, even though all these objects in the kuiper belt orbit the sun.
It's sort of like the atmosphere of the Earth. After a couple of hundred miles, you're in "space" even though there's still bits of Earth's atmosphere up that high.
Well, I could complain that "abnormal" implies "bad." Therefore, he should not have used the term "abnormal" but, instead, the politically correct "Differently Normal."
It's much the same problem as product placement ads.
If I'm running around the city fragging people, you're right: I don't really care if the billboard in the background says, "Drink Coke" or "Buy the SUX-2000." But, as you say, I don't need to see a billboard in the middle of a forest advertising Coca-Cola (maybe Orca-Cola, but that's another story). And if I'm battling aliens in the year 2390 on a derelict space station, I'm not sure I want to be told about the Saturn Vue.
One of the issues of this, though, is a similar problem that you find in "product placement"--for the most part, it has to be a somewhat contemporary storyline. Thus, it makes games with a contemporary storyline more profitable not because more people are buying the game but because of the advertising therein. This kinda sucks for great games that don't necessarily have a contemporary storyline. How would you do advertisements in a game like "Halo", for example?
Do you realize how much it will cost to build these things?! You certainly don't want to spend billions of dollars designing these things, getting them to the moon, building them, and then have the public say, "Nope. Those are ugly. Tear it down and try again."
Besides, what would the Lunar Homeowners Committee say?
Nope. I think the look of these is very important! Before we spend the money to send them to the moon, they have to look appropriately futuristic and cool or else I'm not paying for it!
Yes, but is it a "big problem?" NASA has also been doing some research in this area to see how big a problem this is.
The first question is "What are the odds?" The moon is still a pretty big place. It's surface area is 37.8 million square kilometers--about the same as Russia, Canada, and the United States combined. So what are the chances that a micrometeoroid is going to hit somewhere in the 22 square meters that you have for your inflatable habitat? Well, it depends on the frequency that these things hit. Is the moon being continually bombarded by these things all over the place? Are there areas that are more dangerous than others?
The next question is "What can be done about it?" The foil system you talk about is one method. I'm sure there are plenty of other methods. I would imagine that NASA would provide a solution based upon how likely it is to occur. If it's something that might happen once a year, for example, NASA's goal would probably be concerned with making sure the envelope doesn't tear if it's punctured so that astronauts could manually patch it. If it occurs more often--say, once a week--then NASA would probably want to come up with some sort of self-sealing system. If it's something that happens once a day, then they'd need sterner stuff or they'd have to bury it.
A couple of weeks ago, I was watching "Heroes." When they did their previews of next week's episode (sponsored by Microsoft Vista), they started off with this amusing Exposé effect, showing all the different windows. Then all the windows moved into the Flip3D interface and they scrolled through each clip.
Well, I was wondering if Exposé would support this. So I went over to my Mac and fired up a couple of videos in QuickTime player and hit the Exposé button. Sure enough, the videos kept playing even though the size was reduced.
Will Flip3D do this? Or was the effect done at NBC? I sort of assume it was, because of the opening Exposé effect and the fact that the video clip paused until it was brought to the front of the "stack." But I'd be curious to see what happens when you play a video and bring up the Flip3D effect. Unfortunately, I don't have a Vista machine to check this out with...
Slashdot Mirror
First, it depends on the markets you wish to serve and what they are using. Marketshare in different markets that you are selling your software into matters. For example, graphic artists tend to use Macintoshes. Apple's marketshare in this market is well above 3% and, sure enough, if you look at software aimed towards graphics artists, you'll find lots of Mac software out there.
Second, the 3% number you quote is the worldwide marketshare. Consider Macintosh use in the markets you are trying to penetrate. For example, the fact that Macintosh use in, say, mainland China is negligible means that I probably won't sell much of my software over there. Of course, I probably won't sell much of my Windows software over there, either (because of piracy, marketing limitations, localization costs, etc.). So it's not necessarily a market that I'm all that interested in.
Finally, the old Macintosh standby when marketshare is brought up--suitability. For example, we have a PC in the office that we use with our shipper's software (UPS). Is this PC a target for our software? Nope. But it counts as one of the sales. Nobody is interested in color management for cash register displays.
By the way, I've been a Macintosh developer for almost 20 years. And the only reason I'm starving is that my co-worker hasn't brought back lunch yet...
Dah dah, dahdahdahla da da da...
The Law of the Squirrel: Live Fast, Die Young, Leave a Flat Patch of Fur on the Highway.
Actually, some car companies just decide not to sell...
As I understand it, Audi stopped selling their TT for model year 2006 because it didn't meet California smog requirements and it would have been too expensive to make it meet the requirements. Audi was getting ready to redesign the TT for 2007 (which would fit the requirements) so they decided to not sell the 2006 in California.
Reference, for those who missed it.
Again, to drag out the classic George Carlin chestnut:
"Did you ever notice that people who drive slower than you are idiots And people who drive faster than you are maniacs?"
So, first they put the subjects in a video game (the driving simulator) to establish a baseline. Then they put the subjects into another video game where driving fast was the key. Then they stuck them back in the first video game and noticed that they drove the same way.
Why? Because there were no consequences.
When I was about 10, my Mom and sisters went away for the weekend and my Dad and I were left to "batch" (ie, "bachelor") it for the weekend. This meant going out for fast food. Right by the fast food place was a go-cart track, so my Dad and I hit the go-carts. My Dad was not an aggressive driver at first, and I built up a pretty good lead. But once he had a feel for the go-cart, he caught up and passed me pretty easily. We had a heck of a good time zooming around the track. Then we got in the car and went home.
Coming off the freeway (through a green light) my Dad took the turn a little too fast. No harm, but there was definitely the sound of screeching tires and I was pushed against the passenger door (neither of us were wearing seatbelts). We made the turn, but I remember my Dad saying, "Oops. Guess I'm not in the go-cart anymore. Sorry." We went home without any other incidents.
Driving a simulator generally doesn't give you the centrifugal forces and other sensory effects of actually driving. And if you mess up, you know there's no consequences. So I have no problem believing the outcome of their tests because there was nothing to force the driver back to reality. I'd probably do the same thing.
I like playing car racing games. But when I get behind the wheel of a real car, I have plenty of reminders that this is not a game. Whenever I consider doing something that might be dangerous, I usually ask myself, "Is it worth dieing for?" What are the consequences in a "driving simulator?" Some tsking from the guy running the test? Bah...
Add some serious consequences to the driving simulator and I'd be willing to bet you'd see the aggressive driving stats fall off.
I'll agree. Though as I understand it (and I may be wrong), at least part of the reason that the rovers were spec'ed for 90 days was that NASA believed that the solar panels would end up covered in dust and be unable to generate power. Conveniently enough, there appears to be a nice breeze which is blowing dust off the solar panels so that they can continue to work.
I wonder what might happen when they drive the rover into the crater. If the end up driving it somewhere where this isn't much of a wind, will the solar panels get covered in dust and stop working?
Also--raging personal opinion based on no facts whatsoever--I think NASA low-balled on purpose. It's easier to ask for money to "extend the mission" than it is to ask for the money in the first place. If NASA had asked for the money to run two rovers around Mars for three years, they'd've been shot down. But once you have the rover on the surface and it's running, it's easier to go and say, "Hey, we've already spent this money and the equipment is still working so can we have more money to keep it running?"
It's a good way to deal with government bureaucracy...
...maybe they should launch it from indoors?
Volkswagen Golf's are about 5.5, 13 feet long, and about 4.5 feet tall. That's a pretty big hunk of hail.
You're right and they're wrong. That said...
I think the way they're defining "the solar system" is basically the area where planets orbit--say, out to Neptune. After that, you are "outside" the solar system, even though all these objects in the kuiper belt orbit the sun.
It's sort of like the atmosphere of the Earth. After a couple of hundred miles, you're in "space" even though there's still bits of Earth's atmosphere up that high.
Those bastards! They killed Kenny!
Well, I could complain that "abnormal" implies "bad." Therefore, he should not have used the term "abnormal" but, instead, the politically correct "Differently Normal."
They tested an HP Pavilion 1630n (AMD) versus an HP Pavilion 1640n (Intel). It's obvious to me that the Intel, therefore, is TEN better than the AMD.
It's much the same problem as product placement ads.
If I'm running around the city fragging people, you're right: I don't really care if the billboard in the background says, "Drink Coke" or "Buy the SUX-2000." But, as you say, I don't need to see a billboard in the middle of a forest advertising Coca-Cola (maybe Orca-Cola, but that's another story). And if I'm battling aliens in the year 2390 on a derelict space station, I'm not sure I want to be told about the Saturn Vue.
One of the issues of this, though, is a similar problem that you find in "product placement"--for the most part, it has to be a somewhat contemporary storyline. Thus, it makes games with a contemporary storyline more profitable not because more people are buying the game but because of the advertising therein. This kinda sucks for great games that don't necessarily have a contemporary storyline. How would you do advertisements in a game like "Halo", for example?
...and don't forget my two favorites:
"Are bears catholic?"
"Does The Pope shit in the woods?"
I hate to admit it, but that was the first thought I had, too.
"Is that a gopher in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"
Besides, what would the Lunar Homeowners Committee say?
Nope. I think the look of these is very important! Before we spend the money to send them to the moon, they have to look appropriately futuristic and cool or else I'm not paying for it!
Yes, but is it a "big problem?" NASA has also been doing some research in this area to see how big a problem this is.
The first question is "What are the odds?" The moon is still a pretty big place. It's surface area is 37.8 million square kilometers--about the same as Russia, Canada, and the United States combined. So what are the chances that a micrometeoroid is going to hit somewhere in the 22 square meters that you have for your inflatable habitat? Well, it depends on the frequency that these things hit. Is the moon being continually bombarded by these things all over the place? Are there areas that are more dangerous than others?
The next question is "What can be done about it?" The foil system you talk about is one method. I'm sure there are plenty of other methods. I would imagine that NASA would provide a solution based upon how likely it is to occur. If it's something that might happen once a year, for example, NASA's goal would probably be concerned with making sure the envelope doesn't tear if it's punctured so that astronauts could manually patch it. If it occurs more often--say, once a week--then NASA would probably want to come up with some sort of self-sealing system. If it's something that happens once a day, then they'd need sterner stuff or they'd have to bury it.
O.J.? Is that you?
(sorry. couldn't resist.)
Sounds like an old TV ad...
Speaking of Flip3D...
A couple of weeks ago, I was watching "Heroes." When they did their previews of next week's episode (sponsored by Microsoft Vista), they started off with this amusing Exposé effect, showing all the different windows. Then all the windows moved into the Flip3D interface and they scrolled through each clip.
Well, I was wondering if Exposé would support this. So I went over to my Mac and fired up a couple of videos in QuickTime player and hit the Exposé button. Sure enough, the videos kept playing even though the size was reduced.
Will Flip3D do this? Or was the effect done at NBC? I sort of assume it was, because of the opening Exposé effect and the fact that the video clip paused until it was brought to the front of the "stack." But I'd be curious to see what happens when you play a video and bring up the Flip3D effect. Unfortunately, I don't have a Vista machine to check this out with...