Yeah I guess I've become lazy since Google Play Music does sync things for me, including the iTunes library that I previously had to maintain just so I could copy music to retarded, overpriced iDevices. Another thing my $175 Android phone does better than my $500 iPad.
So you approve of Apple warranty and customer service. That's like saying you're loyal to McDonalds because every time hey get your order wrong at the drive-thru if you go inside they are friendly when they fix their mistake and one time they even offered you a second apple pie for $1.
Here's the thing about Samsung: even compared to other Androids they suck. Maybe it's a cultural thing, maybe they're designed first for the Asian market, but they just don't feel right. Tablets, phones, music players, they're all clunky and counter-intuitive to use, terrible battery life, bloatware, etc. But that's Samsung, not Android.
Try a Moto or a non-Samsung Nexus. And probably the new Pixel when it's released. It's a whole different story. It's like they kept moving ahead from where Apple stopped 3-4 years ago. Software is smooth, battery life is great (I often go for days on a single charge on my Moto G while I had to charge my Samsug every night), camera is high quality, wifi is rock-solid, gps is flawless.
I remember not so long ago, I had to disable services, switch location off, switch wifi off whenever I didn't need it to save battery. Had to install battery saver apps, tweak settings to no end. Now I just use the phone as it came out of the box, all I had to do was login to my google account.
Last year I bought an iPad mini for casual web browsing. A living room widget which I thought would sync my iTunes library (doesn't, only what I bought from Apple). Turns out I tend to grab my phone when I want to do casual stuff because it's more convenient than the iPad - which at $500 or something doesn't even come with a fucking calculator, had to install a "free" one that has friggin ads. And the iPad constantly nags me for updates, more than Windows, and whatever answer I give to the update request I end up having to reenter my pin. It reminds me of how Android tablets were 3 years ago. Lousy maps, low quality music player, terrible camera.
If Apple had kept their edge I'd have no problem paying for it. But for some reason although they have endless billions they can't seem to do basic QA and they do at best minor improvements while competition is leap frogging them. I mean, it has come to a point where a cheap Huawei device is more sophisticated than an iPhone. How did that happen.
I don't understand why nobody yet has made a spoof of the 1984 Apple commercial, but this time instead of the obedient masses it would show Apple customers waiting in line for the new iPhone.
If you can find a link for that I'd be curious to see it.
Would it be possible that the story you recall involves HP instead of Dell? While HP will gladly sell garbage to anyone with a credit card, in my experience Dell is usually very customer-oriented. There's even a famous story of Dell chartering a jet to ship a replacement part to an important enterprise customer because the fastest Fedex wasn't fast enough.
No class action needed. Because there's zero people affected by this fictional problem.
Fixes that for you.
You've basically replied the same kind of lame thing about 10 times iso far. I'm starting to wonder if you're not, in fact, a double agent secretly working for Samsung by pretending to defend Apple badly.
Buying an iPhone in the first place is evidence of not making purchase decisions based on common sense, so Apple is making the right move by not doing a recall; that way they can pay more of those $0.57 dividends (per action worth $115) to the shareholders, and while they're steadily losing 15% of the market every quarter, hopefully the headphone DRM that's coming will help with the bottom line.
Also it's important for iPhone users to stand united; that 5 billion dollars headquarter has to be paid by someone.
I'm happy for Theranos, I think they made the right decision.
What they were trying to do with juggling a mainstream lab business and a biotech startup doesn't work. It's as if Uber had tried to run cab fleets to fund their car service startup; one way or another, priorities shift, ideas and problems of each side of the business leak in the other, and it becomes tempting to "leverage" the mainstream to beta test the disruptive stuff. Boh divisions become a liability for the other.
Theranos sucked at their lab business. They had people cut corners in QA, and that just can't happen in this field. This probably wouldn t have happened if senior management hadn't had the oher side of the business (the cool stuff) eating much of their attention. They also sucked at PR, and once the WSJ article (which was ill-informed and biased) got out, they were done. And while I'm not a business expert, I think they suck at marketing; they went out too soon, too loud, and made too many claims.
Now things are different. Now they can focus on their biotech, they can build things in their secret labs and release them when they're ready (or good enough) like a normal startup. I think they're onto something, and without all the noise and the media bullshit and the witch hunts and the misinformed twitter mobs they can focus on making cool stuff. I sincerely wish them good luck, and for one I'm walking away from this story with a few lessons learned, about startups and also about the herd behavior of media organizations. I also cancelled my complimentary WSJ subscription from Audible.
Calling people who actually try to do (as little as we can) something, in a non profit, "pretenders trying to make a living" is down right malicious.
Non-profit doesn't mean that people are not making money, it means that the organization doesn't aim at making a profit. Those are completely unrelated.
For instance, go on glassdoor.com and look at how many people pull a six-figure salary at greenpeace. I'm sure all those people have lots of expenses like Starbucks coffee or Macbooks, but you can bet that their savings account gets bigger year after year.
There's a reason why those organizations don't tackle unpopular environmental problems (like greenhouse effect caused by cattle, which is orders of magnitude worse than industrial pollution). They fight for a "good" cause as long as they can get paid, and this means squeezing dollars from clueless contributors and not rocking the real boat.
That's why we hear about things like this garbage "patch", a minor problem that nobody will oppose, and everyone's energy will be focused on getting rid of plastic bags or adding recycle bins (that are ultimately emptied in garbage dumps more and more as China is importing less recycling since their domestic market is now bigger than the rest of the world).
That's not saving the planet, that's playing at saving the planet - and making a living out of it.
No, my primary complaint is that it sucks. I've had the "pleasure" of learning and using the proprietary query language and the half-baked API, that's why I'm comfortable to say that it's a piece of shit.
I also had the opportunity to work extensively with the dashboarding tools, and those make SharePoint look like a marvel of UX engineering.
It's also like that with TeamCity: annual license per agent (which runs on your own machine) and only 1 concurrent build per agent. So essentially they force you to pay for rush hour usage.
Meanwhile Jenkins is free and scales a lot better.
You mention yourself a flock of FOSS products that are vastly superior to Splunk, but somehow in your organization it's a daunting task to manage multiple configuration files so you buy Splunk instead. I'm guessing that you're mostly a Windows guy.
So let's agree that Splunk is an overpriced regex script with a lousy web frontend, sub-par command line capabilities and slow, row-by-row transformation features, but comes with a convenient central config file. If your use cases are satisfied with these limitations, knock yourself out, keep doing hundreds of implementations. There's no shame in that, some people make a living installing Oracle or Groupwise, it's not like you're the first person to waste your employer's money on expensive commercial software that is inferior to FOSS alternatives.
To the point: even if Splunk was good at doing that (which it's not) that would still not make their CEO an authority about security.
Well, it has been installed and configured by their Professional Services and they're the one tuning and upgrading it.
Yes you can pull a billion records as long as you're using the same queries over and over, and as long as your log file structure doesn't change. But those are lab/demo conditions, in real life things don't happen like that.
I've dealt with Splunk for almost 7 years now, saw it growing and evolving, and from a user point of view I can tell you that there are two types of people who like Splunk:
1) managers who like the pie charts and dashboards 2) people who spend their days in the web console, mastering the proprietary syntax for search
Anyone else tend to try a few times then give up and access the log files directly. And if their only access is via Splunk they hate you.
It sucks because not only do you need to know the magical keywords, you also need to know how they've been implemented. ex: what are the sources you can search, etc. And you have to use the web page because there's no good command-line tool, and the semi-REST api sucks, and it makes it hard to pipe results and do something with them.
We have terabytes of logs in Splunk, and the servers are some of the biggest we have for utilities, something like 64GB RAM and who knows how many cores. Performance is usually bad, unless you just use the same dashboards over and over.
For correlations across a large number of devices Splunk works (slowly) as long as no fields are added or reordered too often.
So yeah, if you want to count useragents in Apache logs or do pie charts to show hits per url, you can do that. And you can add plugins to have heatmaps (as long as the lat/long is in your log because looking it up is way to slow). But is that worth the price tag? Absolutely not.
There are signifiicantly superior products out there, such as the ELK stack that will allow you to do *actual* search in your logs, not just run regexes on terabytes of flat text files like Splunk does. There are even free versions, and various Apache projects (flume, solr) that will offer vastly superior capabilities.
Your office buys an expensive product you claim sucks and is never used
Yes, that's very common in large organizations. In order to save $50 per quarter they will buy cheap whiteboard markers that stop working within minutes of being pulled from the box, and at the same time they will have no problem buying expensive "enterprise" software with annual licenses more expensive than a condo because it's in Gartner's magic quadrant for whatever buzzword they heard at a conference. Then they bring in the vendor to do an implementation that never works, and if you're lucky the project will fade in the corporate ether after a year or two. They'll keep renewing licenses, of course, because otherwise it would be acknowledging a mistake, and once in a while in a meeting the CTO will ask to see if the product could be "leveraged" for such or such project, but that's shelfware and everyone knows it.
Organizations are penny wise and pound foolish like that.
Who cares what the Splunk CEO has to say? Splunk is a tool that is supposed to make it easy to search and aggregate logs, but it sucks at searching and aggregating logs. It's so slow and clunky that most people at the office ignore it and use awk or vi.
The day his company creates something useful maybe I will pay attention to him.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I guess I've become lazy since Google Play Music does sync things for me, including the iTunes library that I previously had to maintain just so I could copy music to retarded, overpriced iDevices. Another thing my $175 Android phone does better than my $500 iPad.
Could be a paid shill getting money from both and laughing all the way to a small bank.
OR Microsoft is about to announce a new phone and they're spreading mistrust and suspicion about their competition.
So you approve of Apple warranty and customer service. That's like saying you're loyal to McDonalds because every time hey get your order wrong at the drive-thru if you go inside they are friendly when they fix their mistake and one time they even offered you a second apple pie for $1.
Here's the thing about Samsung: even compared to other Androids they suck. Maybe it's a cultural thing, maybe they're designed first for the Asian market, but they just don't feel right. Tablets, phones, music players, they're all clunky and counter-intuitive to use, terrible battery life, bloatware, etc. But that's Samsung, not Android.
Try a Moto or a non-Samsung Nexus. And probably the new Pixel when it's released. It's a whole different story. It's like they kept moving ahead from where Apple stopped 3-4 years ago. Software is smooth, battery life is great (I often go for days on a single charge on my Moto G while I had to charge my Samsug every night), camera is high quality, wifi is rock-solid, gps is flawless.
I remember not so long ago, I had to disable services, switch location off, switch wifi off whenever I didn't need it to save battery. Had to install battery saver apps, tweak settings to no end. Now I just use the phone as it came out of the box, all I had to do was login to my google account.
Last year I bought an iPad mini for casual web browsing. A living room widget which I thought would sync my iTunes library (doesn't, only what I bought from Apple). Turns out I tend to grab my phone when I want to do casual stuff because it's more convenient than the iPad - which at $500 or something doesn't even come with a fucking calculator, had to install a "free" one that has friggin ads. And the iPad constantly nags me for updates, more than Windows, and whatever answer I give to the update request I end up having to reenter my pin. It reminds me of how Android tablets were 3 years ago. Lousy maps, low quality music player, terrible camera.
If Apple had kept their edge I'd have no problem paying for it. But for some reason although they have endless billions they can't seem to do basic QA and they do at best minor improvements while competition is leap frogging them. I mean, it has come to a point where a cheap Huawei device is more sophisticated than an iPhone. How did that happen.
I don't understand why nobody yet has made a spoof of the 1984 Apple commercial, but this time instead of the obedient masses it would show Apple customers waiting in line for the new iPhone.
If you can find a link for that I'd be curious to see it.
Would it be possible that the story you recall involves HP instead of Dell? While HP will gladly sell garbage to anyone with a credit card, in my experience Dell is usually very customer-oriented. There's even a famous story of Dell chartering a jet to ship a replacement part to an important enterprise customer because the fastest Fedex wasn't fast enough.
No class action needed. Because there's zero people affected by this fictional problem.
Fixes that for you.
You've basically replied the same kind of lame thing about 10 times iso far. I'm starting to wonder if you're not, in fact, a double agent secretly working for Samsung by pretending to defend Apple badly.
So it took 3 replacements of your Macbook and 16 replacements of your iPhones to erode your brand loyalty towards Apple?
Maybe you need to join Al-Anon because you sir are an enabler.
Buying an iPhone in the first place is evidence of not making purchase decisions based on common sense, so Apple is making the right move by not doing a recall; that way they can pay more of those $0.57 dividends (per action worth $115) to the shareholders, and while they're steadily losing 15% of the market every quarter, hopefully the headphone DRM that's coming will help with the bottom line.
Also it's important for iPhone users to stand united; that 5 billion dollars headquarter has to be paid by someone.
Let's rephrase this in the words of one of the greatest poets alive today.
If you're not afraid of getting hurt
Then I am not afraid of how much I hurt you
Marilyn Manson (Leave A Scar)
when you voluntarily enter an abusive relationship, I don't think it's the stockholm syndrome, I think it's the battered wife syndrome.
I'm happy for Theranos, I think they made the right decision.
What they were trying to do with juggling a mainstream lab business and a biotech startup doesn't work. It's as if Uber had tried to run cab fleets to fund their car service startup; one way or another, priorities shift, ideas and problems of each side of the business leak in the other, and it becomes tempting to "leverage" the mainstream to beta test the disruptive stuff. Boh divisions become a liability for the other.
Theranos sucked at their lab business. They had people cut corners in QA, and that just can't happen in this field. This probably wouldn t have happened if senior management hadn't had the oher side of the business (the cool stuff) eating much of their attention. They also sucked at PR, and once the WSJ article (which was ill-informed and biased) got out, they were done. And while I'm not a business expert, I think they suck at marketing; they went out too soon, too loud, and made too many claims.
Now things are different. Now they can focus on their biotech, they can build things in their secret labs and release them when they're ready (or good enough) like a normal startup. I think they're onto something, and without all the noise and the media bullshit and the witch hunts and the misinformed twitter mobs they can focus on making cool stuff. I sincerely wish them good luck, and for one I'm walking away from this story with a few lessons learned, about startups and also about the herd behavior of media organizations. I also cancelled my complimentary WSJ subscription from Audible.
Calling people who actually try to do (as little as we can) something, in a non profit, "pretenders trying to make a living" is down right malicious.
Non-profit doesn't mean that people are not making money, it means that the organization doesn't aim at making a profit. Those are completely unrelated.
For instance, go on glassdoor.com and look at how many people pull a six-figure salary at greenpeace. I'm sure all those people have lots of expenses like Starbucks coffee or Macbooks, but you can bet that their savings account gets bigger year after year.
There's a reason why those organizations don't tackle unpopular environmental problems (like greenhouse effect caused by cattle, which is orders of magnitude worse than industrial pollution). They fight for a "good" cause as long as they can get paid, and this means squeezing dollars from clueless contributors and not rocking the real boat.
That's why we hear about things like this garbage "patch", a minor problem that nobody will oppose, and everyone's energy will be focused on getting rid of plastic bags or adding recycle bins (that are ultimately emptied in garbage dumps more and more as China is importing less recycling since their domestic market is now bigger than the rest of the world).
That's not saving the planet, that's playing at saving the planet - and making a living out of it.
you have to exaggerate and conjure an image of something visually dramatic.
that same strategy, when employed by Big Oil or Big Tobacco, is called FUD.
Can you stop providing factual information, you're hurting the funding drive of those who make a living pretending to save the environment.
Apparently *you* care.
No, my primary complaint is that it sucks. I've had the "pleasure" of learning and using the proprietary query language and the half-baked API, that's why I'm comfortable to say that it's a piece of shit.
I also had the opportunity to work extensively with the dashboarding tools, and those make SharePoint look like a marvel of UX engineering.
It's also like that with TeamCity: annual license per agent (which runs on your own machine) and only 1 concurrent build per agent. So essentially they force you to pay for rush hour usage.
Meanwhile Jenkins is free and scales a lot better.
You mention yourself a flock of FOSS products that are vastly superior to Splunk, but somehow in your organization it's a daunting task to manage multiple configuration files so you buy Splunk instead. I'm guessing that you're mostly a Windows guy.
So let's agree that Splunk is an overpriced regex script with a lousy web frontend, sub-par command line capabilities and slow, row-by-row transformation features, but comes with a convenient central config file. If your use cases are satisfied with these limitations, knock yourself out, keep doing hundreds of implementations. There's no shame in that, some people make a living installing Oracle or Groupwise, it's not like you're the first person to waste your employer's money on expensive commercial software that is inferior to FOSS alternatives.
To the point: even if Splunk was good at doing that (which it's not) that would still not make their CEO an authority about security.
Well, it has been installed and configured by their Professional Services and they're the one tuning and upgrading it.
Yes you can pull a billion records as long as you're using the same queries over and over, and as long as your log file structure doesn't change. But those are lab/demo conditions, in real life things don't happen like that.
Then do like normal people and blame the editors.
I've dealt with Splunk for almost 7 years now, saw it growing and evolving, and from a user point of view I can tell you that there are two types of people who like Splunk:
1) managers who like the pie charts and dashboards
2) people who spend their days in the web console, mastering the proprietary syntax for search
Anyone else tend to try a few times then give up and access the log files directly. And if their only access is via Splunk they hate you.
It sucks because not only do you need to know the magical keywords, you also need to know how they've been implemented. ex: what are the sources you can search, etc. And you have to use the web page because there's no good command-line tool, and the semi-REST api sucks, and it makes it hard to pipe results and do something with them.
We have terabytes of logs in Splunk, and the servers are some of the biggest we have for utilities, something like 64GB RAM and who knows how many cores. Performance is usually bad, unless you just use the same dashboards over and over.
For correlations across a large number of devices Splunk works (slowly) as long as no fields are added or reordered too often.
So yeah, if you want to count useragents in Apache logs or do pie charts to show hits per url, you can do that. And you can add plugins to have heatmaps (as long as the lat/long is in your log because looking it up is way to slow). But is that worth the price tag? Absolutely not.
There are signifiicantly superior products out there, such as the ELK stack that will allow you to do *actual* search in your logs, not just run regexes on terabytes of flat text files like Splunk does. There are even free versions, and various Apache projects (flume, solr) that will offer vastly superior capabilities.
Your office buys an expensive product you claim sucks and is never used
Yes, that's very common in large organizations. In order to save $50 per quarter they will buy cheap whiteboard markers that stop working within minutes of being pulled from the box, and at the same time they will have no problem buying expensive "enterprise" software with annual licenses more expensive than a condo because it's in Gartner's magic quadrant for whatever buzzword they heard at a conference. Then they bring in the vendor to do an implementation that never works, and if you're lucky the project will fade in the corporate ether after a year or two. They'll keep renewing licenses, of course, because otherwise it would be acknowledging a mistake, and once in a while in a meeting the CTO will ask to see if the product could be "leveraged" for such or such project, but that's shelfware and everyone knows it.
Organizations are penny wise and pound foolish like that.
Who cares what the Splunk CEO has to say? Splunk is a tool that is supposed to make it easy to search and aggregate logs, but it sucks at searching and aggregating logs. It's so slow and clunky that most people at the office ignore it and use awk or vi.
The day his company creates something useful maybe I will pay attention to him.