Now call me kooky... but I am pretty sure that GP intended his post rhetorically, perhaps even aiming for a quick +5 funny. Nobody really intended to assault the Church, so take a breath and relax.
Maybe if they could put this into a PowerPoint presentation and make it a little easier to digest? Some pie chart graphics would really clarify things, I feel.
I credit Cory Doctorow's succes with the good publicity associated with giving away his work for free. What i've read so far appears to be more like "let me see how many neat ideas I can cram in here under story lines that are written to be painfully obvious predictions of society's future" than actual stories.
Then again,I have precisely zero published books (and if I keep crafting sentences like the one above I never will) -- and it's easy to be a critic;)
Ignoring that you ignored the second part of my post... f the price of the expensive battery continues to be subsidized then the manufacturers don't need to work too hard to find cheaper means of energy storage or battery production do they? When the technology is developed, government subsidy won't be needed. But a subsidy can at best mask the fact thatt he current technology is not yet sustainable, and at worst be deleterious to the development of future technology.
Of course, the libertarian answer of "employees can just quit, and eventually the employers will fix what's wrong" is just way easier to say, and implement, because that means no one has to do anything about it.
This industry is very strange in that people want to get into it so badly... and more, many of them expect poor treatment going into it, and think it's acceptable - worse: they could be said to find it desirable (until they get into it). It's the risk of a buyer's market; still, I do see this changing -- without the dubious benefit of forced regulation or unions. More and more developers actually *are* speaking out, and many smaller companies are beginning to see the light. These companies will/are beginning to attract the higher-talent developers that the big companies depend on.
First, "hate" is the wrong word here - more accurate is "lowest satisfaction rating". And it's easy - people are inclined to dislike things considerably more when they perceive they have no choice in where they get services from; and the service itself tends to be not as good when that situation arises. When you look at the other businesses in the list, you'll see that most of them hold near-monopolies in their areas of service as well.
First: the link in the summary is wrong, it links to a marketing firm. The ACS is here.
While the original Business Insider post is straightforward enough (BTW the summary should have linked here, instead of to itworld spam... I find the itworld spam interesting.
Facebook is far from the most interesting company in that top 19 list - in fact the general trend seems to be companies with relative monopolies in their service areas; but does anyone really think it coincidence that ITWorld ran this article with this take on the situation the day after Google Plus was announced?
Yet the investor applying logic would evaluate both companies, and not invest where there was not a reasonable expectation of long-term return. The day trader, the short-seller, the short-term investor on the other hand... would follow the course you described. And while there are many of those who make their decisions in a calculating manner, the net effect on the stock and market is no different than a panic.
You've missed my point: there is no clear, single definition of capitalism, and so "having capitalism" isn't possible - nor is a purely capitalistic system. Until such a definition exists, the most we can do is incorporate elements of capitalism. And while I did read the PDF, I can't help but see it as one person's opinion on the flaws inherent in the concept of intellectual property. The paper is an exercise in logic and philosophy - good rhetoric, but not necessarily factual in its subjective conclusions. And though many people likely do hold the view (I see merit in many of his arguments myself) it's not a definitive treatise on how capitalism works wrt intellectual property - it only describes one view of how it *should* work.
The problem *is* that people are ignorant. I won't say idiots as I don't think that's right - most people are smart enough in their own domains, but completely ignorant in other areas (such as computer security).
It won't work in the gaming industry. People spend their childhood playing games and wanting to develop them. Crunch time hours a part of the industry mystique, and are something that is considered a right of passage by people who have already done it and people who want to get into the industry. By the time people burn out on it, they really just want out - they're not interested in raising a fuss over it.
The only way this can improve is if enough companies with a clue start hiring develoers, treating them well, and still produce AAA titles.
Just an alternative perspective from a fellow BB dev:
The first point that must be addressed is: you have to target BBOS 4.5 or 4.6 to reach the maximum number of devices.
Well, yes and no. Targeting 5.0 gets you something like 85% of all apps (the stats are at the RIM site) - and a higher percentage when you consider consumer-only devices, those who are free to install whatever apps they want.
That being said, you certainly aren't limited to targeting just 4.5, 4.6. If you build your app well, it's fairly trivial to include platform-specific functionality for 5.0, 6.0; with some minimal effort you can abstract out the stuff that most apps use (and some of this is already done in the platform albeit imperfectly). Point being: you can deploy builds for each major version, without having to consider them as separate applications. If you're interested in options for how to do this with minimal pain, stop by ##blackberry-dev on irc.freenode.net and I'll be happy to help out (I'm mparadise there).
. BBOS 4.5 and 4.6 are awful, and they lack many features.
True, but again it's not a lot of pain to just support multiple versions if your app is architected well.
Part of the problem is they're using J2ME, whereas Android uses almost a full compliment of Java.
I do agree - lack of full Java language features is irritating as J2ME is tied to the 1.3 spec. (Or was it 1.1?) This is probably the single most frustrating aspect of BB dev for me.
In fact, even BBOS6 still lacks may features (the platform).
It's lacking in terms of tools for creating GUI' (which can be frustrating unless you're comfortable in creating UIs via code); but in other ways I find that the OS offers levels of integration it's very hard to get on Android, and even on the new PlayBook OS. I can't speak to iOS as I haven't tried to develop for it yet.
but suffice to say that it needs a real markup language for the UI
Like I said above... I can understand that if you're not comfortable creating GUI's programatically - and most folks probably aren't.
Sorry, looks like I did start to ramble. Suffice to say it sucks, and you spend the majority of your time re-implementing things that have existed for years, or fighting stupid bugs
No more than on other platforms in my experience. Not that this makes it less frustrating, but it isn't just a RIM problem.
, or fighting the ridiculous emulators that carry no documentation and do not support hotswap.
The emulators do all function the same and have for years; there is documentation but it's not the best. On the other hand, I haven't actually needed to refer to it in the last two years, so I'm honestly not sure what issue this is causing. Hotswap has worked well since the OS5 emulators have been released, about 95% of the time - even more so with the latest tools released several months back. The only real difficulties I've run into around hotswap are if you want to debug an app component that auto-starts at OS-startup. And frankly... pre-5.0 startup is fast enough that it's not too bad most of the time.
Seesmic was a crap app on BB. They always treated it as an "oh by the way" platform, and it shows in their product. They face stiff competiton from UberMedia (ubertwitter) and RIM's official twitter client which included in in all new BB devices. When you have a poorly rated app that is among the worst offerings, it's no surprise that downloads decrease. And as far as the multitude of OS versions and devices - if you design your app poorly, it will be difficult to manage that for any platform. And if you design it well, it's really not a major hurdle. Especially for the bb devices - every os 4.x (barely used anymore) through the upcoming 7.0 is backward compatible; and is fundamentally the same OS. Consider programming for win 2000 v xp - the same basic os but new features in xp. If you develop for 2000 the app will work on xp - though if you want to use all the xp features you'll make a build to support it that will extend (in oo fashion) the work you've done for 2000.
Are you sure? Provide details please. At what point does the cost of running the AC intermittently to maintain a temperature outweigh the cost of running it continuously for the duration required to restore the normal running temperature? While you're at it tell us how to determine - if it is best to turn it off for a period - the ideal time window during which to do so each night. How is this affected by region and time of year? Does it differ for single/multi zone systems? What effect does the size of the structure have an your answer? What about the size of the room?
Damnit. Now I have to post do undo my insightful mod ofnyour post -I upmodded yours just before I read that stupid closing comment about shills. I can't really blame you since I acted before reading to completion. It's just that the generally intelligent tone of the preceding text kind of lulled me into a false sense of security, causing me to believe that you weren't going to throw it all away with one idiotic closing sentence. So I wasted three mod points in this article, so that I can revoke my +1 insightful to your specific comment.
In my experience, it's nothing like that. I think you will have a relatively constant percentage of the population with the ability to think in the way that allows programming to come as a natural skill. All the enticements in the world, all the attempts to make it exciting... they may find a few more of these minds and make them aware of what they can do. They'll probably also entice a lot of minds that aren't really capable of showing the same level of skill - the same types that show up en masse for offshore development contracts, or like those in the 90s who hopped on the programming bandwagon to make money. (Same thing, by the way - just different environments.) People who can get by - but don't expect them to come up with a decent algorithm or even to implement an existing one without step by step instructions.
You either have it or you don't. I think in this case of nature/nurture, nature plays a much bigger factor. Nurturing can find these minds, but I've not seen any evidence that it can create them.
Slashdot Mirror
Now call me kooky... but I am pretty sure that GP intended his post rhetorically, perhaps even aiming for a quick +5 funny. Nobody really intended to assault the Church, so take a breath and relax.
Maybe if they could put this into a PowerPoint presentation and make it a little easier to digest? Some pie chart graphics would really clarify things, I feel.
I credit Cory Doctorow's succes with the good publicity associated with giving away his work for free. What i've read so far appears to be more like "let me see how many neat ideas I can cram in here under story lines that are written to be painfully obvious predictions of society's future" than actual stories.
Then again,I have precisely zero published books (and if I keep crafting sentences like the one above I never will) -- and it's easy to be a critic ;)
That's how it *should* work... and yet, we'll see how it actually plays out over the next few years. I'd be happy to be wrong.
Fortunately for Facebook, ~500 million people don't value their information.
Ignoring that you ignored the second part of my post... f the price of the expensive battery continues to be subsidized then the manufacturers don't need to work too hard to find cheaper means of energy storage or battery production do they? When the technology is developed, government subsidy won't be needed. But a subsidy can at best mask the fact thatt he current technology is not yet sustainable, and at worst be deleterious to the development of future technology.
That only provides incentive for manufacturers to keep prices high - it dies *not*lower the cost of the car, it just distributes it to other people.
Wait, you're saying the market needs yet MORE me-too android phones? There are already so many that we're due for a natural culling...
Hrm... incompetent, robotic and groping. That sounds an awful lot like the TSA!
Not to mention most teenagers.
Of course, the libertarian answer of "employees can just quit, and eventually the employers will fix what's wrong" is just way easier to say, and implement, because that means no one has to do anything about it.
This industry is very strange in that people want to get into it so badly ... and more, many of them expect poor treatment going into it, and think it's acceptable - worse: they could be said to find it desirable (until they get into it). It's the risk of a buyer's market; still, I do see this changing -- without the dubious benefit of forced regulation or unions. More and more developers actually *are* speaking out, and many smaller companies are beginning to see the light. These companies will/are beginning to attract the higher-talent developers that the big companies depend on.
My first link disappearedin posting - ACSI is here: http://www.theacsi.org/index.php
First, "hate" is the wrong word here - more accurate is "lowest satisfaction rating". And it's easy - people are inclined to dislike things considerably more when they perceive they have no choice in where they get services from; and the service itself tends to be not as good when that situation arises. When you look at the other businesses in the list, you'll see that most of them hold near-monopolies in their areas of service as well.
First: the link in the summary is wrong, it links to a marketing firm. The ACS is here.
While the original Business Insider post is straightforward enough (BTW the summary should have linked here, instead of to itworld spam... I find the itworld spam interesting.
Facebook is far from the most interesting company in that top 19 list - in fact the general trend seems to be companies with relative monopolies in their service areas; but does anyone really think it coincidence that ITWorld ran this article with this take on the situation the day after Google Plus was announced?
So like... a meta-meta site?
Yet the investor applying logic would evaluate both companies, and not invest where there was not a reasonable expectation of long-term return. The day trader, the short-seller, the short-term investor on the other hand... would follow the course you described. And while there are many of those who make their decisions in a calculating manner, the net effect on the stock and market is no different than a panic.
You've missed my point: there is no clear, single definition of capitalism, and so "having capitalism" isn't possible - nor is a purely capitalistic system. Until such a definition exists, the most we can do is incorporate elements of capitalism. And while I did read the PDF, I can't help but see it as one person's opinion on the flaws inherent in the concept of intellectual property. The paper is an exercise in logic and philosophy - good rhetoric, but not necessarily factual in its subjective conclusions. And though many people likely do hold the view (I see merit in many of his arguments myself) it's not a definitive treatise on how capitalism works wrt intellectual property - it only describes one view of how it *should* work.
The problem *is* that people are ignorant. I won't say idiots as I don't think that's right - most people are smart enough in their own domains, but completely ignorant in other areas (such as computer security).
The only way this can improve is if enough companies with a clue start hiring develoers, treating them well, and still produce AAA titles.
The first point that must be addressed is: you have to target BBOS 4.5 or 4.6 to reach the maximum number of devices.
Well, yes and no. Targeting 5.0 gets you something like 85% of all apps (the stats are at the RIM site) - and a higher percentage when you consider consumer-only devices, those who are free to install whatever apps they want.
That being said, you certainly aren't limited to targeting just 4.5, 4.6. If you build your app well, it's fairly trivial to include platform-specific functionality for 5.0, 6.0; with some minimal effort you can abstract out the stuff that most apps use (and some of this is already done in the platform albeit imperfectly). Point being: you can deploy builds for each major version, without having to consider them as separate applications. If you're interested in options for how to do this with minimal pain, stop by ##blackberry-dev on irc.freenode.net and I'll be happy to help out (I'm mparadise there).
. BBOS 4.5 and 4.6 are awful, and they lack many features.
True, but again it's not a lot of pain to just support multiple versions if your app is architected well.
Part of the problem is they're using J2ME, whereas Android uses almost a full compliment of Java.
I do agree - lack of full Java language features is irritating as J2ME is tied to the 1.3 spec. (Or was it 1.1?) This is probably the single most frustrating aspect of BB dev for me.
In fact, even BBOS6 still lacks may features (the platform).
It's lacking in terms of tools for creating GUI' (which can be frustrating unless you're comfortable in creating UIs via code); but in other ways I find that the OS offers levels of integration it's very hard to get on Android, and even on the new PlayBook OS. I can't speak to iOS as I haven't tried to develop for it yet.
but suffice to say that it needs a real markup language for the UI
Like I said above... I can understand that if you're not comfortable creating GUI's programatically - and most folks probably aren't.
Sorry, looks like I did start to ramble. Suffice to say it sucks, and you spend the majority of your time re-implementing things that have existed for years, or fighting stupid bugs
No more than on other platforms in my experience. Not that this makes it less frustrating, but it isn't just a RIM problem.
, or fighting the ridiculous emulators that carry no documentation and do not support hotswap.
The emulators do all function the same and have for years; there is documentation but it's not the best. On the other hand, I haven't actually needed to refer to it in the last two years, so I'm honestly not sure what issue this is causing. Hotswap has worked well since the OS5 emulators have been released, about 95% of the time - even more so with the latest tools released several months back. The only real difficulties I've run into around hotswap are if you want to debug an app component that auto-starts at OS-startup. And frankly... pre-5.0 startup is fast enough that it's not too bad most of the time.
Seesmic was a crap app on BB. They always treated it as an "oh by the way" platform, and it shows in their product. They face stiff competiton from UberMedia (ubertwitter) and RIM's official twitter client which included in in all new BB devices. When you have a poorly rated app that is among the worst offerings, it's no surprise that downloads decrease. And as far as the multitude of OS versions and devices - if you design your app poorly, it will be difficult to manage that for any platform. And if you design it well, it's really not a major hurdle. Especially for the bb devices - every os 4.x (barely used anymore) through the upcoming 7.0 is backward compatible; and is fundamentally the same OS. Consider programming for win 2000 v xp - the same basic os but new features in xp. If you develop for 2000 the app will work on xp - though if you want to use all the xp features you'll make a build to support it that will extend (in oo fashion) the work you've done for 2000.
Are you sure? Provide details please. At what point does the cost of running the AC intermittently to maintain a temperature outweigh the cost of running it continuously for the duration required to restore the normal running temperature? While you're at it tell us how to determine - if it is best to turn it off for a period - the ideal time window during which to do so each night. How is this affected by region and time of year? Does it differ for single/multi zone systems? What effect does the size of the structure have an your answer? What about the size of the room?
Panicky investors and the business guys who live in perpetual fear of them want short-term profit at all costs
FTFY.
Damnit. Now I have to post do undo my insightful mod ofnyour post -I upmodded yours just before I read that stupid closing comment about shills. I can't really blame you since I acted before reading to completion. It's just that the generally intelligent tone of the preceding text kind of lulled me into a false sense of security, causing me to believe that you weren't going to throw it all away with one idiotic closing sentence. So I wasted three mod points in this article, so that I can revoke my +1 insightful to your specific comment.
Bonus points to the person who can name the logical fallacy demonstrated in the parent post.
You either have it or you don't. I think in this case of nature/nurture, nature plays a much bigger factor. Nurturing can find these minds, but I've not seen any evidence that it can create them.