If by "up front" you mean it was nice of him to say there wasn't REALLY a problem while "proving" this with a rigged demo using other phones... then nope, no reason to think otherwise.
"As for investors, he wants investors for the long haul. No apology coming. If we hit a bump in the road, it's just like having kids, he jokes."
While I think most of the dog and pony show -- erm, that is, press conference conference -- was crap, I agree with this statement. This is a bump in the road for long-term investors who have already seen meteoric rise in stock prices. And frankly, why would he give a shit about the short-term investors who did lose money? All they needed to do was hold onto the stock.
I checked this myself by holding my AT&T Bold in one- and two-handed death grips (and in other creative ways) and never from five bars. I do have signal issues due to AT&T at work (my signal will drop from 5 to 1 bar when the phone is untouched on my desk, then back up to five); but holding it exactly the way shown by Jobs made no difference in my reception level. When doing so at home, the signal did not change from five bars no matter what I did.
Why is it that none of these solutions involve making a product that people are happy/willing to pay for to begin with?
It's always about crippling something then fixing it later.
Because that's totally the reason most people choose not to pay for games; in fact, I'll bet that the first bug free game to be released will have a 0% piracy rate!
Where have you seen anything that indicates this is what they're doing? Far as I can tell from the rather limited screenshot, it just allows you to switch between accounts without having to log in and out every time; I don't see any mention of single signon, or integration of accounts w/ each other.
While I love a good ragefest, wouldn't it be prudent to check the facts?
Droid, DroidX, Droid2 and others -- they all have this efuse, it's nothing new. Perhaps rather than making assumptions based on the presence of a device, someone could do some actual research to find out if this is really a concern? Just because the chip is present does not mean it's configured to brick the phone - it certainly hasn't done so in other Android devices using it.
The same results will occur when you bolster your case with lies. The reason is simple: people don't enter a debate open to the possibility of having their mind change; yet they fully expect to be able to change the mind of their opponent.
Intelligent debate (with relevant facts) *is* very good -- not for the debaters who will change nothing, but the observers.
The best discussions I've had were when both parties understood nobody would be changing their minds; that allows us to discuss without anger or overly emotional involvement; and in the end both parties walk away with a broader perspective.
costing Apple and their shareholders millions of dollars and creating huge image problems.
Maybe I'm misremembering how things work... but it seems to me that losses in stock price costs neither apple (who no longer owns the shares and does not profit by their existence after the initial sale ) nor its shareholders. This assumes that those shareholders are not trying to sell while the stock price is dropping; or if they are doing so they're smart enough to sell at a higher price than they bought. (Of course - even this isn't strictly true as it's s quite possible that they are *still* making money if selling short... )
This is something of a straw man. No one recommends you implement the features that aren't readily available in all major browsers. It just goes through a list of features that seem likely to soon be available in all browsers. You're the only one saying you should implement those particular items.
You must haev read a different article. The one I read said:
There's clearly a core of HTML5 features that all the major non-IE browsers do support, which could allow "draft HTML5" websites to be deployed to a large segment of the Web-using population.
The problem with that statement is that - as much as we might like to have it otherwise - IE is still a major browser; and in some parts of the world is still the dominant browser. Your own statement confirms that you're aware of this too:
Yes, since everyone in their right mind can see IE does not now and is unlikely to soon implement standards compliance. You implement work arounds for IE now in all your pages don't you, just like all the rest of the world that does Web development? Why would you think that is going to change?
That's kind of the point, isn't it? If it's not going to change soon (and all indications are that it's not), why would I want to make four versions of my site when I could do the same thing today with one or two? Using many common JS libraries hides the incompatibilities, so why not go with "HTML 5 Shiv" and skip HTML 5 entirely until it's more widely available?
My alternative is implementing "draft HTML5" sites - I need to code those sites twice or more: once for IE, once for the common HTML5 functionality supported by other browsers; and once for the people not using the cutting edge browser builds (which is often the majority of people)..
By all means feel free to ignore HTML5 and not implement any of it. It just means your site will be crappier than sites being reworked with support for some of the nice new standards. The game is changing, but there's no reason you have to get on board. By all means, sit on the sidelines until you feel comfortable.
Have you looked around lately at what's possible under existing standards? Change happens, but it's not like we're hurting that badly for lack of it right now - using some of the ubiquitous JS libraries it's possible to make very interactive and flexible web sites today. HTML5 will make that easier, but not so drastically easier that it's worth the hassle of doubling or trebling my work.
The entire thing is as frustrating to me as handheld development is proving to be: a vast user base has a huge array of device/platform combinations. You want to use the latest features from the newest, but you also have to support those running the older. This means doing two, three or more times as much work in order to ensure compatibility and seamless degradation across platforms.
At least in the case of handhelds you're not aiming for a moving target - you know for a fact exactly what capabilities you have available to you for a given platform version. In HTML5, we aren't even given that much yet.
Fair point; but still I think my underlying point is valid -- they didn't actively publish this list anywhere. They exposed it via stupidity, and only to the people who gave them the information. Bad move? Sure. Worthy of crucifixion? Probably not.
By "exposing the address" they mean "reply-to-all-without-bcc" and not "posted to a public Internet location". In other words, it's the same mistake that office workers around the world make every day.
This is a good start - but don't withhold names of the university or the officials involved.
Document everyone you contact - including names, and exactly what they say. If you don't live in one of the 12 states that disallows it without two-way permission, record the conversation.
Contact the AG for the city and ask them why this can't be pursued.
Contact local newspaper reporters. Many local newspapers are available in print and online; even if they won't print something,sometimes they'll publish it online.
Contact local TV news -- they love this kind of special interest stuff, it makes a great 2 minute blurb to stuff between sports and weather
Don't be shy -- tell your story to anyone who will listen. Just make sure you stick to verifiable facts.
Find the ISP (you should be able to from the address block) and wait on hold as long as it takes to talk to a human with authority and explain what you need. They might be able to give you additional ways to follow up, even if they can't release the info without court order. Follow the email path here too.
It often seems that crimes involving computers are shuffled to the bottom quickly and quietly -- I suspect it's because the people involved often don't have the know-how to pursue the case. Perhaps if we stopped letting them get away with it, change can come...
Things like HTML 5 Shiv are part of the design of HTML 5. It is intentionally designed in such a way that it can be implemented in legacy browsers using a combination of plugins and JavaScript. This is not a workaround, it's a migration path
I have read about that -- but it still reads like a workaround. You're still doing twice the work to implement the same feature for different platforms; there's no way around that.
ANd until then, I have to keep coding browser-based workarounds for a given feature that is implemented on platform "A" and not platform "B". This does not seem like a good solution.
I'm ok with using things that are already implemented... but trying to use features that are not implemented completely across all platforms is a major step backwards.
At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.
Just because you're not testing ofr it doesn't mean that people aren't using it. It looks like it largely depends on the type of site -- more technically-oriented sites will typically have it as a minority; while mainstream and ecommerce sites will more often show it at the majority (in the US) or close to majority.
I've learned long ago that developing against standards that are not yet official is the road to pain. This is demonstrated even in the summary itself:
Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.
So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?
Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."
Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official? Again - thanks, no. I'll wait until it's ratified as a standard, and the first revision of major browsers offers compliance.
Tethering is an almost effortless addition to a phone that already uses the internet
Only if you've never had to code it yourself;)
The number of times i see people say "It would be easy to do XYZ" in regards to a complex software system or architecture has moved beyond mildly amusing into the realm of vaguely irritating...
We expect phones to work for their intended purpose.
Being able to make a call and then not hear anything isn't acceptable. Occasionally you can't call due to reception problems, everybody understands that. But being able to complete a call and not hear is clearly a warranty issue.
Weren't you paying attention? Phones are software now. That means there's no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purchase -- it's in the click-through you agree to when you first boot up your phone.
I don't know if that's actually true or not - but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it is; or will soon become so. There's presumably no flaw in the hardware in this situation, which would put the bug firmly in the realm of software...
Isn't Yahoo pretty much in the process of outsourcing their search to MS?
Have you seen bing search results lately? (That is -- if you can get past the "look at my first web site" graphics on the home page. ) They need all the help they can get.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "up front" you mean it was nice of him to say there wasn't REALLY a problem while "proving" this with a rigged demo using other phones... then nope, no reason to think otherwise.
"As for investors, he wants investors for the long haul. No apology coming. If we hit a bump in the road, it's just like having kids, he jokes."
While I think most of the dog and pony show -- erm, that is, press conference conference -- was crap, I agree with this statement. This is a bump in the road for long-term investors who have already seen meteoric rise in stock prices. And frankly, why would he give a shit about the short-term investors who did lose money? All they needed to do was hold onto the stock.
Make me wonder how they rigged that one up.
Why is it that none of these solutions involve making a product that people are happy/willing to pay for to begin with?
It's always about crippling something then fixing it later.
Because that's totally the reason most people choose not to pay for games; in fact, I'll bet that the first bug free game to be released will have a 0% piracy rate!
Don't believe me? Google "fear drives sales"
I might get a virus. Would you do it and paste the results? I can pay you a bit.
I hope they hold it in the right spot. It's not going to get a very good reception otherwise.
That just sounds dirty...
Especially when no information about those features is actually known yet. On the other hand, it does make for amusing reading...
Where have you seen anything that indicates this is what they're doing? Far as I can tell from the rather limited screenshot, it just allows you to switch between accounts without having to log in and out every time; I don't see any mention of single signon, or integration of accounts w/ each other.
Droid, DroidX, Droid2 and others -- they all have this efuse, it's nothing new. Perhaps rather than making assumptions based on the presence of a device, someone could do some actual research to find out if this is really a concern? Just because the chip is present does not mean it's configured to brick the phone - it certainly hasn't done so in other Android devices using it.
Intelligent debate (with relevant facts) *is* very good -- not for the debaters who will change nothing, but the observers.
The best discussions I've had were when both parties understood nobody would be changing their minds; that allows us to discuss without anger or overly emotional involvement; and in the end both parties walk away with a broader perspective.
costing Apple and their shareholders millions of dollars and creating huge image problems.
Maybe I'm misremembering how things work... but it seems to me that losses in stock price costs neither apple (who no longer owns the shares and does not profit by their existence after the initial sale ) nor its shareholders. This assumes that those shareholders are not trying to sell while the stock price is dropping; or if they are doing so they're smart enough to sell at a higher price than they bought. (Of course - even this isn't strictly true as it's s quite possible that they are *still* making money if selling short... )
You're right about the image problems though...
This is something of a straw man. No one recommends you implement the features that aren't readily available in all major browsers. It just goes through a list of features that seem likely to soon be available in all browsers. You're the only one saying you should implement those particular items.
You must haev read a different article. The one I read said:
There's clearly a core of HTML5 features that all the major non-IE browsers do support, which could allow "draft HTML5" websites to be deployed to a large segment of the Web-using population.
The problem with that statement is that - as much as we might like to have it otherwise - IE is still a major browser; and in some parts of the world is still the dominant browser. Your own statement confirms that you're aware of this too:
Yes, since everyone in their right mind can see IE does not now and is unlikely to soon implement standards compliance. You implement work arounds for IE now in all your pages don't you, just like all the rest of the world that does Web development? Why would you think that is going to change?
That's kind of the point, isn't it? If it's not going to change soon (and all indications are that it's not), why would I want to make four versions of my site when I could do the same thing today with one or two? Using many common JS libraries hides the incompatibilities, so why not go with "HTML 5 Shiv" and skip HTML 5 entirely until it's more widely available? My alternative is implementing "draft HTML5" sites - I need to code those sites twice or more: once for IE, once for the common HTML5 functionality supported by other browsers; and once for the people not using the cutting edge browser builds (which is often the majority of people). .
By all means feel free to ignore HTML5 and not implement any of it. It just means your site will be crappier than sites being reworked with support for some of the nice new standards. The game is changing, but there's no reason you have to get on board. By all means, sit on the sidelines until you feel comfortable.
Have you looked around lately at what's possible under existing standards? Change happens, but it's not like we're hurting that badly for lack of it right now - using some of the ubiquitous JS libraries it's possible to make very interactive and flexible web sites today. HTML5 will make that easier, but not so drastically easier that it's worth the hassle of doubling or trebling my work.
The entire thing is as frustrating to me as handheld development is proving to be: a vast user base has a huge array of device/platform combinations. You want to use the latest features from the newest, but you also have to support those running the older. This means doing two, three or more times as much work in order to ensure compatibility and seamless degradation across platforms.
At least in the case of handhelds you're not aiming for a moving target - you know for a fact exactly what capabilities you have available to you for a given platform version. In HTML5, we aren't even given that much yet.
Fair point; but still I think my underlying point is valid -- they didn't actively publish this list anywhere. They exposed it via stupidity, and only to the people who gave them the information. Bad move? Sure. Worthy of crucifixion? Probably not.
By "exposing the address" they mean "reply-to-all-without-bcc" and not "posted to a public Internet location". In other words, it's the same mistake that office workers around the world make every day.
the most capable OS out there?
Hmmm, uhhhh, I think not.
Hmmm, uhhhh, I think so.
Well good - now that this is settled, perhaps we can move on?
It often seems that crimes involving computers are shuffled to the bottom quickly and quietly -- I suspect it's because the people involved often don't have the know-how to pursue the case. Perhaps if we stopped letting them get away with it, change can come...
When I was in 7th Grade French Class (being Canadian, learning french is often encouraged),
Sadly, learning English was not encouraged nearly as much...
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Things like HTML 5 Shiv are part of the design of HTML 5. It is intentionally designed in such a way that it can be implemented in legacy browsers using a combination of plugins and JavaScript. This is not a workaround, it's a migration path
I have read about that -- but it still reads like a workaround. You're still doing twice the work to implement the same feature for different platforms; there's no way around that.
I'm ok with using things that are already implemented... but trying to use features that are not implemented completely across all platforms is a major step backwards.
At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.
Just because you're not testing ofr it doesn't mean that people aren't using it. It looks like it largely depends on the type of site -- more technically-oriented sites will typically have it as a minority; while mainstream and ecommerce sites will more often show it at the majority (in the US) or close to majority.
Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.
So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?
Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."
Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official? Again - thanks, no. I'll wait until it's ratified as a standard, and the first revision of major browsers offers compliance.
Tethering is an almost effortless addition to a phone that already uses the internet
Only if you've never had to code it yourself ;)
The number of times i see people say "It would be easy to do XYZ" in regards to a complex software system or architecture has moved beyond mildly amusing into the realm of vaguely irritating...
We expect phones to work for their intended purpose.
Being able to make a call and then not hear anything isn't acceptable. Occasionally you can't call due to reception problems, everybody understands that. But being able to complete a call and not hear is clearly a warranty issue.
Weren't you paying attention? Phones are software now. That means there's no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purchase -- it's in the click-through you agree to when you first boot up your phone.
I don't know if that's actually true or not - but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it is; or will soon become so. There's presumably no flaw in the hardware in this situation, which would put the bug firmly in the realm of software...
Funny part is that he got "e.g." right, which is pretty rare...
Isn't Yahoo pretty much in the process of outsourcing their search to MS?
Have you seen bing search results lately? (That is -- if you can get past the "look at my first web site" graphics on the home page. ) They need all the help they can get.