Google+ may be invitation only, but once you're in you can invite anyone you like so it isn't like there's any real limitation. Of course, so far I've only invited close friends and I might keep it that way.
Pages in Google+ load far, far quicker than Facebook. The contact circles has me intrigued, especially if it will allow me to target messages to specific groups. And so far there are no social games. Those are all great points, but so far Google+ isn't terribly different than Facebook and so there's no real compelling reason to use it. Especially since the vast majority of my contacts are on Facebook and I'm not about to send out a bunch of invites.
The Android app looks quite sloppy, although I realize we're at the early stages right now.
For now I'll just wait to see where this goes, but I'm not yet convinced that Google+ is going to unseat Facebook. Google has probably already gotten too big for it's own good and is afflicted with some of the stigma that Microsoft has faced for a long time and now Facebook is experiencing.
Given Apple's unreal marketing machine I wonder what would happen if they introduced a proper social network. In the eyes of consumers they seem incapable of doing any wrong.
There are very legitimate reasons to dislike Facebook. The privacy issue, social game overload and crap UI changes to name a few. However, I fairly certain that the current antipathy towards Facebook amongst your average individual is motivated by little more than fad-fueled, herd-driven mentality. How many people truly know or care about privacy? I'd argue not many given how freely they share personal information. And for anyone who's just a little more savvy they'll know how to mitigate some of those problems or will simply decide that the social interaction is not worth the trouble. But the fact is people continue using Facebook. It's simply become the cool thing to put down the service.
It's the same kind of idiot mentality behind pop music and pop culture in general. Eventually all these people will migrate to some other service and infest that. They'll happily subject themselves to all the same problems, but it will be okay because it's a new bandwagon and not Facebook.
However, I tend not to think it's going to be Google+ that replaces Facebook. There are some things I like about it, but I'm not sold on it yet. Google might have already gotten to big for their own good anyway; at least in the eyes of the consumer. I don't think we've found the replacement yet.
I really don't know what could be done about Guitar Hero to make the experience fresh and engaging. It looks to me like they're risking turning it into a convoluted and disappointing experience.
As for DJ Hero, I don't think the problem was that the audience wasn't there, the problem was that the music selection was bad. I mean, who hasn't gone to a dance club? The problem is that the music was heavily pop-oriented with a lean towards hip hop. They completely missed a huge core demographic for the game. It's like the whole game was based around a single DJ who evidently had a thing for a mish-mash of contrasting styles. The persistent theme seemed to be something new and old. They should have offered selections based around a range of popular genres; trance, house, drum n bass, dubstep, hip hop etc. Hell, they could have even included pop mixes. And keep the mixes within those particular genres.
Ideally the game would have let you choose any two tracks, but that would have been a daunting challenge to pull off automatic mixing. The thing is that the game was fun, albeit too easy. The music selection was the big letdown.
The irony here is that anyone who truly believes in free market principles should be opposed to these kinds of mergers. This is the sort of thing that kills healthy competition, particularly in a segment where there is already a distinct lack of competitors.
When Republicans talk about the free market what they actually mean is that they're looking out for the best interests of their corporate backers. Of course, don't delude yourself into thinking Democrats are any better. They simply pander to a different set of special interests. The thing Democrats have done right is that they've managed to brand themselves very effectively as looking out for the little guy even if it isn't actually true.
This is not new at all and it's happened elsewhere in Asia for a long time. I've encountered store managers out there paranoid about anyone in a camera thinking that they were there to steal their ideas and open their own copycat store. The only unusual thing here is that those Chinese have the balls to go after someone so recognizable.
But then, what the hell does this matter in the scheme of things? It's only catering to the lower- and middle-classes of China, exactly the sort of people who'd never buy an Apple device to begin with because they can't afford it. Image-conscious wealthy Chinese would never dare buy a knockoff. The most they might risk is a grey market model, but even then they'd rather be seen shopping in an actual Apple store.
In fact, I'd argue this is a good thing. It should spur a company like Apple to continue innovating. If you're always coming up with something new and better the competition will be preoccupied with desperately trying to catch up and never being able to pull it off. I can appreciate trying to protect your brand and hard work, but there's a limit. Start calling in the lawyers for every little thing and you're basically telling the world you've given up on doing real work and you're more interested in resting on your laurels.
I can't help but agree with his statement. There's a reason why a game like Super Mario Bros is still popular. It takes an old formula and executes it well. There are a lot of indie developers out there who produce games that have a ton of impact, visually and stylistically. But far more often than not they're not really consistently fun on a fundamental level. The struggle for style, the desire to be different ends up getting in the way of gameplay.
Of course, then we've got the other extreme where developers keep pumping out the same old crap. It's just as big a problem on consoles as it is on a platform like iOS. What game in the app store isn't some sort of puzzle game? You can't find a straightforward platform game that hasn't been turned into some obnoxious puzzle.
But ultimately it's all the fault of gamers. Developers are only producing what gamers are buying. Of course there's always someone out there willing to take a risk on something difference, but those guys are few and far between. Few are willing to take the leap when gamers continue buying the same tired old thing.
Having frequented Borders over the past decade or so they deserve to have gone out of business. I don't understand what it is about American retailers that they can't run a successful business and continue making the same old mistakes. And when things go south they blame everyone but their own ineptitude.
Borders, like a lot of retailers, don't play to their strengths over an online store like Amazon. Namely that means having an informed and courteous staff. Instead I routinely ran into listless employees who barely knew anything about the books they carried and always sent customers to the in store kiosks. Far too often it would turn out the book in question was not in stock. So why waste my time? Might as well stay home, go online and find what I want every single time.
Secondly, they were always shifting inventory based around whatever flash-in-the-pan genre came along. Inevitably this meant they constantly cut into established genres. For me the established genre was sci-fi. Ten years ago they had a fairly large. In the intervening years it's given way to teen novels, mysteries and romances so that in the end it's a joke with not much of a selection. But then they waste an entire part of the store on music and movies, another desperate attempt for a little extra revenue. Except that nobody in their right mind would ever consider buying that sort of thing from them given the outrageous markups.
The problem with a physical store is that they can't possibly stock everything customers might want. But if they hired knowledgeable managers and staff then they could make more informed orders. It would enable them to balance inventory between what's popular, new and any recommended standouts. Of course, if they had a streamlined process for acquiring books not available in stores it would give consumers and incentive over shopping online.
There are a million and one things they could have tried. Maybe a more viable model would have been a superstore model, a massive warehouse with nearly every book you can imagine. Fewer actual retail locations, but each one is larger.
The point is that Borders seems to have done everything it could to drive consumers away.
We're looking at exponential growth? Really? First of all, that's never going to happen because it simply isn't sustainable. If sustaining exponential growth were possible we should be utterly overrun by insects by now given how rapidly they reproduce.
But more importantly, a social component needs to be factored in. The more affluent a culture the less likely they are to reproduce. There has been marked population decline in virtually all nations with high standards of living, be they in Europe, the Americas or Asia. Japan and Taiwan have amongst the lowest birthrates in the world. Even China is starting to grow concerned about this as their population ages. Europe has seen population declines for decades now. Parts of Europe, like the US, have only seen growth because of an influx of immigrants. The native population is not reproducing at a sustainable rate.
The high birthrates of impoverished countries is offset by low life expectancy. But as conditions improve there their populations will begin stabilizing.
What I can't fathom is how people continue to believe that the world is going to be overrun with people when the numbers show otherwise.
This is where the real government waste exists and this is exactly the sort of thing that will never be addressed. Instead useful programs are cut wholesale because that's what makes the most visible impact to your average ignorant voter.
Germany also has a thriving capitalist economy which supports their socialist programs. In fact, they're not really any more socialist than the United States. The difference is that their cultural attitudes differ considerably from that of the US and most of Europe.
Germans are generally hard working and motivated. They're efficient. They enforce regulations across the board, the average individual is no more spared from them than a big corporation. The people haven't been conditioned to make unreasonably expectations of their government. Unlike a lot of European nations, and some in the US, there isn't this massive class of citizens employed by the government who's sole responsibility is to enjoy a nice salary and excessively generous benefits. The fact that Germany still does a ton of it's own manufacturing also is an immense help.
There are a ton of reasons why Germany has generally thrived where others have not but being socialist is not one of them. All those other factors have enabled them to successfully apply socialist ideals. And even for them, it's far from being perfect.
The problems that open letter describes is applicable to countless American companies. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: this is the end result of business, marketing and economics majors being in charge. Engineers and designers should have been in charge. They've got a better understanding of the technology and are far more likely to be passionate about their products. It's not a certainty that things would improve, of course, but the odds are that they would indeed be better off.
I'm not surprised that management glossed offer the letter. It's already too late, even if they wanted to do something about it they can't. They botched things long ago. If they had the ability to turn the company around they wouldn't even be in this situation right now.
Steve Ballmer is emblematic of the problem with American corporations. He's a business man, not an engineer or a designer; his background is in economics. This means he lacks a fundamental understanding of what his company does. He's never been in the trenches so he doesn't really have an innate understanding of the technology. And these kinds of guys, far too often, lack real passion. That lack of passion means they wont really be able to commit to what may be a good idea because it wont pay off in the short term. They're fixated on the bottom line, which certainly is important, but it's not the most important thing if you truly want a company to thrive.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were so successful because in many ways they were the antithesis of the suit with the business, economics or marketing degree. The funny thing here is that no one would really expect a designer or engineer, regardless of experience, to effectively run a financial company. And yet it's become a convention that you go to the guy with the business degree.
And I think that kind of attitude towards management gives rise to a bloated, and inefficient layer of middle management. There's this whole layer of employee that exists mostly to shield upper management from day to day operations which is ironic because that's the core of their business. And that whole layer of middle management is entirely focused on self-preservation. I've come to feel that middle management positions are like welfare for the upper middle class. Someone with real passion would cut through all that bullshit and would be more directly involved with the business.
I guarantee you that the majority of people who say they "hate" Facebook only do so because they're jumping on the bandwagon. It's falling out of style; it's as simple as that. Nothing has fundamentally changed with Facebook outside of perception. All the issues with Facebook, privacy, friend spam and social games have always been there. When a viable competitor comes along everyone is going to flock to that even if it's got all the same exact problems as Facebook.
I have a number of friends who do business in China and know a bit about the economic and social environment there. Communism generally only exists in name only and I'm generally convinced it persists to keep the current leadership in power. But then, with a few exceptions, people there are generally satisfied with things. It's difficult to complain about consistent 8% economic growth. And the fact is that most Chinese agree with government policies. Where Americans value free speech at all costs, for example, Chinese value stability more highly.
The interesting is that at the family Chinese, and Asians in general, have embraced communistic ideas. Families pool resources; it's one of the reasons they can come to the US and be so successful. On the other hand, on a larger scale their mindset is very free market. The fact is that economically China, and other successful Asian nations, are considerably more free market than the US. Or more specifically, they've struck a better balance between free market and control than either the US or Europe.
This is not to say that China doesn't have some serious problems; oppression aside I continue to think they've got a fairly good bubble going. But then again, I thought there was there was a real estate bubble in Taiwan 10 years ago and property values continue to rise unabated. But I suppose the people buying property there actually had the money for it.
Every time I talk to a friend of mine currently looking to expand further in China I'm left with the same impression: everything that the United States, with a weak economy, should be doing, China, with a strong economy, IS doing. It's extremely frustrating and makes me constantly question my decision not to partner with my friend in China.
A lot of people seem to be fixated on self-deprecation, like they're trying to dump their own guilt on the rest of is.
This idiot obviously hasn't done much traveling because if he had he would have realized that the "Western mindset" is actually far more protective of non-humans than the rest of the world.
I've seen people in Asia, living in cramped apartments, buy large breed dogs and then leave them locked at home alone all day. It's also exceedingly common for people to spend several thousand on a pure breed, only to abandon it in the streets when it becomes too much of an inconvenience. You'd be shocked by the kinds of strays found wandering around. Laws in some countries have gotten better, but it's still a far cry from what we've got in the US. And it isn't just legislation, but the cultural mindset. It's common to find poison left out for strays. And abuse is rampant.
I know about all this because my wife cared for stray cats. We had friends there who thought what my wife did was a ridiculous waste of time. Everyone she knew who also cared for strays agreed that Americans were far more caring towards animals.
Actually, now that I think about it Mr. Gerrie wasn't engaged in self-deprecation. Rather, he was dumping on Americans in other to bolster his inflated sense of self. In his mind he's one of the enlightened few in a sea of ignorant morons. It's not terribly surprising that he's living in San Francisco.
This looks like the same garbage they pulled with iMovie several year back. They stripped out a bunch of features which drew so many complaints that Apple offered the older, more powerful version for free to anyone stuck with the new iMovie.
Of course, the design industry brings this sort of thing on themselves, the way they compulsively jump to the latest version of every app the second it's released. You'd think they'd be a bit more cautious given how mission critical this stuff is.
Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration? It's like they're operating from a standpoint of hyper-sensitivity and guilt.
I find it offensive that suggesting that something needs to be done about illegal immigrations leads to a person being branded as a racist. Can anyone explain to me what's unreasonable about keeping people from entering the country illegally? That's the key distinction here: illegal.
My entire family consists of first generation immigrants. My uncle had to wait 7 years for his number to be called because he was coming with his family. And my parents were sponsoring them. I'd say 90% of my closer friends are immigrants and most of them have a problem with illegal immigration. The important thing here is that they all, myself included, came here legally. We followed the process, paid the fees and did whatever was necessary to come here.
So why should someone who felt they didn't want to bother with any of that be given a free ride? And the irony here is that coming illegally merely insures unending hardships. All those illegals who couldn't be bothered to follow the process end up being exploited doing crap work. Had they come here legally they would have had many more options.
My wife, having been in the country one week shy of a year had to pay out of state tuition at the local community college. Now an illegal immigrant enjoys the benefit of paying in-state tuition by virtue of not submitting any paperwork that proves residency. I can appreciate the motivation behind that move, they're trying to encourage illegals to go to school. The problem is, if you're still an illegal when you graduate you're still not going to be able to find work. And ultimately, there really needs to be some level of penalty for breaking the law.
The fact is, however, that there's no way we can realistically deport those already here. We do need to legalize them. But that should never happen before we've addressed the problem of those coming across the border. If we don't do that first we're never going to fix this problem and in fact we'll probably make it worse. It isn't the first time we've tried this.
And the propaganda campaign against the Arizona law was quite effective in how it has misled the American public. It basically mirrors the Federal law already in place and makes it illegal to conduct racial profiling. I found it rather amusing to hear Europeans and the Chinese berate us over the law given that their own immigration policies are much harsher. Hell, Mexico is much tougher on illegal immigrants than we are.
I realize people love to dump on Microsoft, so they're going to be dismissive of Windows Phone 7 without even having tried it. It's the total opposite of how people respond to the iPhone. Anytime someone asks for suggestions for a smartphone people default to the iPhone like mindless drones.
I have an Android phone which I'm extremely happy with. However, a friend recently got a WP7 phone which finally gave me an opportunity to give it a try. I was extremely impressed. I felt like Microsoft, moreso than either Google or Apple actually put thought into usability, into how people will interact with the phone. Menus and settings are clear and better organized and the interface seems more consistent. I can navigate more efficiently and there seems to a good amount of customization. And I'll give them credit for not just going and cloning Android and iOS's look. Blackberries might offer some great functionality, but in terms of usability they aren't even in the same galaxy as their competitors.
Of course, not having to actually live with the phone I can't speak to how I'd feel about WP7 over the long run, if I'd find it as satisfying an experience as Android. My point is that Microsoft deserves quite a bit more credit than they're getting for this OS. I've found that friends of mine who've actually used a WP7 phone have been quite impressed.
Touch screens were around well before the iPhone/iPad came along. I was dragging files around on a Sony tablet well before people had even dreamt of an iPhone. Multi-touch wasn't implemented only because touchscreen technology of the time wasn't capable of it. Hell, Minority Report depicted multitouch 5 years before the first iPhone. I'm sure others have had the idea well before then.
In light of this, how can Apple's patent be deemed anything but obvious?
Aren't even touchscreen gestures patented? How is that permissible? Why not allow them to only be copyrightable? Although I think even that is ridiculous.
I can appreciate some level of protection for intellectual property. But it's gotten far, far, far too granular where every little random idea is patented or copyrighted. It's gotten to a point where the vast majority of patents should be invalidated. I mean, if Apple is the innovator everyone claims they are, then the fact that everyone is using multi-touch and copying their gestures should be irrelevant? That functionality alone shouldn't define Apple's success. If they are incapable of staying ahead of the competition without all this protection then they don't deserve that success.
A proper free market means sometimes even the big guys get their asses handed to them. Patent protect encourages resting on your laurels because nobody can take your idea and improve on it.
I ended up using the phone a lot more than I had expected but my 3G usage has remained low. I generally only use the 3G network on my Android phone for email and looking up random things while shopping. Any time I download something I switch to WiFi. Since I'm usually only compelled to do that when I'm at home or at the office it's not an issue.
You're absolutely right. The simplistic and safe storylines in addition to constant, gaping plotholes are two big reasons why I haven't been motivated to watch movies in years. I'll catch something from time to time, although never in theaters. But generally, I always feel like most movies are patronizing the way everything is spoon fed to the audience.
There are some indie gems, but a lot of that is lacking too, but for different reasons that the mainstream.
I've been predicting for some time that manufacturing will begin shifting to southeast Asia. There are issues, however, with relocating facilities there. Lack of good infrastructure is one problem. But things of that nature can be addressed with time. Political corruption, general lack of organization and instability are problems that will be far more difficult to overcome. China has many problems, but it's a far more stable environment in which to do business and manufacturing.
Labor costs, however, aren't the only reason to bring manufacturing back to the United States. The cost of shipping raw materials to Asia and then shipping goods back is no longer trivial. The lack of proper quality control is another. The supply chain is too strung out, with too many components coming from too many locations, to the point that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Some parts supplier screws something up and it will completely disrupt production.
Of course we're probably going to see these cycles for decades to come. Management gets the idea to move manufacturing overseas under the pretense of cost savings. They eventually get replaced by people who have to deal with the implications of those decisions. So those people bring some of it back. Then new people come in and have a bright idea for cutting costs and the cycle starts all over again. It already happens with outsourcing. The difference with manufacturing is that the pace is far slower because of the commitment involved in establishing a new manufacturing facility. And the fact is that the United States doesn't do a particularly good job of attracting business investment. That is something China has wisely been focused on, even with their booming economy.
The problem is that unlike Japan, Taiwan and South Korea they haven't made the transition specialized manufacturing and haven't yet established their own brands. They're far from competing on an international level with their own products. Despite all the strides China has made to turn themselves into a self-sufficient economy the fact is that they're still very much dependent on the West and other Asian economic powers. China is reaching where they can't compete on cost. This means they don't have a lot to fall back on. This means they won't have much to fall back on if everyone abandons them.
So they're trying to change that, but I don't think it's going to change any time soon. In the interim this may prove to be a very big problem for China. Couple that with the various economic bubbles they've got going and there's a potential for disaster. A China with serious economic problems could prove to be a dangerous China. There have already been protests throughout China by people who feel disenfranchised. If that turns into a widespread problem they may fall back to the age old fail-safe. Blame someone else for your own problems.
By pirating books you're telling the publishers that the demand is there but the DRM isn't strong enough. From their perspective you're pirating books not because you dislike DRM, but because you don't want to pay for that book. To the publishers that means that even if they were to strip out DRM you'd go right on pirating books.
If you really have a problem with DRM stop reading that publisher's books. That means no pirating. That's a real statement. And it shows you're principled.
Otherwise I agree with you; I have a strong dislike of DRM. The various restrictions are inexcusable and I don't like being chained to a device. But some of your claims don't make a lot of sense.
I've never seen any ebook that was more expensive than paperback, let alone hardcover. Just because a book is electronic doesn't mean it should be sold at a significant discount. The printing cost for any black and white book is insignificant. It's considerably more expensive to print color, because of both the process and paper stock. But even then, it's not close to being the majority of the price of a book. So there's no reason for a huge price difference from physical to electronic.
I also fail to see what spam has to do with piracy in this particular instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Google+ may be invitation only, but once you're in you can invite anyone you like so it isn't like there's any real limitation. Of course, so far I've only invited close friends and I might keep it that way.
Pages in Google+ load far, far quicker than Facebook. The contact circles has me intrigued, especially if it will allow me to target messages to specific groups. And so far there are no social games. Those are all great points, but so far Google+ isn't terribly different than Facebook and so there's no real compelling reason to use it. Especially since the vast majority of my contacts are on Facebook and I'm not about to send out a bunch of invites.
The Android app looks quite sloppy, although I realize we're at the early stages right now.
For now I'll just wait to see where this goes, but I'm not yet convinced that Google+ is going to unseat Facebook. Google has probably already gotten too big for it's own good and is afflicted with some of the stigma that Microsoft has faced for a long time and now Facebook is experiencing.
Given Apple's unreal marketing machine I wonder what would happen if they introduced a proper social network. In the eyes of consumers they seem incapable of doing any wrong.
There are very legitimate reasons to dislike Facebook. The privacy issue, social game overload and crap UI changes to name a few. However, I fairly certain that the current antipathy towards Facebook amongst your average individual is motivated by little more than fad-fueled, herd-driven mentality. How many people truly know or care about privacy? I'd argue not many given how freely they share personal information. And for anyone who's just a little more savvy they'll know how to mitigate some of those problems or will simply decide that the social interaction is not worth the trouble. But the fact is people continue using Facebook. It's simply become the cool thing to put down the service.
It's the same kind of idiot mentality behind pop music and pop culture in general. Eventually all these people will migrate to some other service and infest that. They'll happily subject themselves to all the same problems, but it will be okay because it's a new bandwagon and not Facebook.
However, I tend not to think it's going to be Google+ that replaces Facebook. There are some things I like about it, but I'm not sold on it yet. Google might have already gotten to big for their own good anyway; at least in the eyes of the consumer. I don't think we've found the replacement yet.
I really don't know what could be done about Guitar Hero to make the experience fresh and engaging. It looks to me like they're risking turning it into a convoluted and disappointing experience.
As for DJ Hero, I don't think the problem was that the audience wasn't there, the problem was that the music selection was bad. I mean, who hasn't gone to a dance club? The problem is that the music was heavily pop-oriented with a lean towards hip hop. They completely missed a huge core demographic for the game. It's like the whole game was based around a single DJ who evidently had a thing for a mish-mash of contrasting styles. The persistent theme seemed to be something new and old. They should have offered selections based around a range of popular genres; trance, house, drum n bass, dubstep, hip hop etc. Hell, they could have even included pop mixes. And keep the mixes within those particular genres.
Ideally the game would have let you choose any two tracks, but that would have been a daunting challenge to pull off automatic mixing. The thing is that the game was fun, albeit too easy. The music selection was the big letdown.
The irony here is that anyone who truly believes in free market principles should be opposed to these kinds of mergers. This is the sort of thing that kills healthy competition, particularly in a segment where there is already a distinct lack of competitors.
When Republicans talk about the free market what they actually mean is that they're looking out for the best interests of their corporate backers. Of course, don't delude yourself into thinking Democrats are any better. They simply pander to a different set of special interests. The thing Democrats have done right is that they've managed to brand themselves very effectively as looking out for the little guy even if it isn't actually true.
This is not new at all and it's happened elsewhere in Asia for a long time. I've encountered store managers out there paranoid about anyone in a camera thinking that they were there to steal their ideas and open their own copycat store. The only unusual thing here is that those Chinese have the balls to go after someone so recognizable.
But then, what the hell does this matter in the scheme of things? It's only catering to the lower- and middle-classes of China, exactly the sort of people who'd never buy an Apple device to begin with because they can't afford it. Image-conscious wealthy Chinese would never dare buy a knockoff. The most they might risk is a grey market model, but even then they'd rather be seen shopping in an actual Apple store.
In fact, I'd argue this is a good thing. It should spur a company like Apple to continue innovating. If you're always coming up with something new and better the competition will be preoccupied with desperately trying to catch up and never being able to pull it off. I can appreciate trying to protect your brand and hard work, but there's a limit. Start calling in the lawyers for every little thing and you're basically telling the world you've given up on doing real work and you're more interested in resting on your laurels.
I can't help but agree with his statement. There's a reason why a game like Super Mario Bros is still popular. It takes an old formula and executes it well. There are a lot of indie developers out there who produce games that have a ton of impact, visually and stylistically. But far more often than not they're not really consistently fun on a fundamental level. The struggle for style, the desire to be different ends up getting in the way of gameplay.
Of course, then we've got the other extreme where developers keep pumping out the same old crap. It's just as big a problem on consoles as it is on a platform like iOS. What game in the app store isn't some sort of puzzle game? You can't find a straightforward platform game that hasn't been turned into some obnoxious puzzle.
But ultimately it's all the fault of gamers. Developers are only producing what gamers are buying. Of course there's always someone out there willing to take a risk on something difference, but those guys are few and far between. Few are willing to take the leap when gamers continue buying the same tired old thing.
Having frequented Borders over the past decade or so they deserve to have gone out of business. I don't understand what it is about American retailers that they can't run a successful business and continue making the same old mistakes. And when things go south they blame everyone but their own ineptitude.
Borders, like a lot of retailers, don't play to their strengths over an online store like Amazon. Namely that means having an informed and courteous staff. Instead I routinely ran into listless employees who barely knew anything about the books they carried and always sent customers to the in store kiosks. Far too often it would turn out the book in question was not in stock. So why waste my time? Might as well stay home, go online and find what I want every single time.
Secondly, they were always shifting inventory based around whatever flash-in-the-pan genre came along. Inevitably this meant they constantly cut into established genres. For me the established genre was sci-fi. Ten years ago they had a fairly large. In the intervening years it's given way to teen novels, mysteries and romances so that in the end it's a joke with not much of a selection. But then they waste an entire part of the store on music and movies, another desperate attempt for a little extra revenue. Except that nobody in their right mind would ever consider buying that sort of thing from them given the outrageous markups.
The problem with a physical store is that they can't possibly stock everything customers might want. But if they hired knowledgeable managers and staff then they could make more informed orders. It would enable them to balance inventory between what's popular, new and any recommended standouts. Of course, if they had a streamlined process for acquiring books not available in stores it would give consumers and incentive over shopping online.
There are a million and one things they could have tried. Maybe a more viable model would have been a superstore model, a massive warehouse with nearly every book you can imagine. Fewer actual retail locations, but each one is larger.
The point is that Borders seems to have done everything it could to drive consumers away.
We're looking at exponential growth? Really? First of all, that's never going to happen because it simply isn't sustainable. If sustaining exponential growth were possible we should be utterly overrun by insects by now given how rapidly they reproduce.
But more importantly, a social component needs to be factored in. The more affluent a culture the less likely they are to reproduce. There has been marked population decline in virtually all nations with high standards of living, be they in Europe, the Americas or Asia. Japan and Taiwan have amongst the lowest birthrates in the world. Even China is starting to grow concerned about this as their population ages. Europe has seen population declines for decades now. Parts of Europe, like the US, have only seen growth because of an influx of immigrants. The native population is not reproducing at a sustainable rate.
The high birthrates of impoverished countries is offset by low life expectancy. But as conditions improve there their populations will begin stabilizing.
What I can't fathom is how people continue to believe that the world is going to be overrun with people when the numbers show otherwise.
This is where the real government waste exists and this is exactly the sort of thing that will never be addressed. Instead useful programs are cut wholesale because that's what makes the most visible impact to your average ignorant voter.
Greece's credit rating is the least of their concerns. As if their credit rating was responsible for all their self-inflicted problems.
Germany also has a thriving capitalist economy which supports their socialist programs. In fact, they're not really any more socialist than the United States. The difference is that their cultural attitudes differ considerably from that of the US and most of Europe.
Germans are generally hard working and motivated. They're efficient. They enforce regulations across the board, the average individual is no more spared from them than a big corporation. The people haven't been conditioned to make unreasonably expectations of their government. Unlike a lot of European nations, and some in the US, there isn't this massive class of citizens employed by the government who's sole responsibility is to enjoy a nice salary and excessively generous benefits. The fact that Germany still does a ton of it's own manufacturing also is an immense help.
There are a ton of reasons why Germany has generally thrived where others have not but being socialist is not one of them. All those other factors have enabled them to successfully apply socialist ideals. And even for them, it's far from being perfect.
The problems that open letter describes is applicable to countless American companies. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: this is the end result of business, marketing and economics majors being in charge. Engineers and designers should have been in charge. They've got a better understanding of the technology and are far more likely to be passionate about their products. It's not a certainty that things would improve, of course, but the odds are that they would indeed be better off.
I'm not surprised that management glossed offer the letter. It's already too late, even if they wanted to do something about it they can't. They botched things long ago. If they had the ability to turn the company around they wouldn't even be in this situation right now.
Steve Ballmer is emblematic of the problem with American corporations. He's a business man, not an engineer or a designer; his background is in economics. This means he lacks a fundamental understanding of what his company does. He's never been in the trenches so he doesn't really have an innate understanding of the technology. And these kinds of guys, far too often, lack real passion. That lack of passion means they wont really be able to commit to what may be a good idea because it wont pay off in the short term. They're fixated on the bottom line, which certainly is important, but it's not the most important thing if you truly want a company to thrive.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were so successful because in many ways they were the antithesis of the suit with the business, economics or marketing degree. The funny thing here is that no one would really expect a designer or engineer, regardless of experience, to effectively run a financial company. And yet it's become a convention that you go to the guy with the business degree.
And I think that kind of attitude towards management gives rise to a bloated, and inefficient layer of middle management. There's this whole layer of employee that exists mostly to shield upper management from day to day operations which is ironic because that's the core of their business. And that whole layer of middle management is entirely focused on self-preservation. I've come to feel that middle management positions are like welfare for the upper middle class. Someone with real passion would cut through all that bullshit and would be more directly involved with the business.
I guarantee you that the majority of people who say they "hate" Facebook only do so because they're jumping on the bandwagon. It's falling out of style; it's as simple as that. Nothing has fundamentally changed with Facebook outside of perception. All the issues with Facebook, privacy, friend spam and social games have always been there. When a viable competitor comes along everyone is going to flock to that even if it's got all the same exact problems as Facebook.
I have a number of friends who do business in China and know a bit about the economic and social environment there. Communism generally only exists in name only and I'm generally convinced it persists to keep the current leadership in power. But then, with a few exceptions, people there are generally satisfied with things. It's difficult to complain about consistent 8% economic growth. And the fact is that most Chinese agree with government policies. Where Americans value free speech at all costs, for example, Chinese value stability more highly.
The interesting is that at the family Chinese, and Asians in general, have embraced communistic ideas. Families pool resources; it's one of the reasons they can come to the US and be so successful. On the other hand, on a larger scale their mindset is very free market. The fact is that economically China, and other successful Asian nations, are considerably more free market than the US. Or more specifically, they've struck a better balance between free market and control than either the US or Europe.
This is not to say that China doesn't have some serious problems; oppression aside I continue to think they've got a fairly good bubble going. But then again, I thought there was there was a real estate bubble in Taiwan 10 years ago and property values continue to rise unabated. But I suppose the people buying property there actually had the money for it.
Every time I talk to a friend of mine currently looking to expand further in China I'm left with the same impression: everything that the United States, with a weak economy, should be doing, China, with a strong economy, IS doing. It's extremely frustrating and makes me constantly question my decision not to partner with my friend in China.
A lot of people seem to be fixated on self-deprecation, like they're trying to dump their own guilt on the rest of is.
This idiot obviously hasn't done much traveling because if he had he would have realized that the "Western mindset" is actually far more protective of non-humans than the rest of the world.
I've seen people in Asia, living in cramped apartments, buy large breed dogs and then leave them locked at home alone all day. It's also exceedingly common for people to spend several thousand on a pure breed, only to abandon it in the streets when it becomes too much of an inconvenience. You'd be shocked by the kinds of strays found wandering around. Laws in some countries have gotten better, but it's still a far cry from what we've got in the US. And it isn't just legislation, but the cultural mindset. It's common to find poison left out for strays. And abuse is rampant.
I know about all this because my wife cared for stray cats. We had friends there who thought what my wife did was a ridiculous waste of time. Everyone she knew who also cared for strays agreed that Americans were far more caring towards animals.
Actually, now that I think about it Mr. Gerrie wasn't engaged in self-deprecation. Rather, he was dumping on Americans in other to bolster his inflated sense of self. In his mind he's one of the enlightened few in a sea of ignorant morons. It's not terribly surprising that he's living in San Francisco.
This looks like the same garbage they pulled with iMovie several year back. They stripped out a bunch of features which drew so many complaints that Apple offered the older, more powerful version for free to anyone stuck with the new iMovie.
Of course, the design industry brings this sort of thing on themselves, the way they compulsively jump to the latest version of every app the second it's released. You'd think they'd be a bit more cautious given how mission critical this stuff is.
Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration? It's like they're operating from a standpoint of hyper-sensitivity and guilt.
I find it offensive that suggesting that something needs to be done about illegal immigrations leads to a person being branded as a racist. Can anyone explain to me what's unreasonable about keeping people from entering the country illegally? That's the key distinction here: illegal.
My entire family consists of first generation immigrants. My uncle had to wait 7 years for his number to be called because he was coming with his family. And my parents were sponsoring them. I'd say 90% of my closer friends are immigrants and most of them have a problem with illegal immigration. The important thing here is that they all, myself included, came here legally. We followed the process, paid the fees and did whatever was necessary to come here.
So why should someone who felt they didn't want to bother with any of that be given a free ride? And the irony here is that coming illegally merely insures unending hardships. All those illegals who couldn't be bothered to follow the process end up being exploited doing crap work. Had they come here legally they would have had many more options.
My wife, having been in the country one week shy of a year had to pay out of state tuition at the local community college. Now an illegal immigrant enjoys the benefit of paying in-state tuition by virtue of not submitting any paperwork that proves residency. I can appreciate the motivation behind that move, they're trying to encourage illegals to go to school. The problem is, if you're still an illegal when you graduate you're still not going to be able to find work. And ultimately, there really needs to be some level of penalty for breaking the law.
The fact is, however, that there's no way we can realistically deport those already here. We do need to legalize them. But that should never happen before we've addressed the problem of those coming across the border. If we don't do that first we're never going to fix this problem and in fact we'll probably make it worse. It isn't the first time we've tried this.
And the propaganda campaign against the Arizona law was quite effective in how it has misled the American public. It basically mirrors the Federal law already in place and makes it illegal to conduct racial profiling. I found it rather amusing to hear Europeans and the Chinese berate us over the law given that their own immigration policies are much harsher. Hell, Mexico is much tougher on illegal immigrants than we are.
I realize people love to dump on Microsoft, so they're going to be dismissive of Windows Phone 7 without even having tried it. It's the total opposite of how people respond to the iPhone. Anytime someone asks for suggestions for a smartphone people default to the iPhone like mindless drones.
I have an Android phone which I'm extremely happy with. However, a friend recently got a WP7 phone which finally gave me an opportunity to give it a try. I was extremely impressed. I felt like Microsoft, moreso than either Google or Apple actually put thought into usability, into how people will interact with the phone. Menus and settings are clear and better organized and the interface seems more consistent. I can navigate more efficiently and there seems to a good amount of customization. And I'll give them credit for not just going and cloning Android and iOS's look. Blackberries might offer some great functionality, but in terms of usability they aren't even in the same galaxy as their competitors.
Of course, not having to actually live with the phone I can't speak to how I'd feel about WP7 over the long run, if I'd find it as satisfying an experience as Android. My point is that Microsoft deserves quite a bit more credit than they're getting for this OS. I've found that friends of mine who've actually used a WP7 phone have been quite impressed.
Touch screens were around well before the iPhone/iPad came along. I was dragging files around on a Sony tablet well before people had even dreamt of an iPhone. Multi-touch wasn't implemented only because touchscreen technology of the time wasn't capable of it. Hell, Minority Report depicted multitouch 5 years before the first iPhone. I'm sure others have had the idea well before then.
In light of this, how can Apple's patent be deemed anything but obvious?
Aren't even touchscreen gestures patented? How is that permissible? Why not allow them to only be copyrightable? Although I think even that is ridiculous.
I can appreciate some level of protection for intellectual property. But it's gotten far, far, far too granular where every little random idea is patented or copyrighted. It's gotten to a point where the vast majority of patents should be invalidated. I mean, if Apple is the innovator everyone claims they are, then the fact that everyone is using multi-touch and copying their gestures should be irrelevant? That functionality alone shouldn't define Apple's success. If they are incapable of staying ahead of the competition without all this protection then they don't deserve that success.
A proper free market means sometimes even the big guys get their asses handed to them. Patent protect encourages resting on your laurels because nobody can take your idea and improve on it.
I'm pretty sure technology has advanced to the point that aiming is no longer an issue.
I ended up using the phone a lot more than I had expected but my 3G usage has remained low. I generally only use the 3G network on my Android phone for email and looking up random things while shopping. Any time I download something I switch to WiFi. Since I'm usually only compelled to do that when I'm at home or at the office it's not an issue.
You're absolutely right. The simplistic and safe storylines in addition to constant, gaping plotholes are two big reasons why I haven't been motivated to watch movies in years. I'll catch something from time to time, although never in theaters. But generally, I always feel like most movies are patronizing the way everything is spoon fed to the audience.
There are some indie gems, but a lot of that is lacking too, but for different reasons that the mainstream.
I've been predicting for some time that manufacturing will begin shifting to southeast Asia. There are issues, however, with relocating facilities there. Lack of good infrastructure is one problem. But things of that nature can be addressed with time. Political corruption, general lack of organization and instability are problems that will be far more difficult to overcome. China has many problems, but it's a far more stable environment in which to do business and manufacturing.
Labor costs, however, aren't the only reason to bring manufacturing back to the United States. The cost of shipping raw materials to Asia and then shipping goods back is no longer trivial. The lack of proper quality control is another. The supply chain is too strung out, with too many components coming from too many locations, to the point that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Some parts supplier screws something up and it will completely disrupt production.
Of course we're probably going to see these cycles for decades to come. Management gets the idea to move manufacturing overseas under the pretense of cost savings. They eventually get replaced by people who have to deal with the implications of those decisions. So those people bring some of it back. Then new people come in and have a bright idea for cutting costs and the cycle starts all over again. It already happens with outsourcing. The difference with manufacturing is that the pace is far slower because of the commitment involved in establishing a new manufacturing facility. And the fact is that the United States doesn't do a particularly good job of attracting business investment. That is something China has wisely been focused on, even with their booming economy.
The problem is that unlike Japan, Taiwan and South Korea they haven't made the transition specialized manufacturing and haven't yet established their own brands. They're far from competing on an international level with their own products. Despite all the strides China has made to turn themselves into a self-sufficient economy the fact is that they're still very much dependent on the West and other Asian economic powers. China is reaching where they can't compete on cost. This means they don't have a lot to fall back on. This means they won't have much to fall back on if everyone abandons them.
So they're trying to change that, but I don't think it's going to change any time soon. In the interim this may prove to be a very big problem for China. Couple that with the various economic bubbles they've got going and there's a potential for disaster. A China with serious economic problems could prove to be a dangerous China. There have already been protests throughout China by people who feel disenfranchised. If that turns into a widespread problem they may fall back to the age old fail-safe. Blame someone else for your own problems.
By pirating books you're telling the publishers that the demand is there but the DRM isn't strong enough. From their perspective you're pirating books not because you dislike DRM, but because you don't want to pay for that book. To the publishers that means that even if they were to strip out DRM you'd go right on pirating books.
If you really have a problem with DRM stop reading that publisher's books. That means no pirating. That's a real statement. And it shows you're principled.
Otherwise I agree with you; I have a strong dislike of DRM. The various restrictions are inexcusable and I don't like being chained to a device. But some of your claims don't make a lot of sense.
I've never seen any ebook that was more expensive than paperback, let alone hardcover. Just because a book is electronic doesn't mean it should be sold at a significant discount. The printing cost for any black and white book is insignificant. It's considerably more expensive to print color, because of both the process and paper stock. But even then, it's not close to being the majority of the price of a book. So there's no reason for a huge price difference from physical to electronic.
I also fail to see what spam has to do with piracy in this particular instance.