What you're trying to argue makes no sense whatsoever. Everything has it's caveats, including everything from Apple. All the flavors of Linux feature a multitude of caveats, many of which are worse than anything you'll suffer with Microsoft. Let's take Office as an example. I use OpenOffice at home and have used iWork for a couple of years. They're both pretty good, but nowhere near as good as Office, even with it's quirks.
So really, the decision comes down to which products offer the fewest compromises, or which of those compromises bother you the least. With open source, are willing to put up with quite a lot of crap for the sake of what it all represents.
Microsoft's biggest problem with now is their brand. People are incapable of appreciating anything from them because they continue harbor a negative impression of the brand. It's at a point where people are grasping at straws to find fault with the company.
You make good points, but you're missing the fundamental problem with education in America: the parents. That's the biggest problem I've seen, by far. There are countless early learning programs for the poor, at least in my area and the more widespread problem they face is that they're under utilized. Because few people care enough to sign up for them. No amount of salary increases is going to help teachers if their students don't care to learn, or if they're wasting much of the school day just trying to maintain some semblance of discipline.
Compounding the problem is the fact that parents who do care get fed up and move out. Or, if they can't manage that they get their kids in private or advanced learning schools. There are some serious cultural problems that need to be addressed, particularly in the inner city, before we can start talking about improving education.
This just goes to show the extraordinary stupidity of school administrators and politicians. iPads and the like are toys, nothing more. Anyone who spends even 15 minutes observing a kid on one of these devices would see that. Kids will gravitate towards the most entertaining educational game they can find at which point it's just a game. Pencil and paper is still a far more effective set of tools for learning. And for older kids, you're basically just giving them a glorified text book. At that point they'll try to hack it, like these kids in LA have, or they'll never touch it because it's boring. Then let's not forget the logistics of the whole program, and how many of these will get destroyed throughout the school year.
Politicians have convinced the stupid population that more money is always the solution. They're more interested in pandering for influence than solving problems. So they'll build a beautiful school in some crime-ridden inner city neighborhood, and stuff it full of expensive crap like these iPads and expect that the problems are going to solve themselves. Within 5 to 10 years the school has devolved back into the dump it was meant to replace. Why? Because too many parents don't give a shit. The ones who do care get fed up with the problems and move out. So there's no concerted effort to fundamentally address these problems. Except for teachers, the ones who haven't given up anyway. Unfortunately, they're perpetually underpaid because even though a municipality will raise taxes for schools it doesn't mean it will go anywhere useful.
So many things would improve if parents were held more accountable for their kids instead of offering yet another handout, this time in the form of an iPad.
You're right and I think, outside of a few exceptions, the problem generally applies in Europe as well. Europe is already seeing significant population decline as it is, but it's much worse in more rural areas as everyone continues to fixate on moving into the cities. Unlike the US where you get an urban core and then a suburban buffer, in Europe typically there's a more immediate transition from urban to rural. The reason being that instead of building single-family homes, townhouses and condos they typically go straight for big apartment complexes.
So what you see are villages all over rural Europe largely populated by people over 50 and elderly. And everyone else in sprawling cities. Where I have family there have been instances where villages have been largely depopulated only to eventually be overtaken by the adjacent city.
Although, Europe generally seems to be more stable in terms of climate and geology. And Europe is old enough that I expect people have a good sense for what environmental risks may exist. We're talking about cities in some cases well over 1500 years old, as opposed to American cities that are barely 200 years old.
Microsoft's biggest challenge at this point is perception.
Apple screws up and the "tech" press focuses on the positives and finds a way to spin the negatives into a positive.
Microsoft suffers from the complete opposite in the press. We've talked many times about corporate America's fixation on quarterly profits at the expense of long term goals. Microsoft is doing what we've argued companies should be doing, and they're being mocked! The first Surface was a perfectly good machine, it's biggest failing was that it had a Microsoft logo. The Surface 2 addresses most complaints people might have had, down to the keyboard cover and people continue giving them shit.
Honestly, I have no clue how Microsoft can overcome this image problem. Consumers seem to have been able to disassociate the Xbox from the rest of the company but the future of the Xbox One is uncertain. Given that both Google and Apple have proven to be no different than anyone else in their business practices I'm not sure why people continue to be fixated on Microsoft as the villain.
I spent most of yesterday evening tinkering with iOS 7 on my iPad. I've got to say, much of it feels like amateur hour, like a bunch of students got together to create a redesign of iOS. I can't tell if they put an inexperienced team on the job, if managers with no proper UX experienced were meddling, or they outsourced the bulk of the work. But as a creative director I would have rejected much of what I was seeing and I can't imagine that Steve Jobs would have approved this release.
Apple, a company supposedly reputed for being a stickler about the details, sure overlooked a lot of things here. So that there's a vulnerability isn't really shocking at this point.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoceti">Wikipedia entry for this creature seems to paint a different picture than the article wants to present. This article makes it seem like this evolutionary step in whales is a new thing, but it looks like scientists have known about it for a while. The entry even has images of complete skeletons and a nice illustration.
It's kind of funny to think that animals came out of the water, wandered around a bit and decided they didn't like it so returned to the seas. At least it explains waterborne mammals.
You need to read up on the facts before making such statements. First, Stephen Elop wasn't directly involved with much of the negotiation that happened between Microsoft and Nokia. Secondly, and more importantly, Nokia was as good as dead without Microsoft and Windows Phone.
Nokia's decline started over a decade ago when they thought the future of mobile phones was disposable fashion accessories. When they finally got into smartphones late in the game they chose technological dead ends. Praise Symbian or Meego to your heart's content but it's all irrelevant. Nokia didn't have the resources to turn either into a relevant platform. There was far too much effort and expense required to turn them into viable competitors to Android or iOS, let alone then getting third parties to support the platform with apps.
Some have suggested that Nokia should have adopted Android. There's already an overwhelming glut of Android devices on the market. Samsung is the dominant player by a huge margin with LG, HTC, Sony fighting over scraps. So what would be Nokia's strategy? Enter the fray as an also ran and hope that in the next 5+ years they somehow evolve into a relevant player? Don't forget that they were already heavily bleeding cash by this point.
A partnership with Microsoft was the best possible move Nokia could have made. The deal gave them a distinctive OS that thrust them to the forefront of the tech press. I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about Nokia today if they had gone with Android. The fact that growth has been slower in the US is mostly thanks to a crap retail industry which discourages competition and suffers from ignorance and apathy. Carriers make the situation worse because they have little interest in promoting variety over cash cows. In markets where there is more open competition and where consumers are less likely to get sucked into contracts, Nokia phones have generally done quite well.
Many CEOs are undeserving of the bonuses they receive, but Elop did the best he possibly could do save Nokia. We'll see if Microsoft's acquisition turns out to be positive, but at least for now it's an encouraging sign for competition amongst smartphones.
You mean a highly successful and popular game makes Hollywood look small. Most other games don't do nearly this well.
I would be curious to know the typical profit margin on a Hollywood blockbuster versus a big budget game like GTA V. We've got to be getting to a point where the difference isn't all that large.
I agree that pubs are overpriced and movies offensively so. However, I have a far more enjoyable time sitting with friends and enjoying good beer than hunched over a controller playing any console game. The game might be entertaining, but it's quickly forgotten and in the end I'm left with the feeling that I've just wasted so many hours of my life. GTA5 might be impressive, but I doubt it's going to offer me a better experience than most other games I've played.
So for me, the pub offers far greater bang for the buck.
I agree with you in principle, but what you're describing applies mostly to desktop OSs. Visual consistency is expected when you're dealing with a windowed environment. While it's ideal, however, that all apps follow operating system conventions I don't think it's critical, by any stretch of the imagination. I'd rather see an app optimized for it's particular function than a slave to OS aesthetic requirements. That said, core system functions should remain consistent across the board.
I do find it a bit amusing that you mention visual visual consistency in MacOS being taken for granted considering that they're one of the worst offenders of pointlessly inconsistent interfaces. Look at iCal and the whole iLife suite. But I never considered it to be a problem; I liked the whimsy.
A mobile OS, however, follows a different set of rules. All apps run full screen so there's less dependency on any single template. And the fact is that the range of functionality is so vast that there's no realistic hope of imposing a single experience beyond certain core functions. I do think Android handles it reasonably well with a tool bar. However, persistence is valuable and that's why I prefer Android's old approach where, like Windows Phone, you have ever present capacitive buttons. Sure, there's the annoyance of accidental presses, but at least I can quickly access home or other functions without that functionality consuming screen real estate.
Currently, however, no one offers a consistent experience like Windows Phone does. It's on a level even Apple can't match, and from which they've strayed with iOS 7. Although, given Microsoft's track record they'll probably screw it up at some point.
The only reason skeumorphism is maligned is because it's become unfashionable, not because of any inherent flaw in the aesthetic. Mind you, I've a big fan of Microsoft's flat look, but I also think Apple's former approach was distinctive and quite good. All it needed was a refresh, akin to what Google has done with their aesthetic. Instead, Apple goes and dumps the design resulting in a design that looks like Android with a bit of Windows Phone mixed in. Fortunately for Apple, unlike any other company on Earth, they're being lavished with praise instead of maligned for coming up with such a derivative design.
I get the impression that Apple well aware of how derivative the OS feels, hence the low contrast aesthetic and heavy use of blur filters. The problem is that there isn't enough contrast throughout; at times it feels like trying to use the phone through a frosted screen protector. This isn't helped by the fact that Apple's designers generally seem a too impressed with themselves. So they approached the design with the mindset that too much of a good thing is a great thing. And they're so intent on your savoring their design that they actually hinder usability, as evidenced by the slower animations.
There are plenty of things that iOS has never done right. The argument Apple fans inevitably use to defend iOS is that it "just works". But all that means is that they're used to Apple's particular set of quirks and are unwilling to learning anything new. With Windows Phone, personal preferences aside, at least it's evident that Microsoft placed clarity of the UI and user experience as high priorities. They dropped the ball in a few aspects, the lack of a traditional notifications list and quick-access control center being two examples. But otherwise the experience is excellent. It seems Apple's only goal was to make iOS 7 look relevant by following prevailing design trends which, ironically, Microsoft helped establish.
If the future of smartphones is at the software level, then Apple is screwed because that's where they're furthest behind. The only thing they've still got going for them is the App Store and even there their days are numbered.
Sounds like you think the human race should be comprised solely of lazy, useless slobs who engage in nothing but hedonism. If that isn't a recipe for complete social collapse, cultural and technological stagnation and possible extinction I don't know what is.
Given that it's impossible to track the lives of all these individuals how do you know how they turn out later in life? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean they're not doing significant work.
The problem with you, and most people for that matter, is that they've been educated by Hollywood to expect that everything important must be immersed in fanfare and drama. Most of it goes unnoticed until one day; holy shit, we're all driving cars, or browsing the internet or buried in our smartphones. The vast majority of human progress has been a very deliberate and iterative process.
But you unfortunately, in your mind this kid will be a failure because he'll never live up to your Iron Man-fueled fantasies.
The iPhone will popularize fingerprint readers because companies are run by idiots incapable of thinking for themselves. No one brought this up when Motorola and LG both brought the functionality to their phones, or when a multitude of other companies started sticking it on their laptops. The difference here is that Apple didn't allow engineers and accountants to compromise aesthetics by plopping down whatever suppliers had available wherever it fit on the device. That's an important detail and a key to Apple's continued success, but it doesn't make the technology better than prior implementations.
Interestingly, I've already seen a number of usability flaws with Apple's implementation in demo videos. First, there's a momentary delay which I assume is by design so that the scanner isn't responding to every minor touch. People don't like waiting, they'd rather be engaged doing something than waiting even when the delay is short. Second, most people seem to mistakenly keep the home button press resulting in the phone loading Siri or whatever the instant the phone unlocks. I suppose they could patch the OS to not react to the initial press, but now we're just adding complication. Undoubtedly there's an exploitable fail safe in place because there must be a way to unlock or reset this in the event that something happens to the phone, the sensor or the owner.
What I'm really curious to know is what Apple is going to take credit for next year. Last year Apple somehow got a patent for facial recognition unlock, something that's been present on Android for several years.
So the iPhone 5S is the incremental upgrade any objective observer would have predicted. The problem is that too many in the press kept trumpeting it like it would be some kind of revolution, and the ignorant masses, led by Apple fanatics, bought into the hype.
The mistake people have been making for well over a decade is to brand Apple as an innovator. They're not, far from it, in fact. What they are is amazing integrators, who are able to produce a great product because they're involved in every step of the process. They're also skilled at exploiting a technology when it's reached maturity. But other companies are the true innovators. They're the ones who've taken the risk on a technology in it's infancy and suffer the knocks that inevitably come. Unfortunately, they're rarely the ones who profit from those efforts and they certainly don't get the recognition from consumers.
The challenge for Apple is to remain relevant. The mobile market has matured with competitors catching up and even surpassing the iPhone in a variety of ways. The problem is that it seems Apple is afraid to tamper with their formula and so is playing it far too safe. This is the inevitably consequence of being at the top for too long. Fortunately for them, they've been able to retain their position as the prestige brand. This is partially due to the fact that the entire industry, all the way down to the retail level, keeps reinforcing that belief. Sticking to aluminum certainly helps maintain that perception amongst ignorant consumers.
I'd say Apple's days are numbered, although they're going to remain a dominant presence in the market for a very long time. I don't really see what they could do to reverse the slide. I'm not seeing anything of significance from Apple; nothing like the compelling experiments Google or Microsoft keep putting forward. They're mired in the success of the iPad and iPhone. They struck at the right time with great products but they don't have much of substance to fall back on.
By contrast, Microsoft just needs some proper management to shift things a bit so that they can get on track. They've still got a viable core of potential. From what I've seen Apple, on the other hand, has deeper problems. Maybe they'll prove me wrong in the next couple of years, but so far I'm not seeing it.
I'm close to her age although we might as well be on different planets when it comes to our roles within our respective companies. I can't even comprehend how someone my age could rise to such a high executive level. The only career path I've seen like hers requires growing up in an affluent neighborhood where connections and opportunities are plentiful. It leads to an impressive resume because they got to land jobs no one else would have ever gotten on merit alone. I'm not suggesting she isn't talented, but in that world it's incidental more than a requirement. And when you're dealing with start up culture where youth is irrationally overvalued then it makes opportunities even easier to come by for these people.
I will add that given my experience no way in hell would I ever want to work for her. Nearly every single manager under 40 I've ever had to work with is awful. They're impulsive, emotional and incredibly inefficient. They love to talk about kinship, being a part of a community, to the point that it almost sounds socialist, but then they're some of the most exploitative bastards I've ever dealt with. They'd hire only unpaid interns if they could. They expect workers to put in brutal hours and show little regard for personal time. And they tend to be vicious when they don't get what they want. And they're happy to take all the credit for the hard work of the people beneath them. These are the individuals you see everyone gush over at conferences who talk like they've done everything on their own.
It's basically all the worst qualities of start up culture.
Except that population isn't growing at an exponential rate at all. In most of the developed world population is, in fact, declining. The only reason we don't see as marked a decline in some countries, like the US, is because there continued to be a significant amount of immigrant. But even China is seeing their population increases level off and declines are predicted in the next few decades. In the third world where people do keep popping out babies that's tempered by high mortality rates. But as the quality of life in those countries improve birth rates will invariably start declining as well.
Humanity doesn't even seem to be on track to meet some of the more modest predictions for a population explosion. So that whole argument is total nonsense.
Nokia's decline began over a decade ago. It started when they got focused on phones as a fashion accessory you're supposed to replace every 6 months. The wanted to be the Swatch Watch of phones, a comparison I recall hearing at the time. While others were envisioning of smartphones Nokia was banking on phones turning into a disposable commodity. This was less evident in the US because they were already losing a foothold here. But I was overseas and Nokia was releasing some truly wacky designs; one of the more ridiculous implementations being the Nokia 7380.
So when they finally realized they were losing ground they finally jumped into the smartphone space. Except that they embraced technological dead ends in Symbian and Meego. I'm not suggesting that they're bad OS's at all, but Nokia simply didn't have the resources to make them a viable competitor to Android or iOS. And honestly, I don't think Nokia has ever really had the capability to create a proper OS experience anyway. Their mobile software interfaces have always been incredibly clunky, something that wasn't evident back when all they offered was a keypad and calculator-style display.
Now here comes this guy who's big idea is to create an Android also-ran. There's already a massive amount of competition for Android, what makes this guy think he's implementation is going to make any sort of impact. You've got the market leader in Samsung. Second to them is HTC, who's continued success seems largely dependent on whether they're able to produce a popular phone but generally continue losing money. Then you've got the multitude of other companies, the more prominent of those being LG, Sony and Xiaomi. But here comes this guy offering what many others already offer in the form of a company that's Nokia, but not really. It's ironic that he's talking about risks given his business model.
I've found that most people who are defensive of Trayvon Martin tend to live in safe suburban communities or heavily gentrified urban centers. What this means is that they really have no clue what it's really like in lower income areas beyond what they see in movies and hear in the news.
So when people suggest there's a serious problem in these communities it gets dismissed as stereotyping. And what problems are acknowledged are always blamed on the establishment. But no one ever looks at the communities themselves. There are a lot of kids out there who while aren't outright criminals are indeed thuggish assholes like Trayvon. They're the kinds of kids who won't back down because they don't want to look like a punk, and so end up in way over their heads.
I happen to live in an area that straddles the divide between a nicer, more affluent community and a crap area with a lot of low income housing. There's a pervasive lack of respect and manners amongst the kids in those low income neighborhoods. It's not all of them, but it's far too many. Do something as innocuous as jogging, especially as a white guy, and inevitably some asshole will heckle you. There's this persistent tendency to lash out at anything they perceive as different. And mind you, I'm not talking about outright crime here, but that's often the inevitable trajectory.
But ultimately, who's fault is this? It's the parents who don't give a shit about raising their kids properly. Where were Trayvon's parents as he was growing up? They're complicit in their son's death because if they had raised him properly he'd be less likely to seek out confrontation and he probably wouldn't have even been in that situation at all because he'd be doing something more responsible.
The frustrating bit in all this is that instead of identifying the real problems with the culture we're all fixated on nonsense. Inevitably people are going to the scapegoat and trotting out the victimization card. Same old garbage and so the problems never end.
The community here is doing a good job of driving me away from Slashdot as a source for tech news. Every single story that mentions Microsoft turns into a circle jerk bashing the company. Few here seem capable of having a mature discussion about the topic with the level of cynicism going beyond any sense of reason. What makes anything Microsoft is doing inherently inferior to Google, Apple or Sony? Excluding, of course, the fact that Microsoft remains the company it's cool to hate. Nevermind everything they've enabled over the last few decades.
It's one thing when the topic specifically discusses Microsoft's missteps, but this is getting ridiculous.
More RAM and a better processor, which entails almost every single hardware update ever, for some reason paints a lackluster picture when Microsoft is behind it. Other than the stupid decision Microsoft made in offering the Surface RT, there was nothing wrong with the hardware. I'd be more concerned if they went with a totally new form factor.
And what's with the fixation on the new kickstand? It looks to me like tech specs were leaked and some internet twat specifically brought up the kickstand to turn the news into yet another anti-Microsoft joke. They don't even know what the kickstand improvements entail, but that's what this writer chose to emphasize.
The ironic thing here is that Infoworld even listed that kickstand as one of the 10 things Microsoft needed to improve. Microsoft has done so and now they're bashing them for it. But some of the stuff they're complaining about seems unreasonable because they tolerate worse from Apple. I don't think I've ever seen a single person complain about Apple charging $40 for a rubber cover embedded with a few magnets. Not to say I don't think the Surface Pro isn't expensive, but it's also far closer to being a proper laptop than the iPad.
The cynicism amongst some people is so strong that they'll blindly believe any shred of evidence regardless of how fake it looks. It's a good and healthy thing to question, but to buy into every stupid conspiracy theory that comes along is idiotic. They're only capable of being cynical in one direction which means the right interests will be able to easily exploit their naivete.
I bet the guys who posted those supposed emails read the summary and in their gleeful rush to share this crap neglected to dig any deeper. But I guarantee you that a year from now people will continue repeating this story and all blog links will lead right back to this particular site. When it comes to this sort of thing blogs tend to be a circle jerk where everyone uses everyone else's blog as proof for their claims.
What's so "cutting edge" about an OSX update? I saw nothing to reinforce the claim other than being expected to believe anything from Apple is inherently cutting edge.
This has long since been EA's standard operating procedure. What galls me is that so many people continue to put up with it. They do the bare minimum to get out a functioning game then spend what they should have spent on development on licenses and marketing.
There does appear to a downward trend. EA's games have gone from merely being unpolished crap to showing a total lack of testing. The fact that gamers continue to stick with a company like this just goes to show how unprincipled consumers are. Through the years I've seen far too many people claim that they were unhappy, knowing full well what they were getting into, but went ahead and bought the game anyway. Like buying a game in anger somehow sent a message. The ones spending their parents' money think even less about any of it as from their perspective money does grow on trees.
Of course if you have an issue with EA you shouldn't pirate their games either. The message pirating sends to a company like EA is that their games are desirable, but they merely haven't made their DRM strong enough. They know full well that most consumers are suckers who will fork over the cash if they have no other recourse. Making a statement means no purchases and no pirating. Unfortunately, far too many people evidently can't survive without their gaming fix. And when you're talking about the testosterone fueled gaming then the problem is even worse, as evidenced by the continued popularity of the Madden and Battlefield series.
I suppose the value in starting a tech company in California is that you're closer to a potentially strong talent pool. But that argument goes out the window when you consider outsourcing or the appeal of H1B visas. Anyone intent on hiring American talent certainly could find it in most places if they look hard enough.
I suppose there's the belief in sharing of ideas and whatnot, but in today's world much of that has been rendered irrelevant by the internet. It's trivial to know what anyone's doing if you keep up with current news. And I'd argue people aren't necessarily coming up with better ideas merely because they've got the same zip code. This isn't some kind of research environment with open discourse and sharing of ideas.
I'm convinced the proximity to Hollywood is a big culprit behind this Silicon Valley stupidity. There's an irrational fixation on name dropping out there. Most people I've come across inevitably start rattling off names of high profile individuals they've met. And I suppose, when you're in the midst of it it's inevitable you will meet these people. But they seem to act like that gives them instant credibility.
They've created this culture that the rest of us is supposed to believe is desirable. And I guess there are a lot of naive individuals who do fall for it. So they end up working in exploitative environments in the hope that they'll get a piece of the pie. Although, I've found that people don't even think that far, often they just want to be part of the in-crowd. They're convinced they're doing the coolest thing ever and management certainly likes to reinforce that belief, but they're really just being taken advantage of.
To be fair, this is a problem that you'll encounter elsewhere in the country, but California in general seems to offer this unique confluence of problems. Anyone with any sense would avoid starting a tech company anywhere in the state.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're trying to argue makes no sense whatsoever. Everything has it's caveats, including everything from Apple. All the flavors of Linux feature a multitude of caveats, many of which are worse than anything you'll suffer with Microsoft. Let's take Office as an example. I use OpenOffice at home and have used iWork for a couple of years. They're both pretty good, but nowhere near as good as Office, even with it's quirks.
So really, the decision comes down to which products offer the fewest compromises, or which of those compromises bother you the least. With open source, are willing to put up with quite a lot of crap for the sake of what it all represents.
Microsoft's biggest problem with now is their brand. People are incapable of appreciating anything from them because they continue harbor a negative impression of the brand. It's at a point where people are grasping at straws to find fault with the company.
You make good points, but you're missing the fundamental problem with education in America: the parents. That's the biggest problem I've seen, by far. There are countless early learning programs for the poor, at least in my area and the more widespread problem they face is that they're under utilized. Because few people care enough to sign up for them. No amount of salary increases is going to help teachers if their students don't care to learn, or if they're wasting much of the school day just trying to maintain some semblance of discipline.
Compounding the problem is the fact that parents who do care get fed up and move out. Or, if they can't manage that they get their kids in private or advanced learning schools. There are some serious cultural problems that need to be addressed, particularly in the inner city, before we can start talking about improving education.
This just goes to show the extraordinary stupidity of school administrators and politicians. iPads and the like are toys, nothing more. Anyone who spends even 15 minutes observing a kid on one of these devices would see that. Kids will gravitate towards the most entertaining educational game they can find at which point it's just a game. Pencil and paper is still a far more effective set of tools for learning. And for older kids, you're basically just giving them a glorified text book. At that point they'll try to hack it, like these kids in LA have, or they'll never touch it because it's boring. Then let's not forget the logistics of the whole program, and how many of these will get destroyed throughout the school year.
Politicians have convinced the stupid population that more money is always the solution. They're more interested in pandering for influence than solving problems. So they'll build a beautiful school in some crime-ridden inner city neighborhood, and stuff it full of expensive crap like these iPads and expect that the problems are going to solve themselves. Within 5 to 10 years the school has devolved back into the dump it was meant to replace. Why? Because too many parents don't give a shit. The ones who do care get fed up with the problems and move out. So there's no concerted effort to fundamentally address these problems. Except for teachers, the ones who haven't given up anyway. Unfortunately, they're perpetually underpaid because even though a municipality will raise taxes for schools it doesn't mean it will go anywhere useful.
So many things would improve if parents were held more accountable for their kids instead of offering yet another handout, this time in the form of an iPad.
You're right and I think, outside of a few exceptions, the problem generally applies in Europe as well. Europe is already seeing significant population decline as it is, but it's much worse in more rural areas as everyone continues to fixate on moving into the cities. Unlike the US where you get an urban core and then a suburban buffer, in Europe typically there's a more immediate transition from urban to rural. The reason being that instead of building single-family homes, townhouses and condos they typically go straight for big apartment complexes.
So what you see are villages all over rural Europe largely populated by people over 50 and elderly. And everyone else in sprawling cities. Where I have family there have been instances where villages have been largely depopulated only to eventually be overtaken by the adjacent city.
Although, Europe generally seems to be more stable in terms of climate and geology. And Europe is old enough that I expect people have a good sense for what environmental risks may exist. We're talking about cities in some cases well over 1500 years old, as opposed to American cities that are barely 200 years old.
Microsoft's biggest challenge at this point is perception.
Apple screws up and the "tech" press focuses on the positives and finds a way to spin the negatives into a positive.
Microsoft suffers from the complete opposite in the press. We've talked many times about corporate America's fixation on quarterly profits at the expense of long term goals. Microsoft is doing what we've argued companies should be doing, and they're being mocked! The first Surface was a perfectly good machine, it's biggest failing was that it had a Microsoft logo. The Surface 2 addresses most complaints people might have had, down to the keyboard cover and people continue giving them shit.
Honestly, I have no clue how Microsoft can overcome this image problem. Consumers seem to have been able to disassociate the Xbox from the rest of the company but the future of the Xbox One is uncertain. Given that both Google and Apple have proven to be no different than anyone else in their business practices I'm not sure why people continue to be fixated on Microsoft as the villain.
I spent most of yesterday evening tinkering with iOS 7 on my iPad. I've got to say, much of it feels like amateur hour, like a bunch of students got together to create a redesign of iOS. I can't tell if they put an inexperienced team on the job, if managers with no proper UX experienced were meddling, or they outsourced the bulk of the work. But as a creative director I would have rejected much of what I was seeing and I can't imagine that Steve Jobs would have approved this release.
Apple, a company supposedly reputed for being a stickler about the details, sure overlooked a lot of things here. So that there's a vulnerability isn't really shocking at this point.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoceti">Wikipedia entry for this creature seems to paint a different picture than the article wants to present. This article makes it seem like this evolutionary step in whales is a new thing, but it looks like scientists have known about it for a while. The entry even has images of complete skeletons and a nice illustration.
It's kind of funny to think that animals came out of the water, wandered around a bit and decided they didn't like it so returned to the seas. At least it explains waterborne mammals.
You need to read up on the facts before making such statements. First, Stephen Elop wasn't directly involved with much of the negotiation that happened between Microsoft and Nokia. Secondly, and more importantly, Nokia was as good as dead without Microsoft and Windows Phone.
Nokia's decline started over a decade ago when they thought the future of mobile phones was disposable fashion accessories. When they finally got into smartphones late in the game they chose technological dead ends. Praise Symbian or Meego to your heart's content but it's all irrelevant. Nokia didn't have the resources to turn either into a relevant platform. There was far too much effort and expense required to turn them into viable competitors to Android or iOS, let alone then getting third parties to support the platform with apps.
Some have suggested that Nokia should have adopted Android. There's already an overwhelming glut of Android devices on the market. Samsung is the dominant player by a huge margin with LG, HTC, Sony fighting over scraps. So what would be Nokia's strategy? Enter the fray as an also ran and hope that in the next 5+ years they somehow evolve into a relevant player? Don't forget that they were already heavily bleeding cash by this point.
A partnership with Microsoft was the best possible move Nokia could have made. The deal gave them a distinctive OS that thrust them to the forefront of the tech press. I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about Nokia today if they had gone with Android. The fact that growth has been slower in the US is mostly thanks to a crap retail industry which discourages competition and suffers from ignorance and apathy. Carriers make the situation worse because they have little interest in promoting variety over cash cows. In markets where there is more open competition and where consumers are less likely to get sucked into contracts, Nokia phones have generally done quite well.
Many CEOs are undeserving of the bonuses they receive, but Elop did the best he possibly could do save Nokia. We'll see if Microsoft's acquisition turns out to be positive, but at least for now it's an encouraging sign for competition amongst smartphones.
You mean a highly successful and popular game makes Hollywood look small. Most other games don't do nearly this well.
I would be curious to know the typical profit margin on a Hollywood blockbuster versus a big budget game like GTA V. We've got to be getting to a point where the difference isn't all that large.
I agree that pubs are overpriced and movies offensively so. However, I have a far more enjoyable time sitting with friends and enjoying good beer than hunched over a controller playing any console game. The game might be entertaining, but it's quickly forgotten and in the end I'm left with the feeling that I've just wasted so many hours of my life. GTA5 might be impressive, but I doubt it's going to offer me a better experience than most other games I've played.
So for me, the pub offers far greater bang for the buck.
I agree with you in principle, but what you're describing applies mostly to desktop OSs. Visual consistency is expected when you're dealing with a windowed environment. While it's ideal, however, that all apps follow operating system conventions I don't think it's critical, by any stretch of the imagination. I'd rather see an app optimized for it's particular function than a slave to OS aesthetic requirements. That said, core system functions should remain consistent across the board.
I do find it a bit amusing that you mention visual visual consistency in MacOS being taken for granted considering that they're one of the worst offenders of pointlessly inconsistent interfaces. Look at iCal and the whole iLife suite. But I never considered it to be a problem; I liked the whimsy.
A mobile OS, however, follows a different set of rules. All apps run full screen so there's less dependency on any single template. And the fact is that the range of functionality is so vast that there's no realistic hope of imposing a single experience beyond certain core functions. I do think Android handles it reasonably well with a tool bar. However, persistence is valuable and that's why I prefer Android's old approach where, like Windows Phone, you have ever present capacitive buttons. Sure, there's the annoyance of accidental presses, but at least I can quickly access home or other functions without that functionality consuming screen real estate.
Currently, however, no one offers a consistent experience like Windows Phone does. It's on a level even Apple can't match, and from which they've strayed with iOS 7. Although, given Microsoft's track record they'll probably screw it up at some point.
The only reason skeumorphism is maligned is because it's become unfashionable, not because of any inherent flaw in the aesthetic. Mind you, I've a big fan of Microsoft's flat look, but I also think Apple's former approach was distinctive and quite good. All it needed was a refresh, akin to what Google has done with their aesthetic. Instead, Apple goes and dumps the design resulting in a design that looks like Android with a bit of Windows Phone mixed in. Fortunately for Apple, unlike any other company on Earth, they're being lavished with praise instead of maligned for coming up with such a derivative design.
I get the impression that Apple well aware of how derivative the OS feels, hence the low contrast aesthetic and heavy use of blur filters. The problem is that there isn't enough contrast throughout; at times it feels like trying to use the phone through a frosted screen protector. This isn't helped by the fact that Apple's designers generally seem a too impressed with themselves. So they approached the design with the mindset that too much of a good thing is a great thing. And they're so intent on your savoring their design that they actually hinder usability, as evidenced by the slower animations.
There are plenty of things that iOS has never done right. The argument Apple fans inevitably use to defend iOS is that it "just works". But all that means is that they're used to Apple's particular set of quirks and are unwilling to learning anything new. With Windows Phone, personal preferences aside, at least it's evident that Microsoft placed clarity of the UI and user experience as high priorities. They dropped the ball in a few aspects, the lack of a traditional notifications list and quick-access control center being two examples. But otherwise the experience is excellent. It seems Apple's only goal was to make iOS 7 look relevant by following prevailing design trends which, ironically, Microsoft helped establish.
If the future of smartphones is at the software level, then Apple is screwed because that's where they're furthest behind. The only thing they've still got going for them is the App Store and even there their days are numbered.
Sounds like you think the human race should be comprised solely of lazy, useless slobs who engage in nothing but hedonism. If that isn't a recipe for complete social collapse, cultural and technological stagnation and possible extinction I don't know what is.
Given that it's impossible to track the lives of all these individuals how do you know how they turn out later in life? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean they're not doing significant work.
The problem with you, and most people for that matter, is that they've been educated by Hollywood to expect that everything important must be immersed in fanfare and drama. Most of it goes unnoticed until one day; holy shit, we're all driving cars, or browsing the internet or buried in our smartphones. The vast majority of human progress has been a very deliberate and iterative process.
But you unfortunately, in your mind this kid will be a failure because he'll never live up to your Iron Man-fueled fantasies.
The iPhone will popularize fingerprint readers because companies are run by idiots incapable of thinking for themselves. No one brought this up when Motorola and LG both brought the functionality to their phones, or when a multitude of other companies started sticking it on their laptops. The difference here is that Apple didn't allow engineers and accountants to compromise aesthetics by plopping down whatever suppliers had available wherever it fit on the device. That's an important detail and a key to Apple's continued success, but it doesn't make the technology better than prior implementations.
Interestingly, I've already seen a number of usability flaws with Apple's implementation in demo videos. First, there's a momentary delay which I assume is by design so that the scanner isn't responding to every minor touch. People don't like waiting, they'd rather be engaged doing something than waiting even when the delay is short. Second, most people seem to mistakenly keep the home button press resulting in the phone loading Siri or whatever the instant the phone unlocks. I suppose they could patch the OS to not react to the initial press, but now we're just adding complication. Undoubtedly there's an exploitable fail safe in place because there must be a way to unlock or reset this in the event that something happens to the phone, the sensor or the owner.
What I'm really curious to know is what Apple is going to take credit for next year. Last year Apple somehow got a patent for facial recognition unlock, something that's been present on Android for several years.
So the iPhone 5S is the incremental upgrade any objective observer would have predicted. The problem is that too many in the press kept trumpeting it like it would be some kind of revolution, and the ignorant masses, led by Apple fanatics, bought into the hype.
The mistake people have been making for well over a decade is to brand Apple as an innovator. They're not, far from it, in fact. What they are is amazing integrators, who are able to produce a great product because they're involved in every step of the process. They're also skilled at exploiting a technology when it's reached maturity. But other companies are the true innovators. They're the ones who've taken the risk on a technology in it's infancy and suffer the knocks that inevitably come. Unfortunately, they're rarely the ones who profit from those efforts and they certainly don't get the recognition from consumers.
The challenge for Apple is to remain relevant. The mobile market has matured with competitors catching up and even surpassing the iPhone in a variety of ways. The problem is that it seems Apple is afraid to tamper with their formula and so is playing it far too safe. This is the inevitably consequence of being at the top for too long. Fortunately for them, they've been able to retain their position as the prestige brand. This is partially due to the fact that the entire industry, all the way down to the retail level, keeps reinforcing that belief. Sticking to aluminum certainly helps maintain that perception amongst ignorant consumers.
I'd say Apple's days are numbered, although they're going to remain a dominant presence in the market for a very long time. I don't really see what they could do to reverse the slide. I'm not seeing anything of significance from Apple; nothing like the compelling experiments Google or Microsoft keep putting forward. They're mired in the success of the iPad and iPhone. They struck at the right time with great products but they don't have much of substance to fall back on.
By contrast, Microsoft just needs some proper management to shift things a bit so that they can get on track. They've still got a viable core of potential. From what I've seen Apple, on the other hand, has deeper problems. Maybe they'll prove me wrong in the next couple of years, but so far I'm not seeing it.
I'm close to her age although we might as well be on different planets when it comes to our roles within our respective companies. I can't even comprehend how someone my age could rise to such a high executive level. The only career path I've seen like hers requires growing up in an affluent neighborhood where connections and opportunities are plentiful. It leads to an impressive resume because they got to land jobs no one else would have ever gotten on merit alone. I'm not suggesting she isn't talented, but in that world it's incidental more than a requirement. And when you're dealing with start up culture where youth is irrationally overvalued then it makes opportunities even easier to come by for these people.
I will add that given my experience no way in hell would I ever want to work for her. Nearly every single manager under 40 I've ever had to work with is awful. They're impulsive, emotional and incredibly inefficient. They love to talk about kinship, being a part of a community, to the point that it almost sounds socialist, but then they're some of the most exploitative bastards I've ever dealt with. They'd hire only unpaid interns if they could. They expect workers to put in brutal hours and show little regard for personal time. And they tend to be vicious when they don't get what they want. And they're happy to take all the credit for the hard work of the people beneath them. These are the individuals you see everyone gush over at conferences who talk like they've done everything on their own.
It's basically all the worst qualities of start up culture.
Except that population isn't growing at an exponential rate at all. In most of the developed world population is, in fact, declining. The only reason we don't see as marked a decline in some countries, like the US, is because there continued to be a significant amount of immigrant. But even China is seeing their population increases level off and declines are predicted in the next few decades. In the third world where people do keep popping out babies that's tempered by high mortality rates. But as the quality of life in those countries improve birth rates will invariably start declining as well.
Humanity doesn't even seem to be on track to meet some of the more modest predictions for a population explosion. So that whole argument is total nonsense.
Nokia's decline began over a decade ago. It started when they got focused on phones as a fashion accessory you're supposed to replace every 6 months. The wanted to be the Swatch Watch of phones, a comparison I recall hearing at the time. While others were envisioning of smartphones Nokia was banking on phones turning into a disposable commodity. This was less evident in the US because they were already losing a foothold here. But I was overseas and Nokia was releasing some truly wacky designs; one of the more ridiculous implementations being the Nokia 7380.
So when they finally realized they were losing ground they finally jumped into the smartphone space. Except that they embraced technological dead ends in Symbian and Meego. I'm not suggesting that they're bad OS's at all, but Nokia simply didn't have the resources to make them a viable competitor to Android or iOS. And honestly, I don't think Nokia has ever really had the capability to create a proper OS experience anyway. Their mobile software interfaces have always been incredibly clunky, something that wasn't evident back when all they offered was a keypad and calculator-style display.
Now here comes this guy who's big idea is to create an Android also-ran. There's already a massive amount of competition for Android, what makes this guy think he's implementation is going to make any sort of impact. You've got the market leader in Samsung. Second to them is HTC, who's continued success seems largely dependent on whether they're able to produce a popular phone but generally continue losing money. Then you've got the multitude of other companies, the more prominent of those being LG, Sony and Xiaomi. But here comes this guy offering what many others already offer in the form of a company that's Nokia, but not really. It's ironic that he's talking about risks given his business model.
I've found that most people who are defensive of Trayvon Martin tend to live in safe suburban communities or heavily gentrified urban centers. What this means is that they really have no clue what it's really like in lower income areas beyond what they see in movies and hear in the news.
So when people suggest there's a serious problem in these communities it gets dismissed as stereotyping. And what problems are acknowledged are always blamed on the establishment. But no one ever looks at the communities themselves. There are a lot of kids out there who while aren't outright criminals are indeed thuggish assholes like Trayvon. They're the kinds of kids who won't back down because they don't want to look like a punk, and so end up in way over their heads.
I happen to live in an area that straddles the divide between a nicer, more affluent community and a crap area with a lot of low income housing. There's a pervasive lack of respect and manners amongst the kids in those low income neighborhoods. It's not all of them, but it's far too many. Do something as innocuous as jogging, especially as a white guy, and inevitably some asshole will heckle you. There's this persistent tendency to lash out at anything they perceive as different. And mind you, I'm not talking about outright crime here, but that's often the inevitable trajectory.
But ultimately, who's fault is this? It's the parents who don't give a shit about raising their kids properly. Where were Trayvon's parents as he was growing up? They're complicit in their son's death because if they had raised him properly he'd be less likely to seek out confrontation and he probably wouldn't have even been in that situation at all because he'd be doing something more responsible.
The frustrating bit in all this is that instead of identifying the real problems with the culture we're all fixated on nonsense. Inevitably people are going to the scapegoat and trotting out the victimization card. Same old garbage and so the problems never end.
The community here is doing a good job of driving me away from Slashdot as a source for tech news. Every single story that mentions Microsoft turns into a circle jerk bashing the company. Few here seem capable of having a mature discussion about the topic with the level of cynicism going beyond any sense of reason. What makes anything Microsoft is doing inherently inferior to Google, Apple or Sony? Excluding, of course, the fact that Microsoft remains the company it's cool to hate. Nevermind everything they've enabled over the last few decades.
It's one thing when the topic specifically discusses Microsoft's missteps, but this is getting ridiculous.
More RAM and a better processor, which entails almost every single hardware update ever, for some reason paints a lackluster picture when Microsoft is behind it. Other than the stupid decision Microsoft made in offering the Surface RT, there was nothing wrong with the hardware. I'd be more concerned if they went with a totally new form factor.
And what's with the fixation on the new kickstand? It looks to me like tech specs were leaked and some internet twat specifically brought up the kickstand to turn the news into yet another anti-Microsoft joke. They don't even know what the kickstand improvements entail, but that's what this writer chose to emphasize.
The ironic thing here is that Infoworld even listed that kickstand as one of the 10 things Microsoft needed to improve. Microsoft has done so and now they're bashing them for it. But some of the stuff they're complaining about seems unreasonable because they tolerate worse from Apple. I don't think I've ever seen a single person complain about Apple charging $40 for a rubber cover embedded with a few magnets. Not to say I don't think the Surface Pro isn't expensive, but it's also far closer to being a proper laptop than the iPad.
The cynicism amongst some people is so strong that they'll blindly believe any shred of evidence regardless of how fake it looks. It's a good and healthy thing to question, but to buy into every stupid conspiracy theory that comes along is idiotic. They're only capable of being cynical in one direction which means the right interests will be able to easily exploit their naivete.
I bet the guys who posted those supposed emails read the summary and in their gleeful rush to share this crap neglected to dig any deeper. But I guarantee you that a year from now people will continue repeating this story and all blog links will lead right back to this particular site. When it comes to this sort of thing blogs tend to be a circle jerk where everyone uses everyone else's blog as proof for their claims.
What's so "cutting edge" about an OSX update? I saw nothing to reinforce the claim other than being expected to believe anything from Apple is inherently cutting edge.
This has long since been EA's standard operating procedure. What galls me is that so many people continue to put up with it. They do the bare minimum to get out a functioning game then spend what they should have spent on development on licenses and marketing.
There does appear to a downward trend. EA's games have gone from merely being unpolished crap to showing a total lack of testing. The fact that gamers continue to stick with a company like this just goes to show how unprincipled consumers are. Through the years I've seen far too many people claim that they were unhappy, knowing full well what they were getting into, but went ahead and bought the game anyway. Like buying a game in anger somehow sent a message. The ones spending their parents' money think even less about any of it as from their perspective money does grow on trees.
Of course if you have an issue with EA you shouldn't pirate their games either. The message pirating sends to a company like EA is that their games are desirable, but they merely haven't made their DRM strong enough. They know full well that most consumers are suckers who will fork over the cash if they have no other recourse. Making a statement means no purchases and no pirating. Unfortunately, far too many people evidently can't survive without their gaming fix. And when you're talking about the testosterone fueled gaming then the problem is even worse, as evidenced by the continued popularity of the Madden and Battlefield series.
I suppose the value in starting a tech company in California is that you're closer to a potentially strong talent pool. But that argument goes out the window when you consider outsourcing or the appeal of H1B visas. Anyone intent on hiring American talent certainly could find it in most places if they look hard enough.
I suppose there's the belief in sharing of ideas and whatnot, but in today's world much of that has been rendered irrelevant by the internet. It's trivial to know what anyone's doing if you keep up with current news. And I'd argue people aren't necessarily coming up with better ideas merely because they've got the same zip code. This isn't some kind of research environment with open discourse and sharing of ideas.
I'm convinced the proximity to Hollywood is a big culprit behind this Silicon Valley stupidity. There's an irrational fixation on name dropping out there. Most people I've come across inevitably start rattling off names of high profile individuals they've met. And I suppose, when you're in the midst of it it's inevitable you will meet these people. But they seem to act like that gives them instant credibility.
They've created this culture that the rest of us is supposed to believe is desirable. And I guess there are a lot of naive individuals who do fall for it. So they end up working in exploitative environments in the hope that they'll get a piece of the pie. Although, I've found that people don't even think that far, often they just want to be part of the in-crowd. They're convinced they're doing the coolest thing ever and management certainly likes to reinforce that belief, but they're really just being taken advantage of.
To be fair, this is a problem that you'll encounter elsewhere in the country, but California in general seems to offer this unique confluence of problems. Anyone with any sense would avoid starting a tech company anywhere in the state.