I'm surprised they didn't institute anti-dumping tariffs like they did when Chinese companies start dumping cheap clothing on Europe. Considering the EU's usual tendencies I wonder what are the distinguishing factors here.
In my experience Adobe software is more expensive outside the United States in general. It's understandable in Europe where they've got 20% VAT, in addition to a ton of other tariffs. But in Australia their VAT is 10%, considered one of the lowest in the world; I suppose, except for the US which has none. There may be import duties that are not being mentioned here, but it still wouldn't explain why the software is $1000 more expensive than in the US.
However, I've noticed the trend elsewhere, including where I worked in Taiwan. Where Adobe software was considerably more expensive. It was ironic considering how rampant piracy was there. In our case we went through grey market channels, where someone purchased a bunch of copies in the US and resold them there. That or we'd get someone in the States to buy us a copy. Either way, we definitely weren't rushing out to buy the latest versions. So if anything, Adobe was discouraging sales.
There was a lot of weirdness. Some software was cheaper than in the US. But then electronics were barely on par, and in some cases even Taiwanese-made laptops, for example, were actually cheaper than you'd find in the US. I do know that companies were levied various taxes and tariffs so that may have accounted for some of it.
As far as I know, Australia's median income isn't higher than the US. So it seems that for whatever reason Adobe is gouging them. That said, good luck finding a plane ticket for anywhere near $1000.
Europeans talk about how much they dislike automatics but they've become increasingly popular. I wish I could find the stats, but the number of automatics being purchased has grown dramatically. I'm convinced the primary reason why manuals continue to have an edge is because they're still a good deal less expensive than the automatic option. If prices were to equalize, or even reverse, as is the case in the US sometimes, there would be an immediate and dramatic shift towards automatics.
I'll always prefer a manual over an automatic, but only because it's more entertaining and satisfying to drive. There's no functional advantage whatsoever to an automatic for 98% of the driving public. The fact that some manual cars offer rev matching and hill start assist makes manual transmissions more irrelevant than ever before. At that point you're just pretending to drive stick. Might as well just embrace progress and go with an automated manual, which is actually functionally superior.
At the end of the day these guys usually are not much more than figureheads. They institute a vague vision and ambiguous goal that is mostly reactive to industry trends. It's the people beneath them who do the real thinking, who worry about specifics, implementation and execution. The only real benefit they bring is that they have intimate knowledge of the process, philosophy and goals of their previous employer.
I fully believe that games are capable of conveying a complex, thought-provoking story. I'd argue that games offer better ability to do this than film. Of course, the flip side here is that we're still talking about a game, and not an interactive movie. That means a lot repetitive activity. There are a tiny handful of games that offer very compelling stories but most don't even come close.
In fact, I'd argue that most big budget games are barely on par with the weaker Hollywood blockbusters. For all the positive talk I see about a certain game's story, whenever I play it I'm incredibly disappointed by the contrived story, the generic characters and the excessive emphasis on the spectacle. And the obnoxious thing is when people talk about mature themes in games, they're not talking about complex ideas, they're talking about swearing, nudity and gratuitous violence.
Story-driven indie games tend to touch on more sophisticated themes. But then they tend to be heavy-handed at times. Everything ends up being dreary and brooding. But in terms of story, they're absolutely pushing the envelope. The big budget, mainstream games are pushing spectacle under the pretense of being story-driven.
Is this metric actually relevant? There's not a whole lot out there that will tax even current smartphone CPU's. The most demanding thing you can throw at a smartphone is gaming and that's where the GPU comes into play.
The iPhone's CPU has generally always been sub par in most benchmarks. But their GPU's has generally been at the front of the pack. The iPad 2/iPhone 4S GPU still scores quite favorably. The funny thing here is that the Galaxy S4 uses a newer variant of the GPU from the iPhone 5.
At the end of the day, however, this all feels like the clock speed wars of the 90's. Largely irrelevant as the performance improvements are largely incremental and won't even be fully exploited before the phone is replaced by a successor.
I can't imagine this would affect many people. Most people stuck in traffic don't have a choice, they're there because it's a part of their daily commute. I check traffic maps on a daily basis, but it's most just to confirm that, yes, it's as bad as it is every other day. I then proceed to go local.
So the rarer instances where it's handy is if conditions are particularly severe or if there's a jam somewhere you normally wouldn't encounter one. However, even then, there aren't always viable alternatives. Take the New York City area. Unless you can circumvent the region altogether there's no viable alternative, it's all varying degrees of bad.
Not that urban planners and traffic engineers need the help. Some of the decisions they make leave me wondering if they're mentally disabled or trolling the driving public. A couple of the major avenues across my city have light cycles that pretty much guarantee you're going to be stuck at every red if you're driving at or close to the speed limit. Secondary side streets are given far too much priority. Hackers could only improve things.
This is the consequence of buying from Apple. If you're unhappy with your newly purchased Dell you can return it and pick up an Asus, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba or one of the many other alternatives out there. Buy a MacBook and you're stuck. Unless you're willing to ditch the platform your only hope is that the replacement is problem-free. There's always the option of switching to Windows or another platform, but the lure of aluminum and cult of Apple evidently are too strong.
This is great and was inevitable. I'm still not buying SimCity and no one else should either.
EA wants your money. They don't care if you're angry when you buy their games, if you post furious blogs about their practices, they don't even care if you never open the packaging. Once money has changed hands their relationship with you is done. They know that consumers have incredibly short memories. They also know that gamers as a whole aren't all that principled and can't go without their entertainment fix.
I think it speaks to a larger societal problem. Americans love to be self-righteous. "I'm a consumer whore because companies are evil."
Except that it's always the company that suits my lifestyle which is good and noble, or at worst, a necessary evil. Nevermind that the whole notion of a company being "evil" is incredibly stupid. But it foists all the blame on them. We're not talking about a monopolistic enterprise here. We're not talking about a company engaging in slave labor, although some would argue EA does have a miserable work environment. The point is that EA's fortunes are entirely within the control of every single consumer. We don't need legislation. We just need people to stop buying their damn games.
I don't know how many more times EA needs to screw people before people take a hint. We've already gone far beyond the point of all reason.
You seem to be implying that under a communist workers would somehow be paid a fair wage. All historical evidence indicates that you're deluded.
In a communist system you've got the same exact downward pressure on wages. Worse, in fact, because of direct government involvement. Everyone doing the same job gets the same wage. That means there's no competitive pressure. There's no risk of workers quitting and taking another job because there's nowhere to go. All workers are at the whim of the state and rarely is a good thing for the majority of citizens.
I'm not suggesting free market capitalism is a good thing in the long run either. You're right, it does turn very exploitative. We absolutely need some government intervention, but the exact amount and how it should vary is the question.
How do we define the value of labor anyway? I think doctors are seriously overpaid. But the guy who's life was just saved will disagree with you. By the same token, it's difficult to argue a McDonald's employee or a day laborer should be earning more than they do when the skills they need can be learned in a day or two. I mean, is it realistic to expect that someone should be able to live on any job?
Whether or not Microsoft is making a legitimate point is irrelevant. This is clearly a marketing campaign and will be perceived as much. From the perspective of the vast majority of consumers Microsoft is no different than Google. Potentially worse, in fact, because of Microsoft's history. We can get into a whole debate about whether or not some of that perception is deserved, but this too is irrelevant. So in the eyes of most Microsoft is likely engaging in similar activities, regardless of what the reality may be.
There is another problem here, however. Either Microsoft's management, their marketing department or their advertising agency seems intent on portraying the company as hip. From the dancing Surface commercials, to the Windows Phone celebrity spots, to this dorky Scroogled campaign it all feels tacky and reeks of trying way too hard. They're trying to turn their brand into the kind of lifestyle brand that people perceive as cool and desirable. The problem is that it can't be forced. That and it's been shown that consumers don't respond well to attack ads.
The irony to all these stupid campaigns is that your average consumer still isn't fully aware of what Microsoft has to offer. So instead of focusing on the basics, the stuff that could actually motivate consumers, they're wasting time and money on nonsense. Whoever is in charge of marketing at Microsoft is not only seriously overpaid but probably should be fired.
I've always felt that Nintendo has stumbled onto their successes. Whether a new feature proved to be a gimmick or legitimate innovation was mostly dictated by the success of the console. Where there any long-term strategy they'd have better capitalized on the success of the Wii. Instead, they go and stupidly implement a gimmick that feels like a desperate grab at some of the iPad's market share. And that's part of the problem; they're trying to be all things to all people and doing none of it well. Compounding the problem is that they're trying too hard to distinguish themselves from the competition while failing to realize that first-party gaming already accomplishes that.
The Xbox360 and PS3 set the current benchmark and their successors will establish it yet again. So Nintendo remains behind the curve. It's not that graphics need to look realistic, it's that they need to be robust. The Wii U needs processing power on par with the competitors if Nintendo wants widespread third-party support. The Wii U should have been the Wii, but with improved motion controls and the standard controller packed in to ensure greater accessibility.
They need to either standardize their hardware, as Sony seems to be doing, or take Sega's approach and focus squarely on software development. Microsoft, Sony and Apple all have a wealth of experience and far more robust resources to draw on. But I think their fundamental problem is that they have no real vision.
The OS certainly looks nice, but how is it any different than mobile or tablet OS? I'm seeing a bit of sensationalism due to the mere fact that this OS didn't come from one of the big three. I was expecting a lot more to this claim than a mere jab at Windows 8's desktop mode. I agree, that was a massively botched example of UI design and an indication of compromise. But it's jarring for the first half an hour of use; it's not some sort of profound UI issue.
The issue facing mobile and tablet UI is more one of consistency. It's functionality being uniform, apps following standards, and buttons having consistent functions. The back button should always mean back. Apple has generally done a good job and the OS translates pretty well between the iPhone and iPad. Regardless of what people are saying here, Windows Phone is one of the best out there and I haven't come across anyone yet who wasn't impressed. What it does make me wonder why Microsoft didn't implement that OS on the Surface RT.
Android, while I like the OS, does have a lot of issues with unintuitive UI. Every environment functions a bit differently, like each was designed by it's own team with it's own UI philosophy and aesthetic. It's not a problem with anything that's used frequently, because users do internalize a lot of the variations. But I think it's still a problem to go from one screen that navigates via scrolls to another that relies on swipes. The custom variants from HTC, Samsung and others only make things worse. Unfortunately, I don't think it's something Google will ever be able to fix, user interface isn't their strong suit.
From that perspective Ubuntu looks very promising. But it's crucial they prevent fragmentation, which seems difficult to pull off in the open source world. That would mean no first-party custom skins and no third-party redesigns. This is the interface everyone gets.
The wheel size thing is irrelevant and wouldn't affect results. All automakers offer wheels in different diameters. But then the tires they equip have different profiles to compensate so that the overall diameter is about the same. There are even calculators online that allow you to choose the right tire size for different wheel sizes. I've never seen an automaker go with sizes that vary much more than 1% in outer circumference.
I was originally on Tesla's side. But reading all this has led me to the conclusion that electric cars are simply not ready for the mass market. Even with charging stations as ubiquitous as gas stations are today, who wants to sit around for 30 minutes so that they can drive 150 miles? And keep in mind that rapid charging dramatically reduces the lifespan of these batteries. So it isn't something you can do on a regular basis.
That said, electric cars are awesome for anyone who's got a reasonable commute. But again, you're dealing with your average consumer who's as ignorant about the technology as this reporter, if not moreso. Right now we're seeing mostly early adopters. These are people who are either willing to deal with issues, or interested in learning the nuances of the car's operation. That's not going to continue as these cars become more widespread. I can only imagine the headache automakers will face from constant customer complaints. It may be user error, but people don't seem to enjoy using their own brains.
That would be just enough to get me to work, presumably charge all day and get me back home.
The problem is that around here electricity is pretty damn expensive. Cheaper than gas, but not by a huge margin. Ironically, I get my electricity from a petroleum fueled power plant.
As a child in the 80s I remember an electronics repair shop right around the corner from a friend's house. Even back then this guy's business was already struggling and there was a lot of stuff he couldn't repair. He was out of business well before the end of the decade. This is the inevitable trend in technology as components get smaller and more complex. Even if you could open one of these devices what are you going to do with it?
Why single out Microsoft? Has anyone ever seen disassembly videos for the iPhone 5? The phone uses so many screws with minute differences in size that people have to download a guide to keep track of where they go. There are small metal plates in that phone held down by three different sized screws. Where the Surface Pro merely looks like a product manufacturing and packaging requirements with the iPhone it looks like they were deliberately trying to cause inconvenience.
The government needs to dump what they've got and start from scratch. But all I can say is good luck.
They can barely set up a site properly, let alone build and manage a sophisticated database. Visit most government sites and they're a convoluted maze of poorly organized content. And federal government sites are halfway decent, state and municipal sites are many orders of magnitude worse. I can't comprehend how the companies that build that junk remain in business.
Well, actually I can. I know people IT and web who've done work for my state and it's an absolute nightmare. It's the sort of thing that they've consistently said they'd never do again. I think the few willing to do it haven't so much figured out how to work through the red tape so much as exploit the system for personal gain. It doesn't help when you're dealing with government workers who are total incompetents, managing things they know nothing about. But as long as they look productive they don't have to worry about accountability.
And that's part of the problem. You still have to deal with the human component. I know someone who was self-employed and struggling. Because of it he was eligible for free health insurance through the state so he applied successfully. There's no copay or anything because, as was explained to him by a social worker, even if they only charged a dollar most people on the program would still refuse to pay. The expectation is that it all should be free.
So a year in he lands a decent job and is no longer eligible for the program. He gets in touch with the worker to cancel the plan. Over the next year he continues getting plan updates. They even switch providers for him. The state partners with various companies and over so often they have to switch providers. The user is supposed to pick a plan or risk cancellation. But apparently if you ignore all the paperwork they take care of it all for you. So here he was calling multiple times before they finally dropped him. Someone with fewer scruples could have milked the plan indefinitely. And in fact, I know of some people who've done just that.
That's just one example. I have others. With this level of incompetence how can we expected any program to be implemented and managed properly? The existing program should already be addressing these problems. No one ever assess and analyzes. It's always that we need something even bigger and more complex couple to the idea that more money can fix any problem. Then when the next grand program fails they'll just start the cycle all over.
I'm not suggesting we don't need an overhaul. I'm simply pointing out that it's almost certainly going to be a financial morass resulting in something no more effective than we've got now.
I'd say progress comes in waves. Someone invents something revolutionary and then others spend decades, if not centuries, improving that technology and exploiting it to its fullest extent. That said, technology is growing increasingly complex which means that it requires the involvement of multiple people. An individual might have an ambiguous vision like a flying car, but the odds of that person along inventing the technology that would make it work is slim.
I do think it's outrageously idiotic to suggest that we are not in a golden age of invention. The author seems to be arguing that there's no invention because we haven't been hit with big, flashy bits of technology. Progress is far more subtle than that. It's iterative and often has a long incubation period.
Much of it isn't even noteworthy on it's own, but enables a whole host of new technologies. Look at something as mundane as manufacturing processes. If you gave an engineer in 1980 the complete schematics to a modern smartphone they wouldn't be able to build the thing. They haven't had the advances in machining and material sciences to enable that technology.
Every few years some dolt writes an editorial complaining about how there's no real innovation because cars still require wheels or computers look kind of like typewriters. The guy who's written this particular editorial is probably being self-serving given that he represents some consultancy. But generally I think the attitude is incredibly self-centered. It's the idea that because the world hasn't met *MY* ridiculous standards there is no innovation. Because I haven't been observant enough or alive long enough to notice the fundamental impact on humanity nothing's changed.
In the short term, meaning within the next year or two, no. In the long term, however, of course it's a yes. I don't really understand why people are so narrow-thinking especially since leaders have been unseated over and over again. Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry being the most relevant examples to this discussion. Apple's dominance so far has been quite brief and Android's has been even shorter.
We're talking about industries that are evolving at a rapid pace, not just in terms of technology but in terms user interface. This isn't like the auto industry which is very mature and exceedingly difficult to break into without a very unique niche. And even the players with very compelling offerings, Tesla and Fisker, are struggling to get established. The investment costs are massive and these guys are stuck doing a lot of the development themselves. It isn't like any of the smartphones makers who are all buying the same hardware from a handful of players and can have a device up and running relatively quickly. This places the focus on user experience and integration.
All you need is a scenario where Apple and Google start lagging and the competition offers something legitimately compelling with all the essential boxes checked off. That means a robust and rapidly growing app selection and partnerships with all the relevant players. In some ways I think it's beginning to happen. The fact that we're even discussing this is a indication that the shift is occurring. Of course, that doesn't mean Apple or Google couldn't rekindle interest in the platform at some point.
You seem to be confusing the Surface Pro for the Surface RT. They are not the same thing. Surface Pro is basically a full-fledged Windows 8 laptop in a tablet form factor.
I do agree it was a huge mistake as clearly causing confusion. The Surface RT should have run a variant of Windows Phone 8 so that the separation is clear. Having it come instead with a crippled variant of Windows 8 just makes a mess of things.
This is one of the many reasons why I've long since stopped buying anything from EA. Obviously most people aren't doing the same hence why EA continues to tread with impunity.
I'm sorry, but you're in idiot if you think this doesn't happen in Europe. The universal complaint I hear from family living in various European nations is that their governments do whatever the hell they want regardless of the desires of the people. Sometimes it works in favor of the people, but usually it doesn't. For all the problems with our government at least the people still feel like they have a tiny change of shaping policy.
It's not difficult at all to immigrate to Europe if you've got the balls to do it and can prove you can earn an income. But their immigration policies do tend to be more strict than America's. Think at least on par with the sort of thing Arizona was excoriated for. Which is kind of ironic considering even some Europeans got on their high horse about it.
I once valued having multiple batteries. Until I realized that remembering to keep them charged was more effort than simply having a spare cable with me. And, if it weren't for Apple and their proprietary connector I wouldn't even need that because everyone would just be using USB. For at least 80% of a usual day I'm near a charger, if I'm on top of things the phone will be charged enough to comfortably carry me through the other 20%. I do appreciate that for a small subset of the population who fly on a regular basis the dynamic might be a little different, but that's not most people.
The tablet stand for exercise equipment is a neat idea. I might have to try something like that some day.
Yes, there were inquisitions and the like, but from everything I've ever read about history I don't see the evidence that beyond specific pockets things were as universally bad as we so with Muslim extremists today. It could be that the present global environment and the state of technology make for a very different response. Also, for many centuries the Catholic church was a potent political force.
Bear in mind, however, that through the Dark Ages it was Christian monks preserving knowledge from antiquity and doing research of their own. Beyond the very early days of Islam, that's an attitude that has been non-existent in that part of the world. And because of the nature of the Muslim world over the past Millenium they haven't gotten over the Crusades. What European even knows about the Crusades, let alone harbors any ill will about it. But it's something that's repeated incessantly in the Middle East and continues to be a rallying cry. Nevermind the fact that they're engaged in revisionist history, as Muslims essentially started the whole thing.
The N900 might have been this neat little device but clearly it sold poorly or Nokia wouldn't have ditched it.
Nokia made the smartest move they possibly could have. Adopt Android as an also-ran and try to compete with the multitude of other phone makers out there, lead by Samsung. Stick with some niche OS that was slipping into obsolescence. Or take a gamble on a maturing OS that actually offers some innovation. Yes, they've partnered with Microsoft, and I realize that inspires a lot of rage here. However, how is it fundamentally any different than working with Google or Apple? Given all the stories run on here over the years it should be achingly obvious that, to one degree or another, they're all different sides of the same coin.
Say what you will, but Windows Phone is flat out the best integrated, most innovative mobile OS on the market right now. The current huge downside to the platform is the pathetic support by Microsoft on the app front. There's decent stuff available, but not nearly enough. And for all the attention given to Windows 8, Microsoft has been uncomfortably silent on Windows Phone. It's a particularly concerning since I think WP offers a much more consistent and painless experience than Windows 8, but the desktop OS is where Microsoft seems to be investing all it's effort right now.
That said, all indications are that Nokia smartphones have been selling incredibly well so I'd say they made the right decision.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised they didn't institute anti-dumping tariffs like they did when Chinese companies start dumping cheap clothing on Europe. Considering the EU's usual tendencies I wonder what are the distinguishing factors here.
In my experience Adobe software is more expensive outside the United States in general. It's understandable in Europe where they've got 20% VAT, in addition to a ton of other tariffs. But in Australia their VAT is 10%, considered one of the lowest in the world; I suppose, except for the US which has none. There may be import duties that are not being mentioned here, but it still wouldn't explain why the software is $1000 more expensive than in the US.
However, I've noticed the trend elsewhere, including where I worked in Taiwan. Where Adobe software was considerably more expensive. It was ironic considering how rampant piracy was there. In our case we went through grey market channels, where someone purchased a bunch of copies in the US and resold them there. That or we'd get someone in the States to buy us a copy. Either way, we definitely weren't rushing out to buy the latest versions. So if anything, Adobe was discouraging sales.
There was a lot of weirdness. Some software was cheaper than in the US. But then electronics were barely on par, and in some cases even Taiwanese-made laptops, for example, were actually cheaper than you'd find in the US. I do know that companies were levied various taxes and tariffs so that may have accounted for some of it.
As far as I know, Australia's median income isn't higher than the US. So it seems that for whatever reason Adobe is gouging them. That said, good luck finding a plane ticket for anywhere near $1000.
Europeans talk about how much they dislike automatics but they've become increasingly popular. I wish I could find the stats, but the number of automatics being purchased has grown dramatically. I'm convinced the primary reason why manuals continue to have an edge is because they're still a good deal less expensive than the automatic option. If prices were to equalize, or even reverse, as is the case in the US sometimes, there would be an immediate and dramatic shift towards automatics.
I'll always prefer a manual over an automatic, but only because it's more entertaining and satisfying to drive. There's no functional advantage whatsoever to an automatic for 98% of the driving public. The fact that some manual cars offer rev matching and hill start assist makes manual transmissions more irrelevant than ever before. At that point you're just pretending to drive stick. Might as well just embrace progress and go with an automated manual, which is actually functionally superior.
At the end of the day these guys usually are not much more than figureheads. They institute a vague vision and ambiguous goal that is mostly reactive to industry trends. It's the people beneath them who do the real thinking, who worry about specifics, implementation and execution. The only real benefit they bring is that they have intimate knowledge of the process, philosophy and goals of their previous employer.
What else does he really bring to the table?
I fully believe that games are capable of conveying a complex, thought-provoking story. I'd argue that games offer better ability to do this than film. Of course, the flip side here is that we're still talking about a game, and not an interactive movie. That means a lot repetitive activity. There are a tiny handful of games that offer very compelling stories but most don't even come close.
In fact, I'd argue that most big budget games are barely on par with the weaker Hollywood blockbusters. For all the positive talk I see about a certain game's story, whenever I play it I'm incredibly disappointed by the contrived story, the generic characters and the excessive emphasis on the spectacle. And the obnoxious thing is when people talk about mature themes in games, they're not talking about complex ideas, they're talking about swearing, nudity and gratuitous violence.
Story-driven indie games tend to touch on more sophisticated themes. But then they tend to be heavy-handed at times. Everything ends up being dreary and brooding. But in terms of story, they're absolutely pushing the envelope. The big budget, mainstream games are pushing spectacle under the pretense of being story-driven.
Is this metric actually relevant? There's not a whole lot out there that will tax even current smartphone CPU's. The most demanding thing you can throw at a smartphone is gaming and that's where the GPU comes into play.
The iPhone's CPU has generally always been sub par in most benchmarks. But their GPU's has generally been at the front of the pack. The iPad 2/iPhone 4S GPU still scores quite favorably. The funny thing here is that the Galaxy S4 uses a newer variant of the GPU from the iPhone 5.
At the end of the day, however, this all feels like the clock speed wars of the 90's. Largely irrelevant as the performance improvements are largely incremental and won't even be fully exploited before the phone is replaced by a successor.
I can't imagine this would affect many people. Most people stuck in traffic don't have a choice, they're there because it's a part of their daily commute. I check traffic maps on a daily basis, but it's most just to confirm that, yes, it's as bad as it is every other day. I then proceed to go local.
So the rarer instances where it's handy is if conditions are particularly severe or if there's a jam somewhere you normally wouldn't encounter one. However, even then, there aren't always viable alternatives. Take the New York City area. Unless you can circumvent the region altogether there's no viable alternative, it's all varying degrees of bad.
Not that urban planners and traffic engineers need the help. Some of the decisions they make leave me wondering if they're mentally disabled or trolling the driving public. A couple of the major avenues across my city have light cycles that pretty much guarantee you're going to be stuck at every red if you're driving at or close to the speed limit. Secondary side streets are given far too much priority. Hackers could only improve things.
This is the consequence of buying from Apple. If you're unhappy with your newly purchased Dell you can return it and pick up an Asus, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba or one of the many other alternatives out there. Buy a MacBook and you're stuck. Unless you're willing to ditch the platform your only hope is that the replacement is problem-free. There's always the option of switching to Windows or another platform, but the lure of aluminum and cult of Apple evidently are too strong.
This is great and was inevitable. I'm still not buying SimCity and no one else should either.
EA wants your money. They don't care if you're angry when you buy their games, if you post furious blogs about their practices, they don't even care if you never open the packaging. Once money has changed hands their relationship with you is done. They know that consumers have incredibly short memories. They also know that gamers as a whole aren't all that principled and can't go without their entertainment fix.
I think it speaks to a larger societal problem. Americans love to be self-righteous. "I'm a consumer whore because companies are evil."
Except that it's always the company that suits my lifestyle which is good and noble, or at worst, a necessary evil. Nevermind that the whole notion of a company being "evil" is incredibly stupid. But it foists all the blame on them. We're not talking about a monopolistic enterprise here. We're not talking about a company engaging in slave labor, although some would argue EA does have a miserable work environment. The point is that EA's fortunes are entirely within the control of every single consumer. We don't need legislation. We just need people to stop buying their damn games.
I don't know how many more times EA needs to screw people before people take a hint. We've already gone far beyond the point of all reason.
You seem to be implying that under a communist workers would somehow be paid a fair wage. All historical evidence indicates that you're deluded.
In a communist system you've got the same exact downward pressure on wages. Worse, in fact, because of direct government involvement. Everyone doing the same job gets the same wage. That means there's no competitive pressure. There's no risk of workers quitting and taking another job because there's nowhere to go. All workers are at the whim of the state and rarely is a good thing for the majority of citizens.
I'm not suggesting free market capitalism is a good thing in the long run either. You're right, it does turn very exploitative. We absolutely need some government intervention, but the exact amount and how it should vary is the question.
How do we define the value of labor anyway? I think doctors are seriously overpaid. But the guy who's life was just saved will disagree with you. By the same token, it's difficult to argue a McDonald's employee or a day laborer should be earning more than they do when the skills they need can be learned in a day or two. I mean, is it realistic to expect that someone should be able to live on any job?
This all gets very complicated very quickly.
Whether or not Microsoft is making a legitimate point is irrelevant. This is clearly a marketing campaign and will be perceived as much. From the perspective of the vast majority of consumers Microsoft is no different than Google. Potentially worse, in fact, because of Microsoft's history. We can get into a whole debate about whether or not some of that perception is deserved, but this too is irrelevant. So in the eyes of most Microsoft is likely engaging in similar activities, regardless of what the reality may be.
There is another problem here, however. Either Microsoft's management, their marketing department or their advertising agency seems intent on portraying the company as hip. From the dancing Surface commercials, to the Windows Phone celebrity spots, to this dorky Scroogled campaign it all feels tacky and reeks of trying way too hard. They're trying to turn their brand into the kind of lifestyle brand that people perceive as cool and desirable. The problem is that it can't be forced. That and it's been shown that consumers don't respond well to attack ads.
The irony to all these stupid campaigns is that your average consumer still isn't fully aware of what Microsoft has to offer. So instead of focusing on the basics, the stuff that could actually motivate consumers, they're wasting time and money on nonsense. Whoever is in charge of marketing at Microsoft is not only seriously overpaid but probably should be fired.
I've always felt that Nintendo has stumbled onto their successes. Whether a new feature proved to be a gimmick or legitimate innovation was mostly dictated by the success of the console. Where there any long-term strategy they'd have better capitalized on the success of the Wii. Instead, they go and stupidly implement a gimmick that feels like a desperate grab at some of the iPad's market share. And that's part of the problem; they're trying to be all things to all people and doing none of it well. Compounding the problem is that they're trying too hard to distinguish themselves from the competition while failing to realize that first-party gaming already accomplishes that.
The Xbox360 and PS3 set the current benchmark and their successors will establish it yet again. So Nintendo remains behind the curve. It's not that graphics need to look realistic, it's that they need to be robust. The Wii U needs processing power on par with the competitors if Nintendo wants widespread third-party support. The Wii U should have been the Wii, but with improved motion controls and the standard controller packed in to ensure greater accessibility.
They need to either standardize their hardware, as Sony seems to be doing, or take Sega's approach and focus squarely on software development. Microsoft, Sony and Apple all have a wealth of experience and far more robust resources to draw on. But I think their fundamental problem is that they have no real vision.
The OS certainly looks nice, but how is it any different than mobile or tablet OS? I'm seeing a bit of sensationalism due to the mere fact that this OS didn't come from one of the big three. I was expecting a lot more to this claim than a mere jab at Windows 8's desktop mode. I agree, that was a massively botched example of UI design and an indication of compromise. But it's jarring for the first half an hour of use; it's not some sort of profound UI issue.
The issue facing mobile and tablet UI is more one of consistency. It's functionality being uniform, apps following standards, and buttons having consistent functions. The back button should always mean back. Apple has generally done a good job and the OS translates pretty well between the iPhone and iPad. Regardless of what people are saying here, Windows Phone is one of the best out there and I haven't come across anyone yet who wasn't impressed. What it does make me wonder why Microsoft didn't implement that OS on the Surface RT.
Android, while I like the OS, does have a lot of issues with unintuitive UI. Every environment functions a bit differently, like each was designed by it's own team with it's own UI philosophy and aesthetic. It's not a problem with anything that's used frequently, because users do internalize a lot of the variations. But I think it's still a problem to go from one screen that navigates via scrolls to another that relies on swipes. The custom variants from HTC, Samsung and others only make things worse. Unfortunately, I don't think it's something Google will ever be able to fix, user interface isn't their strong suit.
From that perspective Ubuntu looks very promising. But it's crucial they prevent fragmentation, which seems difficult to pull off in the open source world. That would mean no first-party custom skins and no third-party redesigns. This is the interface everyone gets.
The wheel size thing is irrelevant and wouldn't affect results. All automakers offer wheels in different diameters. But then the tires they equip have different profiles to compensate so that the overall diameter is about the same. There are even calculators online that allow you to choose the right tire size for different wheel sizes. I've never seen an automaker go with sizes that vary much more than 1% in outer circumference.
I was originally on Tesla's side. But reading all this has led me to the conclusion that electric cars are simply not ready for the mass market. Even with charging stations as ubiquitous as gas stations are today, who wants to sit around for 30 minutes so that they can drive 150 miles? And keep in mind that rapid charging dramatically reduces the lifespan of these batteries. So it isn't something you can do on a regular basis.
That said, electric cars are awesome for anyone who's got a reasonable commute. But again, you're dealing with your average consumer who's as ignorant about the technology as this reporter, if not moreso. Right now we're seeing mostly early adopters. These are people who are either willing to deal with issues, or interested in learning the nuances of the car's operation. That's not going to continue as these cars become more widespread. I can only imagine the headache automakers will face from constant customer complaints. It may be user error, but people don't seem to enjoy using their own brains.
That would be just enough to get me to work, presumably charge all day and get me back home.
The problem is that around here electricity is pretty damn expensive. Cheaper than gas, but not by a huge margin. Ironically, I get my electricity from a petroleum fueled power plant.
As a child in the 80s I remember an electronics repair shop right around the corner from a friend's house. Even back then this guy's business was already struggling and there was a lot of stuff he couldn't repair. He was out of business well before the end of the decade. This is the inevitable trend in technology as components get smaller and more complex. Even if you could open one of these devices what are you going to do with it?
Why single out Microsoft? Has anyone ever seen disassembly videos for the iPhone 5? The phone uses so many screws with minute differences in size that people have to download a guide to keep track of where they go. There are small metal plates in that phone held down by three different sized screws. Where the Surface Pro merely looks like a product manufacturing and packaging requirements with the iPhone it looks like they were deliberately trying to cause inconvenience.
The government needs to dump what they've got and start from scratch. But all I can say is good luck.
They can barely set up a site properly, let alone build and manage a sophisticated database. Visit most government sites and they're a convoluted maze of poorly organized content. And federal government sites are halfway decent, state and municipal sites are many orders of magnitude worse. I can't comprehend how the companies that build that junk remain in business.
Well, actually I can. I know people IT and web who've done work for my state and it's an absolute nightmare. It's the sort of thing that they've consistently said they'd never do again. I think the few willing to do it haven't so much figured out how to work through the red tape so much as exploit the system for personal gain. It doesn't help when you're dealing with government workers who are total incompetents, managing things they know nothing about. But as long as they look productive they don't have to worry about accountability.
And that's part of the problem. You still have to deal with the human component. I know someone who was self-employed and struggling. Because of it he was eligible for free health insurance through the state so he applied successfully. There's no copay or anything because, as was explained to him by a social worker, even if they only charged a dollar most people on the program would still refuse to pay. The expectation is that it all should be free.
So a year in he lands a decent job and is no longer eligible for the program. He gets in touch with the worker to cancel the plan. Over the next year he continues getting plan updates. They even switch providers for him. The state partners with various companies and over so often they have to switch providers. The user is supposed to pick a plan or risk cancellation. But apparently if you ignore all the paperwork they take care of it all for you. So here he was calling multiple times before they finally dropped him. Someone with fewer scruples could have milked the plan indefinitely. And in fact, I know of some people who've done just that.
That's just one example. I have others. With this level of incompetence how can we expected any program to be implemented and managed properly? The existing program should already be addressing these problems. No one ever assess and analyzes. It's always that we need something even bigger and more complex couple to the idea that more money can fix any problem. Then when the next grand program fails they'll just start the cycle all over.
I'm not suggesting we don't need an overhaul. I'm simply pointing out that it's almost certainly going to be a financial morass resulting in something no more effective than we've got now.
I'd say progress comes in waves. Someone invents something revolutionary and then others spend decades, if not centuries, improving that technology and exploiting it to its fullest extent. That said, technology is growing increasingly complex which means that it requires the involvement of multiple people. An individual might have an ambiguous vision like a flying car, but the odds of that person along inventing the technology that would make it work is slim.
I do think it's outrageously idiotic to suggest that we are not in a golden age of invention. The author seems to be arguing that there's no invention because we haven't been hit with big, flashy bits of technology. Progress is far more subtle than that. It's iterative and often has a long incubation period.
Much of it isn't even noteworthy on it's own, but enables a whole host of new technologies. Look at something as mundane as manufacturing processes. If you gave an engineer in 1980 the complete schematics to a modern smartphone they wouldn't be able to build the thing. They haven't had the advances in machining and material sciences to enable that technology.
Every few years some dolt writes an editorial complaining about how there's no real innovation because cars still require wheels or computers look kind of like typewriters. The guy who's written this particular editorial is probably being self-serving given that he represents some consultancy. But generally I think the attitude is incredibly self-centered. It's the idea that because the world hasn't met *MY* ridiculous standards there is no innovation. Because I haven't been observant enough or alive long enough to notice the fundamental impact on humanity nothing's changed.
In the short term, meaning within the next year or two, no. In the long term, however, of course it's a yes. I don't really understand why people are so narrow-thinking especially since leaders have been unseated over and over again. Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry being the most relevant examples to this discussion. Apple's dominance so far has been quite brief and Android's has been even shorter.
We're talking about industries that are evolving at a rapid pace, not just in terms of technology but in terms user interface. This isn't like the auto industry which is very mature and exceedingly difficult to break into without a very unique niche. And even the players with very compelling offerings, Tesla and Fisker, are struggling to get established. The investment costs are massive and these guys are stuck doing a lot of the development themselves. It isn't like any of the smartphones makers who are all buying the same hardware from a handful of players and can have a device up and running relatively quickly. This places the focus on user experience and integration.
All you need is a scenario where Apple and Google start lagging and the competition offers something legitimately compelling with all the essential boxes checked off. That means a robust and rapidly growing app selection and partnerships with all the relevant players. In some ways I think it's beginning to happen. The fact that we're even discussing this is a indication that the shift is occurring. Of course, that doesn't mean Apple or Google couldn't rekindle interest in the platform at some point.
You seem to be confusing the Surface Pro for the Surface RT. They are not the same thing. Surface Pro is basically a full-fledged Windows 8 laptop in a tablet form factor.
I do agree it was a huge mistake as clearly causing confusion. The Surface RT should have run a variant of Windows Phone 8 so that the separation is clear. Having it come instead with a crippled variant of Windows 8 just makes a mess of things.
This is one of the many reasons why I've long since stopped buying anything from EA. Obviously most people aren't doing the same hence why EA continues to tread with impunity.
I'm sorry, but you're in idiot if you think this doesn't happen in Europe. The universal complaint I hear from family living in various European nations is that their governments do whatever the hell they want regardless of the desires of the people. Sometimes it works in favor of the people, but usually it doesn't. For all the problems with our government at least the people still feel like they have a tiny change of shaping policy.
It's not difficult at all to immigrate to Europe if you've got the balls to do it and can prove you can earn an income. But their immigration policies do tend to be more strict than America's. Think at least on par with the sort of thing Arizona was excoriated for. Which is kind of ironic considering even some Europeans got on their high horse about it.
I once valued having multiple batteries. Until I realized that remembering to keep them charged was more effort than simply having a spare cable with me. And, if it weren't for Apple and their proprietary connector I wouldn't even need that because everyone would just be using USB. For at least 80% of a usual day I'm near a charger, if I'm on top of things the phone will be charged enough to comfortably carry me through the other 20%. I do appreciate that for a small subset of the population who fly on a regular basis the dynamic might be a little different, but that's not most people.
The tablet stand for exercise equipment is a neat idea. I might have to try something like that some day.
Yes, there were inquisitions and the like, but from everything I've ever read about history I don't see the evidence that beyond specific pockets things were as universally bad as we so with Muslim extremists today. It could be that the present global environment and the state of technology make for a very different response. Also, for many centuries the Catholic church was a potent political force.
Bear in mind, however, that through the Dark Ages it was Christian monks preserving knowledge from antiquity and doing research of their own. Beyond the very early days of Islam, that's an attitude that has been non-existent in that part of the world. And because of the nature of the Muslim world over the past Millenium they haven't gotten over the Crusades. What European even knows about the Crusades, let alone harbors any ill will about it. But it's something that's repeated incessantly in the Middle East and continues to be a rallying cry. Nevermind the fact that they're engaged in revisionist history, as Muslims essentially started the whole thing.
The N900 might have been this neat little device but clearly it sold poorly or Nokia wouldn't have ditched it.
Nokia made the smartest move they possibly could have. Adopt Android as an also-ran and try to compete with the multitude of other phone makers out there, lead by Samsung. Stick with some niche OS that was slipping into obsolescence. Or take a gamble on a maturing OS that actually offers some innovation. Yes, they've partnered with Microsoft, and I realize that inspires a lot of rage here. However, how is it fundamentally any different than working with Google or Apple? Given all the stories run on here over the years it should be achingly obvious that, to one degree or another, they're all different sides of the same coin.
Say what you will, but Windows Phone is flat out the best integrated, most innovative mobile OS on the market right now. The current huge downside to the platform is the pathetic support by Microsoft on the app front. There's decent stuff available, but not nearly enough. And for all the attention given to Windows 8, Microsoft has been uncomfortably silent on Windows Phone. It's a particularly concerning since I think WP offers a much more consistent and painless experience than Windows 8, but the desktop OS is where Microsoft seems to be investing all it's effort right now.
That said, all indications are that Nokia smartphones have been selling incredibly well so I'd say they made the right decision.