This presumes that everybody will volunteer to make little, critical components, and only 2 or 3 people will volunteer to be the astronaut.
Maybe we should open source the whole thing - that way when there's a problem, Apollo 13-style, the volunteers on earth can get on the radio and say "I don't work for you, you have the code & the specs - figure it out your fucking self. Did you even RTFM?"
More importantly, why the fuck would that ever matter?
I'm simply pointing out that Steve Jobs didn't say they were activing "275k iPHONES a day," he specifically said '275k iOS devices' - which includes, but is not limited to, iPhones.
In much the same way, I'm pretty sure that if Google can legitimately claim a device is running "Android," they're including it in their count of "Android devices activated per day."
The market segments are pretty well defined here, why would you suddenly suggest "Let's include DSL routers, Televisions, and that hot new toaster from Stallman Labs!" as a somehow more accurate measure of Android's success as an OS for mobile devices?
That approach didn't win him big market share in the $4000 PC market
No, but you'd be hard-pressed to describe Apple's lines of business as anything other than remarkably successful, given the profits they make on their devices, and the high customer satisfaction ratings for the people who do buy their devices. They're clearly doing something right, and making consistently good profits, and having people who enthusiastically love your products is a pretty winning combination, even if you're not the person who owns 95+% of the market.
Yeah, since when do you need to load "porn apps" to see T'n'A on the web? Spankwire, Youporn, Pornhub, Tube8 - all work fine on iOS devices, and all have quite a variety of videos available for you to... watch.
This argument of 'they won't approve porn apps' seems specious to me. Why would you ever consider that you *need* a special app to browse a porn website?
I would say that less than 50% (as a starting point) of people need to sync with their Outlook calendars, view MS Project, or view a spreadsheet. If you do, buy a BlackBerry.
Or, more to the point, a large portion of that "less than 50%" have an employer who buys them a blackberry, because "personal devices" and "business devices" need to be kept separate, anyway.
Seriously - if you're a small / independent consultant, you don't need exchange, or outlook calendaring. If you're working for a business above a certain size, your blackberry will most likely be handed to you. That leaves a pretty small middle ground where Outlook is used, but the company isn't big/rich enough to staff appropriately to roll these features out, or purchase blackberries for their employees.
The thing you're overlooking is that there is one operating system that binds together all of those 'fragmented' hardware components from multiple manufacturers: Windows, with a consistent user interface.
What we're seeing in the Android space is much more akin to the Linux desktop model: it's all "linux" but it looks and feels different from device to device, because manufacturers insist on rolling their own interfaces (KDE, Gnome, et. al.), and multiple interfaces in the mind of a consumer = "totally different thing." They don't care that it's a Linux kernel, they only know that "the buttons look different."
it's likely that someone else thought the same thing and released a patch to lat you set the snooze to whatever you want.
And it's even more likely that 99% of consumers won't bother if it involves downloading the patch, building your own version of AlarmClockOS, and installing it.
Most consumers simply don't care, don't have the inclination, or don't have the time to dick around with operating-system-level tinkering with every device they own. It's entirely more likely that they will simply learn to work around the inconvenience, or buy a device that does what they want out of the box.
Likewise, most people aren't interested in VPN access to work from a phone handset - and this is, in a nutshell, the essence of the difference between "geeks" and "regular users."
I can run Android on my x86 desktop PC because it's open source
And how exactly does that help you with uninstalling carrier-loaded crapware, or circumventing bootloader restrictions, or adding your own stuff to the device despite carrier & manufacturer attempts to prevent you from doing just that?
Android is certainly open - but the question is, open to whom? And the answer to that, more and more, seems to be "the carriers, not the consumers." As somebody else pointed out above, Android is mostly Apache/BSD-style licensing, which does nothing to prevent "tivoization" like GPLv3 does - and more and more, that's what you're going to see in the Android ecosystem.
If all Android phones were undifferentiated work-alikes, then the carriers would have to, you know, compete based on the service they provide, rather than on "buy this cool locked down phone and replace it in 6 months so we can renew your lock-in contract!" And frankly, you're a fool if you think that prospect doesn't scare all 4 of the major US carriers shitless - having to compete on providing the best network service, call quality, customer service? Why when it's so much easier to lock the phones to your network, layer them with a bunch of 'value-add' services, and tie the consumer up for 2 years or a huge early termination fee?
Apple's refusal to allow carrier-customization of the device was a step towards loosening that stranglehold. Google has given the carriers a viable competitor that will give them a great deal of leverage when Apple's ATT exclusivity contract terminates - "We'd love to carry your phone, but... see, all these Android phones have our special VZWSTore and VZWApps! Our customers LOVE these things, and the iPhone needs to have them as well! Or maybe you just don't want to partner with us?"
There's definitely a battle brewing, but it's not between Google & Apple. It's between the carriers and the manufacturers, and unfortunately, Google is enabling the carriers' bad practices with Android's 'openness', and it doesn't look like many of the other manufacturers have the stones to say "NO!" to the carriers on this issue.
I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"iStalin"? Really? You're seriously making a straight-faced comparison between a slow app review process on a fucking cell phone with a brutal communist ruler who *killed* (depending on the estimates) between 3 and 20 million people during his time in power?
I'd call you an idiot, but the word isn't grand enough to truly convey how far up your own ass you are.
You need to learn to pay attention to the words he used. He said 275,000 iOS activations a day. That includes iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone.
He also stated that those numbers were by way of comparison with Google's report that they're activating 200k Android devices per day, and that the 275k number was specifically named as "the average over the past 30 days".
Sloppy reading would explain why you think he's claiming something he didn't claim.
People who are going to download and install and configure Ubuntu don't need it preinstalled - they know enough to do it themselves. People who need help to do that don't even know what the fuck Linux is, much less how to download & install it. Stop focusing on "what it is" - "Free!" "Open!" "Alternative to Windows!" - and start focusing on "what it does," and show people a fully functional appliance, and you'd see increased adoption rates. For non-technical users, 'free' and 'open' are "so what?" points - if I don't have the time, ability, and inclination to modify my own software... who cares if I *can*, when I never *will* and will never *be able* to?
Of course, "sell bundled hardware with Linux, in a preconfigured, easy-to-use setup for easy adoption by new users," puts you squarely in the Apple business model, but without the iLife apps (hate them if you want, but realize that 'regular' (i.e., non-tech-savvy) users get a lot of mileage out of them - iMovie, iPhoto especially) and iPod/iPad/iPhone support.
Yes. With their beady eyes and their freckles, they're an aberration! An affront to God's creation! If only we still lived in the days where man was enlightened enough to burn gingers at the stake.
You realize that everything I wrote above is *exactly* applicable to somebody who mindlessly pushes Microsoft products, too.
Right?
What I said was, in a nutshell, "choose the best tool for the job, after a thorough analysis of the features & capabilities of the tools."
Sometimes that'll turn out to be a Microsoft tool. Sometimes, it'll turn out to be an open source tool. Sometimes, it'll turn out to be a small development shop's proprietary solution. The point is it doesn't matter *where it came from,* it only matters if it can *do the job*.
or "license costs are trivial"
In the overall cost to purchase, operate, and support a tool across a company, yes, license costs ARE generally a trivial difference in the cost. If the ONLY thing your software has going for it is "it's cheaper," then your software is a piece of shit, whether the source is closed or open. If it cannot stand on its own merits against other similar pieces of software, and at least deliver a similar set of functionality, and the only thing you can beat the other guy on is price, then it is the wrong tool for the job.
In short: stop whingeing. You sound like an idiot.
I never stated that eschewing popular things was useful either
Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."
They exist for the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper.
That's like saying that the internet exists for only the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper -- it's a communications tool, it's as cursory or in-depth as you want to make it, when it comes to communication.
If you know Joe Smith, and you see that he owns & likes his new Droid phone that you're considering purchasing (the search engine tells you this somehow), why *wouldn't* you drop him a line, or give him a call, and get a deeper perspective on the device? Maybe he'd even let you play around with it for 20 minutes next time you see him, and show you some of the stuff he really likes about it, or tell you about how he loves Feature X, or how, "Knowing you, you'll probably care about Feature Y, and how this phone works for that feature might drive you nuts."
And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?
Yes, mostly snark. I shouldn't have left it that way, as it does sound like I'm ripping on Musopen themselves, rather than the awful, awful proliferation of cheesy synthesizer bullshit that I've heard in most of the "creative commons" music I've listened to.
To be fair - I like the concept of Musopen, though from what I've listened to, the quality of their uploaded recordings is very uneven. There doesn't seem to be much of a restriction on who can upload their interpretation of a piece, and let's be honest - not everybody's going to play it well.
I know they're also working through Kickstarter to hire a symphony and record high-quality versions of some standard classical works, and I think that would be a worthwhile way for this money to be spent - funneling the 5 million or so to them (the max allowed by this program to any music seller) would probably do some amazing things for their ability to record symphony-quality versions of more classical pieces.
Problem is, I'd imagine they might have a hard time convincing teenagers to purchase a bunch of classical music to listen to. I'd rather see the government take that 5 million and give a grant to a program like Musopen, or even directly to a symphony, with the stipulation that the music must produce either or both of: 1) free/cheap public performances of classical pieces; 2) free/cheap recordings available to the public of those classical pieces; 3) free/cheap musical workshops where the public can learn more about music, playing music, etc.
Nope, that comes perilously close to asking for directions, and we men can figure the fucking thing out ourselves, we don't need help from a fucking gas station attendant.
I doubt your first motivation will be what the 200+ faux friends on your social network bought.
No, it probably won't. But how about knowing that 4 of them (and which 4 of them) drive the car you're considering buying? Perhaps you'd like to ask someone you trust about mileage, reliability, maintenance costs?
I have friends on Facebook who are people I went to college and high school with, or former colleagues who I liked enough to stay connected with. Several dozen fit into that category. I don't actually know what type of car each and every one of them drive, but if I were looking for a new car, and Facebook or Bing suddenly said, "Hey, Bob from your last job drives one of these too!", I probably would make use of that in my research.
Getting an opinion from someone you can trust (or at least, someone you can trust more than an anonymous alias on Amazon) isn't a useless feature.
I don't get why people don't understand that popularity doesn't instantly equate to quality. The most popular option is often not the best option.
Nope, but it can give you a place to start, and understand the features of the product, and might even point you to some friends (or friends-of-friends) who are subject matter experts if you're not, or at least users of a product you're considering.
I regularly look at the reviews for products I buy through Amazon, and usually look for the 'bad' ones first: tell me what's wrong with it, or what annoyed the piss out of you about this product, and let me consider whether or not that's something I consider critical. If it is, then time to move on. If it's not, perhaps the popular one is a decent choice because it means: 1) more chance that the company will be around to support / improve the thing I'm buying; 2) more chance that somebody else has seen a deal-breaker issue and mentioned it in a review.
Eschewing popular things *because* they're popular is just as foolish as buying popular things simply *because* they're popular; I trust the opinions of friends and colleagues slightly more than the opinions of J. Random Stranger, because I *know* the person giving me the review. I know their background, and I hopefully know whether or not they have an ulterior motive for the review they're offering. Having this feature available in something like Bing or Google *might* be useful, although I rarely use a search engine to find a product I'm looking for - I generally know something about the product, and begin by searching "Volvo S40 reviews," rather than "what new car should i buy?"
In short, this offers a new data point, and it might be useful. If it's used as the sole criteria for reaching a decision, that's dumb, but it shouldn't be dismissed just because it can be used poorly.
I grew up in a pretty small town - about 7000 people. Everybody knew everybody else's business. The barber, the school teachers, the police, the pharmacist... lots of routes for gossip, and not a lot of people to gossip about. Word gets around unless you make a REALLY concerted effort to shut yourself off from everybody in your community, and then you're "the weird shut-in guy. We hear he tortures animals, or maybe builds bombs, but we're not sure."
Um... what relationship exactly to google & diaspora have?
One is a commercially successful advertising company that makes a huge amount of money off of showing you 'focused' advertising everywhere you go online.
The other is a half-step better than vaporware, with no appreciably functional software, and whose only claim to fame is that they were, for 20 minutes, a media darling because they were "gonna take on teh big bad facebook," and what they delivered was incomplete, buggy, and by all reports, lacking the most basic security features which should have been part of the initial design from the start.
Last I checked, Google has its own social network, too: Orkut, and to a lesser extent, Buzz. Orkut, while successful in some regions of the world, shows no signs of displacing Facebook in FB's major markets any time soon, and Buzz is more like Twitter than it is like FB.
So how exactly is FB pairing with MS going to bring about the end of Facebook? Who's going to allocate all their resources towards Diaspora again?
Slashdot Mirror
This presumes that everybody will volunteer to make little, critical components, and only 2 or 3 people will volunteer to be the astronaut.
Maybe we should open source the whole thing - that way when there's a problem, Apollo 13-style, the volunteers on earth can get on the radio and say "I don't work for you, you have the code & the specs - figure it out your fucking self. Did you even RTFM?"
Because I pointed out that you're either trolling, or asking a completely irrelevant question?
Why not throw in Windows 7 activations per day in the comparison, too?
Maybe you should get better looking friends.
More importantly, why the fuck would that ever matter?
I'm simply pointing out that Steve Jobs didn't say they were activing "275k iPHONES a day," he specifically said '275k iOS devices' - which includes, but is not limited to, iPhones.
In much the same way, I'm pretty sure that if Google can legitimately claim a device is running "Android," they're including it in their count of "Android devices activated per day."
The market segments are pretty well defined here, why would you suddenly suggest "Let's include DSL routers, Televisions, and that hot new toaster from Stallman Labs!" as a somehow more accurate measure of Android's success as an OS for mobile devices?
Really? Which advertisement or marketing campaign talks about how only cool people with lots of friends own Apple products? I must've missed it.
No, but you'd be hard-pressed to describe Apple's lines of business as anything other than remarkably successful, given the profits they make on their devices, and the high customer satisfaction ratings for the people who do buy their devices. They're clearly doing something right, and making consistently good profits, and having people who enthusiastically love your products is a pretty winning combination, even if you're not the person who owns 95+% of the market.
Yeah, since when do you need to load "porn apps" to see T'n'A on the web? Spankwire, Youporn, Pornhub, Tube8 - all work fine on iOS devices, and all have quite a variety of videos available for you to... watch.
This argument of 'they won't approve porn apps' seems specious to me. Why would you ever consider that you *need* a special app to browse a porn website?
But what if all of the stuff you want to install is available on the iOS store? Is there any functional difference, then, really?
Or, more to the point, a large portion of that "less than 50%" have an employer who buys them a blackberry, because "personal devices" and "business devices" need to be kept separate, anyway.
Seriously - if you're a small / independent consultant, you don't need exchange, or outlook calendaring. If you're working for a business above a certain size, your blackberry will most likely be handed to you. That leaves a pretty small middle ground where Outlook is used, but the company isn't big/rich enough to staff appropriately to roll these features out, or purchase blackberries for their employees.
The thing you're overlooking is that there is one operating system that binds together all of those 'fragmented' hardware components from multiple manufacturers: Windows, with a consistent user interface.
What we're seeing in the Android space is much more akin to the Linux desktop model: it's all "linux" but it looks and feels different from device to device, because manufacturers insist on rolling their own interfaces (KDE, Gnome, et. al.), and multiple interfaces in the mind of a consumer = "totally different thing." They don't care that it's a Linux kernel, they only know that "the buttons look different."
And it's even more likely that 99% of consumers won't bother if it involves downloading the patch, building your own version of AlarmClockOS, and installing it.
Most consumers simply don't care, don't have the inclination, or don't have the time to dick around with operating-system-level tinkering with every device they own. It's entirely more likely that they will simply learn to work around the inconvenience, or buy a device that does what they want out of the box.
Likewise, most people aren't interested in VPN access to work from a phone handset - and this is, in a nutshell, the essence of the difference between "geeks" and "regular users."
And how exactly does that help you with uninstalling carrier-loaded crapware, or circumventing bootloader restrictions, or adding your own stuff to the device despite carrier & manufacturer attempts to prevent you from doing just that?
Android is certainly open - but the question is, open to whom? And the answer to that, more and more, seems to be "the carriers, not the consumers." As somebody else pointed out above, Android is mostly Apache/BSD-style licensing, which does nothing to prevent "tivoization" like GPLv3 does - and more and more, that's what you're going to see in the Android ecosystem.
If all Android phones were undifferentiated work-alikes, then the carriers would have to, you know, compete based on the service they provide, rather than on "buy this cool locked down phone and replace it in 6 months so we can renew your lock-in contract!" And frankly, you're a fool if you think that prospect doesn't scare all 4 of the major US carriers shitless - having to compete on providing the best network service, call quality, customer service? Why when it's so much easier to lock the phones to your network, layer them with a bunch of 'value-add' services, and tie the consumer up for 2 years or a huge early termination fee?
Apple's refusal to allow carrier-customization of the device was a step towards loosening that stranglehold. Google has given the carriers a viable competitor that will give them a great deal of leverage when Apple's ATT exclusivity contract terminates - "We'd love to carry your phone, but... see, all these Android phones have our special VZWSTore and VZWApps! Our customers LOVE these things, and the iPhone needs to have them as well! Or maybe you just don't want to partner with us?"
There's definitely a battle brewing, but it's not between Google & Apple. It's between the carriers and the manufacturers, and unfortunately, Google is enabling the carriers' bad practices with Android's 'openness', and it doesn't look like many of the other manufacturers have the stones to say "NO!" to the carriers on this issue.
Dear Sir,
I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"iStalin"? Really? You're seriously making a straight-faced comparison between a slow app review process on a fucking cell phone with a brutal communist ruler who *killed* (depending on the estimates) between 3 and 20 million people during his time in power?
I'd call you an idiot, but the word isn't grand enough to truly convey how far up your own ass you are.
You need to learn to pay attention to the words he used. He said 275,000 iOS activations a day. That includes iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone.
He also stated that those numbers were by way of comparison with Google's report that they're activating 200k Android devices per day, and that the 275k number was specifically named as "the average over the past 30 days".
Sloppy reading would explain why you think he's claiming something he didn't claim.
You just hit the nail on the head.
People who are going to download and install and configure Ubuntu don't need it preinstalled - they know enough to do it themselves. People who need help to do that don't even know what the fuck Linux is, much less how to download & install it. Stop focusing on "what it is" - "Free!" "Open!" "Alternative to Windows!" - and start focusing on "what it does," and show people a fully functional appliance, and you'd see increased adoption rates. For non-technical users, 'free' and 'open' are "so what?" points - if I don't have the time, ability, and inclination to modify my own software... who cares if I *can*, when I never *will* and will never *be able* to?
Of course, "sell bundled hardware with Linux, in a preconfigured, easy-to-use setup for easy adoption by new users," puts you squarely in the Apple business model, but without the iLife apps (hate them if you want, but realize that 'regular' (i.e., non-tech-savvy) users get a lot of mileage out of them - iMovie, iPhoto especially) and iPod/iPad/iPhone support.
Yes. With their beady eyes and their freckles, they're an aberration! An affront to God's creation! If only we still lived in the days where man was enlightened enough to burn gingers at the stake.
You realize that everything I wrote above is *exactly* applicable to somebody who mindlessly pushes Microsoft products, too.
Right?
What I said was, in a nutshell, "choose the best tool for the job, after a thorough analysis of the features & capabilities of the tools."
Sometimes that'll turn out to be a Microsoft tool. Sometimes, it'll turn out to be an open source tool. Sometimes, it'll turn out to be a small development shop's proprietary solution. The point is it doesn't matter *where it came from,* it only matters if it can *do the job*.
In the overall cost to purchase, operate, and support a tool across a company, yes, license costs ARE generally a trivial difference in the cost. If the ONLY thing your software has going for it is "it's cheaper," then your software is a piece of shit, whether the source is closed or open. If it cannot stand on its own merits against other similar pieces of software, and at least deliver a similar set of functionality, and the only thing you can beat the other guy on is price, then it is the wrong tool for the job.
In short: stop whingeing. You sound like an idiot.
Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."
That's like saying that the internet exists for only the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper -- it's a communications tool, it's as cursory or in-depth as you want to make it, when it comes to communication.
If you know Joe Smith, and you see that he owns & likes his new Droid phone that you're considering purchasing (the search engine tells you this somehow), why *wouldn't* you drop him a line, or give him a call, and get a deeper perspective on the device? Maybe he'd even let you play around with it for 20 minutes next time you see him, and show you some of the stuff he really likes about it, or tell you about how he loves Feature X, or how, "Knowing you, you'll probably care about Feature Y, and how this phone works for that feature might drive you nuts."
And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?
Yes, mostly snark. I shouldn't have left it that way, as it does sound like I'm ripping on Musopen themselves, rather than the awful, awful proliferation of cheesy synthesizer bullshit that I've heard in most of the "creative commons" music I've listened to.
To be fair - I like the concept of Musopen, though from what I've listened to, the quality of their uploaded recordings is very uneven. There doesn't seem to be much of a restriction on who can upload their interpretation of a piece, and let's be honest - not everybody's going to play it well.
I know they're also working through Kickstarter to hire a symphony and record high-quality versions of some standard classical works, and I think that would be a worthwhile way for this money to be spent - funneling the 5 million or so to them (the max allowed by this program to any music seller) would probably do some amazing things for their ability to record symphony-quality versions of more classical pieces.
Problem is, I'd imagine they might have a hard time convincing teenagers to purchase a bunch of classical music to listen to. I'd rather see the government take that 5 million and give a grant to a program like Musopen, or even directly to a symphony, with the stipulation that the music must produce either or both of: 1) free/cheap public performances of classical pieces; 2) free/cheap recordings available to the public of those classical pieces; 3) free/cheap musical workshops where the public can learn more about music, playing music, etc.
Nope, that comes perilously close to asking for directions, and we men can figure the fucking thing out ourselves, we don't need help from a fucking gas station attendant.
No, it probably won't. But how about knowing that 4 of them (and which 4 of them) drive the car you're considering buying? Perhaps you'd like to ask someone you trust about mileage, reliability, maintenance costs?
I have friends on Facebook who are people I went to college and high school with, or former colleagues who I liked enough to stay connected with. Several dozen fit into that category. I don't actually know what type of car each and every one of them drive, but if I were looking for a new car, and Facebook or Bing suddenly said, "Hey, Bob from your last job drives one of these too!", I probably would make use of that in my research.
Getting an opinion from someone you can trust (or at least, someone you can trust more than an anonymous alias on Amazon) isn't a useless feature.
Nope, but it can give you a place to start, and understand the features of the product, and might even point you to some friends (or friends-of-friends) who are subject matter experts if you're not, or at least users of a product you're considering.
I regularly look at the reviews for products I buy through Amazon, and usually look for the 'bad' ones first: tell me what's wrong with it, or what annoyed the piss out of you about this product, and let me consider whether or not that's something I consider critical. If it is, then time to move on. If it's not, perhaps the popular one is a decent choice because it means: 1) more chance that the company will be around to support / improve the thing I'm buying; 2) more chance that somebody else has seen a deal-breaker issue and mentioned it in a review.
Eschewing popular things *because* they're popular is just as foolish as buying popular things simply *because* they're popular; I trust the opinions of friends and colleagues slightly more than the opinions of J. Random Stranger, because I *know* the person giving me the review. I know their background, and I hopefully know whether or not they have an ulterior motive for the review they're offering. Having this feature available in something like Bing or Google *might* be useful, although I rarely use a search engine to find a product I'm looking for - I generally know something about the product, and begin by searching "Volvo S40 reviews," rather than "what new car should i buy?"
In short, this offers a new data point, and it might be useful. If it's used as the sole criteria for reaching a decision, that's dumb, but it shouldn't be dismissed just because it can be used poorly.
Sounds like you're a paranoid shut-in, then.
I grew up in a pretty small town - about 7000 people. Everybody knew everybody else's business. The barber, the school teachers, the police, the pharmacist... lots of routes for gossip, and not a lot of people to gossip about. Word gets around unless you make a REALLY concerted effort to shut yourself off from everybody in your community, and then you're "the weird shut-in guy. We hear he tortures animals, or maybe builds bombs, but we're not sure."
Um... what relationship exactly to google & diaspora have?
One is a commercially successful advertising company that makes a huge amount of money off of showing you 'focused' advertising everywhere you go online.
The other is a half-step better than vaporware, with no appreciably functional software, and whose only claim to fame is that they were, for 20 minutes, a media darling because they were "gonna take on teh big bad facebook," and what they delivered was incomplete, buggy, and by all reports, lacking the most basic security features which should have been part of the initial design from the start.
Last I checked, Google has its own social network, too: Orkut, and to a lesser extent, Buzz. Orkut, while successful in some regions of the world, shows no signs of displacing Facebook in FB's major markets any time soon, and Buzz is more like Twitter than it is like FB.
So how exactly is FB pairing with MS going to bring about the end of Facebook? Who's going to allocate all their resources towards Diaspora again?
And this is the way more and more artists seem to be moving. One which I encourage whenever I can buy buying direct from the artists when/if I can.