I'm sure this has already all been said, but just to pile on...I seriously doubt size is Microsoft's primary problem busting into the tablet space.
Seems like they should focus on fixing, by all reviews and accounts I've read, lack of apps. Or perhaps more succinctly, according to many reviews and comments, the inability to run Windows desktop apps.
However I must admit I am perplexed. My iPad doesn't run OS X apps and yet the iPad is well loved. Lusted after even. Why do we all scream for the ability to run desktop apps?
Simply opening the Win RT space to all windows desktop apps seems like it would only frustrate consumers with apps that weren't designed for the tablet form factor and don't meet their needs on a tablet. Pointing at ARM as the root problem is a technical excuse for something everyone thinks they want but can't have.
I don't give a crap my iPad is using an A6X processor and my Mac is using a i5. Why should I care if my Win RT tablet is using ARM and my desktop PC isn't?
I think it's more correct to say the iPad has a significant number of the *right* apps to make it attractive. By "right" I mean serves use cases for the tablet form factor.
Everyone also seems to focus on the pure quantity of apps available as a measure of success for a platform and why I want to invest in the platform. I suppose pure numbers are great because you are statistically more likely to get a hit on the *right* app. But I don't want to spend my time browsing millions of apps to find the right 0.01% I'd actually use. This is my #1 frustration with the Apple store.
Obviously MS is working hard to get the "big hits" from other tablets onto theirs. These are table stakes.
If I were Microsoft I'd also start working hard to understand the core things people do with tablets and look at the most popular desktop apps in their space to identify target applications to push for ports. Ideally unique applications the other tablets don't have yet. Their advantage is the desktop market. They need to bridge their desktop users into tablets with the applications their customers identify with. Office is a great start, but obviously still not enough.
They also need to leverage their small app space as an advantage - it's easier to ID and promote the *right* apps when you don't have millions of crappy apps to wade through.
That at least gets MS into the game. If they want to get ahead they need to identify and successfully execute on a disruptive technology. The space is becoming too saturated at this point to compete at status quo
Forget HP. Isn't 3D dead? For that matter was it ever really alive?
I still can't imagine any value for 3D in my living room. The screen is too small and the effect is totally lost. For that matter I'm still struggling with any value add even on an IMAX screen. Except perhaps increasing sales of Tylenol.
I'm excited for HP delivering on a dead technology. Three letters - ROI. Just sayin...
As a hiring manager, and former developer of 13 years, I can offer a few thoughts.
The best thing you can do is leverage your network for not only leads, but personal references. I'll take a personal reference over a buzz word laden resume every time. Work to build your network. Ask your network for leads into companies you may be interested in. If they don't know somebody, perhaps somebody they know does. Local interest groups and technical societies (IEEE for instance) are an easy way to build your network as well. Recruiters are another great way to get in the door. They have established personal relationships with the hiring managers and can make an introduction for you. You might end up working contract but once you're in the door you can start working on a full time position if you're interested.
If you're sending resumes in cold then focus on learning an emerging, but hot, "new" technology. HTML5 comes to mind right now as a good example. And definitely make sure your resume is effective. You have the first half of the first page to hook the hiring manager's interest. Make sure the most important information about how you can benefit your prospective employer is front and center.
When you score an interview you're on the toughest part. Research the company you're about to interview for. Google is your friend! Know a little about their products, their business plan, and other basic tid bits. Make sure you can comment on how your skill set would benefit their products if nothing else. If you have the name of the hiring manager see if you can find them on LinkedIn, and Google their name to see if they have any other info posted about them. If it's a small company then you might do a little homework on the CEO or founder. For all you know you might interview with them. Don't be afraid to ask questions on materials you find in the interview. We often see Facbook and Google used by employers to check on a potential candidate. Here's your chance to turn the tables.
While it's good to answer technical questions to prove your mettle during an interview, at the end of the day I can teach skills. What's more, the skills I need now are probably not the skills I'll need in two years. I want someone who can clearly learn fast, is motivated to look for better ways to do things, and is generally wants to grow beyond the person I'm hiring today. This is tough; look for ways to show you're more than the skills you have today. You have the smarts and the motivation to go further. Be confident, but not cocky.
Another thing about interviews, don't be a cardboard cutout. I have no interest in working with a card board cutout every day, neither do my employees. Don't be afraid to be enthusiastic, show some humor, and demonstrate some personality. Look around for clues as to what your interviewer's own interests and hobbies are. If you see a connection then casually ask about that signed baseball on the desk, or those weekend fishing trip photos. Strike up a little side conversation. Make sure you don't let that side conversation dominate the interview (a minute or two at most) but don't be afraid to spend a minute sharing common interests. Trust me when everyone sits down to review the stack of interviews at decision time you will be remembered.
And now I am under the impression why are people still using Windows it is because there is no compelling reason to switch. Whatever platform you currently have and invested time in is probably good enough for you and switching isn't going to solve that many more problems.
I definitely fall into this camp. Why invest my valuable time lerning a new OS vs. just getting things done?
I'll also pile onto other threads with respect to the applications on Windows that aren't as good on other platforms, specifically games and MS Office.
And one oddball thing keeps me on Windows - my employer uses it. It's a whole lot easier to rig my home machine for working remote.
...the sales pukes for promising vapor ware. Making the engineers work overtime while the sales guys kick back and collect a big ass check and golf every afternoon.
...the execs for flying on the corporate jet and "opening opportunities" meanwhile collecting multi-million dollar severence bonuses if they screw up.
...the lawyers laying claim to your idea because somebody else bothered to file a patent first, even though you busted ass to get it to market first and made it happen.
So lemme see, the engineers do all the work, get none of the credit, are paid almost nothing in relative terms, all while working massive overtime in the process. Hell yeah! Sign me up!
The CD is obsolete, so produce singles from one-hit-wonder bands and don't bother with filler, at all, ever.
I disagree, there are still true artists out there the record industry didn't prop up to pinch quick cash on a one hit wonder. And some good reasons to buy CDs still exist:
Better quality - I can rip a CD at any bitrate and any format I want. I can rerip later to the latest standards if I want.
Artwork and liner notes. Yea yea electronic electronic. Call me old school but there's just something better about flipping through the little booklet.
Context. Some artists still design their albums as a compilation vs. "singles". And while not all the songs may be hits, the group of songs works well together and makes them all better. Except that Queensryche Mindcrime II album. That album was shiite no matter how you slice it.
Albums with a lot of songs still cost more to buy from iTunes or Amazon or whomever
On the downside:
Storage space - my 1000 CD collection is becoming unwieldy
CD format won't last forever I'm sure
Not as convenient as being any where and downloading a new tune
Every artist has a bad day. You still sometimes pay for the full album and get 1 good song mixed with crap
Can you site your source on that? Because I'm looking at my config and "Server requires encrypted (SSL) connection" is checked and last I checked that means encrypted connection.
I also note our corporate enforced phone password to unlock the phone appears to be enabled. I haven't tried it but I bet if I fail to enter the the right password a few times my phone will be wiped.
First, I generally buy CDs and rip them so no DRM involved. BTW I'll state here iTunes is superior to Zune for ripping CDs. The workflow is far more polished.
Second, you're not entirely accurate on Zune.
Zune will manage your own ripped MP3s without DRM. It will also provide artist metadata, related artists, albums, etc. for free.
The 10 downloads per month you get off the Zune pass and any other songs you buy are MP3 and DRM'less. Even if you disconnect service.
Or at least I import them to iTunes and use them on my Nano, so I'd assume they are DRM free. Yes, I still use a Nano and iTunes. My smaller/lighter Nano is far more convenient when I'm working out, skiing, biking, whatever.
The all you can listen to music part of the Zune pass is DRM protected and unless you hack it you lose it when you disconnect Zune pass service. That content is also limited in terms of where you can move the music to. i.e. I haven't found a way to send it to my phone on a playlist for instance.
Which is where Zune is a huge selling point for me. I've listened to so much crazy new music since I got a Zune pass. This is what really got me leaning MS's way. It's FAR superior to listening to short samples and and risking 0.99 on a song I may not even like on iTunes.
Why the hell do I feel like an MS commercial? Look I don't work for MS. I don't work for Apple. All I'm saying is what works for me and why. Your mileage may vary, and all I really want to do is encourage people to not be a fanboy and think for yourself. Apple changed the game, but a lot of other companies have learned to play and even bested Apple in some areas. I still think in terms of a solution for the masses Apple is a great choice. They just don't work for me personally.
Smart is spending your time and money on the things you enjoy, or that add value to your life. I program for fun. I enjoy spending time on my own little projects.
Applying my development skills and time to troubleshooting why iTunes can't be pointed to files on a NAS after I moved them is not personally fun for me. Why should I waste my time? I just want to listen to my music and code.
This particular quoted post is in response to another article I had just read on Apple suing another small company. I was musing on how ironic it was that Microsoft used to have the same stories. But I seemed to see Apple on the headlines more than MS and the general villany seemed to be shifting.
I personally bought Apple stuff because I perceived it to be state of the art at the time, had the best music management system, and was simple and intuitive. Trendy was a nice side effect. At a certain point I noticed there were superior products for far less money that did what I wanted, but people kept soaking up Apple stuff. And I was wondering why?
I own one of those 40k units - a Samsung Focus to be specific. I've waited a year for MS to get Win7 out so I could compare iOS, Android, and Win7 before upgrading my phone. I have to say, after 2 days so far I love Win7. I will also say that feature wise it is still behind iOS and Android on some pretty basic features. More on that in a sec.
We all have different needs and wants from our devices so to help you understand my angle; I am an occasional business traveler who enjoys being connected to email, can access maps and driving directions, restaurant and business information nearby, read various Office documents, and generally stay in touch. I am also a hobby programmer and enjoy writing little utility apps for my personal use. I am not a heavy app downloader - my iPhone had all of 20 installed apps. I am a gamer but generally enjoy puzzle and strategy games over FPS or other games that demand heavy real-time input. I do not own an XBox (PS3 for me). I do not use Facebook or Twitter in any real capacity. I tried, and I just don't get it. And finally I am a HUGE music lover. I'm the guy that still buys CDs for the artwork and rips them at higher bitrates. I'm always on the lookout for something new. I also rip all of my DVDs (movies and TV) so I can take them on travel and watch them on the plane.
If you picked up on the iPhone comment above your first question might be why I considered defecting? The simple answer is iTunes. I've had many minor glitches and nags with iTunes over the years, however the recent move of my music and movie library to a NAS was so painful it was the last straw for iTunes.
So what's to like about Win7?
First and foremost Win7 was really easy to learn and figure out. Navigation was a little mystifying at first, but after a few minutes I had it figured out. Within a couple of hours I had the whole phone explored and setup. And setup was also MEGA easy.
One word - ZUNE. Unlike iTunes it was easy to setup, let me import anything I want, and I love the subscription service. I had Zune on my PC before I had any kind of mobile Zune player. Unlike iTunes, I get my music through Zune in MP3 format, and I'm free to use it how I want. I'll also add it's visually a nice experience. The experience translates to the Win7 phone just as well. Oh and that setup problem I had with iTunes. Zune was more than happy to adjust itself to my music library on my new NAS without bitching. I'll also add the Zune SW multitasks better - iTunes tends to get sluggish and freeze up if you're importing movies or a lot of music. Zune seamlessly handles it in the background.
WIRELESS SYNC - something Apple has continually blocked. I'm happy to say if my phone is plugged in for 10 minutes on AC power and sees my Zune server it will sync over 802.11.
Mobile Office - an essential for me as my biz is an MS shop. Online versions of office are available through Windows Live so you don't even have to buy a PC version of Office if you don't want to. No clue if it will work on Mac tho.
4" AMOLED - actually more the phone than Win7 but I'll say Win7 makes full use of the this gorgeous screen
It works well as a phone.
Voice commands - I feel silly talking to my phone but when I'm driving and I want to find a Starbucks or something it actually works well. Disclaimer - I am an American, and I speak with a "Hollywood accent" which is to say most people would say I don't have an accent.
Support for my work calendar off Exchange, AND a Windows Live calendar so I can keep my personal and work lives separate. Not necessarily unique to Win7 but they did a beautiul job integrating everything together.
Free development tools that work really well. I did C/C++ development for many years, then I did Java for a few years, and I've been doing C# for a while now. When I can just download the free tools and write an simple application in a few minutes that speaks volumes. As far as I'm concerned MS still makes the best develop
I've been doing all kinds of research for some small Ethernet/WiFi connected boards for a couple of simple home projects. Mainly home automation and monitoring type things. These Linux wall warts are cool and all but for cheap and simple projects you're still paying too much.
If you're really trying to go off the ranch and do something cheap, tiny, and simple I gotta tell you Arduino boards are by far the most versatile and cost effective solution I've found. There are libraries for simple web servers and all kinds of stuff.
Downside is may have to wire up your own hardware and you're not writing anything terribly complex with the limited CPU and lack of real OS support. But honestly if I need that kind of oomph for Linux on a network project I'd buy a WRT54G or something and use that. Hardware is loads cheaper and probably 10x more reliable.
...am I the only one who perceives a very subtle shift in MS being the good guy and Apple becoming the bad?
Not that I'd argue MS has done anything different than they always have, just seen a lot more press on Apple and rather dubious strong-arm moves. For example
Don't blame Cable Labs or the cable companies for the limitations of cable cards and PCs.
First encryption is mandated by the content carrier deals signed by cable companies with the content providers. Remember, the cable company doesn't own the content, they only purchase the rights to broadcast it.
Encryption is pushed on the cable companies to protect content by the content providers. The substantial cost of the content licensing agreement, and all the encryption hardware required to cipher and broadcast content comprise a good chunk of your monthly cable bill.
Second, the Cable Card is a result of the consumer electronics providers whining to the FCC about how the cable companies have encrypted their networks to protect the content. They can't play on the now proprietary encryption scheme networks and sell more TVs so they pressure the FCC, who in turn "looks out" for consumers by mandating "separable security".
The cable industry response is the Cable Card which is a standards based device any CE vendor can support to decipher content. Again costing the cable company millions to develop (vis a vis CableLabs) and deploy, and again the cost is passed to consumers. But by God your Tivo works now so at least we don't have to put up with a crappy set top box. Too bad everyone doesn't own a Tivo so we can all enjoy what we pay for.
Third Cable Labs has nothing to do with the restrictions on PCs. It is again the content providers - they refuse to allow their content to be streamed on an open bus (PCI/PCI Express/USB) that may be easily sniffed or otherwise compromised with their content in the clear.
Now I know every Slash Dotter on the planet is all about open source, Linux, and free love, but here is one case where Microsoft was actually able to do something the open source community can't. At least in my humble opinion.
Microsoft convinced the content providers that Windows Vista security could protect their content (via Win DRM, the draconian premade PC, dmi and BIOS scans, etc) and earned the exclusive rights to support the PC version of a Cable Card tuner (OCUR). I don't believe for a minute this is due to Microsoft's technical superiority in the security space. Rather a substantial amount of under the table money was forked out to secure rights. So while free love is cool and all, monopoly level income has it's advantages.
So I come back to the point which is don't blame the cable companies, Cable Labs, or cable cards. The root of the issue lies with the content providers. If the content guys could pull their heads out of their asses and figure out how to protect their content for reasonable cost, or otherwise establish a sustainable business model so they didn't have to protect it, we could all quit paying the price tag to keep their ridiculous profit margins safe.
I'm not a legal expert but the flood gates aren't quite wide open. Referring to No. 08-448 around page 21.
The Second Circuit
repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners' public-performance claim depended on a range of
factors: not only that each transmission would be sent
to a single recipient, but also that (1) each transmission
would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program;
and (2) each transmission would be made solely to
the person who had previously made that unique copy.
See, e.g., Pet. App. 30a-31a, 36a, 39a, 41a.
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request. Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication. Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity. Which no doubt will be passed on.
But by definition we're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars. If this service is a value add pay a little more. If not, don't pay for it. If you aren't given a choice (i.e. added to your bill anyway) drop cable and go Hulu, Apple, Blockbuster, Netflix, or pick your own provider. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable.
The value adds I see are data integrity and (if Cablevision does this right) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move. Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust, If you're attached to your content and don't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile. I'm not personally this way, but some people are freaky about their DVR content.
This may be slightly off topic but I find myself wondering if Apple has perfected the art of mind control.
For years it's been one thing another...closed hardware, closed OS, and now closed iPhones.
I give a nod that Apple has opened up a bit over the years. But what has me baffled is why people gobble up Apple products like starving lions on a gazelle when most of their products are overpriced, and tightly controlled.
Why do users tolerate this kind of control and pay more for it? Is there some kind of unconscious comfort knowing that I'm in a safe little box? Is Apple injecting pheromones into their plastics?
I'm mainly curious what the community thought on this is.
This post triggers a wild thought. I could make an argument the iPhone is actually more affordable for this income class.
Consider the possibility the majority of people in this income range don't require a "full" internet experience. They are interested in basic email, casual surfing for the news, maybe some iTunes purchases, and the like. Thus making the need for a PC moot, because the iPhone covers these basics. i.e. let's assume 3G bandwidth, Safari, and a gmail account are enough.
Also assume people in this income class don't require a land line - wireless can take care of their phone needs.
The $200 for the iPhone is still cheaper than a most new PCs. Not to mention the iPhone cost also covers an MP3 player and camera which are both larger ticket items. You still need a very basic PC for offline storage and sync of music etc. (product idea - external storage that knows how to talk to an iPhone/iTouch via 802.11 in one small inexpensive package). I can pick up a PC on eBay pretty darn cheap to cover this basic need though. So let's call the cost of the iPhone a wash.
Cable modem and landline phone service is on the order of $100/month for me. I only get Cable Modem service not TV. So you might make a counter argument there if you want to try and tie in TV. But you can download a lot of TV shows now online and use the iPhone to watch so you could ditch the TV if you were especially frugal and not picky about your TV viewing. And you get movie rentals through iTunes. Note I assume my rate translates reasonably consistently across the US.
If minimum iPhone service is $70/month as stated then these folks could save an instant ~$30/month. Since I assumed these folks have foregone all other phone and data service you can probably argue they want more than the basic package. But even if they start going over the $100 limit how many additional hours per month would they really have to work to cover the difference?
A lot of assumptions here. But I don't think the iPhone is actually as expensive as people think depeneding on your needs. Question is does enough of this demographic fall into the profile I've painted in order to drive more sales for this income group?
"I hope she is well supported, financially."
I would gladly start downloading all of my music and donate the money I wouldn't be spending on music to pay her court costs.
I don't know about anybody else but I'm not buying Star Wars again just to get it on the latest media format. Hollywood needs to give up switching the media on us and making us buy the same freakin movie over and over again and sell us the rights to watch the movie in any format we want. My cell phone, laptop, iPod, Blu-Ray, and everything between and beyond. Match the movie format to the device capability and stream it to me! I'm done buying plastic coasters!
In the meantime while we wait for bandwidth and technology to catch up a little (just a little) and Hollywood screws around selling the same movie yet again, I protest and am partnering with DVD43, your favorite DVD ripper, Netflix, some 1TB USB drives, and one of these little beauties...
Same cost as a Blu-Ray player. Just need to invest in mass storage, which isn't that expensive if you haven't been following the hard drive market. Especially compared to what Blu-Ray costs per GB.
Also mounts ISO images from NAS, hooks up to UPnP devices, plays streams in all the common video file formats. And heck, does photos, music, and other stuff too.
Sure I can't pull HD disks to it yet, but as soon as somebody hacks the Blu-Ray protection that problem is solved too because this thing has 1080p and HDMI outputs and is ready to go. Or maybe Blu-Ray has been hacked already and we're there on this point too? I haven't actually checked...hmmm....
A la Nyquist your final digital quality can only be as good as the original media. The original media for most older movies doesn't have enough resolution for full on 1080p HD. Upconverting makes a lot of sense for 99% of the content out there.
Only certain newer movies are even of interest to me in HD because they have eye candy that makes HD worth it. But most movies aren't good because they have tasty eye candy, they're good because they have a great story. On rare occasion you'll get both and that's an HD worthy title.
HD disks are expensive. Why spend so much for HD content on a movie that isn't interesting in HD when DVD works just as well?
You add all that up and I'm left with one conclusion. And it's a conclusion the studios don't want to hear because I'm sure they make all their money on movie sales not the players. That conclusion is I'm better off just buying players for both formats (or a dual format player if cheaper) and renting from Netflix or Blockbuster or whatever. I can watch the movies that count on HD and don't risk dumping a ton of cash into something that may die on the vine. So in effect I'm sort of waiting - enjoying my HD now with the current formats, but not investing in it because the future looks too uncertain.
In line with other comments on this topic and on a slight tangent; I grow weary of purchasing the same movie over and over because the format dies. I've bought Star Wars at least four times - VHS, Laser Disk, DVD x2. I'm sure George Lucas has a special HD collector's edition in the works. Sorry George, I'm done. I want to purchase viewing rights to the movie and then freely view the movie no matter what device I'm on for the rest of my life. Be it my Plasma TV in the living room, my iPod, my PC, whatever, wherever. We shouldn't be buying the media format, we should be buying the rights to view a movie. Again not the answer Hollywood wants I'm sure, since I'm sure they make tons of cash selling the same movies to us over and over.
I've been reading this thread and there are many fictions here I thought one general post would be better than trying to reply and correct them all.
First of all TiVO's main gripe here is the introduction of Switch Digital Video (SDV) by the cable industry breaks their product. SDV, in a nutshell, is a technology that increases network efficiency by monitoring when people are watching a given show. If no-one is watching the bandwidth is allocated to another show that is being watched. Sort of like IP multicast, where you use IGMP to sign up for a multicast group, the router streams as long as you're signed up, but when no-one is signed up it doesn't bother broadcasting the stream. The part the breaks TiVO is the program is no longer broadcast on a stable frequency and PID on the network so TiVO can no longer tune reliably. SDV is not an cable wide standard and therefore TiVO is left out in the dark unless they implement drivers for every provider in the country. Assuming they can even get the specs. It has been suggested that switched digital video support be moved into the Cable Card specification to resolve this problem, but that's all still in the works.
Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.
An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.
Second - somebody dragged in Cable Cards and said something about cable cards only being 1 way. WRONG! Time Warner Cable is deploying 2 way cable card devices in major markets such as NYC right now. http://www.timewarnercable.com/Corporate/Products/ CableCard/CableCard.html. Comcast does not offer two way service as of yet. But the spec is complete and available on the CableLabs website.
Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite. The main barrier to competition is cost. And the cost to build a network and maintain it is staggering.
Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!
Chiming in late as usual but I actually prefer CDs for several reasons. Many of which are probably personal to my tastes but possibly food for thought for others...
Higher base quality (vinyl purists aside of course) - which means as disk space, compression technologies, etc. change I can always go back and re-encode to the new format and have the chance to pick the quality I want. While the 128kbps I get from iTunes is great for the latest Soilwork album, listening to the Berlin Symphony Orchestra crank out some Vivaldi is a different story. 128k just doesn't cut it on a decent sound system. Plus when a new compression/storage format comes out I don't have to buy the @%^!@&!@$ album again!
Liner notes! Yea it's old school but I like to lookup the lyrics, see band photos, read the fun facts and credits some bands sneak in etc. Some bands actually make the liner notes a piece of art more so than the music they bothered to record. There are few CDs I'd buy for just the album liner, but here is a chance for the record companies to make a reason for physical albums.
DVDs - a lot of bands have been including DVD music videos with the CD. While most of the videos are crap it's a great idea. If record companies and bands put some thought into this it could be something else that (arguably since DVDs can be ripped) adds more value to the physical medium. DVDs, while rippable, iTune-able, etc are still a little heavy for day to day use for a lot of people. Furthermore see item 1. While still a lossy compressed format, DVD quality is still miles above most transcoded videos you pull off the net.
Of course all these arguments assume the player technology doesn't go down the toilet. With the number of CDs and DVDs out there I'm somehow not too worried about players being obsoleted anytime soon.
There's been all kinds of growth lately in cellphones and more and more embedded systems.
As an unfortunate software developer on one of Sun's high profile embedded Java projects, OCAP, it irks me to see Java and Embedded listed in the same sentence. I could rant for days on the shortcomings of Java and it's unsuitability for an embedded environment but to name some of my biggest peeves...
1. Any language without unsigned primitive types doesn't belong in embedded land. Embedded systems frequently use unsigned data types. Making me cast up to a bigger primitive size and doing all kinds of bit manipulation gyrations to make unsigned byte data come out right is just wrong.
2. Most embedded implementations don't have room for a JIT compiler. So you end up interpreting everything or precompiling on the way down to the embedded device. Most embedded devices these days still have pretty lame CPUs in them so everything Java is extra extra slow even relative to a desktop counterpart. Especially if you're doing an app with any kind of graphics. As for pre-compiling...this simply isn't an option in some deployments...say OCAP for instance!
3. Many embedded environments use multithreading to process various IO tasks etc. Having what amounts to a critical section for your only means of synchronization (and yea Java 5 tries to solve this but most embedded devices are still back on 1.x implementations of Java) leads to one heck of a deadlock nightmare if you aren't very careful with your design. I need not cite the performance hit here either if you're lazy with your syncs. I also need not mention that the thread scheduling is left unspecified so your app may run OK on one JVM but when you port ot another there's no telling...
4. Java requires a lot of memory if you really want to do something useful. Especially anything graphics related. Most embedded devices don't abound with a ton of memory. As such you end up garbage collecting more and running into problems. Garbage collection can be a costly operation per #2 above. And finding a memory leak in a Java program ain't no picnic either. Especially on an embedded device where you may or matynot be able to get tools in there to see what's going on.
Yeah you can circumvent some issues if you're smart about your design and don't do stupid things but so far most embedded Java developers I've met are imports from desktop/server land and don't think about this stuff so you can imagine the mess you end up with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this has already all been said, but just to pile on...I seriously doubt size is Microsoft's primary problem busting into the tablet space.
Seems like they should focus on fixing, by all reviews and accounts I've read, lack of apps. Or perhaps more succinctly, according to many reviews and comments, the inability to run Windows desktop apps.
However I must admit I am perplexed. My iPad doesn't run OS X apps and yet the iPad is well loved. Lusted after even. Why do we all scream for the ability to run desktop apps?
Simply opening the Win RT space to all windows desktop apps seems like it would only frustrate consumers with apps that weren't designed for the tablet form factor and don't meet their needs on a tablet. Pointing at ARM as the root problem is a technical excuse for something everyone thinks they want but can't have.
I don't give a crap my iPad is using an A6X processor and my Mac is using a i5. Why should I care if my Win RT tablet is using ARM and my desktop PC isn't?
I think it's more correct to say the iPad has a significant number of the *right* apps to make it attractive. By "right" I mean serves use cases for the tablet form factor.
Everyone also seems to focus on the pure quantity of apps available as a measure of success for a platform and why I want to invest in the platform. I suppose pure numbers are great because you are statistically more likely to get a hit on the *right* app. But I don't want to spend my time browsing millions of apps to find the right 0.01% I'd actually use. This is my #1 frustration with the Apple store.
Obviously MS is working hard to get the "big hits" from other tablets onto theirs. These are table stakes.
If I were Microsoft I'd also start working hard to understand the core things people do with tablets and look at the most popular desktop apps in their space to identify target applications to push for ports. Ideally unique applications the other tablets don't have yet. Their advantage is the desktop market. They need to bridge their desktop users into tablets with the applications their customers identify with. Office is a great start, but obviously still not enough.
They also need to leverage their small app space as an advantage - it's easier to ID and promote the *right* apps when you don't have millions of crappy apps to wade through.
That at least gets MS into the game. If they want to get ahead they need to identify and successfully execute on a disruptive technology. The space is becoming too saturated at this point to compete at status quo
Forget HP. Isn't 3D dead? For that matter was it ever really alive?
I still can't imagine any value for 3D in my living room. The screen is too small and the effect is totally lost. For that matter I'm still struggling with any value add even on an IMAX screen. Except perhaps increasing sales of Tylenol.
I'm excited for HP delivering on a dead technology. Three letters - ROI. Just sayin...
As a hiring manager, and former developer of 13 years, I can offer a few thoughts.
The best thing you can do is leverage your network for not only leads, but personal references. I'll take a personal reference over a buzz word laden resume every time. Work to build your network. Ask your network for leads into companies you may be interested in. If they don't know somebody, perhaps somebody they know does. Local interest groups and technical societies (IEEE for instance) are an easy way to build your network as well. Recruiters are another great way to get in the door. They have established personal relationships with the hiring managers and can make an introduction for you. You might end up working contract but once you're in the door you can start working on a full time position if you're interested.
If you're sending resumes in cold then focus on learning an emerging, but hot, "new" technology. HTML5 comes to mind right now as a good example. And definitely make sure your resume is effective. You have the first half of the first page to hook the hiring manager's interest. Make sure the most important information about how you can benefit your prospective employer is front and center.
When you score an interview you're on the toughest part. Research the company you're about to interview for. Google is your friend! Know a little about their products, their business plan, and other basic tid bits. Make sure you can comment on how your skill set would benefit their products if nothing else. If you have the name of the hiring manager see if you can find them on LinkedIn, and Google their name to see if they have any other info posted about them. If it's a small company then you might do a little homework on the CEO or founder. For all you know you might interview with them. Don't be afraid to ask questions on materials you find in the interview. We often see Facbook and Google used by employers to check on a potential candidate. Here's your chance to turn the tables.
While it's good to answer technical questions to prove your mettle during an interview, at the end of the day I can teach skills. What's more, the skills I need now are probably not the skills I'll need in two years. I want someone who can clearly learn fast, is motivated to look for better ways to do things, and is generally wants to grow beyond the person I'm hiring today. This is tough; look for ways to show you're more than the skills you have today. You have the smarts and the motivation to go further. Be confident, but not cocky.
Another thing about interviews, don't be a cardboard cutout. I have no interest in working with a card board cutout every day, neither do my employees. Don't be afraid to be enthusiastic, show some humor, and demonstrate some personality. Look around for clues as to what your interviewer's own interests and hobbies are. If you see a connection then casually ask about that signed baseball on the desk, or those weekend fishing trip photos. Strike up a little side conversation. Make sure you don't let that side conversation dominate the interview (a minute or two at most) but don't be afraid to spend a minute sharing common interests. Trust me when everyone sits down to review the stack of interviews at decision time you will be remembered.
Just a few thoughts...
And now I am under the impression why are people still using Windows it is because there is no compelling reason to switch. Whatever platform you currently have and invested time in is probably good enough for you and switching isn't going to solve that many more problems.
I definitely fall into this camp. Why invest my valuable time lerning a new OS vs. just getting things done?
I'll also pile onto other threads with respect to the applications on Windows that aren't as good on other platforms, specifically games and MS Office.
And one oddball thing keeps me on Windows - my employer uses it. It's a whole lot easier to rig my home machine for working remote.
So lemme see, the engineers do all the work, get none of the credit, are paid almost nothing in relative terms, all while working massive overtime in the process. Hell yeah! Sign me up!
Why even make full CDs?
The CD is obsolete, so produce singles from one-hit-wonder bands and don't bother with filler, at all, ever.
I disagree, there are still true artists out there the record industry didn't prop up to pinch quick cash on a one hit wonder. And some good reasons to buy CDs still exist:
On the downside:
And here I thought it was a myth...
I also note our corporate enforced phone password to unlock the phone appears to be enabled. I haven't tried it but I bet if I fail to enter the the right password a few times my phone will be wiped.
First, I generally buy CDs and rip them so no DRM involved. BTW I'll state here iTunes is superior to Zune for ripping CDs. The workflow is far more polished.
Second, you're not entirely accurate on Zune.
Zune will manage your own ripped MP3s without DRM. It will also provide artist metadata, related artists, albums, etc. for free.
The 10 downloads per month you get off the Zune pass and any other songs you buy are MP3 and DRM'less. Even if you disconnect service.
Or at least I import them to iTunes and use them on my Nano, so I'd assume they are DRM free. Yes, I still use a Nano and iTunes. My smaller/lighter Nano is far more convenient when I'm working out, skiing, biking, whatever.
The all you can listen to music part of the Zune pass is DRM protected and unless you hack it you lose it when you disconnect Zune pass service. That content is also limited in terms of where you can move the music to. i.e. I haven't found a way to send it to my phone on a playlist for instance.
Which is where Zune is a huge selling point for me. I've listened to so much crazy new music since I got a Zune pass. This is what really got me leaning MS's way. It's FAR superior to listening to short samples and and risking 0.99 on a song I may not even like on iTunes.
Why the hell do I feel like an MS commercial? Look I don't work for MS. I don't work for Apple. All I'm saying is what works for me and why. Your mileage may vary, and all I really want to do is encourage people to not be a fanboy and think for yourself. Apple changed the game, but a lot of other companies have learned to play and even bested Apple in some areas. I still think in terms of a solution for the masses Apple is a great choice. They just don't work for me personally.
Applying my development skills and time to troubleshooting why iTunes can't be pointed to files on a NAS after I moved them is not personally fun for me. Why should I waste my time? I just want to listen to my music and code.
This particular quoted post is in response to another article I had just read on Apple suing another small company. I was musing on how ironic it was that Microsoft used to have the same stories. But I seemed to see Apple on the headlines more than MS and the general villany seemed to be shifting.
I personally bought Apple stuff because I perceived it to be state of the art at the time, had the best music management system, and was simple and intuitive. Trendy was a nice side effect. At a certain point I noticed there were superior products for far less money that did what I wanted, but people kept soaking up Apple stuff. And I was wondering why?
Note, I'm not the first to make this observation...
We all have different needs and wants from our devices so to help you understand my angle; I am an occasional business traveler who enjoys being connected to email, can access maps and driving directions, restaurant and business information nearby, read various Office documents, and generally stay in touch. I am also a hobby programmer and enjoy writing little utility apps for my personal use. I am not a heavy app downloader - my iPhone had all of 20 installed apps. I am a gamer but generally enjoy puzzle and strategy games over FPS or other games that demand heavy real-time input. I do not own an XBox (PS3 for me). I do not use Facebook or Twitter in any real capacity. I tried, and I just don't get it. And finally I am a HUGE music lover. I'm the guy that still buys CDs for the artwork and rips them at higher bitrates. I'm always on the lookout for something new. I also rip all of my DVDs (movies and TV) so I can take them on travel and watch them on the plane.
If you picked up on the iPhone comment above your first question might be why I considered defecting? The simple answer is iTunes. I've had many minor glitches and nags with iTunes over the years, however the recent move of my music and movie library to a NAS was so painful it was the last straw for iTunes.
So what's to like about Win7?
If you're really trying to go off the ranch and do something cheap, tiny, and simple I gotta tell you Arduino boards are by far the most versatile and cost effective solution I've found. There are libraries for simple web servers and all kinds of stuff.
Downside is may have to wire up your own hardware and you're not writing anything terribly complex with the limited CPU and lack of real OS support. But honestly if I need that kind of oomph for Linux on a network project I'd buy a WRT54G or something and use that. Hardware is loads cheaper and probably 10x more reliable.
Not that I'd argue MS has done anything different than they always have, just seen a lot more press on Apple and rather dubious strong-arm moves. For example
http://www.sevensidedcube.net/business/2010/apple-investigated-for-abuse-of-power-in-the-online-music-market/
First encryption is mandated by the content carrier deals signed by cable companies with the content providers. Remember, the cable company doesn't own the content, they only purchase the rights to broadcast it.
Encryption is pushed on the cable companies to protect content by the content providers. The substantial cost of the content licensing agreement, and all the encryption hardware required to cipher and broadcast content comprise a good chunk of your monthly cable bill.
Second, the Cable Card is a result of the consumer electronics providers whining to the FCC about how the cable companies have encrypted their networks to protect the content. They can't play on the now proprietary encryption scheme networks and sell more TVs so they pressure the FCC, who in turn "looks out" for consumers by mandating "separable security".
The cable industry response is the Cable Card which is a standards based device any CE vendor can support to decipher content. Again costing the cable company millions to develop (vis a vis CableLabs) and deploy, and again the cost is passed to consumers. But by God your Tivo works now so at least we don't have to put up with a crappy set top box. Too bad everyone doesn't own a Tivo so we can all enjoy what we pay for.
Third Cable Labs has nothing to do with the restrictions on PCs. It is again the content providers - they refuse to allow their content to be streamed on an open bus (PCI/PCI Express/USB) that may be easily sniffed or otherwise compromised with their content in the clear.
Now I know every Slash Dotter on the planet is all about open source, Linux, and free love, but here is one case where Microsoft was actually able to do something the open source community can't. At least in my humble opinion.
Microsoft convinced the content providers that Windows Vista security could protect their content (via Win DRM, the draconian premade PC, dmi and BIOS scans, etc) and earned the exclusive rights to support the PC version of a Cable Card tuner (OCUR). I don't believe for a minute this is due to Microsoft's technical superiority in the security space. Rather a substantial amount of under the table money was forked out to secure rights. So while free love is cool and all, monopoly level income has it's advantages.
So I come back to the point which is don't blame the cable companies, Cable Labs, or cable cards. The root of the issue lies with the content providers. If the content guys could pull their heads out of their asses and figure out how to protect their content for reasonable cost, or otherwise establish a sustainable business model so they didn't have to protect it, we could all quit paying the price tag to keep their ridiculous profit margins safe.
The Second Circuit repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners' public-performance claim depended on a range of factors: not only that each transmission would be sent to a single recipient, but also that (1) each transmission would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program; and (2) each transmission would be made solely to the person who had previously made that unique copy. See, e.g., Pet. App. 30a-31a, 36a, 39a, 41a.
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request. Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication. Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity. Which no doubt will be passed on.
But by definition we're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars. If this service is a value add pay a little more. If not, don't pay for it. If you aren't given a choice (i.e. added to your bill anyway) drop cable and go Hulu, Apple, Blockbuster, Netflix, or pick your own provider. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable.
The value adds I see are data integrity and (if Cablevision does this right) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move. Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust, If you're attached to your content and don't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile. I'm not personally this way, but some people are freaky about their DVR content.
It's called "Tivo".
And since it seems to do a crappy job of getting me off the sofa I seriously doubt you'll be making Rigil Kentaurus anytime soon either...
This may be slightly off topic but I find myself wondering if Apple has perfected the art of mind control.
For years it's been one thing another...closed hardware, closed OS, and now closed iPhones.
I give a nod that Apple has opened up a bit over the years. But what has me baffled is why people gobble up Apple products like starving lions on a gazelle when most of their products are overpriced, and tightly controlled.
Why do users tolerate this kind of control and pay more for it? Is there some kind of unconscious comfort knowing that I'm in a safe little box? Is Apple injecting pheromones into their plastics?
I'm mainly curious what the community thought on this is.
Except every time I've ever done a prototype it is invariably shipped as product minutes later.
Naturally disaster follows.
What you say: "I have a working prototype."
What management hears: blah blah WORKING blah.
Moral: Never say you have anything "working" until you're really done.
This post triggers a wild thought. I could make an argument the iPhone is actually more affordable for this income class.
Consider the possibility the majority of people in this income range don't require a "full" internet experience. They are interested in basic email, casual surfing for the news, maybe some iTunes purchases, and the like. Thus making the need for a PC moot, because the iPhone covers these basics. i.e. let's assume 3G bandwidth, Safari, and a gmail account are enough.
Also assume people in this income class don't require a land line - wireless can take care of their phone needs.
The $200 for the iPhone is still cheaper than a most new PCs. Not to mention the iPhone cost also covers an MP3 player and camera which are both larger ticket items. You still need a very basic PC for offline storage and sync of music etc. (product idea - external storage that knows how to talk to an iPhone/iTouch via 802.11 in one small inexpensive package). I can pick up a PC on eBay pretty darn cheap to cover this basic need though. So let's call the cost of the iPhone a wash.
Cable modem and landline phone service is on the order of $100/month for me. I only get Cable Modem service not TV. So you might make a counter argument there if you want to try and tie in TV. But you can download a lot of TV shows now online and use the iPhone to watch so you could ditch the TV if you were especially frugal and not picky about your TV viewing. And you get movie rentals through iTunes. Note I assume my rate translates reasonably consistently across the US.
If minimum iPhone service is $70/month as stated then these folks could save an instant ~$30/month. Since I assumed these folks have foregone all other phone and data service you can probably argue they want more than the basic package. But even if they start going over the $100 limit how many additional hours per month would they really have to work to cover the difference?
A lot of assumptions here. But I don't think the iPhone is actually as expensive as people think depeneding on your needs. Question is does enough of this demographic fall into the profile I've painted in order to drive more sales for this income group?
I would gladly start downloading all of my music and donate the money I wouldn't be spending on music to pay her court costs.
I don't know about anybody else but I'm not buying Star Wars again just to get it on the latest media format. Hollywood needs to give up switching the media on us and making us buy the same freakin movie over and over again and sell us the rights to watch the movie in any format we want. My cell phone, laptop, iPod, Blu-Ray, and everything between and beyond. Match the movie format to the device capability and stream it to me! I'm done buying plastic coasters!
In the meantime while we wait for bandwidth and technology to catch up a little (just a little) and Hollywood screws around selling the same movie yet again, I protest and am partnering with DVD43, your favorite DVD ripper, Netflix, some 1TB USB drives, and one of these little beauties...
http://www.tvix.co.kr/Eng/products/HDM6500A.aspx/
Same cost as a Blu-Ray player. Just need to invest in mass storage, which isn't that expensive if you haven't been following the hard drive market. Especially compared to what Blu-Ray costs per GB.
Also mounts ISO images from NAS, hooks up to UPnP devices, plays streams in all the common video file formats. And heck, does photos, music, and other stuff too.
Sure I can't pull HD disks to it yet, but as soon as somebody hacks the Blu-Ray protection that problem is solved too because this thing has 1080p and HDMI outputs and is ready to go. Or maybe Blu-Ray has been hacked already and we're there on this point too? I haven't actually checked...hmmm....
- A la Nyquist your final digital quality can only be as good as the original media. The original media for most older movies doesn't have enough resolution for full on 1080p HD. Upconverting makes a lot of sense for 99% of the content out there.
- Only certain newer movies are even of interest to me in HD because they have eye candy that makes HD worth it. But most movies aren't good because they have tasty eye candy, they're good because they have a great story. On rare occasion you'll get both and that's an HD worthy title.
- HD disks are expensive. Why spend so much for HD content on a movie that isn't interesting in HD when DVD works just as well?
You add all that up and I'm left with one conclusion. And it's a conclusion the studios don't want to hear because I'm sure they make all their money on movie sales not the players. That conclusion is I'm better off just buying players for both formats (or a dual format player if cheaper) and renting from Netflix or Blockbuster or whatever. I can watch the movies that count on HD and don't risk dumping a ton of cash into something that may die on the vine. So in effect I'm sort of waiting - enjoying my HD now with the current formats, but not investing in it because the future looks too uncertain.In line with other comments on this topic and on a slight tangent; I grow weary of purchasing the same movie over and over because the format dies. I've bought Star Wars at least four times - VHS, Laser Disk, DVD x2. I'm sure George Lucas has a special HD collector's edition in the works. Sorry George, I'm done. I want to purchase viewing rights to the movie and then freely view the movie no matter what device I'm on for the rest of my life. Be it my Plasma TV in the living room, my iPod, my PC, whatever, wherever. We shouldn't be buying the media format, we should be buying the rights to view a movie. Again not the answer Hollywood wants I'm sure, since I'm sure they make tons of cash selling the same movies to us over and over.
Note the big driver for freeing up bandwidth is HD content. HD requires 3x to 4x bandwidth to broadcast over a standard def channel. This incurs substantial cost to the cable company in terms of content revenue per bandwidth unit. One might give a nod that broadcast providers are trying to help us out here and make that shiny new HDTV in our living rooms even better. Even satellite is making this move - though they can't do switched due to their restricted 2 way capability, and instead had to launch a few new satellites and work other magic to increase their bandwidth.
An alternate to SDV would be to increase plant bandwidth like the satellite guys and add additional channels. This requires substantial capital investment whereas switched is primarily a software solution and therefore significantly cheaper. Like order of magnitude cheaper. I guess in a way you can thank Wall Street for SDV because the investors really love this stuff and it makes stock prices go up.
Remember the whole point of business is to make money while moving toward the best solution by virtue of competition. Not to give stuff away for free because it makes a company feel warm and fuzzy. You vote with your dollar be it buying stocks, paying taxes to support public infrastructure, or paying for goods and services. If you don't like cable go sign up for something else. Each broadcast technology has it's pros and cons, pick what works for you. If you're not happy with anything then cancel and get outside or take up a hobby. Hell start your own broadcast video company. Just no more whining!!!
- Higher base quality (vinyl purists aside of course) - which means as disk space, compression technologies, etc. change I can always go back and re-encode to the new format and have the chance to pick the quality I want. While the 128kbps I get from iTunes is great for the latest Soilwork album, listening to the Berlin Symphony Orchestra crank out some Vivaldi is a different story. 128k just doesn't cut it on a decent sound system. Plus when a new compression/storage format comes out I don't have to buy the @%^!@&!@$ album again!
- Liner notes! Yea it's old school but I like to lookup the lyrics, see band photos, read the fun facts and credits some bands sneak in etc. Some bands actually make the liner notes a piece of art more so than the music they bothered to record. There are few CDs I'd buy for just the album liner, but here is a chance for the record companies to make a reason for physical albums.
- DVDs - a lot of bands have been including DVD music videos with the CD. While most of the videos are crap it's a great idea. If record companies and bands put some thought into this it could be something else that (arguably since DVDs can be ripped) adds more value to the physical medium. DVDs, while rippable, iTune-able, etc are still a little heavy for day to day use for a lot of people. Furthermore see item 1. While still a lossy compressed format, DVD quality is still miles above most transcoded videos you pull off the net.
Of course all these arguments assume the player technology doesn't go down the toilet. With the number of CDs and DVDs out there I'm somehow not too worried about players being obsoleted anytime soon.As an unfortunate software developer on one of Sun's high profile embedded Java projects, OCAP, it irks me to see Java and Embedded listed in the same sentence. I could rant for days on the shortcomings of Java and it's unsuitability for an embedded environment but to name some of my biggest peeves...
1. Any language without unsigned primitive types doesn't belong in embedded land. Embedded systems frequently use unsigned data types. Making me cast up to a bigger primitive size and doing all kinds of bit manipulation gyrations to make unsigned byte data come out right is just wrong.
2. Most embedded implementations don't have room for a JIT compiler. So you end up interpreting everything or precompiling on the way down to the embedded device. Most embedded devices these days still have pretty lame CPUs in them so everything Java is extra extra slow even relative to a desktop counterpart. Especially if you're doing an app with any kind of graphics. As for pre-compiling...this simply isn't an option in some deployments...say OCAP for instance!
3. Many embedded environments use multithreading to process various IO tasks etc. Having what amounts to a critical section for your only means of synchronization (and yea Java 5 tries to solve this but most embedded devices are still back on 1.x implementations of Java) leads to one heck of a deadlock nightmare if you aren't very careful with your design. I need not cite the performance hit here either if you're lazy with your syncs. I also need not mention that the thread scheduling is left unspecified so your app may run OK on one JVM but when you port ot another there's no telling...
4. Java requires a lot of memory if you really want to do something useful. Especially anything graphics related. Most embedded devices don't abound with a ton of memory. As such you end up garbage collecting more and running into problems. Garbage collection can be a costly operation per #2 above. And finding a memory leak in a Java program ain't no picnic either. Especially on an embedded device where you may or matynot be able to get tools in there to see what's going on.
Yeah you can circumvent some issues if you're smart about your design and don't do stupid things but so far most embedded Java developers I've met are imports from desktop/server land and don't think about this stuff so you can imagine the mess you end up with.
Just my two cents...