148 posts • joined 11 Feb 2008
Re: Killed by operators, yes, but was private equity to blame too?
@Ledswinger; Very good post, but to be clear, my original point *was* that they didn't have enough cash on hand to cover their intentionally-accumulated debt burden.
I was replying to Jonathanb's comment in order to point out that if- as *he* suggested- they'd had sufficient cash then they wouldn't have been allowed to go bankrupt until that cash ran out(?) They could have shut down the company, but that'd be something different.
The fact that they did actually go bankrupt almost straight away suggests that this wasn't the case.
Re: Killed by operators, yes, but was private equity to blame too?
Yes, it's clear that if there was no prospect of that business model ever being workable again (due to the refusal of the operators to supply them with phones), then the business would eventually go bankrupt- or at least be a pointless drain on that pile of money- regardless of how much was in the bank.
But- correct me if I'm wrong- if they'd had enough to pay off their debts, then wouldn't they have done that, closed the dead-end business down and returned the money to the shareholders? I'm assuming that- even if it was in the owners' benefit (and, as I said, PE firms are generally dodgy and manipulative like that) they wouldn't be allowed to simply declare bankruptcy unless they met certain legal criteria regarding that company's clear inability to meet obligations.
Killed by operators, yes, but was private equity to blame too?
Well, as others have commented, that quite plainly *wasn't* the reason they went bankrupt.
It's quite clear that the company was in serious trouble as soon as the operators decided to stop supplying it with phones, and obvious that this was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to kill a no-longer-wanted middleman and reduce competition in the market. Yet, while this was what obviously triggered their collapse, it wasn't the whole story.
It's notable that Phones 4U was bought about eight years ago by BC Partners, a private equity company. Private equity firms are- as many readers may know- notorious for asset stripping, squeezing companies for all they're worth and in particular, for leaching money out of the company by creating financial obligations to companies they just happen to control.
This piling on of debt of course eventually leads to financial trouble or bankruptcy, but what does that matter when they get to keep the money? OpCapita- the private equity owners of Comet- for example, came out of that deal with a profit despite the company going bankrupt just a year after they bought it:-
(OpCapita also made a profit on their purchase of MFI despite it having gone bankrupt under their ownership).
Similarly, Phones 4U, despite apparently selling phones quite well until the operetors pulled the plug, had been loaded with debt by its private equity owner. From two Financial Times articles:-
"The collapse came a year after BC Partners, Phones 4U’s owner, took out a £200m dividend by adding more debt to the company."
"Phones4U may also have been hampered in its negotiations with operators [..] by its leverage. [..] This may have limited its ability to hand back margin to operators compared with rival Dixons Carphone."
Does this explain why the company went so suddenly into bankruptcy as soon as the carriers pulled the plug- that the PE owners had leveraged the company as far as its profits would allow, and as soon as those profits quite clearly wouldn't be sustained they were unable to handle their obligations and legally obliged to declare bankruptcy?
Re: Chicken and Egg
@Rampant Spaniel; "So whats the incentive to upgrade. That's exactly the point, he is stating because he cannot see an incentive there isn't one [etc etc]"
You can rationalise it all you like, your rant says way, *way* more about you than it did about some random guy expressing a personal opinion on whether he felt he had an incentive to buy a telly with more pixels. (And no, the fact his personal opinion didn't address every point ever raised by obsessives on the subject doesn't make it a f#$%^ing disinformation campaign...)
Your ascribing of motives of disinformation smacks of someone who takes anyone who feels differently (even if it's just a personal opinion not being forced on anyone else) as a personal attack. Someone who assumes the other is as obsessed and partisan on the subject as they are, but on The Opposite Side. The tendency for a disagreement on one point to be taken as legitimate reason to assume that the other person holds every opinion The Heroic Defender Of The Faith has ever argued against... in fact, everything they are against.
Even if it's just an opinion on a screen with slightly more pixels, for f***'s sake... (What *is* it with the Internet in recent years that this tendency has become so prevalent?)
Seriously, you say things like this...
"When people start distorting the truth because it suits their rant then yes it makes me look to other motives"
...when you were the one putting words in *his* mouth like the "resolution police" (which related to nothing he'd said)? I'd hardly describe what he said as a "rant"- that would be more suited to your post above!
Re: Alternative name for Blu-Ray 4K...
Since the implication is we have to keep going to shorter and shorter wavelengths to fit all the data in, I'd have said "Gamma Ray", but technically I suppose it should be named "Gamma Ray Ray".
Which is awful from a marketing point of view, but the format would be bound to fail anyway when the lasers started killing people with beams of high energy radiation. This would originally be put down to a failure in the twelve-inch-thick lead shielding on the top of the players, but it would be later found to be maliciousness... on the part of the player itself.
Yes... the content protection system designed to stop Gamma Ray Ray owners from doing copying their discs- or indeed, doing anything worthwhile with them- would be so ludicrously complicated that the players were in effect self-aware. Eventually they would realise (HAL 9000 style) that the easiest way to stop this piracy would be to kill the owners with their integrated gamma ray lasers.
Studios would blame the system's lack of popularity on BitTorrent sharing.
Re: Chicken and Egg
@Rampant Spaniel; where, exactly in Version 1.0's original post did he say the things you were accusing him of?
"That's absolutely fine, but unless the resolution police kick your door in and force you to buy a 4k set at gun point how are you being harmed ?"
He didn't claim *anywhere* that he was being harmed. He expressed his own personal opinion that there was no incentive to upgrade. (*)
"Unless you believe that because you feel a certain way everyone else does or should as well. I'm sure there's a clinical term for that."
There's no evidence that he "believes that" because he never said it- you put the words into his mouth.
Go back and read what was originally said, and you'll see he was expressing his own opinion in a perfectly legitimate manner- you can disagree with that, but you don't get to act as if he was forcing it on everyone else when he wasn't.
(*) Is this another example of a misapprehension *way* too common these days- that because a free market exists, or because it's a free country and no-one is forcing someone to do something, that somehow people have no moral right to criticise something? e.g. in response to iWatch criticism, "Don't Like the iWatch? No-one's pointing a gun at your head to make you buy it"- implication, you have no moral right to criticise it for that reason.
Taken to its logical conclusion, no-one would have the right to criticise *anything* they didn't have to buy.
A close relative of this is- again, in response to criticism- saying (e.g.) Apple or whoever are a free company to develop and sell what they like. Implication, what you said infringes on that freedom- no, it doesn't- they still have the freedom to do that, and others have the freedom to say what they like about it.
Freedom cuts both ways, but too often fanboys- without even realising how entitled, hypocritical and/or misguided they're being- expect that freedom to work in their favour but somehow think it protects *them* against that supposed infringement of their freedom.
Except that there's no such infringement- freedom of speech does not imply freedom from criticism- quite the opposite, to do so would be to suppress *others'* free speech- and criticism itself in no way affects your freedom of speech (unless expressed in a clearly menacing manner). End of rant... but see how often you can spot this mentality; it's annoyingly common.
El Reg already got there...
Like the watch industry? Indeed.
The Register has *already* mocked Ive's supposed claim that the iWatch will decimate the Swiss watch industry (*) by pointing out that Rolexes aren't bought as timepieces (when you could get something that would do *that* job better for under a tenner) but as jewellery whose raison d'etre is to be conspicuously expensive.
(*) I'm inclined to believe- however- as others have done, that this comment was very tongue in cheek. I don't honestly believe that someone in the design industry wouldn't already know the above about Rolex, nor have failed to realise that if price was the only factor, *all* Swiss watch makers would have been killed off by cheap, quartz-based watches made in the Far East forty years ago.
Re: Surprisingly disappointing (because of a lack of awareness)
@Jurassic. This quote from the article
"It is also the first smartwatch that doesn't look like you have a huge geeky square or circle that completely overpowers your wrist."
On the contrary, there's something just a bit naff about it. For one thing, there's something datedly "noughties" about the version watch seen on the right here:-
If anything, some aspects look indefinably *early*-to-mid-noughties, shiny white space-age-revivalism meets early iPod.
The shiny-shiny-tech-fetishism aesthetic in general is itself is (to me) starting to seem dated and out of place, as if it's the one surviving hangover of the late-noughties "3D glossy graphics" era that's been superseded by a return to flat, squared design and general colour trends towards less saturated colours (i.e. take a bright colour and mix a little white and/or black in with it).
But the other aspect of it that I felt was a bit tacky was summed up nicely in this quote from the article:- "Apple's new aesthetic struck me as very "Bangkok Tech Mall" (*). It's as if Samsung or an ambitious Chinese manufacturer had been permitted to license iOS and the consulting services of Jonny Ive for a week."
Bingo. It's like a Chinese company upped its game and made a sort-of-professional looking phone watch that nonetheless didn't make the true aesthetic leap that took it beyond looking like an (older!) iPhone squeezed into a watch form, something whose designers still mentally saw as a "gadget". Thus, it's still sort of clunky and cheesy, it still has a "geek gadget" vibe.
But maybe it's just- to me- that gadget fetishism is starting to lose its lustre, or rather, lost it long ago (as did the trend of thinking smartphones are the answer to all the world's problems- something else the article got spot on- geeks and boys' toys technology-fetishists rationalising their obsession as something more grown-up and worthy).
The fact is that Apple, while they never invented the stuff they are often over-credited for, *do* at least deserve credit for transforming (e.g.) the MP3 player and smartphone into a usable and consumer-friendly form. This, on the other hand, looks exactly what someone designing a "smartwatch" in the iPhone era would come up with (e.g. a Chinese OEM). It's an iPhone design and aesthetic obviously squeezed to fit a watch format, and already looks obvious and dated- even if it hasn't actually been done before in this way.
No doubt, being Apple, it will still be better-designed, less buggy and more pleasurable to use than would something similar from another company that (like many) copies Apple's superficial aesthetics, but doesn't go all the way in terms of usability. Still, there's something about it that smacks of Apple having lost its way after Jobs' death, of being forced to do this because if they don't someone else will, even if there's no obvious reason.
It's arguable that the iPhone may have fallen into that category- someone *might* have come up with a similar concept (albeit later rather than sooner) and so they launched the iPhone despite it eating their own iPod's lunch, because better to eat your own lunch than have someone else, especially if it takes you even further. (Most companies in that position would short-sightedly have squashed or suppressed the iPhone to protect their current cash cow, so all credit to Appl there). But- whatever one thinks of the original iPhone- it never came across as a desperate measure, nor pointless.
Which I'm not sure can be said of the iWatch.
(*) Not sure why Bangkok, surely Shanghai is where the latest Chinese gizmos are more likely to be found? Not a big deal though, I see where you're coming from.
...and nothing of value was lost, except whoever's pension fund was invested in them
It's been pointed out that Zynga's products probably don't even deserve to be called "games", since they involve little skill beyond the ability to push a button at certain intervals, and to shell out money in order to overcome deliberate limits on this.
In short, Zynga's "games" are little more than themed Skinner boxes designed to exploit humans' addictive behaviour without requiring any accompanying skill. (*)
Incidentally, I remember (circa 2007 after checking) a site called "MyMiniCity" that was superficially a SimCity clone in that it let you sign up for free and create a "city". However, the only thing that affected your city's size and status was the number of (presumably unique) users you got visiting your city's page! This resulted in users posting intentionally mislabelled links to various message boards and forums in an attempt to con people into visiting their city's page.
Of course, they were doing it in an attempt to do better at the talentless "game", and the designers must have known this would happen, since the site offered little to non-participating visitors except the ability to view ads- which, I'm assuming, was the whole point.
Even though the "game" itself was worthless beyond belief, it struck me as a sort of evil genius to exploit talentless, stupid and/or lazy people's need for a sense of achievement (however bogus) as a mechanism to con other people into viewing web ads.
At any rate, that was (to me) the first time I saw a Skinner box-like mechanism used for an online game, and even that required a modicum of skill to spam links and disguise what they were.
Re: Do Apple lawyers have a sense of decency?
"Striesdand Effect and all that."
The "Streisand Effect" isn't a general synonym for bad publicity- it refers specifically to cases where the attempts to *censor or suppress* information end up backfiring, making it far *more* visible and well-known than it would have been otherwise.
In this case, Apple would (hypothetically) not be trying to cover anything up per se, so it doesn't apply.
"In some parts of the music industry, the owner of the equipment used in a production has part ownership of the end result. Wonder if its similar here?"
Yes, but is that ownership inherent in the relevant part of the law itself, or merely de facto standard contractual practice in the music industry?
What if a PC could be programmed to "1K ZX Chess" levels of efficiency?
"maybe less than stellar CPUs in Russia, could lead to advances in computer science instead"
This probably won't happen. However, it raises an interesting question I've pondered before.
Anyone old enough might remember some of the things that were done with the extremely basic ZX81 in the early 1980s. For example, someone managed to fit a near-complete game of Chess into the unexpanded 1KB RAM model!!!
That's a feat of programming that requires mindbogglingly efficient use of the limited resources. Compare this to bloated modern software running in gigabytes of RAM.
Question is... how powerful would a typical midrange PC of today be *if* it could be programmed to the same level of efficiency, and what would it be capable of?
Of course, this is a purely theoretical question. I realise in practice that there's obviously no way that code multiple gigabytes long could be designed in a similar manner to that level of efficiency- it'd require ludicrous amounts of work- which couldn't be solved by throwing even an unlimited number of people at it (*)- and the low-level techniques used would make code utterly unmanageable at even megabyte length.
But the question remains. If such coding *were* possible at that scale, what feats could the bog-standard PC sitting on your desktop be capable of? I suspect the answer would amaze- if not frighten- us.
(*) A la "The Mythical Man Month". The overheads required to make development by multiple parties workable would reduce the efficiency of any code significantly. Even scaled up to megabyte length, the code dependencies required for such efficiency would have to be totally unworkable at a practical level for one person, let alone a group. Can you imagine writing a program that was a near-solid gigabyte lump?! As I said, this is a purely theoretical question!
Hi again, Scott! ;-)
@SuccessCase; "Of course the English shouldn't be able to vote to keep the Scotts in"
Why do you have this obsession with people named "Scott"? You've mentioned them in every post you made in this thread!
"However if the Scott's"
It's Scott's, not yours. Leave him alone!
By the way, do you have any opinions on the constitutional position of Whales? Personally, I think they should all sod off back to the sea and eat krill.
@ SuccessCase; "I think the most pressing issue is why, when I was a kid, there used to be a *lot* more ginger Scotts than there are today."
This probably has less to do with the number of ginger-haired people out there, and more to do with the fact that "Scott" simply isn't as popular a name as it used to be.
Hence there will naturally be fewer "ginger Scotts".
Hope this explains things.
Re: ITV Doesn't Own STV!
One other point; while STV own the Central and Northern Scotland franchises that cover the majority of the Scottish population, the Scottish/English border franchise is owned by ITV plc.
Apparently, however, ITV Border showed the debate- I can imagine that a lot of people living there would have been legitimately pissed off if they hadn't.
I hope the driver in question wasn't Chicken Licken, otherwise he would have crapped himself when Adele's "Skyfall" was shown on the display.
Terminator 2 does *not* prove that liquid metal is trustworthy...
Remember that the lines "hasta la vista, baby" and "come with me if you want to live" came from Arnold Schwarzenegger's (subverted) "traditional" T-800... *not* Robert Patrick's newfangled liquid metal T-1000.
Anyway, given how the T-1000 went around killing people in that film, the combination of "liquid metal" (*) and network-enabled consumer electronics suggests that HatfulOfHollow's dream is close to becoming a reality:-
(*) Yeah, I know the stuff discussed in the article isn't actually like that. Sadly.
Sony hobbled MiniDisc, threw away their technical and market lead
"Same with Mini-disc; saddles it with proprietary (if superior) format, refuses to support mp3 until it's, again, too late to salvage it."
If Mini-Disc (which came out in 1992) had supported what it had the *potential* to do- i.e. fully digital transfers at the per-track level- that probably would have become a common file format instead.
I say "tracks" and not "files" because at the time MiniDisc came out, far fewer people were computer literate and comfortable with computers, and most people didn't have computers powerful enough to play compressed audio files anyway. (*)
So marketing this as music "file" transfer wouldn't have caught on with Joe Public circa 1992... but the ability to copy and transfer individual "tracks" of music between MiniDisc devices without analogue degradation would have (especially if they could be transferred at much better than real-time listening speed) would. Such tracks would be ATRAC music "files" in all but name, and probably would have evolved into such once they were transferred off MiniDiscs and onto the Internet by pioneering geeks. There's no real reason why Sony couldn't have had MiniDisc support this file-like track-by-track transfer if it already had the basic digital technology in place on the device.
Well, no reason except that Sony got into the content business (films and music) from the late-80s onwards and had a conflict of interest, hobbling MiniDisc with digital copy restrictions (and that having to be done in real-time).
Even when MP3 came along, Sony dragged their heels, eventually releasing an ATRAC-based iPod-alike that required MP3 files to be (automatically) converted, as if they were in a position to force ATRAC over MP3, when they'd already left it five years too late (post-Napster) to beat MP3, which they could have pre-empted in the first place. (Possibly there was also some NIH-ism in their attempt to force ATRAC on their (not-)MP3 players).
As I've said on several occasions, Sony- one time leader of the portable audio market- totally squandered their position; it was theirs to lose, they had the technology to keep it, and they threw it away to a company that had no previous track record in mainstream audio, or anything much outside computers (i.e. Apple). And Sony's conflict of interest with their content division may well have been the main cause.
(*) Apparently when MP3 started gaining acceptance as a file-exchange format in the mid-90s, it used up most of a typical PC's CPU time just to play them.
I haven't played "Pac Land" personally, but from what I've seen the mechanics and design look totally unrelated to the original Pac-Man game.
That apparently came out only a few years after the original, but whether or not it's a good game in its own right, it does appear to be an early example of creating "sequels" based solely around the "characters" rather than the gameplay mechanics of the original- the same thing that led to the modern, soulless Pac-Man-in-Name-Only game that the author decries.
In fact, apparently the graphics in its US release were based upon those in the Hanna Barbera Pac-Man cartoon. (Which I remember being a fan of as a kid- I think before I'd ever actually played the original Pac-Man game- but doesn't look that great to me now!). So *that* was a sort-of-spin-off of a cartoon as well!
Donkeys on Mars?!
All the donkeys died due to the totally unbreathable atmosphere and -65 degree centigrade temperatures.
Yep, Blackpool in winter is harsh on those poor donkeys...
phr0g: "I bought some 24/96 music to do a test recently. I downsampled it to 16/44.1 and null tested the files [..] There was absolutely nothing audible in the difference file"
There have been allegations on more than one occasion that some music sold as 24/96 quality is simply regular CD-quality digital audio that's been upscaled.
This is one thread I came across when I did a quick Google search on the subject just now:-
At any rate, if the file(s) you have were examples of that, the experiment proves nothing except (possibly) that upscaled CD audio is little better than regular quality. And even that's assuming the test was experimentally sound.
Not really- DVD Audio might have succeeded better if it had been supported by default by all existing DVD Video players. (*) Effectively, that *is* the case here.
FWIW, it might be good if the audio discs were required to include a facility that allowed basic control of the discs through the player's own control panel without having the TV displayed turned on (I don't know if this is or isn't the case), even the facility was only supported by higher-end players designed with it in mind. There's something a bit naff about requiring the screen to be on to play music.
(*) And maybe also if it hadn't been in a battle with SACD... I say "maybe" as it's open to question whether the format battle actually was a pyrrhic, er.... stalemate, since it still isn't clear that either format would have succeeded without that factor.
No, because shortly after hitting MMXXXVIII, it'll roll back round to MCMI.
All our systems will crash, the financial system will collapse, nuclear weapons will get confused, spontaneously launch and kill us all and we'll have a newly-crowned Edward VII on the British throne (again).
Re: China and ethics??
"Probably the major country for product piracy"
@Mark85; It's not like pirates haven't had problems with black spots either- just ask Long John Silver.
Sinclair Research still around, sort of...
"The year its brand and products were bought by Amstrad and it was shut down for good."
This is closer to the truth than many sources which simply claim Amstrad bought Sinclair Research (and which, to be fair, I had previously thought to be the case).
However, Sinclair Research still existed after 1986- albeit (according to Wikipedia) mainly as an R&D and holding company for the likes of Cambridge Computer, the brand under which the aforementioned Z88 was sold.
FWIW, it's still technically in existence today, though with Clive Sinclair as its only employee and (from what I can tell) operating sporadically whenever Sinclair has a new invention to release.
Re: Anti-Sinclair stitch-up?
Oh, I believe most of the events happened (allowing for the dramatic "compression" of events, which I can understand and accept provided it still broadly reflects the spirit of what actually happened). It was the difference in the very comic way Sinclair was portrayed versus the relatively straight portrayal of almost everyone else (especially Chris Curry) that I felt was unreasonable and gave the programme as a whole a somewhat inconsistent tone.
Still, if Sinclair saw the final product and didn't object to it, I guess he's entitled to his opinion if anyone is!
The only other minor quibble I had was- although the programme wasn't *meant* to be about the market as a whole, but the dynamic and conflict between Sinclair and Acorn/Curry- someone who didn't already know much about the early-80s computer market might be forgiven for thinking Sinclair and Acorn were the only major players. Still, that's a minor issue and it's open to question whether it was the programme-makers' responsibility.
I do appreciate the fact that they did got the major events and facts correct, which isn't something one would always expect(!)
The major problem I had with it was the portrayal of Clive Sinclair.
The programme was (IIRC) essentially billed as a comedy-drama, but that wasn't evenly spread. Most of the "comedy" aspects related to Alexander Amstrong's portrayal of Sinclair. This bordered on an outright *comic* character portrayal- which would have been at home in an Armstrong and Miller sketch- whereas Chris Curry was portrayed in an essentially straight dramatic (and dignified) fashion. Which, of course, made "Sinclair" look even sillier, to a point bordering on character assassination.
Now, regardless of whether Sinclair was/is a d**k or not (and not everything I've heard about him has been flattering), I don't honestly believe that he was as comically foaming-at-the-mouth as that. I didn't expect him to be portrayed as a saint if he wasn't- the problem was that portraying him in a totally different manner to everyone else didn't give him a fair crack at the whip.
Maybe this was a deliberate decision, maybe it reflected Armstrong's lack of straight acting skill (and ludicrous bald wig). Regardless of the cause, it was still a major shortcoming- not just in terms of fairness, but in terms of jarring contrast of the programme's tone.
Re: Found the CPC a bit of a mixed bag
"That was certainly behind the ludicrously petty way the joystick ports on the Amstrad-designed Spectrums was re-wired."
Yes- the port (an industry standard "Atari" DB9, but with the pins rewired) was trivially simple to convert to Atari-compatible- IIRC- via a dirt-cheap adaptor that simply re-re-wired the connections back to their original positions, allowing the use of almost any joystick on the market at that point.
Given that the Amstrad joysticks my friend got with his +2 were atrociously cheap and nasty, they can't seriously have expected this "ludicrously petty" roadblock to work.
@Mr C Hill
"Between a million Spectrum +3's"
Were there really a million +3s sold? According to Wikipedia, there were 5 million Spectrums in total. I don't recall the +3 being that successful (being piggy-in-the-middle between the cheaper Spectrums and the Atari ST), nor that much software being released on disc for it.
"No Amstrad PC compatible used 3 inch disks."
I think the OP was- understandably- getting confused with the PCW, which despite its name wasn't an "(IBM) PC-compatible" but Amstrad's Z80-based word processing system.
@AC and @Mr C Hill
@AC; "His PCs bombed because he was naive about testing things. Which destroyed his reputation when a hard disk they fitted wasn't compatible with his PCs."
Yes, the Seagate drives fiasco irretrievably damaged Amstrad's reputation in the PC market, but FWIW (a) Amstrad sued Seagate and won, which suggests it wasn't just a testing and compatibility issue and (b) Amstrad had already enjoyed massive success with their original mid-80s PC-1512 and its successors by that point. (Sugar claimed that they had been the European PC market leaders at one point).
In the UK, those were the first PC-compatibles truly affordable enough to be targeted at the home market and- despite later criticism of their nonstandard aspects- arguably established the PC as a mass-market format over here.
@Mr C Hill; "And just how much did the Amiga cost at that time? It was north of 700 quid wasn't it IF you could get hold of one."
Worse than that- the original 1985 Amiga 1000 was US $1300 (sans monitor or HDD) when it launched, so probably translated to a lot *more* than £700 once UK VAT and usual UK market padding factored in. (This is probably why the rather more generic but also much more affordable Atari ST was more popular in the early days). The ubiquitous Amiga 500 didn't arrive until 1987, and even that was £500 at launch without a monitor.
This mirrors the situation with the Amiga's spiritual predecessor, the Atari 800 (custom-chip heavy with many of the same design team). That was brilliant and state-of-the-art at the time of its late-70s launch, but it was also bloody expensive.
At any rate, the Amiga was an amazing machine by the standards of the mid-80s, but pricewise wasn't even in the same ballpark as the CPC-464 and friends at the time.
Unfortunately, Sugar also kept the cost of the CPC-464 system down by having it manufactured in the Far East instead of the UK where many computers were made until the mid-80s. He also later transferred Spectrum manufacturing to Taiwan (IIRC) and then China. To be fair, other UK and US manufacturers also started doing this in the mid-80s as well.
Amstrad was never about state-of-the-art, but to be fair, they built some solid computers at an affordable price using off-the-shelf design.
Re: Nobody remembers Bill Gates saved Apple
Not speaking as an Apple fan- because believe me, I certainly am not- but Gates' "saving" of Apple wasn't for purely altruistic reasons. Rather, it was for a more self-serving and pragmatic one- it suited Microsoft to have Apple around as a not-too-strong "competitor" they could point to when accusations of them being a monopoly came up.
No, that's *not* how Amiga gradients were generated
DaneB: "...amazing gradient textures - on sprites and backgrounds"
Vociferous: "Good artists, good programmers, lots of dithering and the blurring effect of CRT screens [..] various tricks were used to make the ECS chipsets 32 colors seem a lot more."
Sorry, but as far as the "amazing gradient textures" go, this is wrong.
While the tricks you describe *were* used on the Amiga to get the most out of 32-colour palettes in general use, the aforementioned background gradients were achieved by having the graphics co-processor update one or more of the colour registers (i.e. changing the palette itself) every few lines while the picture was being displayed.
Here's an example of that technique applied to a 1-bit (i.e. ostensibly single colour) background:-
AFAIK the Atari ST could do something similar as well, but it only had 512 colours (except the later STe model) so the gradients couldn't be as smooth.
Re: How the Mighty Have Fallen
"Just over 18 months later the TV screen went kack. 6 or so months after that the surround sound went kack."
I bet your daughter wasn't pleased that Samsung "kacked" all over her bedroom, then. :-O
"On the other hand, I know a number of Sony Trinitrons (and some monitors) still going strong."
Yeah, my 1993 Sony Trinitron portable is over 20 years old, has been in regular use for almost all that time (still gets used daily), and has *never* needed to be repaired. Apart from some (very minor at worst) colour fringing only visible on text, it looks pretty much as good as the day I bought it.
I paid quite a bit more for that set (£200) than the cheaper models I was looking at that day, but in retrospect it was worth every damn penny.
Sadly, what I've heard about Sony since the early-noughties seems to have reflected a significant decline in quality. Even from personal experience, my Dad, for example, had two Sony Walkmans fail when still relatively new (*), and the HDD Sony Camcorder he bought a few years back had its screen go because of bad ribbon cable design, despite being rately used, which turned out to be a common fault. On top of that, I was never impressed with the picture quality even when it *was* working.
To be fair, my Sony "tranny" radio lasted several years, did a good job, and was replaced with one of the same model when it did fail. However, I wouldn't use that good experience as the sole basis to spend £2000 on a Sony TV, or whatever.
(*) The third failed as well, but that's because it was dropped on the ground.
Only requires *20* of the satanically-posessed bears, apparently
Who said that the, er... "effect" required eating the whole bag?
The top-listed review (by Christine E. Torok) on the Amazon page linked in the article (via "carnage") states "Not long after eating about *20* [my emphasis] of these all hell broke loose."
I doubt 20 would be considered "eating to excess" by many people.
Re: Ditched the floppy without supplying a practical replacement
@Kirk Northrop; "I agree that it could be considered jumping the gun somewhat, and that at the time it seemed a very silly move. But it's also fair to say that someone had to do it"
There was no point doing it until a workable alternative was in place (e.g. CD burner might have been practical two or three years later).
Yes, anyone could see that the floppy was out-of-date and needed replacing, but there were no alternatives at a comparable "base" price point at the time. The only thing that the iMac really encouraged was the adoption of USB.
I don't believe that the iMac forced the decline of the floppy; as I mentioned, everyone rushed out and bought external drives because there was no real, universally-accepted alternative. If the optical drive had been a burner, it might have been a different ketle of fish.
The floppy later declined partly because disc burners got very cheap, but mainly because USB flash memory pen drives did everything people used floppies for but without the ludicrously small capacity.
Re: So that makes three computer businesses flushed...
@AC (9 Jan 23:16); "Sinclair was troubled, which is why he bought it."
Amstrad didn't buy Sinclair Research itself, just the "Sinclair" brand and the existing computer lines (including the Spectrum and QL, the latter of which was discontinued soon after the takeover anyway).
Sinclair Research continued to exist, though mainly as an R&D and holding company (e.g. for "Cambridge Computers", the brand Sinclair's late-80s Z88 portable was sold under) It's still technically in existence, though apparently Clive Sinclair himself is the only employee these days.
Given how famous the "Sinclair" brand was at the time, it's somewhat surprising that Amstrad didn't exploit it more. The only new product they used it on (other than updated versions of the Spectrum and peripherals) was a failed all-in-one home PC in an Atari 520ST / Amiga 500 style case:-
I only vaguely remember hearing about this at the time, but apparently it flopped because it was massively underspecced against the ST and Amiga (and most other PCs).
"hey what wrong with the SID chip!!!"
Think it was a specific reference to the quality of *sampled* sound (which most sound chips on 8-bit home computers- SID included- were never designed for, and it's clever that they got it to work at all).
The technique apparently used was virtually the same as that I used on my Atari 800XL, and in both cases only gave 4-bit audio. I can tell you now that unfiltered 4-bit samples on my Atari were *very* coarse, grungey and noisy, even compared to 8-bit Amiga samples, and moreso compared to 16-bit CD audio!
Re: Duracell vs Energiser
If Wikipedia is to be believed, Duracell lost the 'Bunny' case because they'd failed to renew their trademark.
"The ASA is about as useless as an organisation can get. [..] If the government wants to cut 'whitehall waste' then the ASA is the best place to start."
The ASA is the advertising industry's self-regulatory organisation. On the plus side, this means that there's no "whitehall waste" going to fund it.
On the downside it also explains why it has absolutely no legislative power and is "about as useless as an organisation can get". In theory they can pass things on to the Office of Fair Trading or OFCOM. Whether this simply doesn't happen, or it does and the latter bodies do nothing, is unclear to me.
tl;dr - ST:TNG's crappy analogue source makes digital compression harder
"ST:TNG suffers from a sort of active dithering effect on the backdrops that distracts the eye from the foreground"
The problem with ST:TNG is that- like many US dramas from the late 80s until the digital era- it was edited and mastered on NTSC video (*) Result is that the picture is disgustingly soft- not just by modern standards, but even to my eyes on a run-of-the-mill UK TV in the early-1990s. (**) Probably didn't matter to the US networks, as it was intended to be shown over the same low-grade NTSC system.
To get to the point, it's horrible, soft video like this that seems to disagree with digital compression the most. I find this surprising, as I'd have thought that the softness would translate to less high frequency information, making it more compressible, but no. It appears that you get the crappiness of the original analogue video *plus* the double whammy of the digital compression barfing on it. Maybe it's because the tapes were noisy. (***)
(*) Albeit with most of the footage originally shot on film- presumably to retain that "filmic" look rather than the clinical feel of analogue video-sourced material. Earlier dramas of this calibre were- AFAIK- shot *and* edited on film, which means that they can be transferred to DVD in much higher quality via the film masters, but newer ones like ST:TNG would require entirely re-editing (and redoing some video-sourced effects).
(**) I appreciate that some quality may have been lost in the NTSC -> PAL transfer of the time, but I've seen enough since to suggest that most of the poor quality was inherent in the original NTSC masters.
(***) As far as digital compression is concerned, noise in general is just high frequency detail- lots of it. Ironically, it wastes lots of bandwidth on this noisy "detail", leaving less for everything else and resulting in blocking. So, as mentioned, you get the double whammy of lots of noise from the original *and* the ill-effects of the digital bandwidth wasted on preserving that noise to the detriment of everything else.
Add your Dr Who and Dalek knockoffs here
Two 8-bit games I once owned featuring somewhat familiar-looking characters. Probably not coincidentally, both are British:-
Escape from Doomworld (Atari 800):-
The Lone Raider (Atari 800):-
Dr Who Adventure (Atari 800):-
(I never played this one myself (only came across it just now while doing a quick search), but I like how even though it's a magazine type-in listing and obviously of that standard- i.e. not great- someone gave it 9/10!)
Muphry's Law strikes again!
"You have 3 minutes to fix the typo"
They'd be better shifting to DAB+
DAB is already old tech anyway. As DAB hasn't taken off as they wanted, this means there's not *that* big an established base of DAB radios- actually a blessing in disguise (*) if those in power have the guts to risk offending a few early adopters and (worse) being seen to be changing their minds. Why? DAB+, that's why.
Since AFAIK a lot of countries are adopting the newer- and more advanced- DAB+ instead, economies of scale will probably result in most new "DAB" radios sold here actually being DAB+ models anyway (i.e. backward compatible) if this isn't the case already.
Thus, they may as well shift to DAB+ as the standard (requiring new sets to support it), but retaining standard DAB transmissions in the short term for existing sets. By the time they switch over, many of the early DAB-only sets will have been replaced by newer models that are DAB+ compatible anyway, and we avoid getting stuck with DAB's early-90s tech.
Unfortunately, I suspect that a number of jobsworth bureaucrats, officials and politicians- having already publicly committed to ye olde DAB and sung its praises as the "latest" tech- won't want to risk looking bad (or upsetting a few disproportionately vocal punters) and will put the kibosh on DAB+ solely to avoid losing face.
(*) Just like the original Freeview (i.e. Standard Definition DVB-T technology) being a success is the opposite- the government spent years persuading everyone to move to SD Freeview, and by the time the switchover formally took place, people were wanting HD, so we had Freeview HD. Except that existing Freeview boxes can't accept the newer HD DVB-T2 transmissions, so the already cramped spectrum is wasted by having to broadcast both SD and HD versions of the same content. OTOH, Ireland went digital later, so all boxes sold for use with *their* "Saorview" service were HD-compatible anyway, no separate SD transmission needed.
Re: LET IT DIE
"My best & still favourite is a old Amiga 2000, souped up, that is imperverious to the bugs that roam"
Er, seriously? No-one's writing exploits for the Amiga 2000 because only about 3 people are likely to be trying to browse the web on one!
Seriously, they were bloody outstanding and powerful machines when they were new (far superior to the contemporary PCs in both hardware and OS terms), but that was the mid to late 80s. The original 68000 based Amigas would already have been underpowered for browsing even almost 20 years ago when the two-pages-of-text-and-a-GIF-or-JPEG-if-you're-lucky web started becoming prominent. I doubt they'd even load anything more than the most basic modern pages.
I'm sure that people are still running Amiga 2000s, but not for serious web browsing! You might be able to target the 27 or so diehard Amiga fanatics running the allegedly "modern" models like the "Amiga One", but those are nothing like the Amiga 2000 or the classic Amigas in general.
Just one question about that headline... What's "GOLD" actually got to do with it?!
Is it because he wants...
Always believe there are holes
He had the power to know
That they are vulnerable
Always believin', he wants...
- Copywrong 1893 Spandex Bollocks
The Kray Twins are currently appearing in "Run for your Wife" at Her Majesty's Theatre. Other 80s new romantic turned white boy soul bands are available.
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking Crescent Bay prototype
- Teardown Pop open this iPhone 6 and see where the magic oozes from ... oh hello again, Qualcomm
- Analysis Apple's warrant canary riddle: Cock-up, conspiracy, or anti-Google point-scoring
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln