Re: What a Ballmer! MSFT owns 17% of Nook
Don't Amazon sell more Kindle e-books to people running non-Kindle hardware?
5716 posts • joined 28 May 2010
Don't Amazon sell more Kindle e-books to people running non-Kindle hardware?
A phone which is command-line only would be awesome :)
Well it worked well for MS...
Not if they only sell it in emerging markets.
>>Yes, they already sell a smaller cheaper phone - the IPhone 4
Now go back and read the article. The whole point is people see it as a stigma to buy an old model. By re-packaging a 4/3S as a new model for emerging markets, this stigma is avoided.
Squeeze 3GS/4 tech into a 'new' iPhone mini handset. Sell ONLY in emerging markets. Bingo - new revenue stream.
>>Don't confuse 'commercial success' with 'being a good film
OK then base it on DVD sales, which will typically be much more biased to people who saw the film and still wanted to buy it :)
IMDB is probably the best bet - the Razzies are deliberately set up to mock and criticise and as such will get a very non-typical demographic... cynical sarcastic fault-picking types.
No, closer to geeks' and insufferable windbags' view of the scene and/or the public's view of the scene.
The actual public's views are measured by bums in seats and pounds in tills. Therefore in the public's view, those twilight films are worth watching even if we think they suck.
Assuming you are a typical person who speaks for the people is tremendously naive and/or arrogant.
I genuinely hadn't realised Dell already entered the tablet market!
Are you really too stupid to understand that if something new turns up which people aren't aware of or don't understand, it may not sell even if it's better?
The phrase "barrier to entry" is the issue here. And no I'm not saying Win8 is better or touch-PCs are better. But people have preconceptions or sheer lack of knowledge - the idea of a tablet PC seemed daft pre-iPad.
>>If they're shareholders, they kinda are owed a payout, aren't they?
If they'd sold at $700 they would have one. Like I should've done!
Great idea. Buy shares. If they go up, clap your self on the back for smart investing. If they go down, blame the company and demand they give you some money.
I've lost money on AAPL but that's the risk I took buying them.
There's no reason the display density is an issue. Simply set the video mode to 1280x850 if you are running apps which don't scale... the whole "retina mode" is the incompetent design in my view. Windows already lets you adjust DPI on icons etc so it should be fine, though I don't really see such a high DPI screen being sensible anyway... although games would look pretty incredible (except the hardware can't keep up).
I didn't actually see the screen size mentioned in the Reg or linked article, though a few have mentioned it being 13" in comments. Could someone confirm this?
It seems VERY expensive for the spec other than the fancy screen - I mean 4GB only for a grand? Even cloud-based stuff might need more if you want serious apps in the browser like NaCl games or something.
Two linked questions...
1)Do Google make ChromeOS publicly available so you can install it in a VM or multi-boot/Bootcamp it? That might be fun to try. Or even on a bootable USB?
2)If you bought a Pixel, could you put W8 on it either alongside ChromeOS or instead?
Out of interest, have the other big players had similar screw-ups? I know things like gmail have gone down but has the entire google app cloud or EC2 flopped like this?
Maybe it's deliberate ploy by MS to make cloudy computing generally look bad so everyone stays with desktop computers, running Windows :)
>>You can get MS systems with touch screens now. They are not selling. The reason? Metro
No, the reason is people aren't keen on touch-screen laptops. Possibly for good reason. As a touch-screen UI, Metro is quite fine even if you hate Windows underneath it. If Apple or Google can popularise the touch-PC so it's more common, suddenly MS get what they wanted.
Damn... replied to this as a serious post before seeing it was Eadon.
Maybe for Surface, though I doubt it.
But anything which makes PCs with touch screens gain interest is massively GOOD for MS because their main OS is focused on that.
Many people think my charismatic church is a cult because we do/believe some weird things. But is it about numbers - surely CoS has quite a lot of members now. Many say Mormons or JWs are cults but similarly, aren't they too numerous?
"Time to remove the tax-exempt status on all religions. If because they are doing good in the world, then why are they different from other do-good organisations?"
Charities get tax breaks too. In fact typically an independent church IS a charity, run not for profit. So if a church spends its money on paying salaries of those running it, and on doing good, they should get exactly the same treatment as other charities.
>>I fully object to those believers forcing their opinions on other people
What if their belief is that forcing their belief on others is important? By saying they can't force their opinion on you, you're forcing your own opinion on them.
Fun isn't it!
>>FFS, relax. Take some valium. I don't think we have any wannabee terrorists here
Yes but this kind of "I hope he dies" or "she deserves it for being so stupid" is exactly the kind of stupidity you get when everything is anonymous. You have to wonder if killing the people was somehow as easy and consequence-free as spouting about it on the web, what would happen. Just look how silly indiscriminate hatred turns into real violence at football games.
Maybe the OP was deliberately making that point but I doubt it.
I think that's a very important point.
It seems it's probably the right thing for them to do as a company - sadly. Though I don't have many thoughts I want to share with the world, I think Twitter is a useful and important thing. Before everyone rushes in to deride celebs and idiots filling the service with crud, consider that the internet is similarly full of crap but that doesn't stop it being a Good Thing on balance provided you can filter out the parts you don't care about.
>>I lament the loss of SPLIT-SCREEN gameplay
I agree. With the average TV size so much bigger these days it makes SS a better experience. And there's that TV tech which lets two people on different sides of the room see totally different images too.
Keep your PS3
You do realise AMD own ATI right, how have competed squarely with nVidia since the 90s?
Although they have basically just copied the 360... Kinect + x86. I'm sure developers will be very pleased, it should make porting new code very easy.
Although all that time weeping over how to optimise for PS3 will be wasted ;)
Clearly he doesn't The whole point is every console has the same spec, so developers can wring out the last bit of performance and not have to worry about compatibility.
You code to the specs.
Upgrade the specs but otherwise keep the old device and bolt on all the cool new things from their own and competitors' products. Nothing is wrong with the PS3 after all.
Very pleased they haven't messed about with the controller - keep the DualShock but add a couple of tweaks.
Yes MS should give away two products which each bring in $billions every year. Great business decision :)
I would go with you if you suggested they should give dev tools away - full-price Visual Studio must be out of reach of many developers - but simply saying Windows should be free because Linux is doesn't make sense.
None of what you described about Photoshop is stupid. Licenses are fine in my view... but per-machine licenses are not.
That's why they keep releasing fixes for it after you paid.
Wow, you should self-publish that story.
Is LO planning to do a 365/g-docs competitor, or do they remain firm that office apps are better as proper applications?
To get everyone onto cloud Office aka 365, which doesn't have these restrictions. It's like they really don't want to sell Office 13 at all, so are making everyone jump ship to 365. The worry of course is they might jump ship, but elsewhere.
I'm very happy with my Office 2007 installation - I think it's a great set of tools - so maybe I'll have to look at 365 at some point, or a combination of 365/LO.
>>I bet you have only tried it on Windows .... Try it on Linux it is not shit.
What kind of defence is that exactly? If they can't get it to work on the world's main OS then it IS shit. If they want FF to be a mainstream browser than a Linux one, it's kind of important they prioritise the Windows experience.
I really dislike all the hate-tards and quite like Windows, Office & your dev tools. So why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot so badly at such a key time?
Do you really think that as the world is getting used to greater flexibility, going the opposite way is going to sit well? Do you believe people will genuinely buy new copies if they upgrade their PC?
I really want to stay positive but you've making it VERY hard.
Forget fitting them with regular lenses... can augmented reality specs potentially adapt to your eyes and act as 'perfect' lenses? Even measure your eyes and automate the correction?
>>I guarantee you that almost none of us would hesitate if offered natural 20/20 vision again.
That's a very poor argument. Accepting perfect vision for free doesn't mean people have a major hassle with glasses. I'd take a bigger knob if it was on offer but I don't have a problem with the one I've got.
The point is, anyone who wears glasses all the time - which is a huge number - will be pre-primed for 'smart glasses' even if those people with good eyes can't be convinced. And of course most people in sunny countries are used to wearing sunglasses too.
I don't see "having to wear glasses" as a big stumbling block, if they deliver something even slightly useful.
Except the billion or so for who it is second nature.
Why should they have to?
I was more saddened by how hazy it is. I wonder what that will look like in 50 years... pin-sharp when we all go electric, maybe?
You're a student right? Nobody who has lived in the real world could be so naive surely.
>>Chrome uses the same pdf.js library as Firefox, they just managed to get it out first.
Source? I thought Google just had deals with Adobe to integrate PDF & Flash much more deeply so they can sandbox it and get earlier access to bug-fixes?
Question - how does iOS have built-in PDF functionality? Is it a special Adobe plugin baked into the OS, or Apple's bespoke PDF reader app, or what?
I find more frustrating that some sites automatically trigger PDF loading in the browser, and others force you to download. I use Chrome and the PDF integration is really good since I don't have to both downloading files.
I imagine this being a new project, it will be worse than Adobe's version for now but if they have drawn a line in the sand, it will inevitably improve if people report bugs. Not totally convinced JS is the right tool for the job though personally; on a mobile device CPU is a precious resource.
Yes but there's a difference viewing a PDF in the browser using a plugin, and opening a PDF file using Reader.
>>Hey Google. Remember this? No, did't think so.
For the love of... grow up. Do you even know what the word "evil" means? First World problem...
Not any easier to get one's mind around... a billion is too many to conceptualise.