"you're (too) harsh. The problem is, we don't have anything unique or attractive to offer to the world that can't be had elsewhere"
We do seem very good at putting ourselves down
50 posts • joined 22 Mar 2010
Having an Amazon Prime subscription I am much much more likely to buy stuff through Amazon. I am also more likely to keep my Prime subscription if I can cast Prime Video through my chromecast (80% of our TV watching is through the chromecast). We did get a fire stick but the interface is so clunky compared to using a phone we can't be bothered to use it.
I _probably_ won't drop Amazon Prime due to no chromecast support, but it does annoy the hell out of me
"Yep. Can't have Ordinary People diluting Murdoch's power now, can we?"
Totally agree that Murdoch et al have been playing us ordinary people, and it is good to see their power reduce. Sadly, this is about other powerful people/states/organisations at work, and as usual it is the ordinary people who get played once again.
This is the logic most people currently use
1) Does the news content conflict with your views? Then assume it is fake and produced by the global elite/revolutionary guard/evil puppets from the planet Zog
2) Does the news content support your views? Then assume it is the holy truth written by honest defenders of mankind who would help old ladies cross the road if they weren't too busy distributing blankets for small furry animals who have fallen on hard times
Two things I took from this:
1) Not many people are using (and paying for) music streaming services
2) The music industry + artists aren't earning much money from music streaming services
Well isn't the second point mainly caused by the first? Why would anyone expect to earn much from something that isn't been used much?
I have to admit I like the look of this, just a shame the functionality is a bit lacking. Make something like this running android wear and I would be very interested. I like the idea of instant information on a wrist mounted device, a band like this seem to look less bulky than a watch styled device.
The Moto E 2nd gen is close to that with a 4.5 screen and a 2390 mAh battery. Typically my battery drops to 50 to 40% by the end of the day (normal use for me is messaging, news, playing music to my BT headphones, selecting stuff for the chromecast, a bit of web browsing. NOT playing games however) Only downsides are just 1GB RAM (can be a bit sluggish switching apps), no Qi and a weak camera. Only cost £108 however, but would pay more to fix those three quibbles. Oh, I really want a USB-C port on my next phone too...
Typically there is much much more of interest in the latest vanilla Android updates then there is in the device specific modified Androids. Therefore it is a much better consumer proposition to be able to offer faster updates to the latest Android version than it is to offer some unique feature. This is one reason I have preferred a Nexus to a Samsung. I hope in the future my device choice is widened (fingers crossed)
From a successful artists point of view this makes sense, I am sure she can get more money in the short term from album sales, and later on she can always add the albums back to Spotify for future income.
From a consumer’s point of view, Spotify is much better value, a fixed fee gives you access to a huge range of music, whereas buying albums costs more for less listening choice, and has the big chance of buying an album you listen to once or twice and then it sits idle.
So whose point of view is the most important, the multi-millionaire supplier or the average consumer, which in this case is probably a school kid saving up their pocket money.
"But there’s no integer ratio between a pixel designed by the software developer and a pixel on your iPhone 6 Plus screen. That’s something the fragmented Android world has long tolerated, but it’s new to perfectionist Apple."
I thought android forced app developers to cater for all size/shape screens by changing the layout not by scaling anything? This was always seen as a major hurdle for programmers (have to consider multiple views), but the argument for is that all apps are rendered cripsly on any display?
The Apple solution seems clunky in comparison, seems Android got that one right IMO.
Why does the review compare the new iPhone to the previous iPhone when it is a feature that has been on android phones for ages or is in fact better on many android phones, and then compare the new iPhone to an Android phone when it is a new or better feature than found on the Android phone?
Either make this a phone review and compare to ALL existing phones out there, or make it explicitly an Apple upgrade review.
One thing that android wear has that Apple watch doesn't is Google Now notifications. A lot of my phone checking involves flicking through these notifications; travel time to work/home, share prices, latest cricket scores etc. Being able to glance at a watch to flick through these gives me a nice level of convinience. Add to this notifications of emails/messages, walking navgation and music control (which I am sure Apple Watch does too) and I think it just about tips the smart watch from gimic to useful for me.
Why do most articles concentrate on the camera part of google glass? Surely the defining feature is the always available screen in front of your eyes? I would have thought the main use of google glass is seeing information all the time, message notifcations, directions, google now cards (stocks, football scores, travel times/alerts). Photo taking must be a small part of what you can do. In fact I wonder why there is not a version without the front facing camera, a lot of the privacy concerns would then go away.
The problem is browsing content efficiently on a TV to playback on a TV. The solution is browsing for the content on your phone to playback on the TV.
Have had a Chromecast for a couple of months, I love it for playing Netflix, play music, Plex and you tube, and now iPlayer. And my wife finds it easy to use too which is a huge plus.
The USA has Hulu+, NBA Go and Pandora radio for Chromecast. I know that doesn't help us here in the UK but at least that is a sign that more apps are getting Chromcast support.
I personally think Google has got it just about right with Chromecast. "On TV" browsing for content is fine if done right and with small/medium libraries but when you try and do it with large selections (Netflix for example) they become clunky pretty fast. Streaming from a phone/tablet to a TV works OK but you might not get the best quality and the phone is tied up generating the video. So Chromecast uses the best browsing device (your phone) and the best playing device (your TV), for me it works great with the current Apps. What we do need is wider support else it will flop. Give me support in iPlayer, 4OD, Demand 5, Plex and then something that can stream local media (videos, photos etc) and I will be happy, give me TVCatchup, XBMC, Blinkbox etc and I will be very happy.
One of the big problems with current smart TVs, streaming boxes etc is that it is a generally a pain to browse for content, you have to page down though many screens etc. It is much easier finding content on a smartphone or tablet (eaily flicking pages with your finger) and then bam you play it on your TV. I think it is more about the great browsing ability of a phone/ tablet with a great watching experience of a TV. Plus you can browse for something else whilst still watching what you have currently playing (we all have moments when our atention span is limited! What was I saying again?)
If this raises awareness then that is a good thing. When I go for a coffee I can chose to buy from a company that will syphon more of my money out of the country thus making the UK poorer (Starbucks), or I can buy from a company that will keep more of my money in the UK (Nero, Costa etc.). If enough people did this then that would hurt those companies making in what is my view an immoral choice, and it might force them to start behaving in a more moral manner.
Brand image is important. If their bean counters save a few pounds but damage the brand and thus their sales they will change their ways.
Maybe we will gravitate towards a my favourites, recommended and what's hot style of viewing. Most people freeze with too much choice , you really just want to choose from things that you want while having a route into new things that you might like.It might be lazy but if my TV could guess what I might want to watch and lay it out on a plate for me then that is cool, I have to do enough thinking at work I like to relax when I get home.
On the other hand I get far more enjoyment from playing football with my daughter in the garden so maybe I should just unplug the dam thing!
Actually I quite like the concept of the Nexus Q, rather than having to stream content to your phone/tablet (assuming you store your content in a cloud) and then stream it onwards to a media player, you just pass the details to the Q and it streams it directly from the cloud using the login permission of your account on the phone (so the Q doesn't have to be logged in). I just don't think they got the implimentation right, or perhaps the timing: Currently how much content do people have in the cloud compared to how much is stored locally? Also this would need to work with multiple cloud sources and not just google play. I won't even mention the price! But I could see something like this being pretty cool in the future.
The purchase of the song on i-tunes will peek when it was new, but then decay, so the earnings for that song via i-tunes is all front loaded. Assuming the song is good it will find its way on to people's spotify playlists and earn money year on year, so in spotify the earnings are long term.
In my opinion this is good. In the old system a quality track earns as much as a me-too pop song even if people listen to the quality track for years and listen to the me-too song only a handfull of times. Under a spotify economy the quality song earns much more long term than the me-too pop song. This could be just what the music industry needs to encourage it to invest in more quality bands.
Hmm, think I am going to market some glasses that have vertical polarized glass in the top half and horizontal polarized glass in the bottom half, tilit your head forward and back to switch between your's and your opponent's point of view :)
In terms of a TV that can show the sport and soap operas at the same time you will also need a way of polarizing sound!
I think the advantage of a higher resolution display will be that it is easier on the eye when reading books/magazines etc. Currently reading on any tablet gives me more eye strain than reading a paper book. Whether it will be worth the extra money (IF they charge more for it)....
About 2 weeks ago I got an email from facebook from a friend of mine, asking me to join facebook so I could see pictures on her page. It also said "here are some friends of yours also on facebook" and I wondered how the hell it knew they were friends. I figured out that their email addresses were in my gmail contacts list, but couldn't understand how facebook knew this.
I am not a facebook user, and it appears that facebook took information from my gmail contact list without my knowledge. I am a bit spooked by this. In fact I am spooked that google is free and easy with my contacts list, and am thinking of moving away from gmail now. Am I wrong to be a little concerned?
7 TeV is the energy per particle. Now multiply that by the number of particles per bunch (1.15x10^11), and the number of bunches per beam (2808) and you get 2.26x10^15
Those figures for number of particles were just from googling so might be different now, but you get the picture.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019