DavidBishop

Kudos for the title if nothing else.

That is exactly how you run a business. Business isn't just about products. You need people to buy them. If your brand is tarnished because people don't like you, it doesn't matter how good your products are. If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long.

Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.

Bluetooth, the Internet, Smartphones, Twitter, Facebook.

All were technologies that had to incubate quite some time, some for a decade or more, before they were widely usable.

It concerns me when a tech writer looks at something and says "it will never be useful within 6 months" when there is a ton of infrastructure involved.

It's not about the immediate payoff, it's about the future.

True, but I think the sentiment is correct at least in selling food. It's hard to get rich selling spinach, but it's easy to get rich selling Sugar-Frosted Excitement Pops - now made with whole grain-like substances!

Awesome. The guy was a decent human being, but more than likely made 20, 30, 100 times back his purchase in goodwill. Brilliant.

People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.

It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out. Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out.

Eat healthy food: the right meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lots of water. Don't eat crap. Exercise.

It really isn't rocket science, but when we make one food group "bad" and the other one "good" just so we have another excuse to eat junk, we lose.

Very true. It sounds like the author is doing some hardcore stuff that he needs a bit more brute force. For the majority of us, OS X may be exactly what we need.

Kudos to the author on his depth of hardcore computing, but there are a million ways to use computers, hack, and code and the majority of them don't need that level of l337ism.

Agreed. Nothing more be said.

I guess it's something to complain about. It might be best for some to remember: Hacker News is not work. Reading is a supplement to work. If the Jokes bug you, maybe you can take the day off and get something done.

Furthermore, if it was work, if you can't take 1 day away from it to have a little fun, you are going to going to beat the rest of us into a pine box.

Life isn't about what you get - it's about enjoying what you get.

A Kia is a Kia (Sportage). You get a modest car for a modest price. But in fairness, the paint, interior, controls were in great shape on the day it died after 10 years. No complaints.

All accurate. I'm with you. I'm simply saying the iPad comparison is not real, just a vehicle to get eyeballs.

Just regular maintenance. I loved the car. I just wanted something that went from A to B and it did it until it's dying day.

Move Over BMW, My Kia Cost $12,000.

I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.

If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.

From the article: "Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."

It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.

Move Over BMW, My Kia Cost $12,000.

I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.

If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.

From the article: "Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."

It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.

Honestly, it was a brilliant move by both Microsoft and Nokia. Microsoft dropped to 3% of the global market share for smartphones and Nokia's 2/3 market share dominance was nearly cut in half http://blog.cedowin.com/2011/01/mobile-future-taking-market-.... Additionally, Android overtook the #1 sales spot in Q4 globally, (depending on who you get your numbers from).

Nokia could have gone with Android, but why? There are already Android phones. Why be another number? The key to success is not to do what everyone else is doing but to do something different and find your niche. Microsoft touts itself as the "business" solution. This partnership of high quality hardware and business-minded software will set Nokia/Microsoft apart.

If the argument is "they are obsolete because they don't do native mobile", that is a poor argument to make. Where is the data to support it? It's simply a theory wrapped up as a conclusion.

The more important question is, "are they positioned well for the future?" That is really what matters. Don't focus on a particular type of technology as the end-all-be-all of development.

Maybe to avoid the lawsuits they will call it Project That Must Not Be Named.

I like the idea, and I believe you have a market, but your prices are too low. More importantly it won't scale with inflation. In 10 years, that $15 will be worth around $10 but you will have all SEO links pointing to a domain that is most likely in need of change (You are stuck with a particular price with the domain name you have now).

$15 is way too low. I don't know where you are located, but you need to do some market research to figure out what you want to make per hour, how long the average project will take you, how many projects you can do a week, and what your overhead is per week (to figure overhead per project). Once you have those numbers, you will have a better price point.

Also, keep have a plan for what you want to do if there is more demand than you can support. Do you hire others? If so, will others work for that price and if so, how much do you need to make to pay them appropriately?

I hope above all you do not find my post discouraging. Instead, I hope you continue on with what you are doing, tweaking it to make is sustainable for as long as you wish to do it!

They mean porn apps. You can get all the porn you want. The browser is wide open.

Now is that any way to talk about your soon to be computer overlords? ;)

I don't agree that Apple is evil, just rigid. They are very strict about what they allow for the sake of a good user experience (and to avoid a black eye on their account).

And with them being the #1 tech company on the planet, there have to be a large number of people who really like their products. Actually, in recent surveys they were - The number 1 sought after phone OS of those ready to buy smartphones (at 38% just one point above android) - The number 1 in overall customer service (86) by a fair margin (9 points) - The number 1 in smart phone satisfaction (800 vs next in line 791).

I haven't seen the commercials, but I did follow the launch event. One thing was said so often and was so... odd... I had to go back and write it down:

"We've focused in on how real people want to use their phones when they're on the go -- we want you to get in, out, and back to life as fast as humanly possible."

First of all, some of the animations on some of their apps have a bit of time to them and don't really fit in with that mantra. But more importantly, I'm not sure what market they are heading for and what they want to say. Do they want their apps to be immersive or lightweight? Do they want people to enjoy their phone or try to use it as little as possible?

In the end the message to me makes their phones sound non-engaging. Not the greatest selling point in my opinion. Imagine the iPhone commercial where they run through 5 apps in 30 seconds. The Windows Phone 7 equivalent would be a 5-second commercial with someone quickly hitting two buttons and saying "Done. Glad that's over.". Interesting marketing strategy.

The browser IS deeply important. When people think about what devices they get, how they browse is one of the most critical things they decide on. Remember, we aren't talking just computers: we are talking about smart phones and tablets too.

And as to Windows Phone 7, although a recent ChangeWave survey of potential smartphone buyers pegged interest in a Microsoft phone at 1%, the reviews have been pretty positive:

ars technica: "Microsoft doesn't often get version one releases right, but this time, it has got the release very right indeed. Windows Phone 7 looks great, works well, and is a treat to use."

Engadget: "With terrific Zune and Xbox Live integration, a fast and smart method of getting around the OS, great Office and email experiences, and a genuinely beautiful and useful user interface, Microsoft has definitely laid the foundation for the next several years of its mobile play. Now it's time to get the upper floors finished."

Unfortunately for Microsoft, though, the data shows that they are going to have a major uphill battle with the Windows Phone 7, a battle which they have dedicated half a billion dollars in marketing toward.

You are correct in that it's not all of Microsoft that is dying, but Microsoft is losing in many markets. It's dropped below 5% in the global smartphone market, and many leading companies have shied away from Windows 7 on tablets. The mobile market is what's booming and Microsoft has no dog in the hunt. Compare the stock price increases over 10 years of the leaders in mobile to Microsoft: - Apple up 2000% - Google up almost 400% (6 years: they went public late 2004) - Microsoft down almost 20%.

Yes, Microsoft owns the business market and will for the foreseeable future, although other companies, such as Apple, are making inroads, growing 57% this year (this only equates to a total 3-odd% but it is still an impact - Remember when Firefox was only 2%?)

I agree with you that to say "Microsoft is dying overall" is overplaying it, but to not see that Microsoft is missing it in many other arenas that may eventually impact their business line is equally incorrect.

Actually, Apple is the one taking the consumer market. 1 in every 5 retail computer sales is a Mac. Best Buy's CEO recently said that 50% of their laptop sales have been cannibalized by the iPad - a 6 month old product. Apple is the #1 technology company on the planet by market cap and recently attained the 3rd place in computers by market share. Their stock price has grown over 2000% in 10 years.

Apple is the one poised to take over in the consumer market ... although the consumer market will be less and less about computers in the future.

I'm in your boat too. I understand your frustration. But keep plugging away. Keep making connections with those of us who want to work not for money but for fulfillment (money follows passion, not the other way around).

Keep learning, growing, connecting. If you do, one day you will be doing whatever job you want to do - something you are passionate about, and your co-workers will be doing the same job for the same money.

I'm a Microsoft developer who has switched to Mac at home and is running Chrome at work. I really don't care about IE9.

Someone please enlighten me (this is not sarcasm... I'm asking): what is the value of IE9 over everything else on the market?

I picked up the JQuery and CSS cookbooks. The CSS one really looked sharp and any solid guide on JQuery is a must have for web developers.

I keep getting suckered with these $9.99 deals. What are you doing to me, O'Reilly?!

Yes, but they happen on "other" platforms. Not "ALL" platforms.

I think there are too many developers out there in large and small companies that don't understand they power they wield or the responsibility they have.

I'm not a big fan of Flash. It had it's day. It wants to be everywhere, but it doesn't have the track record to be safe everywhere. I recently switched to Mac and have 3 (and only 3) crashes... all in Safari and all due to Flash.

I'm all for a company making a great product and making it prolific. I just want that company to have the integrity and follow through to make it right. After all, when an exploit takes over my machine who's out the time and money?

"This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2884) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild..."

Oh no! What if it gets my iPhone! Oh, wait...

(Why are there so many posts here without a comment section? Now to the topic at hand...)

Why?

That's my first question. Why? As in why do I need this button? As in why do I have to do this in HTML 5?

HTML 5 doesn't have to replace Flash. Flash may be great for some devices, and the computers of today can do Flash.

Why does this argument always end up with "But I can do this wildly unnecessary thing in Flash! I should be able to make something unequally unnecessary in HTML 5".

Perhaps HTML 5 can't do the unnecessary. Perhaps that's all the more reason to go to HTML 5.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci