Well, you are changing the subject of conversation. This is the second time that a fairly minor accident (nothing like the Mexican crash) resulted in a fire because of the placement of the battery. If the Tesla were gas powered, it is almost completely improbable that either of the two American fires would have happened as they don't have large amounts of flammable material under the front of the car where road debris can cause damage.
Tesla isn't the victim of a smear campaign, this is fairly minor news that gets amplified in the HN/tech bubble.
So in order to preserve a small minority who have somehow carved out a working system (which I'll assume exist despite never seeing them) in the overwhelming onslaught of vitriol and crap, we just have to deal with said vitriol and crap continue as is?
This also assumes that Google+ comments will kill off these high quality comment channels. I am sure it is true for some, but it is hardly the absolute death knell for quality conversation to require a Google+ account.
PR, despite the bad rap it gets as bullshit, is not worthless. Apple, Microsoft and their cohorts proudly try to create a public perception that software patents are essential and deserved. Google has done the opposite by trying to get the public to understand the damage software patents can create. Given that patents are government controlled system, public perception is important. I find that PR distinction enough to not tar everyone with the same brush.
To clarify, I do believe Google is fundamentally doing their best to improve the current patent situation. Perhaps naïvely. I just wrote about the situation with the assumption that Google are evil liars to approach Gruber on his level.
I just don't buy that everyone is equally a bad actor here. Even if we take for granted that Google are two faced liars who secretly love patents, their public messaging is completely different. Google repeatedly has come out against them. The members of Rockstar brag about their patents, even flaunted them in the iPhone announcement. That difference is enough to make me draw a line in between the companies.
Of course, as Gruber's mocking of Android's openness has shown, he believes attempting to live up to an ideal and failing somewhat is worse than not even trying. At least when it comes to Google.
Aren't those pretty much the exact same conditions as last year's quarter? iPhone 5 release: September 21, 2012. iPhone 5s/5c: September 20, 2013. And both had supply issues at launch. It seems fair to compare the quarters and draw some tentative conclusions.
I don't think anyone thought making it G+ only would stop spammers (that would only be slightly less ridiculous than thinking G+ comments only would solve world hunger). They thought it would make it is easier to verify.
I give Musk a bit more credit than most CEOs, but he has also shown himself to be very capable of playing the spin game in the press recently (the funky math on the 'new finance product', declaring that the NYT backed off its Tesla piece when they in no way did).
I guess that is a reasonable argument, but it was not at all what I got from your original post. Obviously all the features must be considered in concert under the umbrella of "user experience" but that is also nearly impossible to discuss as everyone's experience is personal and difficult to express. I don't think the iPad shaving off 200g is anywhere near upgrading a Civic to be able to do everything my SUV can for the same price and size, but I can see someone thinking that.
And if anyone had said the Kindle was better, this snark would be relevant. But this is clearly a discussion of tablets' weight and whether the iPad Air's weight is a significant advance.
Sounds like a lot like the old Readability (except with a hard paywall instead of donation model). I liked Readability idea in concept, but it didn't exactly take off.
I would be very surprised if it is that high now even with the early adopter skew. Reports say that last year it was around a quarter of smartphone users use passcode locks on their work phone (http://www.welivesecurity.com/2012/02/28/sizing-up-the-byod-...). I imagine 5S rates are higher than that, but 90% would be insanely impressive. When it comes to computer security, as usual, people's apathy is the biggest problem.
Seems like an argument for a sensible trial system, not IAP. I've got no problem with using IAP for a sensible trial system, but it is much more commonly used for smurfberries.
It is about knowing who is responsible. Part of the deal of renting is your contract is with a single entity who takes the lion share of the responsibility: the landord/management corp. You trust them to vet the people who rent alongside you at entry point and handle issues within that subgroup of vetted people who will be there for a longish term and are accountable. Airbnb diffuses responsibility to everyone in the building, including people who you don't have a contract with (fellow renters) and people have no skin in the
long term harmony of the building and little accountability (the Airbnb patrons).
Well, that interpretation of the article ignores how Deidu was constantly saying it is unlikely these conditions would come to be (he says "unlikely" that Android licensing will beat Windows Phone's licensing, Android dominating is "wishful thinking"). Seems like your view is Deidu couldn't be wrong. If Android didn't become very successful, Deidu predicted it. If Android did, Deidu predicted it merely by saying there was a small possibility of it happening.
There aren't too many businesses where the customer is asked to take the business' health in mind when it comes to purchasing. Your lack of planning is not my problem and such.
The real issue is there is a mindset of unlimited free upgrades in iTunes that app developers are benefiting from at the first purchase. Reeder got a bunch of buyers who most likely assumed free updates for life and were not told otherwise. Charging for updates is fine, but some backlash is going to come due to the fact you benefited from the status quo while not participating in the status quo.
The "paying money" is just the means of the "hack", not the "hack" itself. The hack is recognizing that there is a great, targeted opportunity to keep your product in customers' minds on one of the biggest marketing days for your biggest competitor. If anything, Samsung saved money by using it efficiently.
If a person did this, it would be the kind of thing they would answer for the "successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage" question on the YC application.
The line between a watch saying "Hey look here, I'm freakin' rich" and "I'm a douchebag with a ridiculous-looking watch" would seem to be both in the eye of the beholder and razor thin.
Could be way off, but I find the idea that people are opting out of Android due to dessert names very unlikely. Seems roughly equivalent to OS X (recently retired) cat names and I don't remember people staying away from Mac cause snow leopards don't convey the advantages of owning a Mac. Especially since I'd bet a vanishingly small amount of people who own Androids know the thing that runs their phone even has a code name. Google doesn't even sell Android in boxes with jelly beans on them like Apple used to do with cats.
I don't see how targeting children with an adfree product with the stated intention of turning them into lifetime Bing users (with ads) is improving on Google's creepiness.
And my point is that Microsoft's article fails to convince me of that. I am sure the image Google would like the public to have about their openness and the reality don't match up, but in this particular case I fail to see any Google hypocrisy.
The article makes it seem like Google was working with Microsoft on allowing a Youtube app until Microsoft said they didn't want to play by Google's rules and published an app anyway. I don't think being open means you have to let third parties dictate the terms of their use of your stuff.
This has always been somewhat true, but this is a definitive sign open has lost all meaning. Now it means you have to allow third parties to use your resources to do what they like?
I think the Reader shutdown is actually an example of why I am fine going into the Google ecosystem. Marco talks a lot about lockdown, but I haven't experienced it. Reader's shutdown was pretty abrupt, but I am happily using The Old Reader (minus the shutdown scare and less than stellar uptime) the same way I used Google Reader. Sure, I'd prefer Reader to still be around, but overall the transition was easy and pain free. I trust if the same thing were to happen to Gmail, Calendar, or Contacts I would have the same experience. And meanwhile, being in the Google ecosystem while it still runs makes my day to day life much better.
The only product that would concern me is Voice, and even then I believe a suitable replacement would pop up and Google would provide a relatively easy transition.
Well, let's yell at Google when they do that. As it is written it seems go out of the way to address use case. If they just wanted to just go after heavy users indiscriminately, they wouldn't take care to say that they won't ban typical home use that would fall under the vague definition of server.