jasonsync

Here's my evolution:

2008 - Eureka LX350HD Really buggy, crashed often, no MKV support, but played most of my library from back in the day

2010 - WDTV Gen 1 Great upgrade from the Eureka, MKV support

2012 - WDTV Live Streaming Gen 3 I still consider this the best media player I've owned, but it got slower over the years as apps improved (got bloated). Supported all video formats, supported all major online services, ability to mount over network, lots of advanced config options, and native playback from local drives via multiple USB ports.

2013 - Apple TV Gen 3 Having to transcode all MKVs / stream them from my Mac Mini was a non-starter, very slow, but I thought I'd give it a try (The WDTV Live could play all formats natively).

2014 - Roku 3 (+ Plex) Eventually the WDTV Live got too slow and firmware updates didn't help. Roku was a huge upgrade for online services, and Roku + Plex made transcoding tolerable (more-so than the Apple TV). Headphone jack in remote was a nice touch, and hidden private channels were fun.

2016 - Xiaomi Mi Box (Official Android TV + Kodi) This is the best media player I've owned since the WDTV. Kodi / SPMC does everything the WDTV could do and so much more. Ability to mount over the network and native playback from local drives means NO MORE TRANSCODING or remote media servers. Although Roku + Plex made transcoding tolerable, native playback (smooth seek / fast forward etc.) can't be beat.

The only negative with official Android TV is limited apps, compared to Android + Chromecast or the older Android boxes. Android TV desperately needs a native Chrome web browser without side loading. The CBC app is great, for anyone in Canada! And Netflix / YouTube runs faster compared to the Roku 3.

Android TV via the Xiaomi Mi Box or NVidia Shield with Kodi currently provides the best overall experience, and most options in terms of playback, apps, and advanced setup options.

You're lumping all acoustics into the same category. You can can certainly have a horrible learning experience on an electric guitar, due to poor quality / action / setup.

And you can have a great learning experience on an acoustic. There are a number of advantages in terms of learning on an acoustic:

1. It's portable - you can take it anywhere

2. You can easily hear it without headphones or an amp

3. Well suited for chords and melodies (typically the first things you learn)

4. Slightly heavier strings means that your fingers get stronger, and playing an electric guitar later on will seem much easier

5. Great for collaborative learning, easier to play with other people

6. Light weight compared to most electric guitars

7. Acoustic guitar "covers" of popular music (eg. Bieber etc.) are a "thing" all over YouTube and make it easy to learn songs people will recognize

8. If you appreciate classic rock, folk, blues and 90s alternative, these genres are typically chord-based, and easy to learn on acoustic too. Any Beatles song. Nirvana unplugged. Think Layla electric vs. Layla unplugged.

9. Fingerstyle is very rewarding. Eventually you might even get as good as Tommy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkQn5nDTZs

Acoustic is a great way to get started, and learn, and most importantly a great way to develop GOOD habits.

Curious .. where (region) is the data stored?

I love SoundCloud, but the premium plan options are surprisingly confusing:

$4.99 - SoundCloud Go $9.99 - SoundCloud Go+

According to the SoundCloud Blog circa 2016 (and most external reviews), "SoundCloud Go" is the plan with the expanded catalogue: https://blog.soundcloud.com/2016/03/29/introducing-soundclou...

However, according to the SoundCloud Blog circa 2017, "SoundCloud Go+" is now the plan with the expanded catalogue: https://blog.soundcloud.com/2017/02/28/introducing-new-sound...

Is there some sort of "bait and switch" going on here?

I can only think that SoundCloud purposely shuffled the product names around to make us think that the $4.99 plan includes the expanded catalogue, comparable to Apple Music / Spotify. Or am I mistaken, and the $4.99 plan does include a catalogue comparable to Apple Music / Spotify?

Furthermore, both plans advertise more tracks (120M+ tracks) compared to Apple Music or Spotify (30M tracks), making it even more difficult to reconcile what you're getting. And the $4.99 price point is further complicated by Apple Music, which also offers a $4.99 price point (for students).

The product branding, pricing and positioning here is bonkers for anyone comparison shopping, reading external reviews or simply trying to understand what you get. It's easier to do nothing, and simply continue using the free service (and switch to Spotify from time to time to fill in the blanks).

Canadian banks have been quietly dropping the Interac network in favour of co-badged cards that use the VISA network behind the scenes. Your interact card says Visa on it now, because the debit transaction might be routed through Visa's network instead.

I'm guessing the benefit to banks is lower fees or perhaps even monetization through transaction data sharing with Visa?

This of course breaks Interac features like Interac online.

Last time I opened a bank account and got a co-badged Interac card I immediately asked them if I could get an "Interac Only" card. At first they had no idea what I was talking about, but a few phone calls to head office later, and they were able to re-issue new debit cards without the Visa co-badge. Interac online works, and I feel better not sharing purchase data with Visa.

My significant other couldn't figure out how to easily post images on Reddit (without switching between two websites).

Now she's posting more content on Reddit, because it's easier and self contained.

There's also many advantages to keeping users "on site".

When will they start hosting short videos?

Affinity already has great Photoshop and Illustrator alternatives: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

The opportunity with Photoshop may not be to create another Photoshop clone, or add more features, but rather create smaller, specialized editing apps, that each target a subset of the Photoshop user-base, with perhaps less features.

Look at how Adobe Lightroom cherry picked a few Photoshop and Bridge components, to create a more specialized app that does a specialized job that Photoshop might have done in the past.

Or how Adobe's iPad Pro apps again deliver just a small subset of the total available features from their parent apps, making them more specialized for specific use-cases.

Photoshop's massive fragmented user base is ripe for the pickin' for sure. Could you tear down Gimp like that? Or would it be better to start from scratch?

Back in 2013 we originally launched with the domain name "Sync.us" (we didn't have a choice, the .com was taken). Instant regret, as it made branding difficult, and our marketing efforts simply drove traffic to the many, more recognizable sync branded TLDs.

Then a few months later, one of our team members inadvertently visited Sync.com (a common Freudian domain name slip for all of us), and discovered the domain was up for auction. Instead of subsidizing our storage, like most of our competition was doing at the time, we diverted a substantial portion of our marketing budget towards winning the auction ;-)

It wasn't cheap.

It's frustrating to watch cloud companies subsidize their storage, in order to break into the market with a product that is too good to be true.

This strategy is the worst possible scenario for our entire industry. Users feel slighted, and the trustworthiness of the cloud in general is gradually eroded, as the scenario plays itself out over and over.

It feels like ransomware. Pay more or we'll delete your files.

When Dropbox for Business launched, it was $12.50 / user / month for "all the storage you need". Just recently Dropbox announced pricing changes, which will take effect in 2018. The new unlimited plan is $20.00 / user / month. And for those unwilling to pay, there's now a fixed storage tier, which is slightly cheaper than the original price, but it's capped at 1 TB.

Microsoft OneDrive included unlimited storage with any Office 365 subscription. After millions of users bought in, Microsoft dropped the maximum storage to 1 TB. Users were then given the choice of deleting their files, or moving elsewhere.

Mozy had an unlimited plan, and then dropped it and raised prices. SugarSync had an unlimited plan, but eventually dropped it.

Barracuda offered virtually unlimited cloud storage with their Copy.com service. A few years in and Barracuda shut down the entire service. Users were given very little notice, and had to move elsewhere.

Bitcasa, one of the original "unlimited" cloud storage providers (and a TechCrunch Disrupt Battlefield finalist) crashed and burned three years in. Again, users were given very little notice, and there was talk of a class-action lawsuit.

Time and time again we're seeing startups burn through their capital subsidizing the storage as some sort of brilliant marketing plan. It's not.

Disclaimer, I work at https://www.sync.com

Mary meeker sold out? The report is padded with (paid?) name drops.

Happening with humans too.

Humankind has transformed in the last century-and-a-half: a good chunk of our species is now taller than it's ever been.

Over the last 150 years the average human height has gone up in industrialized countries by up to 10 centimetres. And gains of up to 19 centimetres for Dutch men and woman.

Primarily due to improved nutrition, health, and in general a better quality of life. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150513-will-humans-keep-ge...

If I remember correctly, some of it came down to encoder settings as well. Joint stereo, for example, always sounded janky at all bitrates. CBR vs VBR also made a difference. Also, the quality of the source was a factor. A low quality source that was already kind of lossy would sound much worse than the source itself when encoded at lower bitrates.

I see what you did there.

"Apple's products were very carefully designed..."

tldr.

The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing.

We're still up and running (Sync.com) if you need to share some files.

Apple actually recognized that price is the issue.

By lowering the price of all the dongles shortly after launch, they confirmed that they may have underestimated how price sensitive their "Pro" market has become.

Mostly because the Pro market now encompasses everyone wanting to upgrade their lower-end MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs. Because there's no upgrade path for these users at the moment (other than the iPad Pro which is a non starter for so many reasons).

A new, 13" MacBook would be a good step towards bridging the gap, and providing an upgrade path for everyone else.

I'm one of those devs and I'm sure every dev shop has been itching for a significant Macbook update for quite some time. Macbook PRO hasn't seen a significant update since 2012. Just minor speed bumps and force touch in 2015.

So we're getting one next week - but why not sooner? That was one of the takeaways from this article. Pace of innovation has slowed under Tim Cook.

Apple does appear to be losing focus.

For example:

Apple has devalued the PRO moniker under Tim Cook's guidance.

By trying to ram it's Mobile OS into a PRO product (iPad PRO). I mean the UI grid is still 4 x 5 on a massive 12 inch display. Nobody noticed it feels more like Fisher Price? And the iPad "PRO" apps are all dumbed down, feature limited versions of actual pro desktop apps.

Then, by stagnating a once well regarded PRO product, the Macbook PRO, they further eroded the PRO moniker. Did they delay significant updates to the Macbook PRO to see if existing users would eventually give the iPad PRO a try first? Or did they simply want to drive Desktop OS marketshare back to Windows?

And what about the slim Macbook with a fancy new port (USB-C) that's still not available on any other Macbook, even 1.5+ years later!!!? Yes, that's exactly how you devalue the PRO moniker. By releasing new, cutting edge tech on your consumer products first. And then wait years before adding that tech to your PRO line (I know, the new Macbook PRO is rumoured to ONLY have USB-C ... sigh).

Don't even get started on the Mac PRO. Ya, that ridiculously underpowered, overpriced PRO computer that you forgot about, that looks like a NYC subway trash can. https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+subway+trash+can&tbm=isc... Talk about an awesome PRO design.

Talk about losing focus.

Eerily similar to later stage Ballmer Microsoft.

We're in the planning stages.

We hope to get to a Linux client at some point, however, the demand for our Windows, Mac and mobile apps has been keeping us really busy. Our primary focus right now is on the platform, as the cloud is only king when it's stable, reliable and fast.

Agreed, it's just got to work.

We're working on an alternative: https://www.sync.com/your-privacy/

There must be a framework for that ...

I wasn't trying to imply that paying for Google drive would eliminate the data monetization model. In fact, the terms of service appear to be identical for free or paid if you're using Google Drive for personal use, so perhaps that's where the disconnect is.

However, it's interesting to note that Google mentions that they are willing to negotiate the terms of service for businesses using the paid Apps service: note that additional terms may apply for negotiated Google Apps agreements.

https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2450387?hl=en

In the case of HIPAA compliance for healthcare, or data privacy compliance requirements for industries that store files with personally identifiable information (PII) in the cloud, I wonder if Google would amend the TOS to include server-side encryption, or other safeguards, which would mitigate the issue.

This is something I will investigate further, as I'm not sure what the answer is.

Regardless of what a Google Product Manager states (marketing rhetoric or current policy), Google's legally binding terms of service are the only terms that matter at the end of the day:

Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.

It would be great if Google updated their terms to be clearer. In the mean time I'll take their word on it.

I hear you. Perhaps I'm overly paranoid. I don't think so though!

Many people (eg. http://www.inc.com/larry-kim/5-online-privacy-tips-from-edwa...) have asked Google to clarify their policy in this regard, but the "generic" TOS you agreed to is the best they could come up with. The trouble with using soft language is that anything goes.

Data monetization goes way beyond serving relevant ads.

While companies like Sync.com encrypt your data end-to-end (making this a non-issue - shameless plug I know - you should check us out though), if you do continue to use Google Drive you may want to investigate third-party Google Drive encryption software such as https://www.boxcryptor.com/en (I hate to recommend a competitor, but it's better than nothing).

I'm making a strong statement, because I value my privacy.

Easy for a community manager to say, but she didn't agree to the blanket terms of service. You did.

The binding TOS explicitly states they may analyze your content, and the analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, AND when it is stored.

If what the community manager says is true, it would be awesome if Google actually updated the TOS to clarify that file AND file meta data in Google Drive are exempt. I mean I love my Chromebook, and it came with 100 GB of Google Drive free. But I have no idea how much access Google has to the files, so I can only assume the TOS is accurate.

==

There's many choice quotes from Google employees that contradict, skirt around or gloss over these issues:

Are files stored on Google Drive Encrypted?

You'll note the first response doesn't answer the question. Then finally a contradicting response:

That's a valid question. Google Drive does NOT currently encrypt files on the server. Our team and our company take the security and privacy of our users very seriously.

https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgi...

==

Here's a funny conversation regarding web search history being on by default across all your devices:

I can't believe that this option is enabled by default! Clearly it should be DISabled by default if Google cares at all about their users' security and privacy. It's one thing that Google collects anonymous data about what people search for and do online, but to collect a database of detailed personally identifiable information on an opt-out instead of an opt-in basis?

The product manager isn't quite sure either:

I'm a PM at Google working on Personalized Search / Web History ... We've found that it is difficult to articulate the usefulness of having Web History turned on without trying it out for yourself.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5...

==

Sure, from Google's TOS: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.

We're building a secure cloud storage, sync and share Dropbox alternative with local, end-to-end encryption built in:

https://www.sync.com

> Why do none of the big cloud providers offer local encryption?

- They want to police your files

- Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive)

- It's difficult (not impossible) to build in usability features that might need to access, scan or manipulate your file data, when you don't have access to the file data server-side in the cloud (everything has to be pulled down locally first which adds overhead).

- Browser support for local HTML5 saveAs() etc. handling is still all over the map (Safari is almost a showstopper).

- Easy account recovery options are limited

The tech is getting better though, and there's certainly a number of good options in terms of cloud storage with local encryption built in, including Sync!

In speaking with a Dendrologist, today I learned that the primary factor here is the close proximity of "planted" elm trees.

Elm bark beetles don't travel far on their own, so in a typical forest environment, elm groves are protected, or buffered, by a variety of surrounding tree types, the distance between groves, and the natural order of things.

Whereas, in (sub)urban areas, elm trees are planted up and down residential streets, in close proximity, with no buffers in between.

There's no winning this one.

Yeah, it just had to make fart sounds.

> My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility.

Autodesk Sketchbook did this around version 6 (not sure if they still do it), and it's a horrible experience.

They change major versions and charge you again. You only find out when the older version you paid for is no longer available on your updated OS X.

Awesome software that I stopped using because of this.