Now, what works better?
iPhone 5c
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/iphone...
- or -
Beats 5c http://i60.tinypic.com/103hnjb.jpg
30 karma · joined August 24, 2012
- or -
Beats 5c http://i60.tinypic.com/103hnjb.jpg
Beats could fit that profile. Just make the colors a bit brighter and the successor to the 5c cheaper.
Or sicking with the beats brand (style over quality): Why not use 4s internals ;)?
Bloggers typically benefit from their activity, wether they blog on a platform or have their own blog. In both cases, they have an audience.
As your main point is about fully controlling the tools you'd use for their work, maybe something like racing drivers building their own cars would work better...
End users, readers = coffee consumers
Bloggers = baristas, either working in their own store or a Starbucks.
Mixing the two up doesn't make sense. Well, there are a couple of bloggers that are their only readers - hopefully less guys than the ones that brew their own coffee though ;).
Where do you stand on this?
-> Focus (1...10) Keeping the product
I´m a bit conflicted.. on one hand they lost user confidence by discontinuing Reader, on the other I completely get the approach to focus on a few things and really do them well.
In Government / from within, hackers generally don´t have the skills to be able to change the system - Government is run by politicians - the effect of a good hacker is about as small as in your typical old-world corporate run by finance guys…
Compare that to companies where hackers are the CEOs…
Maybe a way would be to do a 5$ Kickstarter for people to get early access to the app, even before their friends can buy it from the App Store. This could work through the Apple Enterprise Program, but it might not be allowed in the small print...
That could generate some hype, and backers would have something exclusive for a while till it´s available in the app store. It also would build a community that surely gives great feedback and the first few iterations wouln´t need to go through the app store approval process (which would mean faster iterations / feedback).
Our emails by the way are thomas / martin @ the app domain...
Either here or on Quora :) http://www.quora.com/Startup-Advice-and-Strategy/We%C2%B4ve-...
It would be great if you guys could show off your skills in a optimized demo site...
It implements it really nicely...
One thing that would be great to add to the overview (if you´ve still got the demo files) is how large the download is - it´s one of the things that spoke against Bryntum's solution (over 2 MB!).
In terms of style, this one is nice as well: http://taitems.github.com/jQuery.Gantt/
If it wouldn´t be for using Ext.js and the large code size, this one is the most polished in terms of look and function: http://bryntum.com/products/gantt/
If you need any help with styling it a bit differnt, give me a shout :)
It pains me to watch something like that though...
- remove yourself from google search -> check
- annoy any 3rd party app makers -> check
- have a unreliable service -> check
- have little product innovation -> check
What do you do? I guess more research? If there is something like that in software...
And how would you approach the patent system?
Where would you draw the line of what´s patentable? To me this seems actually to trivial as with most software patents.
In terms of software it´s not really the implementation that´s protected, more the concept... (Nobody is comparing source code and is looking if it´s coded in the same way)
Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.
On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.
Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.
For me the morale right or wrong is the following:
* make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.
* copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others. Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.
It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps.
* moral compass of creatives
It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives: If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it. If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.
* Legal System
The Jury system in the US is actually well suited deciding complex moral questions and too much fine print hinders more than it heps, which was evident in this case.
To me, instead of a patent office there should be a central online register to archive jury-understandable photos and descriptions or ideally videos of the stuff you do simply to have a validated reference of when you thought of it.
And then patent/IP Law may simply should read soething like this: It is ok to base any creative work on the work of others as long as the result is something new and great in it´s own right.
It´s not ok to copy the work of others without significantly improving it simply for making money.
Done. Plain Language.
Everything else, the moral right or wrong would be left to a Jury with guidance from a Judge.
Which they basically did in the Apple case. All that patent BS aside, I guess they descided on the basic morale question and started the paperwork.
(That guess is based on the time it took them to come to the verdict. When actually reading all the paperwork produced they would have been there years.)
What´s your take?
What´s your take on the morals of this?
To me, instead of a patent office there should be a central online register to archive jury-understandable photos and descriptions or ideally videos of the stuff you do simply to have a validated reference of when you thought of it.
And then patent/IP Law may simply should read soething like this: It is ok to base any creative work on the work of others as long as the result is something new and great in it´s own right.
It´s not ok to copy the work of others without significantly improving it simply for making money.
Done. Plain Language.
Everything else, the moral right or wrong would be left to a Jury with guidance from a Judge.
Which they basically did in the Apple case. All that patent BS aside, I guess they descided on the basic morale question and started the paperwork.
It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives:
If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it.
If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.
Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.
On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.
Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.
For me the morale right or wrong is the following:
make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.
copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.
Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.