Exactly. But why should it be limited to just prototypes?
If I can produce a casing for a development board that looks as good as some overpriced Apple junk or locked down Microsoft OEM crap, there's no need for me to jump through all their silly hoops. I can make my own device to do just the things I want it to do. My way.
re: the electronics of today's hardware: It's all the same stuff, more or less. How many factories are there? How many chipmakers? Oustide of uber-geeks, people are not that fussy about what's on the inside of their devices. Give them the power to make their own gadget that is personalised and programmable, and many of them will have no need to play games with Apple or Microsoft.
Nice work. A good idea. FB is looking to profit from UGC. UGC mean User Generated Content in case you are not familiar all the acronyms. You send them _your_ stuff and they use it to make money but restrict others from using it. They do this with a silly license thanno one reads. So use the CC license instead. If you are into "sharing", then CC is the better choice. If you want to enrich FB, then I guess keep agreeing to FB's license.
Truly, they are _your_ photos, not FB's, and you can license them any way you want. The CC license is there because people generally do not write up their own licenses. How many people even truly understand copyright? Most lawyers I know do not even fully understand it. Nothing is to say you can't draw up your own license though. One of my favorites is the "Do Whatever the Fuck You Want License". It is one line: Do whatever the fuck you want. Beautiful.
Another one I like is the "non-license". It's two words: Public domain.
This is the web. Everything gets copied. And licenses are just words. What matters really is whether someone is going to sue you. A license can make that easier or harder to do. But the truth is, if someone really wants to sue you, if you are in the US, they can. License or no license. Whether the suit goes forward is another matter. Still, getting sued is a hassle, even if the suit is baseless. (A strategy is born. Eureka.)
I shouldn't have said you can't improve without criticism. What I meant to say is you can't improve without _feedback_. That feedback might be positive and/or negative.
People are quick to criticise and slow to compliment on HN. But ask yourself why.
Is it really so surprising?
Here are some of my observations. These could be wrong.
1. Computers have always been difficult and at times frustrating to use. I recall a story of someone throwing a PDP-10 out of a window at Berkeley, immediately after successfully porting some code to it (a wonderful achievement but incredibly frustrating- this was before C and portability). If you are spending your time working with computers, you are going to build up some frustration. It just goes with the territory. That will eventually have to be vented. (Exhibit A: Slashdot.org)
2. The web as a medium of business is full of scammers and criminals. It's also full of garbage "news" and other faux "content" trying to draw traffic, internet VC looking to take advantage of young programmers and naive investors, and "companies" formed of morally-challenged people who aim to make money by selling people's personal information or access to people's own content as a "business". There is a lot to make people jaded if you follow business on the web.
3. Computers do have a positive aspect. When they work well, it's amazing. Like magic. Computers are addictive. People enjoy them. When you write programs it can you give you a feeling of great satisfaction. ... However... the way we use computers, e.g., our personal preferences, often differ widely. So If you start singing the praises of something computer-related to other users reading the web, they may not all agree. In fact, the idea of the "fanboy", e.g. one who loves some absolutely terrible and stupid piece of software or hardware, can be even more disturbing than people who are constantly making negative comments about things which might actually not be all that bad.
4. HN if the estimates are accurate is _primarily_ an audience of 18-24 males who are are likely to be social outcasts. Would you really expect them to be overflowing with positive energy? In my experience, negative comments get upvoted. The most upvotes I ever received have been from negative comments. Who would upvote negativity? (I should really not even post negative things. I know better) So who the heck would upvote negativity? 18-24 males who can't get laid. Just a guess.
Well, this article is doing what: telling us what he doesn't like. He doesn't like too much criticism.
Personally, I like honesty. As in honest opinions.
But... the source matters. To be criticised by a fool means nothing. To be criticised by someone who has good taste is different. It may be hurt but it's extremely valuable.
Without criticism, you simply cannot improve. I guess there are some people who do not want to improve. They just want things to stay as they are.
MS's last remaining market is business. As others bring to business the old power of UNIX, for less cost, and repackaged with now commonplace buzzwords like "opensource", "linux", and "cloud", MS is in big trouble. For most of the business world, software is an expense, not an asset. Inexpensive wins.
But those guys who could say "FU" in 1992, why should they care? MS has had a GREAT run.
Yes. IE was "small" (being closely tied to the OS) and fast.
But the only reason MS gave it to us was to destroy Netscape.
Over the years there's no doubt been countless conveniences and innovations that MS could have introduced but didn't. They do just fine without having to share the products of their extensive research. That's the beauty of a monopoly. You do not need to innovate. You only need to keep delivering (just change the version number and some UI stuff) and you need to stifle any competition, early and often.
If I can produce a casing for a development board that looks as good as some overpriced Apple junk or locked down Microsoft OEM crap, there's no need for me to jump through all their silly hoops. I can make my own device to do just the things I want it to do. My way.
re: the electronics of today's hardware: It's all the same stuff, more or less. How many factories are there? How many chipmakers? Oustide of uber-geeks, people are not that fussy about what's on the inside of their devices. Give them the power to make their own gadget that is personalised and programmable, and many of them will have no need to play games with Apple or Microsoft.