Pedantry -- that isn't Moore's Law related, aside from the loosest interpretation that computers as a whole get faster.
This is so true, though. Much of the horizontally scalability need comes from the land of extremely underpowered VPS machines on platforms like AWS. Yet the mind-boggling scale of performance you can inexpensively* (*-term used relatively) acquire for database servers is astonishing. SSDs (and plug-in flash drives) and boundless memory have changed everything.
That would create lots of restrictions Microsoft wasn't comfortable with
The most likely scenario was that Microsoft would have been broken up, which while it was unwanted by Gates would have likely led to a much more valuable set of combined parts today. Microsoft was the #1 software engineering powerhouse, but they always managed to sabotage their own efforts (force integration where it was detrimental, alignment to a core strategy that often meant that they saw themselves as their biggest competitor, etc).
If Microsoft didn't help Apple, and Apple hypothetically disappeared, today we would likely have a lot more mini-Microsofts in our lives.
Probably, given that Microsoft has never made money on Windows Mobile -- minuscule licensing costs coupled with a high engineering price. In their brightest expectations I don't think they see themselves making money with it.
Microsoft's mobile efforts have always been about the ecosystem. Office, Exchange, Windows security technologies, and now the xbox platform (though I still marvel that having your xbox achievements available for perusal was thought to be a big feature of WP7). Given that approach, Android can serve that purpose even without royalties.
Do you perhaps see the Apple glass as half full, and the MPAA glass as half empty? As the GP argued, one could just as easily argue that every MPAA policy is for your own good. Further I think it's incredibly unfair to say that the MPAA member companies -- and the many artists and professionals behind it -- don't care about their product. I'm hardly an MPAA booster (when a blu-ray has unskippable ads I hate them just a little more), but I have yet to see an argument that excuses Apple policies that isn't just as applicable to the MPAA, which is exactly why I asked the original question regarding Marco. I found his entry odd given his history.
Indeed, but the piece is primarily anti-MPAA. See-
"The MPAA studios hate us. They hate us with region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use. They see us as stupid eyeballs with wallets, and they are entitled to a constant stream of our money. They despise us, and they certainly don’t respect us."
Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm.
I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
(*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)
They do it for all comments to have a protection when someone comes gunning for some comments.
This isn't about someone defending a champion of free speech or a hero of mankind. It's about, in most cases, liars who invent claims in comments to support their side. Such lies gain truth through repeated assertion (remember how RIM couldn't believe that the iPhone was possible? Retold endlessly, it was all based upon a quickly deleted claim on some random message board by some anonymous person claiming to be a RIM employee. The claim was absurd -- the iPhone used the same stock ingredients that RIM was used to -- but there you had an "insider" to support it).
>I do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to give the info.
I have mixed feelings about sites that rely upon the "we regularly purge identifying information" excuse. In this case I believe it makes the site directly responsible for libel as they are actively looking to protect the sources of information that benefits them.
They weren't bad comments at all. The circle-the-wagons "we're better than this" reaction is worse.
While a death is usually a tragedy, made magnitudes worse when it's a child, the title of that post was absurd, and it was a giant elephant in the room that simply had to be rationally diffused. Like others I went into that story primarily to read how she was a programming prodigy.
Tragic death. Not a programming prodigy. The misrepresentation was noticed by all, and it will be a sad day when social convention means we all have to carry forward the lie lest we offend someone's sensibility about death.
The Citi claim is based upon absolutely nothing. For that matter every single "Microsoft makes $X from Android" are based upon nothing but speculation.
Show me a line item in either HTC or Microsoft's quarterlies validating that?
It is interesting that virtually every agreement that Microsoft has achieved has been with vendors that sell Microsoft products.
A decent watering schedule is not an overwatering schedule. Watering plants properly is not a difficult activity.
Further even assuming that it is very low power, just the energy and materials used to construct it blow away any notion that it is green.
This is an anti-green product. It is using products made via energy and chemical rich processes, then vampiring power, to solve a complete non-problem. It is novel, and it's right for HN, but the GP's point is completely on the money.
This guy -- who apparently rejects 99% of interviewees -- apparently runs a single-person company of dubious purpose. This absurdly trollish post is over the top because that's what ensured it a front-page showing.
Kudos on the pagerank earned by trolling the gullible folks on HN.
That sounds pretty cut and dry. Of course in reality it is absolutely nothing like that.
I've experienced plenty of lag on iOS devices. I've had buttons not respond, apps crash, and behaviours that left you wondering what you're supposed to do. As has everyone else who lacks the delusion spell. iOS is just an imperfect OS like every other, and adding hysterical narrative gushing about its profound perfection is, honestly, embarrassing for everyone.
>those for whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important
That isn't what he said. The general angle of MG and Gruber is that iOS is universally superior to Android.
I remember trying out the iPhone and being shocked at how terrible -- almost childish -- the notification system was. On Android it was graceful and well thought out. The same goes for application integration, where on Android it was well thought out from day one, while on iOS you have silos of applications.
There are a thousand and one ways that Android is more refined and has the "little details" that are superior to iOS. None of these ever matter to Gruber or MG. But where iOS has a nicer bounce after a scroll, well that's critically important.
If we want to go with car analogies, iOS would more correctly be a pimped up Honda Civic. The owner is sure it's a refined, idealized car, but they are the ones who don't realize what they're missing.
Punctuation exists for good reason.