I always wanted to know how to divide future revenue (after the divorce) for IP that was started but not completed before the divorce. I had thought to just give each party a copy of the IP to finish as they see fit. The alternative is that one party finishes the work and the other party reaps the benefits. This later case seems unfair.

The problem isn't specific to apple but they are the poster child and a protest there would produce the most press. With record breaking profits, it would be awesome if apple spent more to improve working conditions in china.

It is interesting that the left and right need each other as much as they oppose each other. It is a half full vs half empty difference in POV.

Actually, google said, "Mozilla, can we work with you to make firefox radically better?" and Mozilla said "no, we have our own ideas and we don't want you telling us what to do!" and so google created Chrome with the goal of forcing all the vendors to make their browsers better. Sure javascipt performance improvements have been great but can we get a little type safe, pretty please? Writing more than 100K lines of javascript without any type checking is so 1970.

I don't want to rewrite my app for a small market. Just make it easier to build android apps to run on desktop linux.

The our government is broken but no solution can garner enough support to make a difference.

I feel that these "problems" with google are common to all successful companies. When a company has a lot of success in one area, it seems to prefer to find similar innovations in the future. Google says they want to be more innovative but having worked there I don't see them being able to avoid their blind spot. For example, when they tried to launch a second-life clone, there were long threads (mostly negative) about it because that kind of product is so very different from google's successes.

Obviously, "success" is not a bad problem to have but I think the conflict is that google wants to believe it is not blinded by its success. The Steve Jobs analogy is most interesting because I think Apple's second wave was due to the fact that it wasn't dominant any more and I suspect their weakness made that it possible for Apple to consider innovation outside its core business model. It also helps that Steve would tell people what to do and didn't need a committee to set the direction. Google is more like several really smart committees each charting conflicting courses (e.g. android, gwt, chrome os, dart, etc).

I think google's "problem" is also their greatest strength. Google wants to hire engineers who are pretty much the same A-type personality. They want the "googley" employee. They are awesome employees but it is fundamentally flawed to think that hiring some many similarly minded people wouldn't make a company blind. You would expect this blindness when the average google employee's views differs from the general population (i.e. "they don't get it").

At this point, some of google's success has to come from acquisitions. Youtube is a good example. They can't get there any other way.

I don't know if the research/conclusion is sound but intuitively I wonder if this idea explains why it is hard for big companies to innovate. The larger they get, the harder it is to get 10% of the population to support a new idea. It would mean that employees trying to promote a new idea need to first secure support of a least 10% of the population or find another company to work for if that is not possible. Note, you would not have to get 10% of the entire company if you only need 10% of your group.
I wonder if this also explains extremist behavior. For example, Breivik is thought to have killed in hopes that it would garner attention so more people would read about his ideas. Extremists need to cause terror if they hope to influence 10% of the population. It explains why extremists with the least influence are the most violent. It explains why they may feel their violence is justified. It explains why extremist bloggers must present a one-side and exaggerated point of view because a balanced POV would be ineffective.

Google should sell off the RIM hardware side; the patents would still make the deal worthwhile. Having a software platform that is already trusted by business for employee phones would be a big win. I'm sure HTC and the others would love to own the hardware side.

I would imagine that sony will be able to fix this eventually and we'll back to the wall garden. We need hypervisor under sony's hypervisor so that future system updates can't remove the backdoor.

I worked at google for a few years.
I don't think google discriminates based on age.
The founders feel strongly that intelligence is more important than experience.
So they believe that they discriminate based on intelligence.

The problem I had working for google is that the company wants to employ only the "A" personality type engineer.
The "googly" engineer accepts no compromise, makes no mistakes and is driven to produce the best solution at any cost.
After 20+ years of working in the industry, I'm willing to compromise and to produce a great solution now until I can produce a better one tomorrow.
At google, the founders have stated that great is not good enough.
I'm an "AB" personality type and that "B" part is not good enough for google.

Google has amazing benefits and so working there is amazingly lucrative.
I would work there again if I could but I fear it would end the same.
At google, you need the approval of your peers.
The "A" personality types are the majority and as such they don't want any other types around.

(There are exceptions if you're charismatic or attractive but that is the same at other companies.)

The government need to get a blessing from the religious right in exchange for a cut (like they did in Saudi Arabia). And then the government needs to select the "right" countries, people, etc to do the work. Clearly no westerns would be allowed to take part publicly. I vote that the work should be given the Palestinians and other really poor Muslim countries. Reducing poverty would prevent the spread of terroristic tendencies.

I agree that for some people web development is not very hard. Just like for some people programming in assembly language isn't hard. It sounds like you're just saying that we should pay more for consultants like you and stop complaining. You'll take care of everything and send us a nice bill. But web development could be a lot better for everyone including you. For one thing, Javascript should be made type safe as it is with actionscript. There are lots of issues we've already solved with other languages and UI SDKs that have not been applied to Web App Development. Web App Development is stuck in the past. It was defined by people at Netscape who were innovating very quickly and didn't take the time to get it right. Now we have to live with their choices more than 10 years later; no tree control, no pop up menus, no grid control, no tab control, no split panel, no layout managers, WTF! Thank god there is dojo and other toolkits but they are a hack and those features would be much better if they were built into the browser. It is so frustrating to have people like you telling everyone not to worry about the difficulty of Web App Development because you think it is fine. The real issue is that many more developers suffer while you profit from their pain. Of course you want it to stay as hard as it currently is. You're like the big oil company telling us not to worry about lead in the gasoline because we shouldn't pay more at the pump. It doesn't bother you to rewrite someone else's poorly written website but it is a waste of everyone's time and money none the less. Following your line of reasoning, nothing would ever be made better because someone thinks it is ok the way it is.