I'm a photographer - not really affected by the change, been using Lightroom for 3 years now. But before Aperture users panic, take a look at what Thom Hogan writes about the change (he's more or less an Apple insider when it comes to photography): http://www.dslrbodies.com/acce...

There are literally thousands of ways to set up your lights to create a complete white background in camera without the need of retouching. You can bet good money that this setup (white cyclorama background, object on elevated platform, 4 lights) have been used thousands of times. It's hilariously simple. By the way, the patent claims at least 1 light source hitting the background ("at least one rear light source positioned between the elevated platform and the background) which is far more vague than the diagram supplied with the patent. Disclaimer: I'm a pro photographer doing mostly portraiture and travel (http://molnarcs.500px.com) but I do take product photos on the side (nothing complicated like jewellery or glassware, just basic products). I'm telling you this patent is complete bullshit.

I'm a pro photographer (mostly portraiture and travel) and I'm doing product photography on the side - just basic products, nothing fancy. What Amazon claims is complete bullshit. They imply that white background product photos need retouching to make the background completely white. This is definitely not the case. Even with the simple setup I have for products (completely DIY setup - a cardboard box, a white roll of paper clipped to the a piece of plastic) I can get completely white background in camera without any retouching. Most cameras have a playback screen that shows white clipping - blown out highlights flashing in red indicating areas completely white. I play around with my lights (2 lights plus reflectors) until I get everything blinking except the product I'm shooting. Been doing this for years. With a proper plexiglass shooting table, this is s cinch. And let's not forget those $25 shooting tents that are designed precisely for this, and allows even amateurs to do it easily (well, with some practice in light placement and power levels).

That's not an Android fuck-up. That's the OEM's problem, and it has nothing to do with Android. I chose Nexus devices (4 and 7) to avoid this, as these are the devices Android was written for. For any non-Nexus device, you depend on the OEM for certain things that may or may not occur. As a Slashdot person, surely you know this, right?

I agree completely, but different users have different priorities. My problem with the Nexus is the lack of choice. I'd rather Google partnered up with different companies to release different models that suit different needs. For example, I don't need a large phone. I use the 4 inch Nexus 2 (first Samsung Nexus after HTC N1) now. I'm a photographer, and I'd love a Nexus with a good camera. I don't carry my d800 and lenses everywhere ;) I'd pay more for it. How much extra a decent camera module & lens would cost? $50? $100 - I'd pay that much more for the Nexsus if it came with decent photo capabilities. Frankly, the cameras in Nexus 3s, 4s and now 5s are not really convincing for me to upgrade. Thus I'm eyeing alternatives, even though I hate the thought of running Android with OEM fluff and worse, not getting the latest upgrades :(

What a tribulation!

It was a stupid decision to tie themselves to Microsoft. The new Lumia and its camera is a very attractive phone for me. Probably most photographers would look at a phone's camera first, even though we are used to hauling around heavy gear. I would buy this phone in a second if it was running Android. And I'm sure I'm not alone - smartphone cameras are killing the compact camera market, and this is a feature that is important to many people. I also love some of their design choices.

Nokia still has some brand recognition left, especially in South-East Asia, but it's vanishing alarmingly fast. Had they introduced the Lumia 808 a year ago with stock Android and we some clever marketing campaign, they would have created some buzz. They could increase that buzz with this new launch. Instead, their are complaining about Microsoft. Big fracking LOL at them and their choice for a CEO.

What are you smoking? The people who are actually buying Android phones have no clue about "open source." You call yourself a geek? What are you doing here? You need to realize the 99% of the non-geek population of this planet never heard of "open source." You need to go out more, socialize, get to know the rest of the world ;) You can't make money on Android and assume nobody else can. But the trend is changing, even here where I live. Blackberry is still very strong, but the growing upper-middle class idolized Apple for years. This trend has been changing for the at least a year now. There are no subsidized prices here, people pay $400-700 for a smartphone. These are not "cheap" people as you seem to assume. Google Play has been getting better and better (though more buggy at the same time, QC Google please!) and now paying through your gmail account became so easy... I bought about 18 apps myself. Samsung has a very heavy presence, lots of marketing and it works. I see more and more people with high-end android smart phones and tablets. Hell, my model at the shooting (I'm a photographer) asked me about the Nexus 10! Have you heard of it? she said. And she is most definitely not a geek ;) I saw a women wielding a Galaxy Note the other day.

How the hell did you come up with that idea? How does the parent advocate Cuba, China or Lybia "kind of democracy." He said "governments that represent the public interest should rule the world." Sounds a bit pompous, yeah, but he's right. Dictatorships never represent the public interest.

I second that. Korean national pride borders on racism sometimes. You know what happened when KT (Korea Telecom) came out with the Nexus One opening the gates for the first series of really usable (Froyo) Samsung, LG, etc. Android based smartphones? The iOS market collapsed within one year! iOS went from 60% marketshare to just 3-5. In the first three months after the Nexus launch iOS marketshare fell a whopping 40% - in three months!!! People actually sold their iShinys to buy smartphones from Korean manufacturers because they were good enough. Koreans buy Korean products. Check the numbers for yourself.

Bonch, stop trolling. You confuse quality control with preventing users do whatever they want with their phones. Your tirade is about the former, and I think you're alone in seeing that as a bad thing. HTC's announcement is about the latter - something Google has been pushing with their Nexus line since the Nexus One. Get yourself some brains please.

Spot on. What's more, photographers are leaving Flickr in droves for G+ for much of the same reasons - more engagement with like-minded people. And you know what? I find myself less and less interested in Slashdot. Can't have a discussion without shills, or someone riding the GOOGLE IS WATCHING YOU OMG horse, etc. It's boooring.

That was exactly my experience on G+ - following interesting people, mostly photographers (I'm an enthusiastic beginner), participating in discussions, etc. proved to be far more engaging than Facebook ever was. I spend more time on G+ than I ever did on Facebook, though that doesn't say much since I never found facebook interesting enough to play with. G+ is definitely different. I learned more about photography, for example, in just the past few weeks then in the preceding months! And I don't see it as a Facebook killer either. Yeah, I also quit facebook almost completely. My blog posts still show up there, and like once a week I spend about 5 minutes replying to someone, but that's all. On the other hand, I post better content myself than I used to, and so do G+ users in general in my opinion. Perhaps the follow/be followed and the whole circles/private/public concept gives more incentive for people to think before their post, or at least don't broadcast to everyone what you had for dinner, because people will just uncircle you if you are too noisy. Yes, like minded people easily find each other - G+ is lightyears ahead in this respect - and also provides the same facilities (keep in touch with classmates, people you already know). I just see no reason to use Facebook anymore.

You know, I'm tired of hearing this facebook vs. google+ story. When will you realize that it's not a battle. Google doesn't consider it a battle. Google+ is a new and innovative product that combines some of the features seen on almost all sites that allow connecting and sharing with people. Google attracts twitter users, because on G+ you can follow and be followed - just like on twitter. G+ will attract some facebook users, because it may be more useful, cleaner, more attractive, whatever the reason. And G+ will kill Flickr, in fact, some of the best photographers in the world have already left Flickr for G+. Probably has something to do with so many google guys having photography as their hobby. Check out Thomas Hawks's blog for details (yeah, the number of photographers devoted to google+ reached the tipping point already. From Trey Ratcliff to the excellent Klaus Hermann or Lisa Bettany - they are there, switching.

G+ attracts users from a variety of sources, probably even some people that never joined any of these networks. G+ is not a Facebook killer. It's not a Twitter killer either (no anonymity) - and that's actually a good thing! Why should G+ kill any other service to be successful? Yeah, it can surely weaken their position, but I do think it can coexist with these. To me, it seems Facebook is just panicking - because how else can you interpret these "messages" from Facebook? If G+ is truly no danger or insignificant, why obsess with declaring this every week? Facebook seems to be overreacting a little bit.

What I meant to say is that "In God We Trust" reflects popular sentiment. Does "get prosecuted if you hurt someone's feelings" reflect popular sentiment? Or just simple ignorance? Neither case is very desirable from my point of view. It makes critical thinking rather impossible. Now I don't know what the guy involved in this lawsuit really said. He might have been an asshole (and probably was, why harass religious groups if they pose no danger? I mean the "cult" in question is not exactly scientology). That said, the law is just too damn broad, and this "creative" use is alarming. I may be wrong is this, but it seems to me that as far as free speech is concerned, we get 5 bad news for every good one recently.

True, but "In God We Trust" is just a sign of the lack of evolution (pun intended) - and I don't see it changing any time soon. The people who don't believe in God are a tiny minority, and that minority is not growing. This law, however is a clear regression. Admittedly, this might be just false nostalgia, but I don't think in the 80s and 90s passing such a law would have been feasible. Not even bringing the idea up publicly. Since then, we (I'm not a U.S. citizen, but it can be felt globally) patriot acts, DMCAs, etc. to soften us up. Very visible systems of control to make us used to it (TSA comes to mind, which serves this purpose as well as generates large profits for the manufacturers and their friends). And now, this law wont even rise a "meh." in the media (and through them, to the general public). Oh, did I mention the media? When was the last time we had real investigative and independent journalism? Watergate? What wikileaks did put to shame all traditional medias - this should have been their job, no? I'm pessimistic about the direction we are heading.