Well, ghost mode would now be gone since the touchscreen is gone too.
The DS/3DS treat the two separate screens more like one larger screen. Heck, in the 2DS, they literally are one LCD panel with a bezel stuck on top in the middle. There's a big difference between looking up and down on a tall screen versus shifting your focus from a screen 10 feet away and a screen a foot or two away.
They said their reasoning was that a screen on the controller forced you to split your attention between the TV screen and the controller screen. The screen on the controller would only end up being useful when you weren't playing a game, and the cost wasn't worth it for being used strictly for non-gaming.
So basically cost wasn't the major factor.
The only thing that makes ICANN relevant is that they control the root zone that everybody uses. These days, if a few of the larger tech companies (Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple) got together and decided to start their own DNS root zone, ICANN would become irrelevant rather quickly (since those companies control the browsers and mail clients everybody uses, and can do their own DNS lookups).
I'm not saying that would be a good thing, just that I find it interesting that ICANN is seen as being "in charge" as if they have regulatory authority when in reality they only have a say because people use their root zone by convention.
You heard it here first, a company with $311 million in revenues and 600+ employees "doesn't have the scale" to do a tweaked interface for their primary product.
Don't get me wrong, I loathe Metro, and I fully agree with their assertion that not enough users are adopting Metro to make it worth it... but saying they don't have the scale is silly.
Note: I realize that TFA actually says the scale of their competitors is the reason, but I think the summary's "don't have the scale" is analogous.
All the existing USB connectors are about to be replaced too. Type A, type B, micro, mini, full sized; they are all being superseded by the new type C.
The USB IF hasn't showed any pictures or diagrams yet, but their design goals are that it be similar in size to micro, be reversible (like a Lightning connector), use the same connector on both ends (solving the printer problem, but with type A to C cables used for backwards compatibility), support USB 3.1 (with extra pins for forwards compatibility), and support the charging standards (which allow devices to say how much power they want, and get large amounts of power for charge-only situations).
Basically, it tries to address all the problems with the existing USB ecosystem, all the reasons why a company like Apple might make their own connector.
That does get you down to the same price, but the CPU is going to be something like half the performance of the one found in the ChromeBox...
Considering that Microsoft charges money for Android (anybody using Android has to pay Microsoft for patents), can they really get away with giving away Windows Phone for free?
The problem with Jaguar is that it suffers from extremely poor performance per watt when compared to Haswell. That may not be an issue for all use cases though.
I am having difficulty finding any AMD-based mini PCs in the NUC-style form factor with RAM/wifi/storage included for $179, though. Could you point some out?
The problem there is that while the entry-level Asus chromebox is $179, including the RAM, SSD, CPU, wifi, etc... the cheapest NUCs are $190-200 before you add the RAM, the SSD, and the wifi card.
So the only reason for dealers to exist is to replicate the functions of an auto parts store and UPS? And that's why Tesla can't sell cars to people? That's absurd.
My buddy had to get his '95 Honda Accord repaired recently. The process for that (admittedly in Canada) was, take car to mechanic, mechanic orders parts online, parts are shipped to mechanic, mechanic installs parts. What exactly is the huge problem with that process that justifies making selling cars illegal?
The NASA letter states clearly that fuel sold at government-owned civil airports is not taxable. There are no back taxes owed.
Firefox OS doesn't run on phones with 128MB either, and Android launched on less RAM than Firefox OS requires. Nothing says a low-end device has to use the full stock Google experience; you can target the OS for lower memory devices.
The entire premise of this article seems to revolve around the unsubstantiated claim that Android is poorly optimized for low-end devices. I disagree with that claim, so the entire premise of the article seems suspect to me.
I feel bad for the guy. Even though I'm Canadian, this seems like the kind of thing you should sue over (publishing all your private info on the cover story of newsweek when the entire premise of the article is false). Does he have any grounds to sue Newsweek or the reporter who stalked and exposed him?