Post to undue accidental mod; ignore
Getting the data to the cell tower is easy - the problem is that the only way they can expand the bandwidth from the tower to the phone is by having more wireless spectrum which is expensive and regulated, and there are technological limitations as well (if you wanted gigabit to your phone you couldn't really have it at any price).
It seemed to me that the GP was lumping together all ISPs (wired or wireless) since he was talking about peak usage being on Friday and Saturday nights (which only makes sense for wired, not wireless). Also, I don't buy that Netflix is the top internet traffic on wireless ISPs since most people would blow through their data caps in relatively short order watching Netflix. Although I do not have the data to prove it one way or the other.
If restricting the discussion to wireless only, then I agree that the Netflix Open Connect strategy is less helpful, but I think it still provides some value.
I agree that with wireless, there are more tangible and effective limits on bandwidth than with wired. However, I think we have a long way to go before they are realized in most places.
I would also argue there are other solutions other than simply more EM spectrum. Specifically, in most places there is room to have denser packing of cell towers. Since cell phones will negotiate to the nearest/strongest tower, adding additional towers will reduce effective congestion since less people will be communicating with each tower. Obviously there are diminishing returns because eventually the towers will be so tightly packed that there is little differentiation between the closest tower and the next closest tower which results in interference and call hand-off problems.
While this effective cell tower density may have been reached in parts of the densest cities (e.g., NY) and/or sporting events, I think there is ample room for growth in most places. Admittedly, new towers are very costly (permits, installation, maintenance, etc.), however the wireless ISPs need to do a better job of reinvesting their profits into infrastructure to address this issue rather than blaming their customers. It is like they are upset their customers want to use something that they are paying for and then not investing the money to actually provide it.
There's a lot netflix could do to make this less of a pain in the ass for the ISPs but so far they've been total asshats about the situation.
I disagree about the claim that Netflix is not trying to help the situation. After all they did introduce Open Connect (http://gigaom.com/2013/11/11/netflixs-new-pitch-for-open-connect-it-sucks-less-during-prime-time/) to address this situation. Basically they told ISPs that they would provide a content delivery network that would be colocated on their system to relieve network stresses. Netflix provides the hardware for free and all the ISP has to do is hook it up to their network and provide the space/power for the hardware. On top of that, it gives the ISP participating in Open Connect a competitive advantage since the Netflix streams can be higher resolution than other ISPs that do not participate.
Rather than being an "asshat" this seems to be going above and beyond to provide the ISPs with a solution for the claimed problems. Of course the real issue is that the ISPs (usually cable) are upset that Netflix is rapidly turning them into a dumb pipe and cannibalizing their ad revenue. However, the ISPs know that this is not a customer friendly argument so they make the, seemingly reasonable, argument about the heavy network utilization saturating. Netflix provided a solution to the stated problem, but not the real one (i.e. cable company greed).
It is also important to remember that the reason people pay the ISP for internet access is to have access to services like Netflix. If those services were not available, the ISPs would have less customers. If anything the ISPs should be thanking companies like Netflix, Google, etc. for providing content that people want and therefore compel them to want to buy internet access in the first place.
And I thought it was just the mayor smoking crack, apparently the whole town is now.
Ahh come on. No +1 funny for LoadWB's TNG reference?
Oh what a day to be lacking mod points.
Hopefully your father won't be too distraught that the game will no longer be called Tiger Woods golf going forward. EA is terminating their contract with him. I don't know if it will just be called something like PGA Golf or if they will get another marque name to work with.
Did you see the article on Playstation 4? I have never bought a PS (from the beginning IMHO it was a lesser nintendo but i'm old school like that...) and I'm not any kind of gamer fanboi but the PS4 looks badass all the way around. It's going to be $100 cheaper on launch and the 3rd Party game situation will be killer
Xbox is M$'s next casualty...seriously...
I wouldn't count the Xbox out yet. At this point, I can see strong arguments for people going in either direction (PS4 or Xbox One) and think it comes down to personal preference in most situations.
My take is that the PS4 has the advantage in terms of cost and performance (based on early indications). The Xbox One has a probable advantage in terms of gaming network (Xbox Live has been a better developed multiplayer gaming environment than Sony's; although that could change in this generation). It also has an advantage in terms of pure and timed exclusives. For the timed exclusives, you can point to aspects of the new FIFA as well as map packs for CoD and for pure exclusives you can point to Titanfall. If Titanfall is anywhere as close to as good as the press has been indicating, this exclusive could be a major coup for M$. At least until Titanfall 2, which will likely be multiplatform. Finally, the exclusive launch title that looks the best to me (not counting Titanfall since it won't be out until March) is Forza 5. So either platform is a great choice depending upon what games interest you.
I had pre-orders for both the PS4 and Xbox One as soon as they announced pre-order availability. I was strongly leaning towards cancelling the Xbox One preorder and going purely with PS4, but the aspects that changed my mind were: 1) Titanfall looks damn good. 2) MS reversed course on their most boneheaded ideas (although I really liked the sharing with friends aspect). 3) I have a number of friends that are on Xbox Live and are not planning to switch. At this point, I've cancelled my PS4 pre-order and kept my Xbox One preorder, but I plan to pick up the PS4 when the inevitable price cut hits in a year or so.
So the bottom line is that while I can easily see a path towards Sony winning this generation, I think it is far too early to tell and I think either console is a worthwhile platform. However, I wish both platforms would have put more investment into their GPUs to get something more comparable to the performance that higher end PC GPUs currently have available.
As to the PS4, as all these things are essentially just software, I'm personally convinced they will add them eventually, after trying an itunes approach or collaboration with a specific provider per country via an app. If those fail, they will/can add them.
So you are anticipating the company that took away a highly touted software feature (the "Other OS" feature) via a required system update (as in required if you ever wanted to play another game on your system) is going to add new capabilities to the PS4 that they went to special effort to prevent upon launch?
On a completely unrelated note, I have this really great bridge that I need to sell for a bargain basement price. Are you interested?
In my case I had a number of teachers who weren't new, but were horrible teachers at the same time (although likely excellent researchers hence the reason they were still on staff).
In at least one case (differential equations), the prof's english was so poor that he was unable to comprehensibly express the simplest of concepts. It got so bad that I realized that I was learning nothing in the class and was entirely self learning using the text book. This wasn't so bad since I was still learning the concepts and understanding them, but I was upset that I was effectively paying this professor through my tuition for nothing more than the ability to give me tests and grade them since he was not conveying the core concepts. I eventually only would go to the classes where the homework was assigned and the quizzes/tests were given since everything else was a real waste of time. I did get an A and left the course with an understanding of the material, but again this was entirely through my own efforts and there was no real teaching by the professor.
Link to Original Source
I agree that the publishers would revolt, which is why I'm questioning the source of the rumor since I'm highly skeptical about the concept.
If they did a three way split, it wouldn't need to be equal parts. I could see a method of the seller and the publisher equally sharing a large part and then MSFT getting a small percentage (e.g., 45% seller, 45% publisher, 10% MSFT). Although your point still stands about whether this would be seen as worth it for the seller. If it was truly equitable, the seller would get the lion's share and the publisher and MSFT both get a smaller percentage but I don't think the publishers would buy into that.
In the alternative that you propose, who would be funding this small refund? If it is too small then it just isn't worth it to the consumer to file for the return. If it is too large (for undefined quantities of too large and too small), then how does it benefit MSFT to bankroll it if they are not able to resell the returned license?
Those games are loaded with DRM too, but at least the games are cheap and developers are upfront about restrictions.
You mean upfront about the hidden rootkits they put on your PC to protect their IP while creating stability issues for your system? I've had to actively search forums and customer reviews to find out about such hidden DRM, it wasn't like the publisher put a big label on the box announcing what they were doing. At best, it might be in the fine print.
I would love to see a reference to this claim, because I think it is too good to be even close to true.
Basically this would not kill the secondhand market, instead it would streamline it. Yes this would probably kill (or at least maim) Gamestop, but that would be because this would eat their lunch.
Using the marketplace to sell used games, for a presumably lower price than new or then what is the point, would be great. Currently you have to either deal with a practically not worth it system via Gamestop (used games sold for $5 off the cost of a new game and the seller getting a pittance) or deal with a potentially shady character off of craigslist and deal with the hassle of setting up a meeting time and place (or wait for something in the mail from ebay, etc.) with no real recourse if the disc doesn't work.
This solution would have no downside. You can buy the game for less than the cost of new (or again whats the point) for a digitally identical product (no worrying about does it actually work) and do it instantly from your living room. For the seller, as long as they get a reasonable percentage of the sales price then they are already ahead of where they would be with Gamestop. It is possible that the seller would not get as much of a return as they would by selling via Craigslist or via eBay, but they would also have less overhead (no mailing, meeting, etc.). Plus I think more people would actually enter into the used game sales market (both buyers and sellers) if this system were in place because it reduces the transactional friction.
All of these things would be great for the consumers and for MSFT, but the one group that would see this as a travesty are the publishers. There is absolutely no way they would support a system that actually made second hand sales easier. For this reason alone I cannot believe there is any way that this rumor is true. Although I would never have been so happy to be proven wrong.
I wouldn't have it as my only computer, but over all I think it will make one heck of a good momputer.
Give this man a prize, he hit the nail on the head. Momputing is where it is at.
After having to perform the drudgery of familial tech support for years, this thing makes my life a breeze. It is simple and straightforward for my mom to use. Currently it has a smaller attack vector cross section due to the smaller user base making it currently "safer" for mom to use with regards to malware. If it does get compromised or the OS gets corrupted, it is easy to reset to a clean state without having to do time consuming reconfiguration. If it actually breaks, her stuff is in the cloud so it is as simple as buying a new chromebook and having her login and she is good to go.
My mom has been using the $249 Samsung Chromebook with the solid state memory and mobile processor for about a month now and loves it. It has an added benefit of being light and (due to the mobile processor) requires no fan and doesn't get hot on her lap.
I could also see value in this as a living room/guest laptop, but have not tried that.
I couldn't agree with you more. Obviously nothing screams mature/adult themes more than a bunch of magical or unnaturally powerful characters dressing-up in costumes and playing cops and robbers. Oh wait...