They want to buy a $900 iWatch that has poorer battery life, less functionality, but is slightly thinner.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I mean if they want to be relevant, why not sue Apple, Google and Amazon for price fixing digital content. you know, something fucking relevant.
No membership fee, No 'Greenlight....
And no sales.
Games sales on openish source Kickstarter hobby platform...low. Whodathunk?
3D did not fail on TV, 4K will not fail on TV, 1080p broadcasts did not fail on TV.
Cable failed TV.
People are dumping Cable because in the 21st century paying $100/mth for ANY kind of content is absolutely retarded. Especially when the content is not even in 1080p, let alone in 3D or ever going to be in 4K. And paying $100/mth where you have 1000 channels and 90% of them are only showing reality shows about dumb hicks doing dumb ass things, this is why TV is failing.
Every Cable company in existence should be ashamed for the poor state and roll out of technology and the absurd cost to the average consumer to access this asinine content.
Hopefully Microsoft, Google or Amazon will wake the fuck up and offer a solution that allows us to 100% bypass cable subscription services. So far Apple is only looking to whore themselves to big Cable.
I mean come on, Apple, Google, Amazon and even Microsoft combined are worth more then the combination of all other Cable compaies, content creators and content distributors, it's time for these 4 companies to dictate how content is delivered in the 21st century rather then kissing Big Telco ass.
My Nexus 4 phone barely lasts my work day. My iPad needs to be charged every day. I can get a few days out of my Nexus 10 unless I even touch a game. About the only device that lasts the week is my iPod Touch, but then I use it mostly as my alarm clock.
I think this is a pretty universal problem. Batteries have not kept up to the demand of CPU performance required by our devices, period.
Of course with relevance to article. when the author realizes that Surface Pro is a laptop (i.e. PC ) and iPad is a device built from phone hardware maybe he might realize how stupid the question was.
It would be more relevant to compare Surface Pro to MacBooks and ask how Macbooks can last the day while Surface Pro won't last more then a few hours.
Cloning an old game is not innovative. Sure its cool to use new technology to bring the game to a new generation, but you are using existing innovations already created. For instance, the innovation of the game content, the innovation of the browser and web technology. Finding a way to combine other people's innovations is not innovative. Nothing was invented when porting SMB to a web app.
If you want to be innovative use the skills obtained while trying to clone a copyrighted game and create your own original game.
Shorter copyrights will lead to future generations of people that will not have a single original idea, which is the complete ANTITHESIS of innovation!
If you can't use someone's IP then you have to invent your own. That is innovation..
I don't think that we have to worry about non-programmers.
We don't need to make programming accessible to non-programmers. We don't make brain surgery accessible to non-doctors, we don't need to invent ways to write apps and software by people unwilling to learn how to code.
While there is always room for better tools to write software, focus on making software development more efficient, secure, powerful and error proof for people that want to commit to a career in writing software and when a Luddite has a passing idle thought for an app they can either contract a real developer or learn how to code properly.
Besides, they tried to do this already and the earth is still plagued by Visual Basic.
You get what you pay for.
Buy some shitty cheap OEM android tablet where 1 in 10 breaks in the hands of children, you got what you paid for.
The only joke about this is it costs a minimum $600 because of a subscription based pricing structure. So $50 spent on the actual tablet hardware and $550 spent on bullshit.
Not saying that iPad's are the solution, but you think a company set up to provide devices for the K - 12 age group might have invested a little more heavily in industrial design considering that children are not going to respect a device, especially if its handed to them for free.
Look, this is how economy works.
People make things.
People sell things.
People buy things.
If you take people out of making things and they loose their jobs they can't afford to buy things.
If you can't sell things, then there is no point to make more things, then a company goes out of business.
You can't have an economy where nobody works and no company can stay in business because nobody can afford to buy what they sell, regardless of how automated the whole process is.
So everybody simmer the fuck down and welcome your robotic overlords already.
not true, I have seen some truly beautiful pieces of shit in my experience.
Focusing on format and syntax is a misguided effort that simply hides problems with logic and intent. When a company focuses on coding style, you know you are headed down the wrong path. I have seen elegantly written and "well formatted" code that simply does not work past a few limited test cases.
Saying good code is well formatted code is like telling someone that a good author needs to have beautiful handwriting. Just because someone writes with calligraphy does not make them Shakespeare or even a JK Rowling.
If you want to inspire a young student with software development, tell them to find a way to fix software development.
The problem I am seeing today is that in spite of all the years we have been writing code, stuff is getting less reliable and stable and overall, I find the user experience of most technical things today appalling.
Obviously nothing that is being applied towards software development is working.
I find the Internet today to be worse then it ever has been. For instance I have a 50mbps connection and yet frequently I can't even load google.com because my browser tells me the connection is lost. How can today's broadband be even more unreliable then when I used to browse the internet using dialup?
I have a new Logitech remote that will freeze and not respond about 10 times an evening, in spite of about a dozen firmware updates applied already for it.
Most of the features of my "smart" TV are useless.
Games and Apps on my Android tablet or iPod Touch crash frequently and are updated regularly.
The most "advanced" OS on the planet, OS X, hangs on my every several days forcing a reboot.
There are rampant problems with a general lack of security of all digitally connected things. iOS 7 already has had 2 patches to fix security issues.
And I won't even touch all the issues that came out of Redmond over the years.
So there is a real big problem in software development, and it comes from people assuming they know how to write good software, but then, lets face it, good software is NOT being delivered today.
There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in how we develop software. The idea of releasing beta's, patching frequently, or Google's approach to update on a daily basis is no longer acceptable. There is no reason why "flawless" cannot be an objective to describe the user experience of using device or application. There is no reason why we cannot write flawless code. We have more processing power on our phones then we used to have on a supercomputer from 30 years ago, why can't we harness that power to develop a software process that produces zero bugs?
So, if you truly want to inspire a new generation of coders, forget about trying to entice then with current concepts in software development. Show them all the current problems with software development and then get them young minds thinking about solutions for a new era where software bugs and defects simply don't occur.
That is the problem with space and weapon research, is the "trickle" of innovation that comes out of it.
Imagine what could be accomplished if the US spent 1 trillion in energy research, or curing cancer, or other such solutions, instead of spending a trillion a year bombing people in the middle east?
We give trillions to NASA to find out the Moon is a big lump of dust and rock, and we get memory foam beds out of the deal?
I would rather we refocus research spending on the REAL problems on our planet like energy. I think that if we focus a trillion into energy research, we could easily say the trickle down applications could make space travel easier or a weapons better, but at least we are no longer obsessed about wasting money on vapid shit like water on Mars.
I think we better start spending money on solving problems for billions of people rather then spending it to send a few astronauts to Mars or to prove U.S. has a bigger dick then the other countries..
Curved or flexible phones will be a fad that ends quickly.
Consider the uselessness of a touch devices with a concave or floppy limp screen?
While a curved phone works great for making a call by holding it up to your face, MOST people don't use phones in this way anymore. The smartphone is no longer a "phone" platform, its a computing device with a telephony feature.
Focusing too much on making the "call" feature of a smartphone, when it already works great anyways with a flat surface, will only make the other 99% of the features more annoying to use.
I do think there is a market for curved screens in other markets, but for phones its a pointlessly vain design choice.
Why would one assume IBM would try and create a competitive search product, instead, say, sell Watson to Google to improve Google's search, and then also sell Watson to Yahoo, and iCloud, and Bing, and every other search/cloud platform.
Why throw your eggs into one basket when there are so many other people that have already baked the cake? IBM trying to compete with Google will fail, regardless if Watson is even better, however IBM helping to power Google, and others, is a huge win.
IBM doesn't have the mindset to create a consumer based product. Everything they have done consumer wise has failed, it only makes sense for IBM to power the search engines and clouds in the future.