Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Create a $140B business from nothing? Sure. (Score 1) 354

by fyngyrz (#48949601) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

It's almost impossible to think of anything that will create a $140 billion business out of nothing."

Lol. Just waiting on the tech. These will all be many-billion dollar businesses: fully immersive 3D entertainment; electric cars; household robots; sex robots; space habitats; real 3D printers (by which I mean they'll be able to print electronics, mechanicals, hydraulics and so on -- able to print any item you can provide the raw materials for. The "3D printers" we have today aren't good for much yet.)

As to what you could do today and have a chance to meet that metric... all I know is it isn't going to be an iWatch class device.

Of course if we were collectively smart we would have "Manhattan project-ed" solar, solar storage, and the means to pass massive amounts of energy around long before now at a similar level, and we'd already be off the middle eastern tit.... but of course that means the big oil cronyism in congress would have to be reined in, and that isn't happening.

Comment: Re:They always [conveniently] miss facts... (Score 1) 354

by drinkypoo (#48949103) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

At the time I don't think that parsing metadata was feasible with out having to sit there and wait until it finished.

Doesn't Rockbox manage this? (research, research) yes, yes it does. First-gen iPod with Rockbox firmware, you connect it in mass storage mode and stuff your files on it and it does the right thing. So yes, yes it was feasible, and Apple was either incompetent or chose deliberate lock-in. You take your pick, I don't think we've got a false dichotomy here given that the hardware can definitely do the job.

Comment: Re:Create a $140 billion business out of nothing? (Score 1) 354

by dgatwood (#48948897) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

That is indeed what he said, but I suspect that was just spin.

I'm about 99% sure it wasn't. As evidence, I cite the fact that the head of the iPod team left Apple for Palm and started an OS that was web-based just like iOS was originally going to be. I think it was more that the people Rubinstein left behind clung on to the iPod mentality of a closed architecture that allowed only a handful of developers to write code for it for a very long time before finally giving up.

Comment: Re:Create a $140 billion business out of nothing? (Score 1) 354

by dgatwood (#48948869) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

I think the iPhone was successful before they supported 3rd party apps.

Not particularly. The pre-app-store iOS market coincides precisely with the original iPhone's sales. Apple sold only 6.1 million of them over the course of about a year. The iPhone 3G sold a million in the first three days. And yes, the original iPhone hardware was behind the times, so that contributed to the difference somewhat, but there's little doubt that the App Store is a big part of why iOS is a success.

Want to know how I know this? Palm WebOS. Notice where Palm's top engineering management came from. Yup, you guessed it. Apple. They followed Apple's original plan, and they completely cornered the market... no, wait, that other thing... tanked.

Chromebooks have the advantage of four more years of improvements in web browser technology. With that said, remember that the #1 thing people do with their phones is play games, and that games are pretty high on the list for laptops as well. Without native apps, gaming isn't very practical, which is why the Chromebook is still just a low single-digit percentage of laptop sales, and why a web-only phone would be pretty much DOA even in today's market, with today's technology.

Comment: Re:Create a $140 billion business out of nothing? (Score 2) 354

by dgatwood (#48948715) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

It wasn't Apple that killed Nokia; it was Android. Their big niche was cheap feature phones. When Android came along, suddenly, there were cheap smartphones, and nobody wanted cheap feature phones when they could get cheap smartphones. To be fair, Apple had a lot to do with forcing the UI changes in Android that made it popular, but the mere existence of Android in any form would have pretty much cut the legs out from under Nokia.

As for Blackberry, Apple didn't really start killing them until much later, as iPhone hardware wasn't really all that welcome in the business world until after Apple started adding stuff like mobile device management. I always found it odd that they were a hardware manufacturer, given that their hardware was fairly boring, and most of their interesting creations involved software and services. I'd expect them to reinvent themselves as a software and services company fairly handily, and freed from the shackles of having to build their own hardware, I'd expect them to do fairly well.

Ericsson got bought out by Sony, who still builds plenty of phones and other devices. Given Sony's size, I wouldn't count them out just yet. But if somebody does drive them out of the market, it will be Samsung, by undercutting them.

Comment: Re:Lack of creativity... (Score 1) 192

by drinkypoo (#48948199) Attached to: Comcast Employees Change Customer Names To 'Dummy' and Other Insults

A more interesting subject... when you're playing a single player RPG do you ever care what your name is?

Yes. If I'm playing a game which doesn't suck, I try give my character a good name.

If I'm playing a game which sucks, I still name my characters rude things. Got to get your chuckles somewhere. Lunar was made better by seeing "biatch, be strong"

Comment: Re:Create a $140 billion business out of nothing? (Score 1) 354

by drinkypoo (#48948051) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

Hate all you want, but there's no denying the fact that the iPhone was the most revolutionary mobile phone there's ever been.

Except everything the iPhone did was done by someone else first, right down to slide to unlock. What the iPhone did was combine all these good ideas, resulting in one successful product. That's why it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Sadly, it all ended in 2011. Look at phones. They're all the same as 2011 iPhone was just with 2015 cpu/graphic, 2015 screen brightness/contrast, 2015 CMOS camera sensors.

Yeah, unless you buy a cheapie like a Moto G, then all that stuff is from 2014. (Does come with new gorilla glass, though...)

Comment: Re:They always [conveniently] miss facts... (Score 1) 354

by drinkypoo (#48948037) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

If you don't think that syncing from iTunes is a better UX than manually managing files then you're nuts.

Being forced to sync from iTunes is not a better UX than being able to manually manage files. You can still use tools to manage the music on media players which don't require you to use custom software. Many such tools exist, including FOSS offerings like Banshee and Rhythmbox.

Comment: Re:Won't be enough (Score 1) 172

It's about as contested as the validity of the Theory of Evolution and the effectiveness of childhood vaccines in that there are people who claim it not to be true in spite of massive amount of empirical evidence.

First, is nuclear power safer than other methods of power generation? Yes, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

Second, Chernobyl (which is included in the evidence presented above). Chernobyl was a reactor that served two purposes for the Soviets. First, it was used to experiment on the capabilities and the limitations of the RBMK-1000 reactor series (this is what caused the disaster there). Second, it was used to produce weaponized materials for nuclear weapons for the Soviet military. As it produced power and that power needed to go somewhere, it was connected to the grid and added supply to nearby communities. Now I could get into the fact that the RBMK-1000 was one of the only reactor designs ever constructed that used a high positive void coefficient and that since that disaster, every single nuclear reactor in the world has been either designed or modified to not do that. I could get into the fact that the disaster that happened there (runaway reaction) isn't possible anywhere else without breaking the laws of physics due to the design of the plants (regardless of any safety features - it's a physical limitation of the design itself). But I think you should do your own research on those things.

Suffice it to say that Chernobyl is included in the numbers proving that nuclear power is the safest form of power production ever utilized by mankind and that it's arguable that it shouldn't be (which would only improve the numbers above for nuclear). Whichever way you stand on that point of contention (whether or not an experimental military facility operating a reactor design known to be unstable and dangerous in such a way that it was regularly pushed to its design tolerances should be included in a list of civilian nuclear power plant accidents), nuclear still comes out way ahead in the basic math. It's merely a matter of how many orders of magnitude its safety record exceeds that of other power production methods.

There's nothing unclear about over half a century of safety record that demonstrates an exceedingly safe technology. There's nothing unclear about the fact that if you care about human life, nuclear is the only option and that if you care about the environment, nuclear is the only good option that can handle base load. You can contest whether gravity exists all day long, but if you jump off a desk, you're going to fall to the floor every time.

Reality is that which is still there regardless of how much you wish it weren't so.

If a thing's worth doing, it is worth doing badly. -- G.K. Chesterton

Working...