Sometimes attendance at an event is mandatory, even though undesirable. Company-wide briefings by Senior Managers, for example. I don't mind checking a notification discretely on my Pebble, but I would never pull my phone out and make it obvious.
For this to work and reach a mass market, the price needs to be (i) realistic and (ii) generate an impulse purchase.
There are too many subscription services out there; everyone wants their £5 per month or £7.99 per month or £9.99 per month, and it all adds up. I think an ad-free YouTube at £1.99 per month would entice a lot of people. Any more would probably not be worth it.
BTW, Adblock is great and I love it. But it doesn't stop the adverts which sometimes play before a video when I'm using the YouTube app on my iPhone.
Their iPhone is stolen from Sony's blue-prints, for example.
I saw this a while back and the similarity is certainly striking. It raises the question as to why Sony hasn't seen the same success as Apple, if the iPhone is a mere copy of Sony's design.
On the continent, the thousand separator is typically the full stop instead of the comma, so the actual fine amount would be €250k (and not €250).
You don't tell us the question you asked your survey respondents so I'm making the assumption that you asked a simple question to see if people prefer a slideout or virtual keyboard. It would have been more interesting to ask users if they would still prefer a slideout keyboard at the expense of extra thickness and cost when compared to the non-slideout model.
Back in the day, I loved my Nokia N97's slideout keyboard; it was one of the best mobile keyboards I've had the pleasure to use. But I wouldn't want to swap the thickness of my current phone for a qwerty - it's just too much of a tradeoff.
Turns out the iPad still worked after two years, only for the user to feel that they had to replace it.
Is this an Apple issue, or a user issue?
Smartphones are like most other consumer electronic goods which need some form of service contract to get the most out of.
- Satellite/Cable box - free, but you can pay more to get a PVR.
- DSL/Cable Modem - free, but you can pay more to get a fancy WiFi router.
- Smartphone - free, but you can pay more to get a better model.
Not sure what the difference is and why this key point was missed in the blog.
Depends how you define free.
When I'm stuck on a complex Excel or Access issue (typically involving a complex formula or macro), most of the time there is a forum thread where someone has solved the problem already and I can learn from this and integrate it into my formula or code.
The same cannot be said of Google Docs and as my time is not free, the cost of MS Office suddenly looks a lot more appealing.
The employer then essentially provides a spec (which is often just a extremely vague set of requirements) and a monthly salary. We can therefore say that most of the software is created by the creative talent and skill (the raw material and machines in your analogy) of the developers. Does the work created by the software dev still completely belong to the employer for a few thousand dollars because of a few words written in the employment contract? I think not! Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.
Isn't the developer in this case more like the builder/engineer who takes an architect's vision and merely implements it?
In most large organisations the developers are not the UI designers and although their code may well be creative, they are not the ones behind the creative work as a whole.
Most people I know don't usually upgrade their phone because of the camera; they do it in spite of the camera.
Now, you might see some people in the market for a new phone decide on a specific model because it has a good camera, but these are people already looking to replace their phone for other reasons.