Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Another Fail (Score 1) 196

Or he can buy one of those AMD quad laptops and be able to do a million more things a bazillion times better than a so called "smart watch".

I do find it ironic how the tech corps are pushing "smart watches are the wave of the future!" when more and more people are treating watches like 8-tracks and not wearing a watch, preferring to check their smartphone. Hell even my elderly parents have quit wearing watches, they find the big screen of their Android phones easier to read and includes the weather. Folks are always messing with their phones anyway so why not?

Comment Re:Start your own provider? (Score 1) 353

I can back this up, I'm just one guy who doesn't do any BTing and I often have to pay as much for bandwidth over my cap during the big Steam sales than I do for the games themselves. Obviously some of the folks here haven't downloaded any recent games, Borderlands I? 37Gb for the game and DLC, Borderlands II? 42GB for the same. Heck even a game with very little DLC, as the Burnout Paradise i got with the recent Humble Bundle? Over 4Gb, now figure in the other 8 games that came with the bundle and you are easily looking at 25Gb+ right there and that is just for a single bundle!

Trust me friend that 150Gb might seem like a not but its not and just be glad you are getting even that, the local ISPs here have plans that are 36Gb,60Gb and the top is 76Gb! These ISPs act like its still 1998 and all folks are doing is checking their email, when IRL everything has gotten bigger EXCEPT their caps.

Comment Re:Start your own provider? (Score 1) 353

I'll just add that a friend of mine actually tried to do just that and was killed by the duopoly!

Where his business was located there was something like 5 blocks to the nearest junction and neither the cable nor DSL would run to him so he bought a T3 and leased bandwidth to the neighbors who likewise had been screwed, even had set up a server to take some of the load off by hosting Windows Updates as well as FOSS software like Open Office, so what happened? The DSL company also sold dialup and when their sales went down they came up with an excuse to jack his T3 prices a couple hundred percent. they even told him "Yeah just try and sue us". he went to a lawyer who said "Oh sure you'll win, no doubt, after 10 years and a couple million in lawyer fees because they'll drag it out for the better part of a decade." Needless to say he couldn't afford that and closed up shop and moved away.

So you can't even attempt such a thing unless you are at least city government sized to be able to afford the several years their lawsuits will end up dragging through the courts. The duopoly have control, they know it, and they know you can't afford to spend a decade in court, meanwhile they have a law team on payroll. You will have zero chance of success unless your last name is Dell or Gates.

Comment Re:Start your own provider? (Score 1) 353

That's nice for you, here in central AR, in the middle of a college town no less, you can get the cable home line for $35 a month or get business for...$150 a month! That is nearly 5 times the price for just a doubling of the cap! Want more? Its $1.50 a GB as there are no more tiers after business!

The simple fact is the prices are so high because we were robbed of over 200 billion because that is what we gave the teleco/cableco duopolies in return for nationwide broadband and what did we get? A low rez Goatse while the board stuffed their pockets. We should give them 90 days to pay up WITH INTEREST and if they don't? WE the people control the last mile. They want a monopoly? Any place they run FTTH that isn't already being served with fiber they can have a 15 year monopoly, 25 year if they run it to places that haven't had any service.

But even the libertarians should support such a plan, because we have seen time and time again that monopolies and regulatory capture are cancers on the free market, ONLY by having actual competition will things get better. Until then get used to nastier and nastier caps as they wring max profit from the existing lines.

Comment Re:Fail (Score 0) 420

And what EXACTLY would they have run it on? Did you look at the specs of the N900? With the MSFT money came requirements to buy better chips thanks to the minimum of WP7/8, without those limits placed upon them the N900 shows the bean counters would have crippled any android offering with weak hardware. We have seen a similar trend with Sony, once upon a time Sony meant quality but now they are just trading on their former glory.

Nokia has been treading water for most of the decade friend, think Android would take a company barely above water and put them on a jetski? When all but Samsung using android are likewise treading water or flailing about? I'm sorry but that is just delusion, having a free OS doesn't magically undo 6 solid years of bad choices,it just don't work like that.

Comment Re:Fail (Score 1) 420

'Fraid not, neither my dad nor GF knew what OS was on the phone they bought last, both bought on feel and...drumroll...price. Know how much I gave for my Android phone? $20, $75 including buying my card (went prepaid) and taxes. Would I have taken an iPhone or WinPhone for the same price? Sure i would, but there weren't any cheap iPhones and Lumias, plenty of cheap android phones, a cool dozen under $150.

So geeks might know and care but I can tell you that as a retailer I can tell you most folks don't even know what OS they have on their desktop, much less their phone. iPhone users know they have an iPhone, they have no clue its also an OS (in fact I've had a few complain to me that Android apps won't run, they think a phone is a phone) and Samsung owners know they have a Samsung,

Very few know what OS they have and if Nokia would have come out with a sub $100 Lumia? the numbers would have been a LOT better. Look at any price breakdown on the net, something like 85% of Android sales are in the sub $185 markets.

Comment Re:Nokia's fall stems from their 'bold' move (Score 1) 420

1.- MS brought in engineers and secured new hardware,setting minimum standards the OMAP couldn't hit. If they wouldn't have done that the bean counters would have made them "get their money's worth" out of OMAP, a recipe for failure in the fast changing phone market.

2.-While I do not have a WP8 phone (have an Android, bought strictly on price as it was just $20 USD) the praise for the hardware and design of the Lumia has been consistent, even those that hate MS admit its a good design,its the apps that are lagging behind.Remember that Nokia was cash poor (devaluation hurting their ability to borrow) so there is some question as to whether they could have even MADE the Lumia without the huge cash infusion.

3.- Finally you can NOT go into a market against not one, not two, but FOUR major players, including 2 heavyweights (it was pointed out to me that Huawei was also cranking out Androids by then) with a "me too!" product, especially if the ONLY way you can survive is to take the customers of #1. Nokia was weighed down by their EU factories that made their per unit costs MUCH higher than the Asian builders and again without the ability to borrow the (probably billions) in capital required to close down their EU factories and move the whole thing to China? Their products would be overpriced and underpowered. Besides this is ignoring that over 85% of Android sales are in the under $185 price point, a price point that Nokia just couldn't hit. The other OEMs had hardware capable of running Android trivially,Nokia did not which meant major investment into a new design they didn't have. The N9 was running a crippled OS and really didn't have the power required to compete. It had no chance NOT because the OS was killed but because you could buy a better device with better hardware for cheaper from multiple vendors.

The ONLY way they would have had a prayer with Android is to have a Steve Jobs caliber CEO, one with the muscle and power to fire a large portion of their employees and make a new start in Asia and its obvious that no such leader was there. Android isn't magic fairy dust, if you don't have killer product and a game plan to back it up its as useless as a Touchpad.

Comment Re:Chrome? (Score 1) 223

Really? By whom? Can you name them? What are their qualifications?

See you too have fallen for the myth, you think because it CAN be done it HAS been done when in reality you have NO proof, NO evidence at all really, that anybody other than Linus and a few devs have done anything with it, much less the kind of code audits required to certify its secure.

Sorry, appeals to emotion are fail, bring some evidence and try again.

Comment Re:What about on the "Web" itself... (Score 1) 223

Wow, thanks, I so rarely get to say this...WHOOSH! Kinda missed the point friend which was Tor is pointless if the NSA runs the exit nodes that you happen to go through because you just handed them the data, understand?

To say Tor is the answer when its been reported several major exit nodes are NSA is like saying "I'm against MITM attacks!" so you just send your data to the NSA directly. You haven't changed anything, all you have done is make it easier for the one that is spying on you, that's all.

Comment Re:Fail (Score 1) 420

Then you obviously haven't tried their feature phones as of late, because they suck. Its no different than how once upon a time if you wanted quality you bought Sony and then bean counters came in and cashed out the name, the same thing happened to the Nokia feature phones as frankly they are substandard even to Motorola and that is saying something.

But don't take my word for it, if they have a Fred's or Family Dollar in your area go check 'em out, they have a ton of Nokia feature phones there and you can see the sound choices are "garbled" and "fuzzy". Like too many businesses the quality has gone out the window so they can squeeze every penny of profit per unit.

Comment Re:Replace that Europe with "in the world" (Score 1) 420

And Columbia was the #1 maker of 8-tracks in 1984...your point? Nobody gives a shit about market numbers if the market is dying and the writing was already on the wall for dumbphones which was the ONLY market Nokia had share in!

The year is 2010, Nokia is the #1 dumbphone maker, but has exactly squat when it comes to smartphones. Meanwhile a Chinese chip manufacturer ( Loongson I think) had come out not 6 months before with a SoC chipset that let Chinese assembly lines crank out dumbphones for just $3 a pop, that meant the death of the dumbphone market for Nokia as they couldn't compete on price (which is why nearly all dumbphones are Motorola now, they used the cheapo Chinese chip) so their share WOULD die, no doubt, the only question is how fast. They had zero experience in Android, an out of date SoC, and their competition was iPhone 2 and the latest from Samsung and HTC, both of which were running Froyo followed by Gingerbread which symbian had a zero chance of competing with. MeeGo was dead, being actively sabotaged by Intel who feared the ARM version would eclipse their X86 offering (which considering that last I checked Intel had yet to release an X86 SoC with LTE support isn't an unreasonable assumption to make) and both Symbian and their Java OS would have required ground up rewrites to compete with Android 2.x and iOS 2.

So I'm sorry but being #1 in dumbphones in 2010 was about as useful as being the #1 8-track maker in 1984, your market is dying so being #1 in it is really not gonna help.

Comment Re:Nokia's fall stems from their 'bold' move (Score 1) 420

Interesting? Really mods? You say "There was no reason Nokia couldn't have succeeded with Android" when that is frankly easy to point out the failures in that plan, 1.- Nokia's "strength" is supposedly hardware, yet they stuck with the TI OMAP which was waaaay out of date, 2.- Their phone designs were likewise dated and behind the curve, 3.- they would have been going up against not one, not two, but at least THREE competitors that ALL had much more experience with Android, had bigger buzz, and better advertising budgets.

You seem to buy into the "Build Android and it'll sell" myth which is just that, over a dozen companies are cranking out Android phones and of those only three, Samsung,HTC,and LG have shown relatively consistent profits and in the case of LG those profits are quite small. Nokia had factories that were expensive to use, no experience in Android, or in much beyond dumbphones really, and 6 years of downward sales meant they didn't have nearly the budget the big three had for R&D and advertising. If Nokia would have went Android I'd be hard pressed to see how anybody could say it would be anything but a slaughter, as you have to bring your A game into a cutthroat market like that and Nokia hadn't had an A game for at least 3 years before bringing in Elop.

Too much infighting, too much backstabbing, you just can't make a top line product with a toxic culture and THAT is what killed Nokia, not the choice of OS. Check out my earlier post with a link to the behind the scenes history of the MeeGo and you'll see with a culture THAT toxic? I don't care if Brin brought them android source code on a silver platter, nothing good would have come of it.

Comment Re:Fail (Score 1) 420

If you want an example of the Nokia style fail? I'd say you can't get better than Palm, as they really are identical. In both cases they were at the top of their game but instead of trying to get ahead of the curve they rode the existing products until they were so far behind they could never catch up. With Nokia it was dumbphones and Symbian, with Palm it was Garnet, but in both cases you took what was once the #1 in their field and let it rot by playing it safe instead of trying to innovate.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman