No, they're patting themselves on the back for rendering as fast as the fastest rendering browser.
Benchmarking should always be against the best candidate in any given category, irrespective of the competition's relative marketshare overall. Anything else is disingenuous (not that it stops companies from doing it). Complaining that they're NOT comparing themselves to IE is just absurd.
Yeah, that strategy was a huge flop for Google Wave. . .
FTFY. Wave is far more comparable where the platform is closed off from non-users, unlike Gmail that interacted just fine with every other email service. Google does need to learn that just because the strategy was so successful for Gmail, that doesn't mean it's the right fit for any new project they launch.
No, a person is a very clever animal.
People are still pretty stupid.
Actually this is essentially how Kickstarter fundraising works, but admittedly on a much larger scale. The budget for the project a deadline for the money to be raised are set and anyyone can pledge money, but no one is actually charged unless the funding goal is reached. If it is, everyone's money is automatically debited; if not, the project has failed to meet its target and none of the backers lose out.
Now, this presupposes that merely raising the $50m will actually guarantee the film gets made - which it doesn't - but with a large number of small backers, the risk to each is limited. And when it's made they all get a free digital version of the finished product. The only guarantee of quality is whatever pre-production artwork and other information can be used to entice people to contribute.
Obviously backers that way are not traditional investors and don't get a share in profits. Instead they have rewards based on their contribution. $30 might get a DVD version of the completed film, $50 the blu-ray, $100 signed artwork, $1000 some set piece memorabilia, etc.
Do I think you can actually, workably scale this kind of idea up to the level of Hollywood film production? Probably not, but it's not entirely ridiculous either.
While EA was continually (and rightly) blasted for putting profits before quality, Mirror's Edge represented them delivering on a surprising promise to invest in new IP, alongside Dead Space that year. Sadly they felt stung by the move with lower sales than anticipated despite a sizeable marketing push unusual for a new IP. Meanwhile Dead Space (great but less interesting to me) is becoming a new gaming heavyweight franchise.
I absolutely view Mirror's Edge as a success and think there's plenty of room for strong sales with a sequel now that it has a recognizable name. It's not a game for everyone, but the exhilarating feeling of freedom in first person will be missed. For me the game only struggled in its closing levels when it started throwing too many enemies at the player so that fight (intentionally its most limited mechanic) overtook flight.
Or we could write "virii" and pronounce it like "viruses".
This surely meets both the basic requirements for a fusion language like English: it looks kinda cool on paper and totally confuses everyone by being nonsensical in application.
I think we can all agree this makes the [most/least] sense.
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- John Wooden