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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I remember the first time I used battlenet (Score 3, Interesting) 31

The multiplayer experience for Diablo was incredible, better than single player, when you somehow knew the other players in the game. Nearly every time real world and online friends met up in the game someone would comment on how this was so much better than playing with randoms.

FWIW WoW did a better job of making play with randoms fun but still with all friends in your group it was an incredible experience.

Which is why guilds are so popular.

Comment Re:Corner cases (Score 1) 117

I am not claiming any compelling uses, merely useful ones. I am however arguing that compelling cases are likely to come out of areas where the watch has sensors a phone does not (heart rate), or when a phone is not immediately accessible (remote control of phone, various sporting activities, etc).

Today the only reason I feel justified in owning a smartwatch is that I am a developer.

Comment Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score 1) 117

Smartwatches also have heart rate sensors. So that is probably the first area to explore where they go beyond a smartphone. The second area may be when you are separated from your phone.

Haptic feedback is another partial differentiator, it can tap you on the wrist to get your attention. Partial because a vibrating phone in your pocket is also haptic. But if the phone is say mounted on the dash for turn-by-turn directions then that watch haptic feedback is nice, you don't have to turn down the stereo to avoid missing a voice alert.

Another place where I found a smartwatch useful is as a controller for smartphone based presentations. I can plug the smartphone into the multimedia system at the podium and be free to walk around a little and control things from the watch.

Comment Found two other useful things ... (Score 2) 117

Smartwatches are mostly useful for looking at notifications and deciding whether I need to act upon that information or if I can just make a mental note and swipe right. It saves me time picking up and/or unlocking my phone to see a notification. There's not really any compelling smartwatch apps that wouldn't be more useful as a fullscreen smartphone app.

The watch can control a presentation being played from your smartphone. This allows you to travel real light.

The tap on the wrist during turn-by-turn directions is nice. You don't have to turn down the stereo for fear of not hearing a reminder on the phone.

When thinking about what could be compelling I'd start with what is unique for the watch. The first thing that comes to mind is that the watch has a heart rate sensor, so something utilizing that would go beyond "I don't have to reach for the phone". Secondarily when might a person have the watch but not the phone.

Comment Actually does this benefit Google? (Score 1) 154

According to new data from ComScore, more than half of all time Americans spend online is spent in apps -- up from around 41% two years ago. It's a stat that will be discomfiting to advocates of the open web, as well as companies whose core business is built around it -- notably Google.

This is why Google offers Android free to hardware manufacturers. Does Google benefit from this trend? They are no longer competing on an open playing field, they now provide the playing field. Their core business of targeted advertising would seem to benefit.

Comment Re:He can buy it back ... (Score 1) 111

So this means Mike McAfee can be sued over McAfee plumbing services ? That's not how trademark law works. Trademarks only apply in the same sphere of trade - and where using a similar name could cause confusion for consumers.

Yeah, I know, I used McAfee Pharmaceuticals to make that point in various posts in this thread. :-)

I suspect he has good odds in this case - very few judges (and all but the most pliant of juries) would accept the idea that this company is in the same sphere of trade as antivirus software.

Sorry, the categories for trademarks are not that narrow. Anything related to computer security is probably off limits, utility software for detecting hardware and software problems, etc; there are various live trademarks in these area. Probably even utility software in general, from a 1992 trademark renewed in 2014: "computer programs; namely, utility programs and anti-virus programs" under the category "Computer and Software Products and Electrical and Scientific Products".

Comment Re:He can buy it back ... (Score 1) 111

That's the thing about trademarks, they only cover the exact thing where it would be confusing, they don't cover all words that have any overlap.

You have been severely misinformed. A subset, something partial, something similar ... all would be subject to trademark violations. **If** the new company is conducting any activity in the same categories that the old trademark was filed under.

McAfee Associates doesn't exist!

The McAfee trademark is **currently** being used by Intel for various Intel Security products.

And the bare word "McAfee" does not prevent people named McAfee from using their name.

One a trademark has been issued there absolutely is. The only thing special about a name is that it is hard to trademark, **until** the name becomes closely associated with a product, service, company, etc. People named McDonald can't use their name for a restaurant, people named Disney can't use their name for an entertainment company, etc.

When the owners of that trademark bought the mark, they surely knew that there still existed a guy a named John McAfee, who sometimes does things to make money.

The buyers knew what I explained above. McAfee is not restrained from creating a new business, he just can't use his name on a new company, service, product etc in certain activities because **he** trademarked it and then **he** sold that trademark to someone else.

Comment Re:He can buy it back ... (Score 1) 111

Well, yes, and if he tries to brand the products themselves with some derivation of McAfee you would have a solid point. However currently all he's doing is naming the company John McAfee Global Technologies Inc which may be perfectly legal since Intel voluntarily dropped the usage of the company name.

No, that is not how trademarks work. If the new company does work in a category covered by the old trademarks Intel bought then there is a conflict. Trademarks apply to any use, features, products, company names, etc ... there is no distinction between them.

Comment "McAfee" actively in use by Intel (Score 1) 111

Actually, he may have a case. Intel did rename MacAffee Security to Intel Security.

Intel still uses the McAfee brand, describes the Intel Security offerings. The Intel Security webpages include McAfee logs and the text "McAfee" in the description of various technologies, ex "McAfee Enterprise Security Manager".

Comment Re:He can buy it back ... (Score 1) 111

. He received large sums of money so others could exclusively use that name/brand.

And that Name/Brand is McAfee Antivirus, not John McAfee, and definitely not "John McAfee Global Technologies" .

Trademark conflicts are not precise (sub)string matches. Trademarks apply to specific categories of business activities. But if the later intends to be involved in software and computer security then it would seem a clear violation. Even software utilities for computers would be a likely violation. If its a pharmaceuticals company he should be OK.

In fact.... I know another person named McAfee, who has a son named John, ...

And obviously someone who did not trademark "McAfee" if the field computer utilities and security, unlike the other McAfee.

And it's a common custom / tradition to name projects or small businesses / ventures after yourself.

When there is no trademark conflict. There is no "right" to use your name for a product or business.

Only issue would be if the new company were going to be a security software maker and sell a security product with a confusingly-similar name on the product or point of retail.

"Confusing" in trademark terms would be anything that remotely looks like or sounds like "McAfee".

Comment Re:He can buy it back ... (Score 4, Insightful) 111

But the thing is he didn't have to change his name when he sold the brand.

A trademark is specific to a particular category, the exclusivity only applies to the specifically stated category. For example he is free to start McAfee Pharmaceuticals Inc but not McAfee Software Development Inc. Similarly names are outside of the stated category.

Should we only ever get one chance to use our real names as a brand?

You are not limited to one chance unless you voluntarily SELL a brand based on your name, and again its category specific. He could have sold the technology, the software/data/patents/etc, while retaining the company/brand name. But he would have received less money. He CHOSE to go for a bigger payday by letting the name/brand go.

Comment He can buy it back ... (Score 2) 111

Cry me a river. He sold his name out, now he has to live with the consequences.

Exactly. He chose his name as a "brand", he trademarked that name/brand, he sold that name/brand. He received large sums of money so others could exclusively use that name/brand.

If he wants that name/brand he can buy it, just like the people he sold it to.

Comment Re:Sounds like Android ... (Score 1) 585

I just don't see the connection between upgrading hardware and upgrading software. If someone who builds their own system elects to upgrade or replace existing hardware this action is separate from shelling out $100 or whatever it is for Windows 10 isn't it? Why do you think one would be linked to the other?

Even in the BYO community it is quite normal to use the recent OS when building a new system. Once you are upgrading motherboard, CPU and RAM you are so close to a new machine one might as well go all the way. Plus leaving a perfectly good motherboard, CPU and RAM sitting around unused is something that seems to go against the personality of many BYO'ers. Upgrading the motherboard only seems more common when a board dies and then the same or comparable motherboard is used that is compatible with the CPU and RAM. I just don't see putting a gen7 motherboard in an old box running Win7 being that common of a scenario.

It isn't about demand for Windows 7 because they would already have it at that point. Or are your remarks limited to only people who didn't have PCs before building their own for the first time? That wouldn't make much sense.

Most BYO'ers use an OEM version of Windows and can not move the OS from an old machine to a new machine. As mentioned above the older machine tends to be left running. That way the BYO'er has a working machine while testing out the new build. Secondary machines are useful too, whether its testing on lower end hardware, a headless Linux box in the closet, etc.

Next months gen 7 hardware that only supports Win10 will be largely indistinguishable from currently available gen 6 hardware that supports Win7. This gen 6 hardware will be available for many years to come.

Doubt people really want to go out and spend their money on old technology.

It will be cheaper and performance wise it will be virtually indistinguishable. The performance difference between two successive generations just isn't what it used to be. Gen 5 DDR3 parts are still selling today despite gen 6 DDR4 parts having been out for a while. If a person is not a serious gamer a lowly gen 5 i3 is likely overpowered for what they need.

Microsoft did just run an all out campaign for a whole year in which they did everything they could including resorting to dirty tricks to cow people into upgrading. At the end of it there are twice the number of Windows 7 PCs than Windows 10.

It has never been common for people to upgrade a working system's OS. The historical trend has been that a new OS gains in market share as new PCs are sold. Win7 is only hanging around because people are still using older machines, as mentioned above machines have much greater useful lives than they used to. Two to three times the useful life. This is stretching out the lifespan of Win7. As new hardware are purchased Win7 will be replaced, the need for new hardware to support Win7 is minimal. Even more so given the similarity of gen 6 and gen 7 performance wise. Corporation and such that are slow to migrate can just order gen 6 based systems and suffer near zero impact.

Comment Re:Sounds like Android ... (Score 1) 585

I'm saying there will probably be very little demand for Windows 7 support from consumers buying the latest and greatest motherboards in the future and building their own system.

If there is so little demand and nobody builds their own systems why is there such a huge selection of motherboards, cases, processors and peripherals to chose from? Not just online but local retail?

Re-read. I wrote little demand for Win7 in the future not BYO in the future.

What Intel is actually doing is refusing to support the most popular and widely used PC operating system in the whole wide world on their new hardware.

Next months gen 7 hardware that only supports Win10 will be largely indistinguishable from currently available gen 6 hardware that supports Win7. This gen 6 hardware will be available for many years to come. The declining minority that wants Win7 will not lack hardware options.

Win7's current popularity is largely an artifact of PCs having useful lives two to three times what they used to be. Most are using Win7 merely because its what is on the computer, if their next computer has Win10 they will most likely be perfectly happy. This is no sizeable Win7-forever camp even among the BYO let alone consumers at large.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I think trash is the most important manifestation of culture we have in my lifetime." - Johnny Legend