I don't see how this is very different than the Huffington Post where writers write for free to get exposure. I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed/underemployed programmers out there who would love an opportunity like this. They can work on a fun project that will look good on a resume and they might even get paid for their efforts.
The deal is kinda bad for the programmers but it's still an opportunity if you play it right.
You should flip it around, what if someone committed the same crimes against you that are committed to against the MPAA.
A neighbor sees your iPod on the front seat of your car, so that neighbor buys the same car and same iPod and places his iPod in an identical spot on his front seat. Imagine the horror if everyone copied the same actions you did while leaving yours unharmed, still in your possession, and still in place; but they copied you!
I'm disappointed that Jeff's main point was left out of this article. You'd have to copy the whole thing to provide 100% context, but his last few sentences are key:
Please don't advocate learning to code just for the sake of learning how to code. Or worse, because of the fat paychecks. Instead, I humbly suggest that we spend our time learning how to …
- Research voraciously, and understand how the things around us work at a basic level.
- Communicate effectively with other human beings.
These are skills that extend far beyond mere coding and will help you in every aspect of your life.
I agree with Jeff completely. Learning to code is great but it's rarely the right tool for solving a problem. If your problems can be solved by coding then by all means get to coding, but learning how things work at the most basic levels will help people everywhere better define their problems and will lead to much better results. Jumping straight to coding a solution doesn't necessarily provide the best solutions.
I agree, I'm quite a bit more pessimistic about this situation. I would guess that handing over subscriber information is a nice revenue generator for telecos. If anyone shines a light on the practice it might dry up those profits.
It's a win-win situation for telecos. If they apply punitive caps for usage their customers will use less. If their customers use less the telecos won't be under any pressure to invest in improvements in service. They can raise rates every year and invest less money each year.
I agree that pulling the story for the safety of the president's daughter and her classmates is a good idea. They can discuss the political implications after they get back home safely. Or discuss them now without detailing her itinerary and location.
I like the idea of targeted advertising or targeted content. It would be great if Google or Facebook or whoever else could just show me things that are interesting to me without me searching. Unfortunately that's not their business, they sell my attention to advertisers; they don't necessarily tailor advertisements/content to what I want.
Right now Google is pretty terrible at guessing what I'd like. I've tried Google Reader's "Explore" section before and the suggestions are terrible. I would also love to see the Android App Store be smart enough to suggest apps/games/media I would like based on my current apps. I've provided them with a ton of info about me; it would be nice to start seeing some helpful recommendations.
I don't get the complaint that pirates are people who feel "entitled" to have whatever they want, when they want it. The content distributors need to realize that the content is already available to the potential pirates in formats then want when they want it. When the distributors choose not to compete with reality that makes a potential consumer's choice to pirate or do nothing. If they don't have an option to purchase then of course they won't.
The distributors need to realize reality - the content is out there and available. If you want to earn money then you need to offer a product.
Reading a book is nothing like driving a vehicle. That's a terrible comparison. That's not even worth responding to.
Eating is incredibly distracting. It takes at least one hand to eat most foods from drive through (burger, sandwich, taco). Changing the station on a radio requires you to divert attention from the road to the radio, same with changing CDs.
My point is the clueless old people bitching about texting grew up with changing radio stations (some with dials) or swapping/flipping cassettes or switching CDs. They don't think these are evil (but their predecessors probably did). Because they didn't grow up knowing how to text they think the new technologies are the only evil and dangerous technologies. Now with voice recognition texting is probably safer than most other distractions.
Only singling out texting is stupid and shows our bureaucrats are clueless. If they're going to ban texting then they should ban changing CDs, changing radio stations, eating, drinking, and checking paper maps (really dangerous).
These new rules assume that distracted driving was invented by cell phones.
They completely ignore every other potential cause of distracted driving like drinking, eating, talking, using a radio, figuring out cruise control/other features, and even just not paying attention. Will these new rules ban drivers from changing radio stations while driving? Changing CDs? Changing songs on an iPod? Will they ban using other technological car features like cruise control? head lights? blinkers?
To many old people who don't know how to text assume that technology has made things worse and that texting is worse than eating a sandwich while driving. These rules are ridiculous reactions from old people who fear everything new that they don't understand.
Hey if Zynga can make a complete copy of Tiny Tower on Android I'll play that over Nimblebit's half ass attempt any day. I really do enjoy Tiny Tower but the Android version is crap compared to iPhone. I hope some competition from Zynga gets Nimblebit motivated to produce complete games before releasing them.
Allocating 12 people for 3 months for a small amount of profit has to be weighed against other projects those 12 developers can work on. If they can work on a project that will sell many more units then it doesn't make sense to create this PC port. I've been to quite a few software companies and there are never engineers sitting around doing nothing. They get assigned to projects based on potential profit or company needs.
Also the product development process includes much more than developers. They require quality assurance (testers), marketing, designers for all the crap that goes in the box, project managers, and many more people. All of those people could be assigned to more productive projects.
I think Netflix is doing the right thing, split out the streaming from DVD service. Let the DVD service keep itself alive as long as it can, but they know it's going to die. It's a good business move.
However this letter from Reed Hastings was the dumbest part of the split. He thinks people are mad about the price increase because it wasn't communicated to them. It was covered in every form of media for a few weeks. Writing a letter a few weeks too late and confirming that you're jacking up prices isn't going to make fans happier. People are pissed over a 60% price hike, not the fact that the CEO didn't write me an e-mail.
The patent portion is the most interesting to me. With the Apple vs the world patent lawsuits (sorry to pick on Apple) it looks like every single smartphone, tablet, and probably laptop is infringing one patent or another. This law could ban almost every portable device from accessing the internet. Definitely the way to promote the progress of art and science...