HN user
As with any graphics format, different formats have strong points. One wouldn't use PNG for a portrait and a JPEG for a block of text.
So I look at PDE and notice that its few points and colour contours bear a lot of similarity to a basic vector format. I wonder if a simplified vector format that utilises tracing combined with blurring effects would best PDE.
yep definitely hell banned :)
I think they just want something to complain about and aren't actually on mac os. I've already seen a number of examples which are simply fairy tales. (Such as claiming they're being prompted when opening ordinary jpg files.)
That said, even the author notes that this is designed to be forked. It's not a script to run on one's own machine blindly, the idea being to exclude what is not to your taste/while demonstrating features which can't be changed inside the gui. (It's also very helpful if setting up multiple accounts.)
Probably worth noting, since a few stories have left this out: The phones labelled "Sony" aren't actually Sony designs or devices. They're fully apple designed, most likely using the brief of "what would sony do here."
It's being brought to court as evidence because it could be used to indicate that Apple appropriated design inspiration from Sony. (Such as the clie.)
It's interesting to see this being brought up as evidence, because if you were to remove the Sony logo it doesn't actually convey much of a Sony 'feel' at all.
Contrary to the tweets, I think it's perfectly fine to be upset about sparrow no longer being developed.
The days of software being unchanging are gone, that's a pre-internet way of thinking about computing, and it's perfectly fine to be upset that something you rely upon is no longer supporting you into the future.
We live in an era where there is an expectation that our software titles will keep pace with the rapidly changing nature of technology. The business model of ios is simple, the vendor takes 30%, while the developer is free to lure new customers with additional innovations/features without having to worry about the expense of updating everyone who has purchased the title already. It's the life blood of competition and a business model that many titles adhere to.
So whether the developer is updating the code for new devices, adding software features that are relevant to new emerging technologies or simply staying relevant by supporting the latest standards. We treat software like a journey and not a static point. Software titles compete by out innovating each other. The moment this stops the software title is dead, it's competitors overtake it quickly and rarely would any of us rely on a piece of software that is no longer being developed.
In most cases software or firmware patching is sufficient, even in the case of some heat issues. If it can not be fixed via patch or only affecting a small batch of users, then returns are a better approach to distributing firmware.
If it's widespread then google didn't do enough intervention testing(QA processes). Which wouldn't be unusual since even mattel are guilty of letting intervention testing slide. (It slows production and pushes up costs.)
If it's an overflow/waterfall type issue(for lack of a better descriptive term) then turning the screen off and on will fix it temporarily until the trigger (such as heat) sets it off again.
It's less likely a calibration issue because the rest of the screen is performing accurately, and the behaviour is inconsistent.
If it's heat from the hardware, that can still be fixed with either more optimised drivers, or outright capping performance.
Quality of membership(i.e actual use) is more important than raw membership numbers. Those who seek out LinkedIn/Facebook/others are likely to be more interested in using the service than someone who joined G+ because their default search engine asked them to enter their google services password to instantly become a member.
A comparable example is Apple's Ping. Apple doesn't tout Ping as a success because it has millions of members (who were similarly presented with a trivial sign up method in iTunes 10 - Ping registered over 1M users in the first 48 hours.) Ping, however, is rarely used by the bulk of it's members, as such it's being discontinued. Most people signed up just to see what it was like, they didn't stick around. Facebook/LinkedIn don't have this problem so much, most people already know what the services are for, so they don't need to create a profile just to see what it's like.
G+ is growing, but it's an overstatement to say that it has the same level of user engagement as facebook/LinkedIn/others.
While many continue with the faulty logic that G+ is a superior experience/platform so it should become the dominant service, need to revisit the learnings of Betamax: technical superiority does not equate to automatic or guaranteed success.
I agree, designing in pixels has always been the wrong way to go about it. It is only needed when there is a restriction in the number of pixels available to work with(such as displays that have large pixels.)
The beauty of high pixel density screens is that we can literally output our vectors/high resolution rasters to the output size and not have to worry about massaging individual pixels for the best clarity. The advent of high pixel density screens allows us to exclusively think in terms of the end size on screen, instead of being bogged down with pixels dimensions. This high density makes design easier, not harder. Also the concept of different pixel densities is not new, screens have always had different pixel densities.
The reliable thing about 'retina' screens is that we can think of the pixel problem as 'solved' and just prepare artwork to pass the retina test, instead of trying to match it perfectly for every higher pixel density out there. (A level of accuracy that won't be easily seen by the user.) The same thing is done in print everyday, 300 dpi, 600 dpi, 800 dpi, it doesn't matter, past a certain point the end user isn't going to casually notice the extra detail.
Designers that have been working in print would see the analogy to various print device resolutions which are each measured in lines per inch. Again the approach is to think in terms of the final dimensions, and not get bogged down with the individual device resolutions.
I understand that designing for 1x can be problematic, but it's the same workflow as designing for any foreign pixel ratio/pixel density (such as non square pixels used in certain types of film.) It's just another step in the work flow and testing often on a device is useful way for the designer gets the hang of it.
I wonder if the author is wondering why there is a sudden influx of traffic after 6 months.
There is more interesting discussion on the ~7 months passed HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3376620
I'd recommend a simpler approach than contours or trying to convert blocked areas into patterns. Simply adjust the levels (or use replace colour) so the block colours aren't so dark. Advanced users would remove the magenta channel entirely on the blue sections of the image.
I did laugh, but the poor performance is predictable. A single session of siri will produce nonsensical answers when asking a set of unrelated questions. The comparison is designed to favour google voice search and to produce giggles. Below is just a short explanation for why siri goes so horribly wrong, and how a reverse comparison can be set up to favour siri over google voice search.
First up, don't get me wrong, for this accent google voice search should be a far superior voice recognition system.
The 'problem' is that Siri is tailored to produce a particular kind of result, its goal is to be a personal assistant. It skews the voice recognition to more probable commands to enhance the accuracy of the 'personal assistant'.
Siri builds a query using an arrangement of data that surrounds the user. Their location, address book, contacts and successive questions. It tweaks the voice-recognition results to more closely match its functionality, this leads to better accuracy when using it like a personal assistant, and poorer accuracy when trying to use it for dictation. (iOS does come bundled with dictation software that doesn't have Siri's personal assistant tailoring, that would be a better way of comparing the voice recognition technologies.) However iOS doesn't have a comparable voice-for-search service out of the box.
Google's voice recognition is designed to run google searches, for some data it produces siri like results (e.g. game scores). That's because Google search provides a set of summary results for basic searches, e.g. definitions, weather and the like, these have been piped to create the appearance that of Siri-like functionality. However, one could set up a 'reverse' video, with Siri converting successive searches for "italian", "take away" and "meat balls" into a meaningful search for an italian restaurant in the area that offers a meatball dish and takeaway. Google voice search isn't going to produce a similar clarity of results.
In the end it comes down to the user, I don't feel that successive specific searches are ideal in a voice-setting. At the moment google voice search is a product that produces searches very well, but is that useful to users who could just as easily type in the request? The OS-shortcuts make sense and are very siri-like (e.g.asking it to set a timer) Google's system will garner strength by taking on more siri-like functionality, which is a voice-scenario that is more useful to real world users.
I think rather it's much more straight forward, Apple's mobile devices make up the bulk of their income, it's where they're pointing their business as a whole now. A growing segment of their mobile device sales aren't covered by any EPEAT certification at all (iPhone/iPad). Future Apple devices are going to be increasingly complex to disassemble, and this is seen as a competitive issue too, in the pursuit of thinner, stronger and more attractive enclosures. I think they were just getting out of EPEAT before EPEAT caught up to mobile devices, a quiet exit (or so they hoped.)
It's nice to see real discussion about good products, rather than hearing the opinions of thinly veiled loyalists.
As a person who is often mistaken for being an apple fan because I'd rather people discussed each platform factually rather than sharing false information that smells of a loyalists agenda, I'm pleased to see TC putting out a balanced review.
Sad panda. I thought this was going to be funny.
Instead it's a serious attempt at linking the two, which is a bit like going to google trends and concluding that Christmas trees cause AIDS, because they both trend similarly.
Media distribution rights are held by the studio, the artist can continue to produce other content that their contract allows for(many have active twitter accounts/facebooks & behind the scenes clips.)
The music video clips in question are exclusive to the studio for the contracted period, and it's this which vevo are willing to shop around. It's an exclusive product without substitution. I'm yet to find a convincing argument that a consumer will be satisfied with a home remixed version with custom graphics when they're looking for the original clip. (Or rather that they'd choose such a clip when the original is available elsewhere for free.)
As for unlicensed copies, youtube's own system is very good at taking down illegitimate versions. Additionally the studios are lighting fast with DMCA take down notices (within hours) for clips that sneak past one way or another. The system is geared heavily to copyright holders, automatically denying clips that would normally construe as 'fair use' in the USA.
I won't comment on traffic flow, since that's not publicly revealed, however it is reported to be youtube's most watched "channel", that on its own indicates that the traffic result is not due to a unique "youtube experience", but rather the result of being the only place online where the videos can be viewed for free.
This is something Vevo can shop around, I suppose what I'm conveying here is that ultimately they don't need youtube. Youtube to vevo is a commodity video service, it's network was once unique, but now other sites could handle the level of traffic that the catalogue would generate. In another thread I've listed simple examples where it could be better leveraged, possibly producing a better outcome for the studio than what youtube provides.
Google's own top 10 searches are usually populated with music stars. Taking just last years Zeitgeist we have Rebecca Black and Adele in 1st and 7th place respectively.
Sure it could be people hunting for nude pics and news, but given it's Rebecca Black and Adele, it might be safe to say that it's people looking for their music/music videos.
In short, music is a big deal and if a user is hunting for music they're not going to be loyal to any particular site.
Vevo would certainly take a hit, but it won't be their end.
I think a competitor could do more with vevo than the commoditising approach of youtube.
Imagine if vevo were incorporated into facebook for example. It would be a larger audience with highly targeted ad & opportunity to sell network.
Thank you for your opinion on my conduct.
However you should note that I did not make the argument that all "google fans" were of this type of illogical character, rather that some do and have already begun filing responses of this kind in this thread, making it futile to reply to each, especially when this kind of fanboyism is immune to any contradicting realities presented to them.
Finally my "potshot" makes up a relevant piece of my argument, more specifically the argument that "being a fan of google doesn't invalidate vevos importance or clout".
I don't think it'll be the undoing of youtube - not at all. Youtube offers much to their audience, this certainly won't dramatically change their business. It does however give any competitor a much better standing to compete against youtube, giving the competitor relevance and a bucket load of traffic from consumers seeking desirable content. (The top 10 searches every year involve one or more music celebrities.)
It'll be interesting how it plays out anyway, now that google has announced it will discontinue video search altogether (in favour of youtube only.)
I get that this site(HN) has a lot of google fans, to the point that often completely illogical arguments are painfully maintained by characters that would rather gush loyalty than have an honest discussion.
But to those that think youtube is holding all the cards here need to look at what has undone so many other sites.
This is youtube's largest channel, and it's a large source of referral traffic, especially social sites like facebook.
It's google's prerogative to keep this kind of referral traffic, not only to maintain relevance, but also to be perceived as the first choice in online video. If the average teenager begins to associate another site as the first choice in video that would have follow on consequences as google would not be able to control the user experience. (Or tout Google+) Users will hunt around for the right video, they're not so loyal as to abstain from watching a music video because it comes from vimeo etc.
Youtube has been effective at shutting outtheir competition with exclusivity deals like these, a competitor could do the same to youtube - and this is a pretty desirable catalog that appeals to a very active online demographic, it would instantly make a competitor relevant, elevating them above the pool of B-grade youtube competitors.
woosh
You're implying that my observation is ridiculous.
I think you're the one being incredulous/insincere here.
My favourite part is the image of the model showing the samsung with an interface that closely resembles iOS.
I don't see patents, or patent defence as a problem. The problem is that patents are being granted for lowest-bar "innovations", which are leading to these cases by companies that are merely using it as yet another competition tactic. In tech we're seeing patent cases are over trivial, often minor, features which others can accidentally infringe upon without noticing.
Pharma is a different beast, it's much more difficult to have a low-bar pharmaceutical, usually by the time the work is done the medication far exceeds the threshold of patentability. (Patent exploitation does still happen, as others have pointed out with insincere drug enhancements.) It's not about regulating specific industries(which would be exploited), but rather about raising the bar on what is indeed an original invention.
The blame for this mess lay on the USPTO. The patent system is being run like a commercial entity. A granted patent will attract over $5,000 in fees to USPTO, a rejected patent will only garner $125, with much of the granted fees attributed to curiously undefined 'maintenance' cost.
I noted this above, but what is analogous between doors of a bygone era and accessing a touch-based device. Swiping a portion of the screen is the obvious component, but the skeuomorph isn't, I'm yet to see a good rationale for why this is more obvious than the many other opening simple-gesture skeuomorphs that could have been chosen.
I can think over many other more logical/closer skeuomorphs, which forms the basis of my question: was apple's choice a naturally occurring one, or their design choice. This isn't about patents, it's just a mind experiment as to understand if this is as straight forward as it seems in retrospect. (Because good design always appears obvious in retrospect.)
I'm yet to be presented with an answer to this, this is the crux of originality.
Windows 95.
I don't think apple are really trying to protect their intellectual property per se. After all the patents they put on the line are frivolous, and usually easily discounted... after a lengthy case.
Instead I believe these lawsuits are their 'revenge' for what they view as an injustice or 'stolen product', they know this harms their competitors and google financially, and interestingly the bulk of the buying market aren't phased by what they're doing. As a ruthless competition tactic it seems to be effective. I'm curious to know if the net spend of paying out legal fees is advantageous in comparison to the sales generated by this tactic.
If we're lucky this stunt of theirs will be what's needed to have the patent system overhauled in the USA. Apple have had fewer successes internationally, and the USA should as a minimum follow this lead.
I've already stated that I view the patent system as broken. We agree here.
The question I'm asking is within this broken system. How natural is this gesture? It means without the apple iphone, would we still be using this gesture, would it still be considered obvious?