jimsilverman

unless i'm missing something, the idea is to hand over all of your personal information to two college kids with internet access?

are you an NSA agent?

i'm shocked by the comments here.

it was a massive and anticipated security flaw. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to arrogantly lie about the severity of the threat.

less than a week after the CEO deemed the attack theoretical, it happened. the CEO's reaction was not to fix it, not to apologize, but to offer an opt-out after the damage had been done.

not sure why snapchat is getting a free pass on this, but it's horrifying.

"increasing airport security just leads terrorists to direct their assaults elsewhere"

so in other words, heightened airport security has worked.

a textbook examples of the dreaded "bro-grammer"

yeah, i was looking for his take on this. if it's anything like The Verge's account, it's a dealbreaker.

yes. Google Cloud Print: http://www.google.com/cloudprint/learn/

looks like they're fearing slow/low iOS7 adoption, considering how boldly they emphasize how few legacy iOS users are out there.

"I object to a huge, creepy advertising company having that much access to me and my data, I think it’s unwise to use many proprietary, hard-to-replace services in such important roles, and I think it’s downright foolish to tie that much of your data and functionality into proprietary services run by one company in one account that sometimes gets disabled permanently with no warning, no recourse, and no support."

that's one horrific run-on sentence. it's both grammatically flawed and descriptive solely of the platform the author is attempting to defend.

i can no longer tell if this guy's serious or just trolling.

this is basically what iCloud was supposed to be.

agreed.

i think the most important takeaway here is that the reactionary press release "Apple’s Commitment to Customer Privacy" was very carefully worded to give the customer a sense of security. it's definitely not telling the full story, but it serves its purpose of reassuring a concerned user base.

yes, because only google does this.

in other words, it's disposable.

at least they aren't gouging you with proprietary screwdrivers.

the propeller one made me lol. ripped off a design without any attempt of fitting the design to the brand.

i feel like HP is missing the point of chromebooks.

the whole point here is that they are optimizing for the vast majority. unfortunately you, with your part-time 800px tablet, are part of the 2%.

their focus on such an overwhelming majority of users makes a ton of sense from a business perspective.

(sidenote: does anyone with a VEEEERY WIIIIDE monitor maximize windows?)

the obvious course of action, as always, would be to closely monitor your traffic and analytics, then readjust your strategy when the numbers call for action. in the meantime, not being responsive allows for more agility and more targeted solutions.

their decision might not be popular, but it is definitely right for them. especially in the short- to mid-term.

Kind of insane to blame Ive, considering that only recently his jurisdiction was expanded to software.

so confused at "input.checkbox:indeterminate"

1. how does it know an unchecked checkbox has not been used? 2. why was a class of 'checkbox' added to the checkbox?

professions where a bowtie is suitable for a job interview:

- clown

- english professor

- that is all

this is a lot more interesting than the actual movie.

the main problem in this example is that the designer is worrying about the scaling of the graphics, rather than the fact that the stadium map and ticket listing are severely lacking any sort of visual association.

"pixel perfection" trumped actual ux improvements.

as a designer, i wholeheartedly agree with his points on the obsessive strive for pixel perfection. no one cares besides designers. or at least no non-designer i've ever asked.

it's becoming a problem. look at dribbble. countless designers would be more likely to obsess over a single misaligned pixel rather than focusing on far more impactful improvements to the user experience.

a pixel perfect button in the wrong spot will always perform worse than a misaligned button in the right spot.

very reasonable rules for a one-employee company. will look forward to hearing about how these policies hold up as the company grows.

author seems to be confusing visual styling with hierarchy and information architecture. it's harmless to remove gradients and shadows, but removing context and visual priority is what makes the sink flat.

this site isn't about journalism, it's about aggregation.

agreed. the current "hand curated" approach does not seem sustainable in the long term.

it's already showing some quite old news as a result. the new jersey earthquake was several weeks ago, positioned as the third "world news" story.

great concept and design, though.

the homepage is beautiful. huge step forward in both design aesthetics and marketing clarity. congrats to all involved.

but as far as i can tell, only the homepage is responsive. this is terrible. i understand that mountains must be moved in order for the full microsoft.com site to change to a single responsive layout, but in the meantime this may actually be a step backward in terms of mobile usability. users are going to be confused as hell navigating through from responsive to desktop and back again.

it's a little premature to celebrate a responsive victory.

Coming from a Blackberry Storm, my fiance tried an iPhone 4S and said "This is so complicated. Why is there only one button? What's it do?"

Ended up with a Droid Incredible 2. She loves it.

Not that surprising. Apple's pretty much locked into 640px width. An increase there would enrage app devs and designers. And cause a heap of compatibility issues.