thomasf1

Now, what works better? iPhone 5c http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/iphone...

- or -

Beats 5c http://i60.tinypic.com/103hnjb.jpg

I could see one way that would make sense: To fix the iPhone 5C debacle. You want to reach lower level customers without tarnishing your main brand...

Beats could fit that profile. Just make the colors a bit brighter and the successor to the 5c cheaper.

Or sicking with the beats brand (style over quality): Why not use 4s internals ;)?

Is's hard to find a analogy that really fits well...

Bloggers typically benefit from their activity, wether they blog on a platform or have their own blog. In both cases, they have an audience.

As your main point is about fully controlling the tools you'd use for their work, maybe something like racing drivers building their own cars would work better...

This analogy just seems a bit confusing to me and threw me off the main point...

End users, readers = coffee consumers

Bloggers = baristas, either working in their own store or a Starbucks.

Mixing the two up doesn't make sense. Well, there are a couple of bloggers that are their only readers - hopefully less guys than the ones that brew their own coffee though ;).

Quick poll:

Where do you stand on this?

-> Focus (1...10) Keeping the product

I´m a bit conflicted.. on one hand they lost user confidence by discontinuing Reader, on the other I completely get the approach to focus on a few things and really do them well.

There is one big difference:

In Government / from within, hackers generally don´t have the skills to be able to change the system - Government is run by politicians - the effect of a good hacker is about as small as in your typical old-world corporate run by finance guys…

Compare that to companies where hackers are the CEOs…

Word isn´t the problem... Converting from Word to something else is some pain for users. Converting from Excel (especially Excel Macros) to something else is in the Millions of $ for developers/re-engineering of those Macros...

Kickstarter would be great for this, especially building a community.

Maybe a way would be to do a 5$ Kickstarter for people to get early access to the app, even before their friends can buy it from the App Store. This could work through the Apple Enterprise Program, but it might not be allowed in the small print...

That could generate some hype, and backers would have something exclusive for a while till it´s available in the app store. It also would build a community that surely gives great feedback and the first few iterations wouln´t need to go through the app store approval process (which would mean faster iterations / feedback).

Thanks... that really motivates :)... Let´s do some market research here if you don´t mind: how much would you pay and what price do you think is fair?

Domo arrigato gozaimas... you seem to have some experience in marketing apps... would be great to talk a bit about how you would approach it and if what part (if any) you still would work on... we´re at dev@beatmaticapp.com

Would be great to hear from you and work together.. drop us a email!

It´s Eclipse // Java FX and Mathematica on Linux... The Macbook runs OSX with XCode and some more stuff...

Absolutely right... :) We really liked the challenge and not knowing if we could pull it off... It was good fun...

Thanks! What direction would you take it first?... We´ve jotted down a few "product" ideas in the blog...

Thanks for your offer, sure we´d like to hear from you. It is already a iPhone app, although limited by time constraints one build in PhoneGap rather than native. We probably will move the app into a native app, or extend PhoneGap via plugins for more advanced sound functionalities like filters.

Our emails by the way are thomas / martin @ the app domain...

We´d love to hear your thoughts on where to take this...

Either here or on Quora :) http://www.quora.com/Startup-Advice-and-Strategy/We%C2%B4ve-...

I was basing that at the Example code on your site http://bryntum.com/examples/gantt-latest/examples/basic/basi... which a bit short of 2MB (at least when loaded by Safari and Chrome, it seems to load differently in Firefox)...

It would be great if you guys could show off your skills in a optimized demo site...

Great to hear you guys are working on drag&drop... Have a look at this lightweight jQuery based Gantt with drag&drop for some inspiration: https://github.com/thegrubbsian/jquery.ganttView

It implements it really nicely...

Great overview!

One thing that would be great to add to the overview (if you´ve still got the demo files) is how large the download is - it´s one of the things that spoke against Bryntum's solution (over 2 MB!).

That´s great, the first jQuery based Gantt that does dependencies. Exactly what I´m looking for :)

In terms of style, this one is nice as well: http://taitems.github.com/jQuery.Gantt/

If it wouldn´t be for using Ext.js and the large code size, this one is the most polished in terms of look and function: http://bryntum.com/products/gantt/

If you need any help with styling it a bit differnt, give me a shout :)

Yea, it actually remembers me of eBay... Awfully run, but still successful.

It pains me to watch something like that though...

well... what more could you do if you´d actively want to destroy the company?

- remove yourself from google search -> check

- annoy any 3rd party app makers -> check

- have a unreliable service -> check

- have little product innovation -> check

Yea, I´m coming from the creative side... And great companies always had attention for detail (or for more more "superficial" stuff if you want to put it that way). The success of that companies (Apple being one of them) clearly inspired other companies to try harder.

What do you do? I guess more research? If there is something like that in software...

And how would you approach the patent system?

Well... The main patent in this case is the "bounce-back patent".

Where would you draw the line of what´s patentable? To me this seems actually to trivial as with most software patents.

In terms of software it´s not really the implementation that´s protected, more the concept... (Nobody is comparing source code and is looking if it´s coded in the same way)

Sorry, my fault... What´s your take on the morals of the Samsung/Apple trial and your feelings regarding protection by software patents?

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case:

Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.

On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.

Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.

For me the morale right or wrong is the following:

* make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.

* copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others. Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.

It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps.

* moral compass of creatives

It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives: If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it. If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.

* Legal System

The Jury system in the US is actually well suited deciding complex moral questions and too much fine print hinders more than it heps, which was evident in this case.

To me, instead of a patent office there should be a central online register to archive jury-understandable photos and descriptions or ideally videos of the stuff you do simply to have a validated reference of when you thought of it.

And then patent/IP Law may simply should read soething like this: It is ok to base any creative work on the work of others as long as the result is something new and great in it´s own right.

It´s not ok to copy the work of others without significantly improving it simply for making money.

Done. Plain Language.

Everything else, the moral right or wrong would be left to a Jury with guidance from a Judge.

Which they basically did in the Apple case. All that patent BS aside, I guess they descided on the basic morale question and started the paperwork.

(That guess is based on the time it took them to come to the verdict. When actually reading all the paperwork produced they would have been there years.)

What´s your take?

Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC.

What´s your take on the morals of this?

The Jury system in the US is actually well suited deciding complex moral questions and too much fine print hinders more than it heps, which was evident in this case.

To me, instead of a patent office there should be a central online register to archive jury-understandable photos and descriptions or ideally videos of the stuff you do simply to have a validated reference of when you thought of it.

And then patent/IP Law may simply should read soething like this: It is ok to base any creative work on the work of others as long as the result is something new and great in it´s own right.

It´s not ok to copy the work of others without significantly improving it simply for making money.

Done. Plain Language.

Everything else, the moral right or wrong would be left to a Jury with guidance from a Judge.

Which they basically did in the Apple case. All that patent BS aside, I guess they descided on the basic morale question and started the paperwork.

It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps.

It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives:

If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it.

If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case:

Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.

On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.

Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.

For me the morale right or wrong is the following:

make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.

copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.

Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.