3 ms·
Not OP, but I'd expect that it is because W3W is a basically a marketing campaign for a technology that doesn't actually solve a problem (or, more precisely, s
by toss1 8y ago
Not OP, but I'd expect that it is because W3W is a basically a marketing campaign for a technology that doesn't actually solve a problem
(or, more precisely, solves one corner of a problem while destroying many much broader solutions)
Creating a knock-off that solves the OS problems still fails to recover from the broader problems that the W3W 'solution' provides zero ability to actually navigate without a continuous link to their server. A knock-off with better OS cred would still fail the same way.
- asow92 8y agoOP reads as if their main issue is the lack of inherent openness. All I'm saying is make an open alternative if is really so bothering to OP.
- toss1 8y agoYes, I agree that the article spends waay too much print on the lack of openness, and too little on the fact that W3W is just a bad idea that solves nothing. So, yes, if that was his only problem, he should definitely organize an open version. (it'd just be a bit less pointless) BTW, did you see this? Somebody posted it above and it is hilarious - especially the Vision, Facts, etc pages... http://www.what3fucks.com/ http://www.what3fucks.com/