4 ms·

Here's what Steve Job's verbal answer to this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s till

by hboon 15y ago

Here's what Steve Job's verbal answer to this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s till 9:20

6ren 15y ago
BTW: In his answer 2 questions later, he presages iCloud ("NFS") and Apple Stores ("distribution") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s (13:10-21:00) (And also demonstrates his reality distortion field, which his questioner heroically overcomes.)
- hboon 15y ago
  You'd need to append #t=13m10s instead of ?t=13m10s (I have no idea why they did it this way). So this is the URL you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=13m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=13m10s. It doesn't work with the HTML5 version of YouTube though. Is it technically not possible?
  - 6ren 15y ago
    Did you try my URL? Both forms work for most browsers, but only my variant (with "?...&") works for some - including my browser. Yeah, they're misusing the spec. If they wanted to be clever, and use "#" to index the video instead of the page, they should have omitted the "t=", to look like "#13m10s". At least that would make sense. But oh no, they had to bastardize it into some hideous hybrid chimera of crossed specs.</grump> BTW: it was a real question - did my variant work for your browser?
    - hboon 15y ago
      Yes, I tried yours and thought it didn't work in Chrome. I just tried again and yes it works :) So yours is definitely better for me. Both didn't work in Safari if it doesn't have Flash. I think it used to when I had Flash installed, so it's probably only the HTML 5 version that wouldn't work? Which browser are you using?
      - 6ren 15y ago
        Thanks! HN, where correcting someone can be educational ;-) Yeah, sounds like a HTML5 bug; they'll probably fix it soon. Flash is a well-established platform, so I'd be surprised if it didn't work in it. Does youtube's HTML5 version work in Chrome? FF2 in linux (long story for why I can't upgrade this machine)
        hboon 15y ago
        Didn't work for me on Chrome. Switched successfully to HTML5 though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s&html5=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s&... After reading http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, I always expect to be educated on HN :)
        6ren 15y ago
        I'm surprised. Oh well. BTW: Awesome thread.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
queensnake 15y ago
'just buy more stock'? Doesn't have much to say on the topic of keeping only the highest-quality products.
- hboon 15y ago
  It's the part where you ignore the negative feedback from Wall Street and newspapers. This type of change takes time and during the process, outsiders and even insiders will be unlikely to agree with you. Let the results do the talking. Part of good leadership. The 'just buy more stock' was probably part joke and part personal gain. If you truly believe this is going to be good for the company, then you would believe the stock price will rise in the long term. Why not show your confidence to the insiders and make a buck out of it.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    Interestingly, this is something that Rockefeller did often with Standard Oil, as I read in a biography. And also interestingly, it looks like some people (partners) really resented when Rockefeller bought their stock when they lost confidence in his bold choices, which ended up earning him billions is today's currency - and them lose that opportunity.
    - hboon 15y ago
      Do you remember why if it described why they felt that way, other than being poor losers?
      - danmaz74 15y ago
        I guess they might have rationalized that were somehow cheated by Rockefeller; according to the biographer though the course he decided to follow was a very risky bet and nobody could have know for sure how it would have turned out.

by hboon 15y ago

Here's what Steve Job's verbal answer to this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=07m33s till 9:20

6ren 15y ago

BTW: In his answer 2 questions later, he presages iCloud ("NFS") and Apple Stores ("distribution") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s (13:10-21:00) (And also demonstrates his reality distortion field, which his questioner heroically overcomes.)

hboon 15y ago
You'd need to append #t=13m10s instead of ?t=13m10s (I have no idea why they did it this way). So this is the URL you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=13m10s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY#t=13m10s. It doesn't work with the HTML5 version of YouTube though. Is it technically not possible?
- 6ren 15y ago
  Did you try my URL? Both forms work for most browsers, but only my variant (with "?...&") works for some - including my browser. Yeah, they're misusing the spec. If they wanted to be clever, and use "#" to index the video instead of the page, they should have omitted the "t=", to look like "#13m10s". At least that would make sense. But oh no, they had to bastardize it into some hideous hybrid chimera of crossed specs.</grump> BTW: it was a real question - did my variant work for your browser?
  - hboon 15y ago
    Yes, I tried yours and thought it didn't work in Chrome. I just tried again and yes it works :) So yours is definitely better for me. Both didn't work in Safari if it doesn't have Flash. I think it used to when I had Flash installed, so it's probably only the HTML 5 version that wouldn't work? Which browser are you using?
    - 6ren 15y ago
      Thanks! HN, where correcting someone can be educational ;-) Yeah, sounds like a HTML5 bug; they'll probably fix it soon. Flash is a well-established platform, so I'd be surprised if it didn't work in it. Does youtube's HTML5 version work in Chrome? FF2 in linux (long story for why I can't upgrade this machine)
      - hboon 15y ago
        Didn't work for me on Chrome. Switched successfully to HTML5 though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s&html5=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&t=13m10s&... After reading http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, I always expect to be educated on HN :)
        6ren 15y ago
        I'm surprised. Oh well. BTW: Awesome thread.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

queensnake 15y ago

'just buy more stock'? Doesn't have much to say on the topic of keeping only the highest-quality products.

hboon 15y ago
It's the part where you ignore the negative feedback from Wall Street and newspapers. This type of change takes time and during the process, outsiders and even insiders will be unlikely to agree with you. Let the results do the talking. Part of good leadership. The 'just buy more stock' was probably part joke and part personal gain. If you truly believe this is going to be good for the company, then you would believe the stock price will rise in the long term. Why not show your confidence to the insiders and make a buck out of it.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  Interestingly, this is something that Rockefeller did often with Standard Oil, as I read in a biography. And also interestingly, it looks like some people (partners) really resented when Rockefeller bought their stock when they lost confidence in his bold choices, which ended up earning him billions is today's currency - and them lose that opportunity.
  - hboon 15y ago
    Do you remember why if it described why they felt that way, other than being poor losers?
    - danmaz74 15y ago
      I guess they might have rationalized that were somehow cheated by Rockefeller; according to the biographer though the course he decided to follow was a very risky bet and nobody could have know for sure how it would have turned out.