5 ms·

Why do "journalists" always forget to link to the primary source? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.pdf http://research.microsoft.com

by ge0rg 15y ago

Why do "journalists" always forget to link to the primary source? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.... is the original research paper and also provides interesting insights for smartphone app developers. [edit] Oops, I completely ignored that orange/light grey markup. Must have been an over-active form of ad-blindness.

wmf 15y ago
I see a source link. The Verge has an interesting layout, though; IMO it would be more normal to link inline.
bsphil 15y ago
I skipped over that even when I was looking for it on a first pass, assuming it was part of the tagging system. Linking to a primary source takes people away from your site. That's why news sites don't like to do it. I'd suggest that the amount of inline linking in blogs would be a counterpoint to that argument, but that's another story.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Since when is Microsoft so interested in doing Android-related research?
- shantanubala 15y ago
  Since they started developing Windows Phone? It's a little obvious, but why not study the design decisions of your competitors? Especially when it reveals inefficiencies?
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    And they thought they should just share it with the world? Please. This is just more of Microsoft's FUD tactics to attack competitors in a dirty way. They were also the ones to pay for that research that uncovered the first Chrome sandbox exploit. I question their motives for all of this.
    - shantanubala 15y ago
      That's my point. Microsoft has nothing to lose by researching the inefficiencies of their competitors. It's a pretty good business tactic if you have enough money to spare, and since they started developing Windows Phone, it makes even more sense for them to uncover "problems" with Android.
    - wmf 15y ago
      This paper was written by an intern at MSR. It's possible that it was easier to instrument Android or it has more apps or whatever.
  - CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
    You haven't actually read the paper, have you?
    - shantanubala 15y ago
      No, I've only read articles about it, so I definitely can't make a definite judgment about the quality of the research. But assuming journalists aren't misrepresenting the facts (which may or may not be a good assumption in this situation), it seems fairly obvious that Microsoft has a vested interest in developing a better phone operating system. Their intentions weren't necessarily nefarious, but I doubt they funded this purely for the sake of science. It's in their best interest to study cell phone efficiency, and it's in their best interest to study their competitor's phones. That just seemed like an obvious conclusion, but is there something in the actual paper that indicates anything different?

by ge0rg 15y ago

wmf 15y ago

I see a source link. The Verge has an interesting layout, though; IMO it would be more normal to link inline.

bsphil 15y ago

I skipped over that even when I was looking for it on a first pass, assuming it was part of the tagging system. Linking to a primary source takes people away from your site. That's why news sites don't like to do it. I'd suggest that the amount of inline linking in blogs would be a counterpoint to that argument, but that's another story.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Since when is Microsoft so interested in doing Android-related research?

shantanubala 15y ago
Since they started developing Windows Phone? It's a little obvious, but why not study the design decisions of your competitors? Especially when it reveals inefficiencies?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  And they thought they should just share it with the world? Please. This is just more of Microsoft's FUD tactics to attack competitors in a dirty way. They were also the ones to pay for that research that uncovered the first Chrome sandbox exploit. I question their motives for all of this.
  - shantanubala 15y ago
    That's my point. Microsoft has nothing to lose by researching the inefficiencies of their competitors. It's a pretty good business tactic if you have enough money to spare, and since they started developing Windows Phone, it makes even more sense for them to uncover "problems" with Android.
  - wmf 15y ago
    This paper was written by an intern at MSR. It's possible that it was easier to instrument Android or it has more apps or whatever.
- CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
  You haven't actually read the paper, have you?
  - shantanubala 15y ago
    No, I've only read articles about it, so I definitely can't make a definite judgment about the quality of the research. But assuming journalists aren't misrepresenting the facts (which may or may not be a good assumption in this situation), it seems fairly obvious that Microsoft has a vested interest in developing a better phone operating system. Their intentions weren't necessarily nefarious, but I doubt they funded this purely for the sake of science. It's in their best interest to study cell phone efficiency, and it's in their best interest to study their competitor's phones. That just seemed like an obvious conclusion, but is there something in the actual paper that indicates anything different?