3 ms·

I was talking about product research. No you weren't! You were talking about the later stage: "going mainstream", which means efficiency, testing and deploymen

• jokoon 13y ago
  > You'll have a devil of a time just deploying and testing the fucking thing, forget about development. That's what you said. When I said "Who cares about that ? Engineering is about results, not ease of work.", I was answering about "devil of a time". > The reasons why you are wrong are contained in the damn links I went to the trouble of assembling for you. The links you talk about might have to do with the IT business and how things go down between engineers, investors and managers. This is such an ugly topic, I don't even want to even try to talk about it. It's just not interesting. You don't go forward innovation by asking marketers and consumers. Marketing is about how you sell stuff, not what you actually sell. That's what I hate about business in general. Business wants to do stuff, but it has no idea what to do. That's the reason the soviets were the first to send sputnik and a man on the moon. The US just followed. That's how innovation is broken. But that's just another topic. I could not let you tell me that "things are good the way they are, because if they're like that, it's because we explored the business of it, and that's what we found out."
  • ucee054 13y ago
    I didn't tell you things are good the way they are, I told you that the internet will always be centralized and p2p will never go mainstream. You don't go forward innovation Innovation is irrelevant to p2p because p2p has already been invented. Nobody wants it, and nobody has wanted it for 20 years, that's its problem. This is such an ugly topic, I don't even want to even try to talk about it. It's just not interesting. That uninteresting ugliness decides which technologies go mainstream and which ones fail. If you want to stick your head in the sand, this conversation is over.
    • jokoon 13y ago
      > I told you that the internet will always be centralized and p2p will never go mainstream. You seem confident about the future. I already read stats that p2p is actually quite a big chunk of the internet traffic. I never said "bring the internet full p2p", I just meant that p2p can play a role in what facebook, forums, and mail techs are already doing. p2p is not just for file sharing, file sharing is the easiest part of p2p. > Innovation is irrelevant to p2p because p2p has already been invented. p2p only work with protocols, and there aren't many protocols around people can actually use. There's a difference between invention and having a working standard. And what does 'invented' really means here ? You don't just invent technologies, p2p is a very broad concept, you need to precisely define how users can make use of a protocol, what is the purpose of a particular protocol, what are the security and abuse issues, what sort of resource can be saved by using it, etc. > if you want to stick your head in the sand, this conversation is over. I don't want to stick my head in the sand, I'm just quite disappointed about how investors play ball with lab rats. That's how I feel IT and research business is done. Look at tesla motors, I'm sure Musk is one of the few investors who is not saying "fuck you with your nerd fantasies", and who is actually trying to change the industry.