hymanroth

9 ms·

31.
by hymanroth 17y ago
applause
32.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Fantastic analysis. But where's the money? The point of Calcanis' piece is that the Borg only gets (buys?) its way into markets which are big or growing. Whilst there is no doubt Yahoo is strong in some areas, he's saying Yahoo has thrown-i
33.
by hymanroth 17y ago
It all depends on whether you're talking about page-based or no-refresh web apps. For the former, you're right: the framework is less relevant, since the system is just basically responding to page requests. However, for a no-refresh app, t
34.
by hymanroth 17y ago
This is an excellent approach, and in my view will be common in the future. It can also elegantly solve the problem of offline access, with the local web server syncing with the remote server in the background.
35.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Contrary to most of the comments I've seen I thought the video was very interesting. I'm quite surprised the kids were so willing to walk away from services like FB in which they have a lot of 'emotional capital' invested. I would have thou
36.
Google building 3D hardware boost into Chrome(news.cnet.com)
1 points by hymanroth 17y ago|0 comments
37.
by hymanroth 17y ago
If he won't even invest $100 for a mock-up he's not serious about the project, end of.
38.
Google Chrome - Pavlonian Reinforcement?
2 points by hymanroth 17y ago|4 comments
39.
Wouldn’t it be Swell to be able to drag and drop between Web and desktop(ajaxian.com)
5 points by hymanroth 17y ago|3 comments
40.
by hymanroth 17y ago
I was talking about TC, not the hacker. Also, I made it clear that whilst I didn't agree, the question is a valid one.
41.
by hymanroth 17y ago
So that's what the silicon in 'silicon chip' refers to, neat. All I have to do now is work out what the carbon in 'carbon fiber' means...
42.
by hymanroth 17y ago
The million dollar question: would we have been so interested in how the attack was made if we hadn't had at least a glimpse of the compromised information? In other words, could TC argue that publishing the confidential information was a v
43.
by hymanroth 17y ago
He mentions debt but not security. Most banks won't finance a pre-revenue company without personal guarantees. And if you end-up borrowing against your own assets, you're basically financing yourself.
44.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Well, that's a matter of opinion. From what I have read, their method was innovative, hence the patents. The problem with working this kind of stuff out is that history is always biased towards the winners (in the sense that nobody talks ab
45.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Twitter's key insight was to extend a blogging platform to mobile phones (hence the 140 limit). It was definitely innovative and smart, but not the kind of thing they give out Nobel prizes for. I think the Google boys' idea went much deeper
46.
by hymanroth 17y ago
The whole idea/execution riff is reductionist. Some ideas are more or less obvious. Twitter is a great example: there was basically no idea, it was all execution and marketing. But other ideas are huge. Larry and Sergey's idea of how to ind
47.
by hymanroth 17y ago
+1 for humor
48.
by hymanroth 17y ago
I stand corrected then. Respect.
49.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Yes, if the documents only related to how twitter intends to treat UGC, then you would have a point.
50.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Sure, they did it to help the 'little guy'. Page views never entered the equation.
51.
by hymanroth 17y ago
The was a public interest element there. The public has a right to know about those situations. We may may interested, but we have no underlying right to know everything about a private company's operations and strategy.
52.
by hymanroth 17y ago
When the storm fades away you will go back to the site. TC knows this.
53.
by hymanroth 17y ago
The documents are not so positive. They diss a large number of celebs, call GOOG and MSFT 'distractions' and really go to town on Marissa Mayer.
54.
by hymanroth 17y ago
There's no doubt the content is fascinating - but they're private documents. TC had no right to publish them, and we should all feel a little guilty for in part legitimizing TC's decision to publish them.
55.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Agreed - it's a crap and immoral defence (sic). It's unfortunate bloggers don't have their own Geneva Convention (and no, that's not a tech conference in Europe)
56.
by hymanroth 17y ago
Like the part where they call Google and Microsoft a 'distraction' Or diss Marissa Mayer?
57.
by hymanroth 17y ago
TechCrunch's Faustian dilemma: to sell or not to sell its moral soul (or what's left of it) for an astronomical number of page views? Gee, that was hard - now where's the damn 'post' button?
58.
by hymanroth 17y ago
But that was the whole point of the post! The OS is no longer the platform - the browser is. We both seem to agree on the need for an open interoperability layer - we just don't seem to agree on where it should go :-)
59.
by hymanroth 17y ago
One of the key points of the post is that the browser is the platform, not the OS - so, regardless of the specific details of Chrome OS, it can't do much to improve the platform.
60.
by hymanroth 17y ago
The semantic aspect was only a part of a wider notion of an interoperability layer which can be rolled-out whilst the 'web platform' is still in its formative phase.

More ›