joebadmo

45 ms·

451.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Long live the PC! I'm as tired of these proclamations an anyone else. But MS does seem to be in trouble long run, because its business model has been disrupted. Even if Metro is a wild success, it will be on devices that aren't expensive en
452.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Nice to see quick and continuous iteration on the mobile app. Points I took: - Hangouts have now subsumed Facetime into a really great group chat. - A lot of small tweaks that bring feature parity to the mobile experience. - Huddle renamed
453.
by joebadmo 15y ago
IANACS, but I think the time is right for new ui paradigms too. Here are my thoughts: http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-kind-o...
454.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I don't really understand why they dropped Google Hotpot. I mean, it's still there, but there doesn't seem to be much movement or promotion there. Zagat employs people to actively review restaurants. That's fine for people who have the same
455.
"You are the product."(blog.byjoemoon.com)
1 points by joebadmo 15y ago|0 comments
456.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You've misunderstood me. I don't believe tablets are a fad, if anything I'm lamenting they're inevitable success. I also don't claim that Apple hates the web. I just think it's in their interest to privilege 1. Consumption over production;
457.
by joebadmo 15y ago
But my point is that if tablets, which people refer to as "post-PC" devices, in some significant measure replace PCs, then they only have consumption devices.
458.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Napster, at least (I don't know about Pirate Bay), also enabled a class of underground/amateur music by giving it a distribution channel that never existed before. In a way that iTunes does not. I think, at least to some degree, you have th
459.
by joebadmo 15y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2956098
460.
by joebadmo 15y ago
see: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2956098
461.
by joebadmo 15y ago
1) I actually don't have that much of a problem with the Kindle (the e-ink one), at least not as much as with the iPad, because it's not a replacement for the PC, which is a production device as well as a consumption device. The iPad, on th
462.
by joebadmo 15y ago
That's an interesting take. I guess the way it looks to me is that the last dramatic production advancement for lay people was the advent of blogging. The two major advancements after that have been social networking and tablets, which both
463.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think you could have used the same argument for the media distribution model that existed before PCs were widely accessible: look, everyone is sitting on the couch, watching television, clearly that's what they want. But once we gave a lo
464.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You're right that it's certainly a step forward for consumption. What I meant is that it's a step backward for what I saw as the trend toward a world in which the power to create things is more evenly distributed. Don't get me wrong, I have
465.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I was referring to big studios producing expensive movies, tv shows, albums, music videos, book, and magazines.
466.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think the iPad is one vector. I think the social networks you mention are another. That also feels to me like a closing down, or a narrowing. I think Facebook, to take the biggest example, restricts and narrows and makes shallow our commu
467.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean apps? Or some other kind of content? I'm not quite following what you mean.
468.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Again, I agree that it's not one-dimensional. Tablets are making the consumption and light interaction aspects of computing accessible to a huge section of people for whom they were inaccessible before. And that's great. But the PC represen
469.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree with you on the extreme ends of the spectrum. But there are plenty of people in the middle who can be encouraged in either direction by the way we construct our tools. I think the explosion of content on the web, or Web 2.0, is all
470.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I imagine developers will produce interesting productivity software for these platforms, but I think the form factor inherently privileges consumption. There are the ergonomics, for example. Also limited screen size, and necessarily limited
471.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Creation is much easier today, it's true. And for a while, it looked like the old model of a few rich broadcasting/production companies making things for the rest of us to sit at home and passivel consume was going away, replaced by a model
472.
by joebadmo 15y ago
That's part of my point. The R&D is going into optimizing consumption instead of enabling production. I think there's still room for making it easier for people to produce expressive content. I don't think I'm necessarily imaginative en
473.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Not more than the old kindle, but more than the old model of computing, PCs with dedicated input.
474.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You just listed four activites that are consumptive in nature. What was the last thing you produced on your iPad? Not just that, but even the way you use it is not the optimized-for case, I think. Apple wants to optimize you buying music, m
475.
by joebadmo 15y ago
In certain ways, this "post-PC" era that Apple's brought us into with the iPad seems like a step backward. We're going back to something more like the broadcast television model, where a more or less centralized authority produces the conte
476.
by joebadmo 15y ago
This "more wood behind fewer arrows" approach sounds great to me as long as they keep trying new things. The only thing that concerns me about the approach is along the lines of what Doug Bowman said when he quit[0]: relying on data too muc
477.
by joebadmo 15y ago
It's a thoughtful post. It seems to me that iOS was successful in no small part because the available hardware was sufficiently powerful to drive a compelling experience (with some of the compromises). It couldn't have happened (much) earli
478.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree. Not only can Google+ not get away with what FB can given their respective market positions, they could use it as a differentiating feature. And not only that, but it seems like an obvious complement to the Circles feature, so you c
479.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Lanier is fascinating to me in that his perspective seems so far askew from my own that the exercise of even trying to understand what he's saying is necessarily broadening. If you had talked to anyone involved in it twenty years ago, ever
480.
by joebadmo 15y ago
From a blog post[1] I wrote: Nortel: $4.5B / 6,000 patents = $750k per patent. MMI: ($12.5B - $5.5B (cash and assets)) / 14,300 patents = $489,510.49 per patent. Plus 6,700 patents pending. Plus a hardware company. It was a lot of money.

More ›