Much like if you go back and look at Bill Watterson's work on Calvin and Hobbes.
2,413 karma · joined June 4, 2010
https://ary.pub
Where one to entertain this crazy notion though the reasoning could center around Sprint's WiMAX deployment and the iPhone 5's need for higher bandwidth. Should the much rumored "Assistant" feature of the new iPhone require a bigger pipe to the Internet to function, then this could be plausible.
Yet in the end, why? Apple has only expanded their supported carriers since 2007. Centering on Sprint in the hope of forcing the hand of AT&T and Verizon in the US is a fools errand. They would be effectively shrinking the market they worked so hard to expand into. Seems nuts.
Here's to hoping he figures out how to make the configuration a little easier for non-programmer types to deal with.
I'll repeat myself from other comments here on HN. Sublime Text 2 is amazing and worth every penny of the $59 it costs.
Allan Odgaard has made promises as to the quality and ship date of his product, and that's about it (to be fair, there have been 1.x updates). At this point the promise of a free upgrade combined with the boatloads of cash TM1 made are almost certainly what put future product development on perpetual hold. Far from just avoiding that promise, he should have avoided talking about future versions at all.
For me the choice is pretty clear. I finally deleted TM from ~/Applications a few weeks ago and haven't really looked back. Sublime Text 2 isn't perfect, but it is already very close to being everything I need for my day to day development and general editing tasks. Even though it isn't stable, I use it nearly every day, and it just keeps getting better.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147
Edit: The link is a request for PG to blacklist DF. I honestly don't think the submissions add to the overall quality of HN.
> The comparisons aren't really that important (to me at least).
The comparisons aren't really that important (to me at least). It's possible that these products can (and will) coexist. What is with the need to pronounce a winner as soon as possible? A product like Google+ is going to take a while to gain a user base and mature (just like Facebook). Launching in the shadow of a massive competitor (just like Facebook did VS MySpace) doesn't call for an instant death-knell.
I'll repeat something I've said here before. People said the same thing about Chrome weeks after it launched. It. Took. Time. How about sitting back and letting things shake out a bit before pontificating?
This is not a good idea (and far from "awesome"). I get why he's doing it, but suggesting that weakening the security of a tool that is meant to enhance it is bad advice.
The Chrome release cycle is meant to make sure not only features, but critical updates make it out to users on a timely basis. Every release isn't guaranteed to be feature-packed because that isn't the goal.
Ultimately it's about keeping the project on a steady rhythm of development which sees features and fixes out the door as soon as they're ready.
The hardest thing for me to understand is why the expected timespan for "success" is so short for products. Chrome got the same bad rap for not taking over the web 8 weeks after it had been released. These things take time.
Death by a thousand paper cuts may be a fun way to look at how Facebook could eventually bite the dust, but I think it's simpler. Eventually companies are going to figure out that they need to stop turning things inside out and technology will carry human social interaction instead of human social interaction carrying technology.
The distinction can be subtle, but consider a world where you don't think about the company and technology enabling you to share a moment with a loved one. Do you think about which phone network is carrying your phone call (until it drops)? In the future you probably won't think about checking Twitterbook+, it will all just happen.
1) It's still in preview.
2) It has been somewhat primed with members, but has yet to reach the tipping point where everyone wants to (or even can) try it out.
3) The feature set is almost certainly not what it will be when it goes public.
My take on the field test is that it focused on bringing out the features most wanted by the technical crowd, who are crucial early adopters (and people paying attention to Google). The service will be refined until it is deemed ready for public consumption.
Finally, as with every social network, who is using it is more important than what it can do. We'll see if the "right" people take to it and bring everyone else with them.
Nice icon by the way.
http://www.crunchbase.com/company/dropbox
Perhaps you meant to reference their valuation when they last took money?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/30/index-leads-4-billion-valua...
Consider both TechCrunch and The Huffington Post pre-sale to AOL. Which one would you have said made sense and which would you have said not-in-a-million-years? The TechCrunch acquisition was to literally buy credibility, whereas the Huffington Post purchase was to resource a strategy. Arianna Huffington makes AOL stronger in the traits that it has self-selected for. She's going to be just fine.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...