brandoncapecci

Thanks, this is exactly what I was intending to convey. Never did I say the Apple lawsuits were my justification for thinking Apple is unethical. I simply alluded that recent patent bullying is one of the bigger public outcries against the company and we are yet to see how consumers will react to it. We are all in agreement that it won't noticeably hurt their sales, but it is also further swaying those without brand loyalty to the company.

I realize if I kept tabs on all large corporation's ethics, in all likelihood I would find myself unable to purchase anything from someone respectable. That being said, despite becoming a large company being synonymous with it losing it's innocence, it doesn't mean that they all have to become porn stars.

Anyone who thinks my opinion is cheery picked or hyperbole doesn't follow the sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, discrimination against customers, etc in Apple's last few years alone. Using other unethical companies (none of whom were tech might I add) to justify their atrocious actions is borderline retarded. We might as well just let murders off the hook because those serial killers are so much worse in comparison, right?

As a consumer, all I'm trying to do is support companies that act the best, even if that means picking whomever is the least undesirable.

I somewhat misspoke. I lost interest after when I read enough to deem the article too artificial an example and lost interest. I wanted to give honest feedback and see if other people perhaps thought the example was I contrived as I did - not berate the article or the author. If I was writing myself, I would want the same sort of feedback. Do you think I'm being unfair by giving that sort of criticism?

To me not finishing something is a measure of persistent captivation. It's not the first time I fell below my minimum. After I wrote the the comment, I figured people would harass me about not finishing and that perhaps I was being unfair to the author if I missed something redeeming at the end. I finished it, wished to change the comment appropriately, but it had already been downvoted. I should have known that it's very easy to look antagonistic when you're not saying something positive but I did say explicitly what I objected to. I really was just hoping to help by nature of sharing my opinion and was totally open - hopeful even - that someone would change my mind rather than just being looked upon as some asshole who just wanted to be holistically critical.

Is there any word on when the Mac beta will roll out?

There is certainly the fans that will buy anything Apple because it's Apple regardless of what Apple does. That being said, like you, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to support undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies in the world. They haven't have a big product release since the Samsung case but any sales lost were certainly more than made up for with their patent winnings.

Though I agree with both of you, I think that there is a certain amount of success that drives these designs to continue to be made. In retrospect it's quite easy to criticize the design here and naturally, we are all pretty unanimous that it could be much better. That being said, saying "it fails because it uses textures" is very different than "it fails in it's use of textures".

Try doing a ghetto case study by asking anyone around you whom is ignorant of good design trends whether they rather login to your shot or one like this:

http://makingwindowseasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/micr...

Did the skeuomorphic shot shot pick up votes? It won unanimously from the people I asked. As designers we can nitpick about the goals of each design and the information that had to be shown but at the end of the day, unless your designing for a community like Dribbble, it's going to be design ignorant people using your interface. The main objective of this interface should be to retain users through it and a large component to succeed in doing so is by having the form be visually compelling - not to us, to them.

Just like programmers are told to assume that every user is a malicious hacker, I believe designers should assume every user has poor taste. It's a much like how you don't see people in public wearing edgy designs off the runway despite them being created by people considered the very best fashion designers. There could easily be a company that takes these designs as is and mass produces them cheap for the public but this doesn't happen because there is a major discrepancy between designers and consumers tastes. Our job as designers is to bridge the gap in these tastes - between what we know is good and what users will actually agree is good.

Of course, don't take this to mean that I think this type of login is in any way ideal but I do think it works better than what more or less an unstyled form adhering to metro. It would be one thing if all good designers were all designing in a minimalistic style... but they aren't. The problem with the excessive paper/glass/linen/wood/gradient/etc is that good designers are using them in their designs and it forces the trend followers of the industry to feel like they somehow need to incorporate all the same elements. To me the design tells a tale of someone who believed that adding, well, added to the design. The result was something over-designed, superfluous, a cliché of what something outstanding should look like.

I think it's quite odd when people are adamantly against one style of design. I have extremely minimal designs I enjoy like the Nest thermostat and I have more skeuomorphic looking designs I enjoy like Path. To me, both are designed well because both use their respective language correctly not because they use one language over the other. Maybe some programmers can attest to a similar feeling... if you preferred Python would you rather work on a project with terribly written Python or extremely well written Ruby? The later seems obvious. One last thing to consider: if anything the reason skueomorphic design is getting hated on is largely because it's existed so long. Though a minimal design is likely harder to butcher completely, it won't be long until people are making really atrocious looking Metro apps and then all those who thought it was the be-all-end-all future of interfaces can have a beer and laugh about being wrong.

Just my opinion though. If you disagree, please don't downvote me to oblivion - tell me why you side with the camp you do as I'm always open-minded to good persuasion :)

Why am I getting downvoted for this? I am not making any commentary on price discrimination but instead, saying that the artificially created scenario could at least be more approachable for readers.

The price of a car wash should take into account the aggregate probability for any car to get damaged. The idea that one would price discriminate via the exact make and model is absurd and when I stopped reading...

If Apple were to do this (again) people would probably be upset, but when Nokia does it, I'm just disappointed. Nokia is bringing real innovation to the mobile market and unlike most android releases I see, it actually pairs it with awesome device design. I can just imagine the video accompanying the release of the new iPhone in a few days:

"We added an all new faster processor (the change won't even be noticeable but we will pay through the roof for it). It's running a new version of iOS (that is already old). We redesigned the fan to make it 2dB quiter (it wasn't loud to begin with but ok). We changed the connecting cable (so our old ones don't work then?). We made the screen even bigger (awesome, devs need to adjust their old apps for a new aspect ratio). We even added 4G (only the last company to do it). It's the best iPhone yet!"

Of course, people will still hail that announcement as some sort of revolution. Nokia may have bs'd their ad but I can't help but ignore it and hope people see that these features are really quite cool without being exaggerated. It's refreshing to not only hear about screen size or processor speed in a new phone but also: a new photo technology, a more clear screen you can use gloves on, wireless charging, and a music functionality that seems a lot like a Nexus Q...

If people didn't have their brand loyalties - any sensible person would realize how fucking awesome that list is. I still could be very likely getting an iPhone when it comes out but considering Apple literally hasn't done anything moderately interesting since Jobs died (besides troll Samsung), I can't imagine it's long before their stagnant innovation catches up to them. When the day comes that buying the phone with the best experience doesn't mean supporting a joke of a company, I'm going to be a really happy dude.

Your two biggest failures were acquisitions? Must really suck to be you :)

The problem isn't the color so much as the miniscule low-weighted font. As opposed to the OP's website, I can read every single one of those contrast rebellion links without issue. Do I win something?

My thoughts exactly... comments and ratings are just social feedback anyway. Moreover, YouTube ads are stuff your sister might even like: Katy Perry and iCarly. Hipsters are the ones who are unable to bear those 20 seconds, not little girls.

I'd say with the quality of music I've seen, people would be willing to pay (month/year) for the service provided he develops it a bit further. Another possibility would be to have referrals to purchase the music like turntable.fm does.

They should change the slide to unlock feature before Apple sees this :)

Very true. Some large tech companies now still have pretty horrendous stocks. Microsoft has been flat for like a decade and it's still an industry leader which is counterintuative to people who don't know that much about the market.

I'm sure he meant that they could, in theory, utilize their brilliance towards kickstarting something business oriented to reverse the sentiment. For whatever reason though, Mark seems more interested in Frank Gehry's NASA hanger than actually making money. It's a big fucking revelation to him that people in finance actually care about financials. Who knew?

The whole situation really makes me think how much the current funding model as just a glorified legal ponzi scheme: More users, more funding, more users, more funding, IPO & profit.

I'd say most of the better business minds were the investors and the prudent ones have already sold. I'm convinced Eduardo Saverin is really the genius of the entire group. He sold shares right before the IPO, renounced his US citizenship, and moved to Singapore. He may have been screwed over by Facebook before but he gets the last laugh now that he sold his shares for double what their worth and got to avoid some taxes while doing it :)

In contrast, Mark choose to be more of a Sean Parker - a great creator of free products and, thus far, a fairly lousy businessperson. Companies like Spotify are amazing for users yet that doesn't stop them from losing millions each month in licensing. These companies dig themselves into holes from the very beginning and simply pray the financial problem fixes itself. My opinion and seemingly that of investors is that there is no indication that it will until the model itself is changed. Recent IPOs all tell the same story: that businesses not built with long term viable business models have trouble performing well on the market. Until "free" can work like Google enables it to in more companies, nobody is willing to bet on the hole not getting deeper without the likelihood of a larger round to keep these failing companies afloat.

Otherwise nice. It's seems more likely that the sick just aren't clever enough to see what a dick move it is to give up. "Aversion to western medicine"... suicide... what's the difference?

I originally said the same at at $10, which it's on track to hit. Sentiment is making me reconsider...

I think I'm going to write a counter-opinion post sometime called "Everyone poops" about how the advice given here scores an 11/10 on my trite-meter.

Readers have by now heard their start-up isn't solving an important problem by now - that doesn't help them start something that does. "Advice" of this nature is just the author procrastinating from solving the same ambitious problems he seems so enthusiastic about. If your going to change the world, you need to stop giving a shit about the inevitable dogdating sites of others and just do it yourself.

I think your just bit too accustomed to extremists on the internet. I had no intent about looking reasonable but I'm happy you think I am.

I'd be interested in reading your sources though I don't have to stretch my imagination to believe them. I want to make it clear that I never said right media doesn't believe what they are saying only that what they are saying doesn't represent every conservative voter. The people who believe everything on fox is fictitious are equally as ignorant as the people who believe everything on fox. Most of the stories are the exactly the same as CNN... perhaps less informative, definitely with a rightist point of view, but news nonetheless.

whoosh I guess I thought some people might enjoy the sound of other people at work? Rain sounds weren't exactly intuitive for me either living in Seattle. Thanks :)

Does anyone feel like they work more productively when listening to people bash their keyboards or is this more of a novelty thing? Personally, I can understand the rain sounds, this - not so much.

I don't know the history of the word conservatism but I do know there was a time when Republicans were more progressive than Democrats. Eventually they switched.

I agree that having a more popular moderate party would be nice, granted, I feel like many people who are forced to vote Republican or Democrat are just Libertarians (which seem to express the views of most moderates) and must decide between the lesser of two evils. Of course, that's due more due to the stranglehold of the two-party system on elections rather than people thinking outside of those parties.

Well, Gmail has a good learning algorithm :) I definitely agree with you that these points are argued but I don't believe, or perhaps hope, that they represent the majority of conservatives.

I think it's considered fact that right media is significantly more sensationalist. Naturally, this turns "I humbly disagree" points of view into "You should hate because" arguments. In the same sense that they don't report on the moderate right, they also don't report on the moderate left. It could just as easily be said that I heard "in a liberal America, everyone will drive a Prius" in a chain email. Of course you wouldn't hesitate in believing that is false.

It's not that Fox News doesn't actually report the news (despite a perpetual joke deeming otherwise) it's just that it skews points to make them more approachable for socially conservative voter. They must say that "abortion is murder" to their party because it consists of people vehemently against murder and more importantly, people against redefining their definition of murder. Conservatism itself is defined by this a lack of progressivism and without it, most of the social stances are blurred if not completely flip flopped.

As you know, most voters aren't that informed. Nearly nobody, left or right, ponders real solutions to the problems facing the government. Instead they have a belief, usually predetermined, and look for information to support that belief. Arguments are reenactments of actual debates with more swearing mixed with regurgitation of often incorrect statistics.

The left and right is saturated with bigots. A fractional amount of voters even consider both candidates. To the left, Obama can do no wrong. To the right, if he says run, they walk - if he says walk, they run. In my experience, the only people who are informed enough to vote are those who consider voting bi-partisan, and who classify themselves as independent, libertarian, etc. This all goes back to why you see these points blanketed over all conservatives which I think is because these moderates don't want to associate themselves with the extremist nature of the right media. A moderate, even someone who considers themselves mostly Republican, cannot possibly seem partial when he is next to someone using religion as political justification and partial people don't like appearing impartial. Just know that just because someone votes Republican, doesn't mean they have tunnel vision and belong the Westboro Baptist Church any more than a voter of Democrat is expected to be on the newest season of Whale Wars.

It's pretty disappointing to me that people would downvote you for saying what seemed so obvious.

Conservatism in America is always associated with a decision making process dictated by religion. He attacks creationism with evolution and the Christianity's disapproval of euthanasia and abortion. These generalizations are neutral since the right will stand by these fallacies.

Where the bias comes to play is when he says "affirmative action is racist" and "taxation is theft". This is not what conservatives believe but instead either skewed to easily argue a liberal point of view or just a lack of understanding of what the right thinks.

Most of the right don't support affirmative action not because it creates a disproportionate amount of minorities but because it creates a disproportionate amount of smart people. For every average minority that gets into an above average school, an above average non-minority must now go to an average school. This aligns with the liberal ideal that "Since life isn't fair, we must intervene to make it so".

When Republicans get elected to office they don't try and put legislation into place that does away with all taxation. Simplified: the left supports a higher less equal taxation and the right supports a lower more equal taxation. When the right is lowering taxes that's only because they are balancing out programs implemented by the left that don't align with their economic policy.

It's a tired argument. The left finger points that wealthy Republicans are selfish for not being willing to support people that are poor. The right says "It creates a net negative because it results in a lack of economic incentives for individuals. Feel free to support them yourself if you're so selfless". The left reply "No, were only going to help if you do".

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..." - Steve Jobs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." - Steve Jobs

Reminds me a lot of this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gAOnHhen4zY/S9r-pZcS6bI/AAAAAAAAAA...

Open floor plans don't make collaboration any easier. You still have to walk over to the other person just now, you must also try and hear yourself think over the hundreds of other people inside a hanger. This is the epitome the of a cog in the machine work environment to maximize people per square foot. It's degrading but in a way that's quite fitting for the way Facebook is going right now.

It's humorous to me how many people attempt to turn anything remotely criticized into a positive by justifying it with effort. Since you escalated into name-calling so fast, I can confidently say that you don't have one hundred times more respect for anyone or anything, you are simply under the false notion that those you support actually try harder.

No, I don't think that's it. Dalton seems like he'd be a vegan and trolls are especially meaty.

Does it make your day every time you see another unnecessary language or framework on the HN homepage? I'm just as indifferent to those as I am to caring about what SoundCloud does, if not more so.

Changing languages is not how progress happens. It's only progressive when the long-term benefits of the language outweigh the inefficiency of training all your devs to use it. Assuming that is true for Go (debatable), at the end of the day, SoundCloud still gimps their hiring pool far more than if they choose something like Node. Learning doesn't bother me at all - I like learning - but I can't advocate for battle-testing Go in a mainstream environment when their are plenty of other fast and tested languages. If Go evolves into a language that is more desirable in the everyday stack, that process should be organic, just as it was when people decided to switch to Ruby.

Why can't people just be satisfied with Ruby or Python...