its_so_on

Disagree completely. EDIT: it's an important distinction to make, and when you say "profitable since day one" obvoiusly nobody expects that you made seventeen thousand dollars in sales your first day. Maybe there is a better word for it (scantily profitable over the direct-but-not-opportunity-costs since day 1?) but if it's something you can claim, go ahead and do so for contextualization. This is why:

There's a whole type of startup (call it type "1" whereas article is about type "2"), which is more traditional, and the only possible model in many sectors such as hotels, restaurants, retail, etcetcetc, that is based on launching a business (as opposed to 'bootstrapping') from sizeable funds - often 20k-50k or more - and not even attempting to become profitable within 3-5 months, during which you expect to continue to pay out one or two thousand on office rental space, equipment, hosting, whatever. An optimistic plan is to scratch the surface of breaking even around the one year mark.

When someone is, and has been, "profitable" since day one, ("type 2") this is in stark contrast to this model. This is the "in our first few months we spent three-fifty on hosting while servicing our five paying customers and working hard coding and developing so we can grow our customer base and make our equity worth enough to sell some of it and raise a round, or at least have enough money coming in to grow organically and bootstrap to sizeable revenues."

There's nothing wrong with either of the two models. It's also probably the most important fact you need to know to contextualize a conversation about your business. And the type 2 business that has paying customers but can't even meet it's hosting bills is fundamentally broken. Hell, I can do that just by hosting up to five hundred gigabytes of files per person for five dollars per decade.

If you're not broken - and running this type of model - go ahead and boast. And if boasting isn't enough, keep growing.

if you can create a life-changing app that is worth this much to this many people, and can do it for $2689 all-told, I'd like to get in touch with you.

Yes. We all kind of forgot, didn't we?

if my friends and I have problems with your product, it doesn't matter how reliable your research spins it as, I won't believe you. Forget research: make something my friends and I, or people I hear about, don't have problems with. That's all I pay attention to, and it works a lot better than the alternative. (paying attention to whatever you "prove" at a statistically significant level - nevermind how many commissioned studies you don't publish, thereby completely invalidating that statistical significance - and ignoring anecdotes simply doesn't work, for me or anyone else.)

This article is literally asking for the right to lie (under the guises of 'research') and asking us to mod down anyone who calls them out on it. It really takes some face to say "Ignore what you experience - and vote down the experiences of others - and trust our data instead."

Next you'll sell me the most reliable cloud on the planet. All the responses on the article say they've had nothing but problems and downtime. But, I should just ignore these, right?

I don't know man, I probably wouldn't even want forks (picking something of "obvious" utility) in my house if I were the ONLY one in the world who knew about them. What would guests think? That I'm some kind of weird food-impaler, maybe a closet Sadist. If people didn't use forks, choosing to have forks wouldn't be a foregone conclusion at all. Even all by myself.

You entirely undervalue the social context of objects, including objets d'art.

Forget what you and your friends experience. If we manage to get a piece of research sponsored, you'd better believe it!

Sorry, I'll go on the experiences of myself and people I trust over research/article spinning.

I don't like the way the author glibly compares his subject with startups like Facebook and Netflix and seemingly seriously uses real notions of economics such as 'cartel' and 'capital-intensive'. ("Sinaloa is both diversified and vertically integrated, producing and exporting marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine as well. ") It's frankly disgusting.

Of course economics is the study of how people behave with money and resources. You can make these comparisons - just as you can study the economics of lynchings and torture by slaveowners to assert ownership over their property, the practices of the East Indian Company, or the (taking out touchy subject - think of warmongering; not saying such a thing exists). But please don't do it "straight" or without any irony. This isn't economics. This is death and murder (or war etc).

The economics is important. But it's not the economics that keeps me - or the Coca Cola company or your uncle Jack - from arming up with an uzi and "diversifying" into this "sector". Have some decency.

you just came to a profound conclusion that would let you personally grow to a billion-dollar consumer electronics company (if you kept following through on it, and building a community around that one perfect choice - assuming that, like Apple, you're actually qualified to make that choice and develop it.)

then you dismiss it as crazy talk.

of course the easiest engineering choice is not to make choices - let the consumer choose. just give them long, long lists of component choices. worked for dell, right? right??

That doesn't require as many/any fundamental engineering choices to be made.

It also doesn't get you Apple's brand or customers. If you let me put my own laptop together from whatever components I wanted - where is "you" in the equation anyway?

enjoy the blurry antialias artifacts or straight-up blocky/ incorrectly pixel-aligned letters, in both visual studio and vim. Might as well use DOS. /s

here's one http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2010/02/the-skype-conspiracy... - not hard to find

amateurs. you know you can just "ask" skype to let you in on all your subjects' conversations and they'll do it?

I like your observation but I don't like your conclusion.

I think the major thing missing from the world is easy piping a la Unix. You can't pipe your list of paying customer's email addresses to paypal at the command line with some switches - really, no matter how many switches you use - and bill each one the amount stated, because "paypal" is not a commandline app. You can't pipe the results of some long-running analysis to Twitter to announce that you've finished computing it, no matter how many switches you add, because twitter is not a commandline app.

The direction you're suggesting we take things is, in fact, a fuller API. These exist. They're slower and worse.

The amazing thing about text is that it's a lowest-common denominator. Think of communicating with a person.

Communication is faster with a mind-meld where you're looking at another person's face and picking up micro-expressions and body language. That's also the easiest thing to misinterpret.

When you pipe through such a 'human-readable' lowest common denominator, you're actually setting the ground for a very dynamic and versatile channel.

I don't know what the easy solution is to the problem you bring up, but I don't think your proposal is it.

Maybe there is no easy solution. Several unicode characters to abstract away the tab character and the newline character to instead n dimensions of characters, and corresponding negative characters so you can put something on a 'line' out of channel, (negative tab comment, tab, text, newline repeat) would probably solve some issues but is too abstract to even discuss. What we have really isn't that bad.

Then they don't understand the Apple product cycle and are currently being run by clueless monkeys.

if they want to do what you suggest, don't make a big announcement and don't put it across the front page...(bottom-left area is fine in case they're trying to limit the exposure). what they've done is just stupid and inconsiderate to the hardware team and apple's fans, who love these types of innovations even if they can't afford them yet.

most people who loved the idea of the air and apple's achievement with it didn't buy one when it came out, haven't bought one since, and still had fun hearing, reading, and talking about it.

um, next to a picture like that it makes you pay attention to what's new about it.

Because it doesn't taper to a penny-edge and weighs several pounds more. It's not really what the "Air" was about.

If you say "15 inch air" people have expectations that you couldn't have fit all the muscle this thing has into.

This is exactly what I thought was happening, from the press headlines and the front page. (That it's a new macbook with retina display.)

Until I clicked the video and found out the extent of the reduction here. They have completely blown the announcement in my opinion. Even something as little as "The All-New Macbook with Retina Display" would have been enough to draw attention to it. ('all-new')

It's not everyday that something gets reengineered so thoroughly. they blew playing this up. apple fans live for these big announcements, and put up with a lot of crap that really shouldn't be press coverage but are (marginal bumps) just so they can get at the juicy unveilings. This is one of them - and should be presented as such.

it's not too late, and the front page should be changed to reflect the extent of this miraculous reengineering right in the 6-word announcement; at least add "all-new" (copout) or something more descriptive right in the blasé sentence "Introducing Macbook Pro with Retina display", which sounds like...a macbook with a Retina display.

The "It's a whole new vision for the notebook" underneath it in that ugly grey doesn't do justice to the redesign, since that's exactly what they would say about a bump to retina display with no other reengineering.

The real news is that they could shave as much of the macbook off as they actually did. Did you see the video? The screen display is now 'attached directly' to the unibody with no 'glass layer'. What does that even mean? Whatever it means, it's obviously not user-serviceable.

I was amazed at how much they got off the macbook in size and weight - EDIT: everywhere, off the whole machine - and they're idiots for not putting this right next to the "retina display" in the tagline announcing it -- e.g. at www.apple.com now -- The headlines (here and elsewhere) didn't even emphasize the new sleek lightweight form factor.

This shows Apple doesn't currently remember what Apple is. Apple makes, and should make, a big deal out of even a marginal reduction in weight or thickness. What this is is a miracle.

we've just seen a miracle of engineering and Apple doesn't even think it worth mentioning on the front page. idiocy.

Apple would never release a laptop with a 1.5 hour battery (wifi web browsing). an unimaginable number of such laptops are brought out by every major brand other than Apple.

(likewise apple has its standards in a phone, which is not the standard you cite, but not 45 minutes either.).

Apple is opinionated on every part of the user interface and design, on usability and ease-of-use. They then go on to put their money where their mouth is, and practice what they preach. (For the most part.)

It's very hard to find design decisions at Apple that seem to have 0 thought or discussion behind them. This is the norm at other companies.

It's a terrible environment, but I bet being a supreme court Justice is also a terrible environment. It also brings out profound conclusions and vision.

When Apple says that battery-life is important in mobile devices, they mean it. If Samsung says it, maybe a year later they will turn around and bring out an eight-core phone that you can play a game on for forty-five minutes before having to plug it in again.

Apple isn't just opinionated: it's opinionated on hugely difficult technical issues that don't even exist in the wild yet. (As when they release a new category.) You only get that through violent discourse with egos on the line.

edit: a similar thing happens at Google, but not when it comes to ergonomics or user interfaces and usability with the same hardware devices Apple makes, but instead when it comes to solving certain problems on a massive scale. The result is that Google can't really release a laptop that's as usable as a Macbook in the same domain, and for everyone, and Apple can't really solve the ops issues that it would take to bring out a Google Search competitor. There is huge amount of discourse (of a radically different nature) at both companies.

This is neither here nor there, but there is one surefire way to blame the user that always works: "It's your fault for choosing us."

This is [a certain company]'s last-line response to suggestions of unfairness or anything broken in their walled garden. You didn't have to choose us :)

And I gotta say, on some level I can't argue with that...

Upvoted this submission, since it's important and we should talk about it.

At the same time, I think the title-editing as actually practiced is great. I'm pleased with the results whenever I notice the changes. (Which is usually after someone gives good reason for the changes).

This is perfect and in line with the reason we're allowed to edit our own submissions for a while. It's basic tweaking to make things fair and accurate, instead of link-baity and sensational.

I can give one personal example.

In hindsight (past few weeks' performance) the original title was right and I was wrong, but I complained about the title here or another story: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3993657

Basically, I complained that it used the word "barely above its opening price" (or another, similar word like "barely"), which I thought unfair, since 23 cents of gains in a day is perfectly normal and if sustained would be a good trend forever.

The title was changed. (In hindsight, the negative title was justified, and my complaint was out of place.)

This is a place where we are a tight community that can do things like accuse each other of stabbing one another in the back, or stealing each others' text or ideas, or whatever. People upvote. THe story comes out. Responses are written. Soon enough we know if the original, sensational title is justified or needs to be toned down either a little or quite a bit.

On the whole I think the moderators do an excellent job on the titles and it serves a really important purpose. I'm not sure how to fix the other complaints mentioned here. (Maybe put a history in there for search engines or if people want to know how it was submitted).

I know I much prefer this to the broken titles that slashdot users had to put up with (even after complaints) back when that site still had a readership... proactive is much better here.

Very good analysis. I wasn't even going to comment, since my reaction (personal impression) to the article was "too bad there might be 2 of the 1300 songs that have chords that don't sound like crap" - since they all do, there might be a couple of dozen well-orchestrated popular songs over the last several decades. (I should add that, despite this fact, I do avidly listen to popular songs and don't have a problem. I wouldn't try to reverse engineer their chord patterns though...)

At least your response tells me why this is the case. Thanks!

Disagree that headline argues causality.

the same formula can be used with not correlation but simply timing:

"As Rome burns, Nero fiddles away."

"Detroit housing prices at record prices, even as millions leave the city."

"As the average salary in the City approaches six figures, those without a job are having trouble finding any job at all."

Does it make sense to set this backdrop, even without correlation? Of course - it's interesting.

however, in this case the author does a good job by setting this backdrop:

if the craze of playing games on Facebook has waned -- something the article hopefully establishes or reports on, then it is an interesting backdrop to news that Zynga's share price is falling - wouldn't you say?

(If fewer people are playing Zynga's games on Facebook, which is where most of Zynga's games are played.)

Whether this is just a backdrop or a causal relationship with Zynga's profit and share price is for you to decide however you want. The headline doesn't force it on you, but simply set a backdrop of a macro-trend.

I think it's a very interesting and well-written headline. It's better than most of them.

What, and not a down-round? Congratulations! You must have had a heart-attack a few days ago with PG's email...

update: would be nice to know when you guys closed this...someone says it was a while ago?

none of this applies to the user. There's nothing they can do about the process except not use it - my examples were specifically Google's solution.

Several companies were in the news after they got burned with it.

(TL;DR at bottom)

I see a lot of hacks of voice mails and then requests for Google to use the second factor to reset the account...all by baddies. Who then proceed to take over the account.

So, it seems to me that it's worse than having no second factor at all.

After all, why is it stronger to use two factors than just using a strong password from your laptop or personal devices - without ANY backup contact information or second factor linked to the Google account? Hear me out.

Most people who are 'targets' (consider a millionaire VC who gets his contact details out a lot) are already far more compromised if their computer (personal laptop) has a keylogger or remote screen software (backdoors) by someone who knows who this person is, targetted the laptop they do all their work and most of their shopping on, and has gotten in. usually this hasn't happened. if this HASN'T happened, typing the password on that laptop via https is secure and doesn't allow anyone to get in. So, we have a stepwise function:

  ^
  |                                  
  |                                  
  |                                  you've been targeted and rooted: they can keylog
  |                                  and do A N Y T H I N G in your name from machine
 R|                                ------------------------------------------------->
 i|                               |
 s|                               |
 k|                               |
  |                               |
 o|                               |
 f|                               |
  |                               | 
 p|                               |
 a|                               |
 i|                               |
 n|                               |
  |                               |
  //                              //
  |                               |
  |                               |
  |                               |
  | (few people know it's your    |
  | laptop, none has rooted it)   |
  -================================------------------------------------------------->
                       Level you are breached

so either someone is in looking over your shoulder (which a lot of people would like to be doing when you're a target)... and can remote control/ do stuff in your name (perhaps when you're not using the computer), keylog and basically do anything you can do or have been doing....

or nobody is in yet. (Except as general malware that doesn't know who you are, nobody is remote controlling/keylogging you and checking those files.)

This is MOST of the cases - how do you even know which of millions of computers out there that are 'mostly secure' except against a targeted attack with a lot of known information about the laptop target, is the one that belongs to this millionaire VC? They'd have to look through millions of computers to find him or her...

I'm not talking about a botnet you're part of that has millions of users. I'm talking about someone targeting you.

So, it's basically vulnerability exposure is a STEP function, with a function that goes from "no remote keylogging; even though I'm important no one knows my computer's mac address or what software it's running" at x = 0 to whatever, with a corresponding horizontal y value of "low level of exposure", to, at the next step, "a keylogger is installed on my computer" having a HUGE jump in exposure rating to "totally fucked since now they have my every credit card, can see my every email, etc etc etc. They can just watch over my network and whenever I make a purchase, also make themselves a purchase."

Since Google services can be accessed via https, between those two steps, aren't you "safe as long as no one is getting into your computer since they don't even know this computer belongs to a strong target?"

But with the second factor, you're adding a step there between that stepwise leap:

-> Someone's figured out my phone number; now if they can hack my voice mail they can get Google to send a reset code to it, get the reset code, and take over my account.

The point is: WITHOUT breaching the original second step (i.e. even finding out what physical mac address or, at a given time, IP address, belongs to 'you', or what hardware and software you're even running.)

Your email address and phone number you use, meanwhile is in some sense 'totally public' as that is where you're MEANT to be reached. Both of those things are things that you give out willy-nilly, unlike any information about which computer in America is yours.

So it seems to me that not introducing an insecurity step between step 0 and step 1 would be a good solution: use a secure password, don't write it down anywhere, and use it from computers which aren't especially linked to you or particularly 'tainted'.

why make yourself a target with hackable 2-factor authentication?

TL;DR: your phone number is supposed to be public, your email is supposed to be public, the phone company is not a security token. Don't use the second Google factor.

for what it's worth, based on the review I just linked I would never touch it. (key sentence: "The real problem, though, isn't that the keys aren't cushy enough, but that they're sticky, and sometimes fail to register key presses. Ultimately, we still managed to type the brunt of this review on the Series 9, albeit with copious taps to the Backspace key.") yeah, that's not a laptop I'll be using.

but there is a "15 inch air" from samsung, http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/09/15-inch-samsung-series-9-... , which is along the lines the parent must have been thinking of.

I think the 15 inch macbook as just announced is a far better option, with a single weak point (7 hrs) compared to an air-style form factor which would be weaker at everything - except weight and slightly thinner form factor.

basically, if all someone wants to do is type on it and not have to think about carrying it with them or not (e.g. a reporter for stories, student for essays, CEO for emails), a 15 inch air was not announced today. for everyone else, what was just announced is better than the 15 inch air.

by removing the hard-drive in lieu of flash and removing the media drive, that's exactly what they've just given you, wouldn't you say? (but with real graphics card so you can actually do something with that beautiful display other than watch HD content stutter. and quad core i7.)

granted its not an air, but - are you sure you want one?

isn't the basic question here how much money it takes to build your own and whether you have that expertise and time and appetite for risk in that market, desire to play in that market?

for a lot of people who made money in the iOS garden, for example, it was do that or not play, they weren't even developers before, some of them, and certainly weren't releasing apps. Same for some Facebook games.

Basically, it's like web hosting: if you run your own servers (when you're small), then whatever business you're 'really' in, you're now also in the IT business. Per the article, whatever business you're really in, you're now also trying to make it in the social networking business. Which is hard.

Not everyone wants to do that. For others, who do, the business they enter incidentally turns out to be their big cash cow. (example: large companies that build distribution systems and then monetize them or spin off a division; amazon monetizing what must have originally been its own cloud.)

Basically, it's not so easy to say: for anything you do, roll your own with a division that could be a company in its own right.

Not everyone should or can make a nationwide distribution network, or get a physical hardware device into millions of people's pockets or... (list goes on and on.)

Often it makes sense to what you're good at and can be competitive in, even if this was made possible by a bigger fish letting you play in their pond. You can get your own when you're bigger. (if it makes sense and you feel you'll be successful doing it, even though it's outside your core competency.)