mojowo11

Could not agree more. I've driven a Zipcar probably about three times a month for the last three years and they've been great.

One time the garage where the car was supposed to park wouldn't open (I was returning it). I called them, they said, leave it somewhere on the street, call and tell us where it is, and we'll deal with it. It was after midnight. Awesome.

Another time the car wasn't back from another driver. They reserved me one a couple blocks away and extended my reservation by an hour to make up for lost time.

Those are literally the only two instances I can think of to complain about, and their service was prompt and helpful both times. The cars are always very clean, and the community is great about keeping the gas above the required level and getting cars back on time, for the most part.

Yeah, the cars get gobbled up on the weekend. Just like hotel rooms get gobbled up around the holidays. There's a finite number of cars and demand goes up and down. Part of the deal. If you don't like it, pay to own your own car so you can have one nearby at the drop of a hat anytime (and pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars per month for that convenience). It's frankly just unrealistic to expect that Zipcar is going to be able to provide you with car-ownership levels of convenience all the time.

I pay about $60 a month with Zipcar and there's zero hassle 90% of the time. If I owned a car, I'd probably pay twice that in insurance per month, plus gas, plus parking, plus maintenance. But yeah, holy shit, I can't always get a car at the last minute on Saturday. What a shit service.

"As for sociopathic, so what? Didn't you know that most CEOs are sociopaths?"

I would ask for a source here, but I already know that you don't have one, you're regurgitating some pop-psych nonsense you once heard that sounded interesting and you assumed was true.

The logos were so similar that when I opened them in tabs, I began to question whether the original post was a joke. I'm still not really sure what's going on.

Seems like a good idea for a Gmail Lab down the line.

> But the relative proportion of those two cases is the matter of scientific studies

I guess my point is that I'd like to see a study like this, and I'd like people to stop saying "My case has saved my phone so many times," because nobody really knows that.

I'd like to know how much and in what situations a case actually is likely to save your phone from meaningful damage. Because, to use the analogy, my phone's been in a bunch of car accidents without its seatbelts -- non-trivial ones -- and is completely fine.

It would be one thing if a case didn't come with the added cost of a bulkier phone (as you mentioned, rubber cases make the phone fatter). But they do, so it's a cost-benefit analysis, and I think we're all mostly guessing. My assertion is just that I think most people are guessing too much on the side in favor of having a case, because iPhones are not as fragile as they seem as long as you treat them with a reasonable amount of care.

> So you're asking for proof that a device that is made of solid glass and metal is more fragile when dropped than the same device surrounded by rubber, plastic, leather or another soft material?

That is distinctly not what I'm asking for. I specifically said "I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones" to address this. What I'm saying is that at any point no person could possible know whether their case has just saved their phone, or whether the phone would have been just as fine without the case.

> I know it won't protect the device in every situation, but the $10 case protects the device in some situations (maybe only 10% or 20% of drops), so it has a very high ROI.

My point is that I think most people don't actually get that ROI. I've had an iPhone for three years. I've dropped my phone. No case. The phone is fine. If you use a case and never drop your phone in such a way that you would have broken it (which is impossible to know, but I'm arguing is an overstated risk), then the price you've paid is a bulkier, heavier, uglier phone. The case comes with a cost other than just $10. If I could pay $10 to have my phone magically become invincible, I would do it. If I could pay $10 for a case, I would not.

I'm sorry to hear your iPad broke. I should say that I'm specifically talking about phones, mostly because the cost of having a case on my iPad all the time would be lower for me than with a phone, which you have to stick in a pocket all the time and thus suffers more from added bulkiness.

Serious question: given that you purchased a case and then dropped the phone in the case, how can you possible claim to know whether the case saved it? All you know is that you dropped your phone with a case on and it didn't break.

I see this correlation = causation logic all the time about phone cases, and I find it quite bizarre. I've had an iPhone for 3 years now (3GS, then 4S). I've never used a case (or screen protector). I've dropped my phone before with no case and it survived. I've dropped it on pavement a couple times. I even lost it in the snow at a ski slope last winter. Someone found it and returned it. Works fine.

I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones, but I do think that people regard them as much more necessary than they actually are. Sure, if you have a kid in the house who loves to play with your phone, you should probably get a case. But as long you're careful with your phone for the most part (i.e. you're not consistently dropping it on pavement or something, you don't carry it in the same pocket as your keys, etc.), you probably don't need a case or screen protector. The phones aren't THAT fragile.

> What’s more, this year Apple decided to go all out and aim for the “best iPhone we’ve ever made,” according to the parade of executives who took the stage Wednesday. Yes, the same executive said the same thing about last year’s iPhone 4S, 2010’s iPhone 4, and every other iPhone ever released. This time they said it quite passionately, though, so I think they really meant it.

Yes, I'm sure the creators of the product, which is faster, has a larger screen, a more high-quality screen, a better camera, an updated operating system, which is the thinnest iPhone yet, lighter than previous models...

Yes, I'm sure they were all lying to all of our faces about whether they believe this is the best iteration of the iPhone.

And then to follow that up with this?

> In truth, the iPhone 5 is a very impressive device. If you’re in the market for a new phone, you should certainly consider this one. [...] Despite its bigger screen, the iPhone 5 is the thinnest and lightest iPhone ever made, and the difference is palpable. I played with the device for a few minutes after Apple’s press event, and I was floored by how svelte it was compared to older versions of the iPhone. I also love the back of the new phone, which is made out of aluminum rather than the glass found on the back of the 4S. The iPhone 5 feels more substantial than past versions, and it’s probably less fragile as well. This, maybe, is a phone that you might not need to stuff into a case in order to use—if that’s true, then thin and light might really mean thin and light. [...] I’ve got only one major problem with the new iPhone.

So yes, basically, your point is that the phone is better.

But apparently all of this is invalidated by the fucking plug. The plug makes Apple executives liars. It makes iPhone enthusiasts chumps. It ruins the entire device, and certainly undoes the innovation/not-innovation (?) the author is so passionate about.

This whole article is, frankly, fucking garbage. The first few paragraphs are basically trolling, and the rest of it is overdramatic. I'm an iPhone user, and yes, if I decide to upgrade, the change in plugs is probably going to be annoying. Then again, I mostly use one plug for my current phone. So maybe not that annoying after all.

This is the best iPhone ever, with an annoying plug. That's essentially what this article says, but it's awful, worthless linkbait, so that's not what the article actually SAYS.

Truly terrible.

I can just picture the anti-skeuomorphism crowd having a meltdown over Apple's "iRadio" app that they'd inevitably release. It would probably look like an old-timey stand-up radio.

Just curious, are you actually a data security professional? Because while you have a very nice metaphor with the whole bank vault thing, you haven't offered any actual examples, or any specific criticisms of Blizzard's setup (not that we know what it was), or even examples of what you're talking about.

I know nothing about data security myself, but I'm not exactly learning anything about it from your posts. Sorry to be rudely blunt, but I've seen a lot of people who have no idea what Blizzard is up against, the difficulty/feasibility of protecting digital data, what Blizzard has in place, or even what Blizzard could/should have in place really criticizing Blizzard for incompetence here, and that's odd to me.

They could, but a) that's a pain in the ass, they'd have to build all the content out from scratch and b) they'd lose a ton of their Likes in the transition.

> Also none of this explains why they're taking down their Facebook page.

I think it pretty clearly explains why they're taking down their Facebook page. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean it's not explained. They're shutting down their Facebook page because (according to them) it's sitting around with outdated branding but they can't change the name unless they spend $2000/mo. Also because their user experience with Facebook has been crappy, and they don't want to have anything to do with them anymore. You know. Principle.

Could be a sham for attention, but the article pretty clearly explains why they're shutting the page down.

I don't disagree, but for some reason nobody seems to be writing that article, they're just writing about the city of San Francisco and hoping it feels important.

From this article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57469635-37/city-of-san-fr...

"According to stats from the Journal, this won't be much of a blow to Apple. Only about 500 to 700, or 1 percent to 2 percent total, of San Francisco computers are Macs."

So yeah, you'll have to pardon me if this strikes me as non-news.

He qualified it when he wrote the piece, calling it "sort of a 'wolf in sheep’s clothing'" in the actual article, then took off the "sort of" when he made the title. For that reason, I think it's probably sensationalist link bait.

That's not to suggest that it's a good analogy, because it's also a totally improper use of that idiom.

You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post.

I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on what we feel -- could be considered discrimination.

And finally, we think having some consistency is pretty important. Sure, we could just do this case-by-case and that, frankly, would be pretty nice. But it's also not really fair to our users, I think, who should know that we work with some kind of framework in making decisions so that they don't have to worry about us getting pissed off and shutting down their account for (what they see as) insufficient reason.

(Yeah, this is actually our CEO, Tyler.)

This is pretty much what we struggled with -- at one point, we thought about how dumb we would feel if we did everything we could to streamline the guy's workflow and then received one of his letters demanding payment.

That's another interesting place to draw the line, though -- self-preservation, or at least protection of your own industry. It's pretty compelling, although it still feels a bit odd to be protective of only one's own industry, while being okay with things that might be destructive to others. Hm.

We're pretty patient with anything up until the point of what is obviously verbal abuse. Frustration is obviously a reality of customer service, and we understand that. I think we've maybe only politely urged one person to try out other options in the eight months I've been with the company, and generally if someone reaches the point of being genuinely mean, they're not going to use the software anyway.

I see your point, however, and I won't pretend that there's not a little bit of cognitive dissonance there.

Thank you. I definitely shouldn't have to work to find out what this service actually does, and there's no way I'm giving my email (even to someone who says they won't spam me) until I have an idea how the thing works.

At the moment, people under 50 can't get hired either.

San Francisco got a few little landmarks...

Sutro Tower: http://i.imgur.com/1CUY1.png

Ferry Building and (I think) the Google SF headquarters: http://i.imgur.com/VmC2D.png

Alcatraz: http://i.imgur.com/FkFf1.png

I'll just throw this out there -- he did an interview with Digg a while back and talked about some of this stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBxhxVIiwaA