Raises an interesting question about whether (and where) Google might be vulnerable to local rivals.
China is the most obvious example where Google simply haven't been allowed to gather mapping data to compete, but it's interesting that there are other places where they can theoretically compete but there are significant local players.
There's also South Korea, where the local giant (Naver) has ~70% search market share. (The company is actually making a lot of money in the Asian market from games and the Line messenger, so I think their "local market first" strategy is paying off.)
Incidentally, South Korea also has probably the craziest map data regulations: no map data can leave South Korea. So, if you want to serve map data, your server must be physically in South Korea.
I think they don't have majority in Russia as well. To Yandex I think? With Seznam, it was just two years ago or so that they beat them to first place in search. In neighbouring Slovakia, Google was first long before that. Simply because there was no real competition.
In the short term this seems unworkable - Google have a better product and, let's not forget, deeper pockets (being the default search provider being something Google pay handsomely for).
In the longer term I could see Apple quietly partnering with Yahoo! to see whether anything can be done - possibly something with product tweaks Apple might want which Google won't provide - but that feels 2 - 5 years away minimum.
There feels an implicit assumption here that Apple will do whatever it takes to shaft Google but that feels highly questionable - Apple and Google don't hate each other as much as is sometimes made out. Google happily support their apps on iOS because that aligns with their core mission - information gathering and indexing. Apple happily have Google's apps on iOS because that supports their core mission - a better experience for those using Apple products. Google is the default search provider on iOS and OS X. Google staff happily and openly use Macs. These aren't the actions of mortal enemies.
Even iOS vs. Android doesn't feel the thing it once was. Apple got the top of the market and the associated revenues and margins, Google got the rest of the market and the associated data and both have workable, seemingly sustainable ecosystems. Sure they probably both want more but for now they seem relatively content with what they have.
Part of the reason might be that some manufacturers offer generous sales bonuses to store staff as part of their marketing effort. It's very likely they're doing what's right for them rather than for the customers.
The interesting thing about the mobile phone market is how big it is and what that means for niches.
There are about 900m Android phones out there. That means if you assume only 10% of the market might be interested in a particular variant of phone, your total addressable market is still 90 million (and growing).
My instinct is that this level of customisation is probably a relatively niche thing but - as outlined above - that doesn't mean that there isn't room for it to be commercially successful.
"Hugh Trevor-Roper is supposed to have said that 'history teaches us nothing except that something will happen', and this applies pretty well to tech: this is so young and so fast-changing an industry that drawing parallels is more misleading than helpful."
I'm bemused by how this makes the front page. Slow news day I guess.
Personally I detest the idea of any list of things I "must" download / read / listen to / watch.
Just skimming this list - a dating app (I'm married), an app for those who play or learn music (I don't), Facebook (no comment), an RSS reader (I happen to prefer a different one), CityMapper (great but I don't live in any of those cities and the only one I visit regularly I know like the back of my hand)...
More than that, for the most part these aren't even very interesting apps. For the large part their either well known (Facebook, Viber) or implementations of relatively established concepts (Jelly, Feedly, Flixter).
Anyone want to recommend anything interesting that isn't already likely to be obvious to a typical HN reader? Something that feels like Instapaper did in 2008.
Swearing isn't required for passion. Martin Luthor King didn't have an (expletive of choice) dream, he just had a dream. There are plenty of people who care about their work and manage to express that without swearing. Similarly there are plenty of people who swear about stuff who may well be committed but it's highly questionable about what they're committed to and whether it's to the benefit of the project / team.
If someone does swear (and as it goes, I'm fine with swearing for emphasis and swear way more than I feel I should) they need to be aware that some people find it offensive and that if they don't moderate their behaviour it may be taken very personally which can result in barriers between colleagues and / or low morale.
You can choose to say that that's the person reacting's problem but if you do so you need to be aware of the price that comes with (that they're working in an environment with which they're not completely comfortable which is unlikely to get the best out of them). The alternative is that the swearer moderates themselves (with which they in turn may not be comfortable).
Obviously the better you know your colleagues the more leeway you have. If you've built up trust and togetherness overtime you can get away with anything but even then you need to consider what happens when new people join the team.
But ultimately this is about people and where it's about people there are no absolutes - what works for one group will be kryptonite for another.
Theo has a twenty year record of being a brash, non-calm asshole. The pesky problem is that he has this very bad habit of being right, especially when he is angry, brash and profane. So yes, he may indeed may need to enhance his calm, but at the same time, other software developers need to realize that the best course of action in avoiding his ire is to not write software that sucks.
It's the Steve Jobs conundrum - where someone is an asshole but clearly also very talented.
For me two thoughts come out of this:
1) Yes they've been productive the way they work, but have they been more or less productive than if they'd been just as right but a little less confrontational?
Research generally doesn't show confrontation to be the most productive approach for most people. Is their style productive, or is it unproductive but they get away with it because they're so good that people will put up with it?
You say that the best course of action if you want to avoid Theo's ire is not to write bad code, but how many people have taken another approach? The one that springs to mind is not working with him and how much talent does the project miss out on because people just steer clear? I know plenty of very smart programmers who simply don't go near projects where the culture and personalities are like that. Bad behaviour towards others (even when you're right) limits the available pool of skills.
2) I can live with the arsehole geniuses but others who aren't as able often use the likes of Jobs or Theo to justify their own poor, destructive behaviour. For me at least, that doesn't work - if you're going to be as big a dick but you're not as good as them you're basically just a dick and if the day eventually arrives when the IT industry doesn't have a massive skills shortage, those people will cease to be tolerated.