Fair point, but still nothing compared to OS development, where you usually can't release a new version without having to worry about people trying to run it on 10 year old computers and everyone expecting entrenched, old enterprise software that uses all APIs you wish you could deprecate to continue working flawlessly.
A lot of developers can't have the luxury of using the latest and greatest tech because they have to worry about existing customers. They can't start from scratch without upending existing revenue streams.
This is exactly what Microsoft has been building towards with the Xbox. The espn app on there is fantastic, and just added the ability to watch two events in split screen, while watching a customized news/score crawl at the bottom of the screen. You can invite friends to watch with you, and participate in quizzes relevant to the game you are watching. All this with Kinect voice support too. It feels pretty damn futuristic. And now they've announced apps for exactly the kind of services the article talks about: HBO Go, SyFy, Comcast On-Demand, etc. Add in the fact that it's already a game console, and I'd say they are closer to creating a central media hub than anyone else.
Haven't used the Xbox experience so I can't really say, but it seems like this could be another situation where Apple doesn't create an entirely new concept, but rather brings it to the masses simply and beautifully. I'd sure rather have an Apple experience when it came to TV
I just watched the rugby world cup at a friends house where the TV had a volume bar that honestly looked like a sperm. Wiggly tail and everything. It's not that Apple will get it right, it's that they'll do it less wrong.
It's interesting the players that will likely fight for the TV space - Apple, Google, Microsoft... and maybe Amazon. I wonder if Facebook has thought about it, or if they're just provide the social graph and friend activity on top of Apple/Google/Microsoft's own operating system for the next generation TV.
And these apps work well. There is some varying quality, but in the same way you see varying quality of apps in any store - Apple's included - or the quality of content, which is out of any "gatekeeper's" interest to control. An App Store that allows fart apps will be the same that allow "fart TV shows".
What makes me a little bit sad is that 3 years from now, you will hear how "Apple revolutionized yet another industry", when what happened was just them using their immense weight to corner another market and executing on an already established model. Hardly innovative.
Yes, it would help show that the term "app" is generic, but that isn't really Amazon's claim. It's a bit more subtle than that. They are claiming that "app store" is a generic term for a store that sells downloadable applications. Apple isn't denying that either "app" or "store" are generic, but rather that the combination into "app store" has specific meaning when applied to the realm of applications that provide a digital storefront to sell additional applications. They might even have a case here, as these kinds of trademark things usually come down to whether or not the public associates the term with a specific source. Basically, it would be considered unfair for Amazon to use the term "app store" if it has a connection to Apple in the public mind, because that would mean that Amazon is technically trading on Apple's reputation. That's what the law would seek to protect, and that might be how Apple could win this case.
What I really don't understand is how Apple can do this due to the face that Amazon won't (and can't) sell any "Apple app store apps" on their store, so they won't be a competitor. For me it's if a company that produces patches to repair bicycle tubes called their product for "band aid", same idea but different markets.
That's not really a fair analogy because, while the Amazon marketplace may not sell iOS Apps, presumably they sell things which compete in the same market (i.e., solve the same problem). The Band-Aid competitors don't literally sell Band-Aids, but they do sell self-adhesive bandages that compete directly with the market for Band-Aids.
Are they actually competitors? Band-Aid sells bandages for people and other people have band-aids for bicycle tires. Apple has an App Store for iOS devices, while Google and Amazon have app stores for Android devices... I'm not saying its obviously one way or the others, but it doesn't seem clear cut to me.
That's exactly the problem. From what I've seen, the reason people don't want to hire overqualified applicants is because they know those people would be doing exactly what you are advising: coasting in the job for 3 months while waiting for something better to come along. There's nothing wrong with that from the point of view of the person, but what about the company? They spend time and money training someone, only to have the bail at the first sign of greener pastures? Where's the return on investment there? Employers tend to prefer to hire someone who at least seems like they might stick around long enough for them to get their money's worth.
I think that's exactly the point: while those myriad of technologies allow you to mitigate some of the downsides of distance, they still don't have the accidental factor that random hallway conversations have. I can walk by someone having a cool conversation in the break room and join in. I can have lunch with my coworkers and seamsly switch back forth between work discussions and personal ones. And I don't have to follow anything, check any mailboxes, or type any responses arbitrarily limited to a certain number of characters.
The term "Face Book" as a resource for seeing peoples names and a info along with a photo in a less formal yearbook-style setting is not new at all. My high school had a "Face book" in paperback form that was distributed at the beginning of the year to help folks get to know one another. That was in 2001. The Harvard site was merely an online version of this kind of flat, searchable list, with no user edittable content. You put in a name, major, or dorm, and it would show you a list of pictures of students that matched that search criteria. That's it. Much as I love tales of Zuckerberg sneakily stealing the idea for thefacebook.com, the Harvard site you mention was so basic that I'd say it's no more the precursor to facebook than any online yearbook or student directory.
I have a weird theory about that, actually. I have seen some similar issues in the Seattle area when moving from one part of the city to the next; the signal is at full strength, but the call suddenly drops, almost as if I'm crossing a boundary. Now, I preface this by saying I know little to nothing about the cell phone network handles calls, but thinking about this made me wonder if it had anything to do with handing off the connection from one tower to the next. Maybe it's better to have fewer, higher power towers to minimize hand-off than many low powered ones. Of course, that's exactly what most people don't want: high powered cell towers blasting them with radiation.
But I have to wonder if this problem is exaggerated by the 3G connection maintained by the phone. My dad used to have the same problem in NY (not the city), but he switched to edge and stopped dropping the calls. He just turns on 3G when he knows he wants to do some faster web browsing, which is rarely for him. Maybe you could try turning off your 3G and see if it reduces your problem in LA?