Christian's responses are measured, but they're a long way from being the correct response.
The first big paragraph in the article is right. Christian had a perfect opportunity to turn this into a PR SUCCESS and instead decided to attack the method of criticism and attempt to shift the blame of the tasteless ad onto someone else.
It's tacky and easy to see through. He could have ended the conversation there by offering to take a look at the video and instead decided to turn it into a meta-"you're being mean" discussion that so often happens on reddit where... sure enough... 30 minutes later, people are bickering about meta aspects of the discussion instead of the original issue.
I agree that it was a PR blunder, but I don't agree with the accusations of sexism (anyone else noticed the sexist witchhunt that's been started since the Boston code jam fiasco?)
The story should have been framed as a PR misstep, not a calculated attack against women. I'd say Shanley's crass behavior gives women a much worse name than the girl who showed some skin for a commercial.
Were they hiring any male waitstaff to serve beverages? Or any women waitstaff over 40, for example?
I'm pretty sure they weren't doing either of those things.
Which makes it more than just a PR flub.
About overreactions -- well... these problems are so pervasive, and ignorance is so persistent, and under-reaction is so easily brushed aside, that it's very well worth it to make some noise.
Some people (not most) will change their behavior because they actually understand the problem and realize they're part of the cause. Other people are going to change their behavior because the femi-nazis will start a witch-hunt otherwise (damn, there seem to be more and more of them around!), and will feel that way about it until the day they die.
I agree that there is less forethought or less "malice" in this advertisement versus one that outright lists women as a perk, but again, this is hard to continue to repeat everywhere. You see an ad, it's the 20th ad you've seen this week that reminds you that you're a commodity. You're eye-candy used to move a product for horny men who, apparently, buy with the brain in their pants instead of the one in their head. It plays into sexism that is not just anti-women but anti-men in my opinion.
How long do you work til? Going to the gym for me would entail: getting ready, driving there, working out for an hour, driving home, showering and then getting back to work. Seems nice in theory but it'd be way too disruptive for me.
I usually wake up at 8 and work until around 12. I'll go to the gym and be ready for work by about 2. Most of the time I'll work until my girlfriend comes back from work which is around 10pm. I try to do a minimum of 8 hours a day with a few breaks in the day. Some days I'll do 3-4 hours but because I tend to do 6 days a week (and quite frequently 7) it is not a big deal.
I'm currently living in Toronto, Canada (I'm from Australia). I don't really know anybody here so I have nothing better to do than work. I take time off for the gym, food and when my girlfriend has time off work. This way she stays happy and I get to work as much as I want.
Not really. Pricing gets complicated for enterprise sales so it can't be as simple as just signing up online. Furthermore, if it's a trial they are signing up for then they have to be put into the sales funnel (meaning they have to sift through a bunch of tirekickers to find the real buyers). Finally you'd have to worry about fraud, trial abuse and all of the other related pains of free and open signups.
There's a reason that basically every business in the industry does it this way.
I used to be of the same mindset until I got into enterprise sales.
Face it, some products and sales processes are going to be complex and can't be boiled down into a simple pricing scheme like a startup would use. It doesn't mean the company is old or dishonest or that you should take offense, just that it isn't practical to list prices on the site.
Examples would be:
Per user pricing (what constitutes a user? Any discounts for users past a certain number? What about simultaneous access? Can we share accounts?)
Revenue scaled pricing (what if we're pre-revenue? Any discounts for newer companies?)
Contracts (can we work off of a contract for an increased price? Do we get a discount for longer term contracts? Who owns the data? Do we get onsite support? How much does support cost, if anything?)
Basically, stop looking at large enterprise sales through a startup lens.
If that is a case ballpark it for some of common use cases. When I was a systems admin there was nothing I hated more when doing initial discovery of options was high pressure sales harassing me before I was ready to even short list products. Having to call for a quote was usually an immediate disqualification.
As a system admin, what do you do when someone comes to you and says "how much hardware do I need to support my application?" Imagine trying to give them the correct answer without being able to talk to them.
There doesn't have to be anything high pressure about it. When someone calls me for a quote I simply ask them for the details I need and tell them exactly what it will cost.
In my experience, the fastest way to lose a prospect is by being ambiguous or flighty about the price which is exactly what you'd be doing if you posted ballpark figures on your site (as well as inviting lots of questions and raised eyebrows since our installations literally range from $1000-$25000)
Even the information that your installs cost $1-25k is useful and shold be on your website. We can all understand ranges of options. That tells me it doesnt cost $1m, lets me know who I will need to get approval from, and most people will know roughly where in the range thy are.
"Based on previous builds of similar applications you'll need at least <X>. When you have a better idea of your requirements let me know and I can give you a better idea of the hardware requirements"
I'm in the market for a tablet right now and I wanted to choose the new iPad for its superior resolution, high quality app store and great pedigree.
But I can't. When I put aside any internal biases I realize that I want a tablet whose memory I can expand with SD cards. I want one that I can throw ripped movies onto without jailbreaking or going through time-consuming video conversions. I want one that lets me use it as a simple removable drive, free of the Apple ecosystem and its bloated iTunes client.
The iPad would be a great device for someone like my mom, but I can tell I'd forever regret its limitations and barriers.
I think you are imagining features you'll never need in practice, and passing on a great tablet with amazing software, in favor of something you'll find far less satisfying than your laptop, and probably never use.
That's my hunch as well. Of course, there are certainly situations in which those extra features might be necessary, but they are in .01% of the case situations that the average iPad user is going to need it for.
I'm open for suggestions as I would like to get the new iPad. The things holding me back are: the inability to expand the memory, the challenge of playing common video formats like AVI or WMV and being pushed into the iTunes ecosystem (I use an Android phone so theoretically I'll be repurchasing apps, movies, music, etc)
If you mean memory as in storage, there are several ways around that for certain classes of data (mostly photos) through the camera connection kit. (I have a HDD photo tank that includes firmware capable of mounting a folder as if it were a camera card, fooling the iPad into mounting data from a hard drive.) On the other hand, with my 32GB iPad (2010), I don't think that I've hit a limit that I care about. (I don't typically care about movies on the iPad, and HandBrake works beautifully to convert DVDs for play on the iPad when I do care.)
For format issues, both AirVideo (http://www.inmethod.com/air-video/index.html) and ZumoCast (http://www.zumocast.com/) provide ways to stream data from your primary computer with 'live' transcoding of the data into formats that iOS devices can play without any additional codecs.
My suggestion is buy the new iPad. Play with it. You'll either realize that your concerns don't exist once you have the device, or they matter more than anything else. If the latter, wipe it and sell it. You'll get great resale value for it, even a year later. If the new iPad is as hard to get as the iPad 2 was when it first came out, you might even manage to break even.
You can use your music if it's in MP3 or AAC (which are pretty much the standard these days), you can play AVI and WMV. You will always have to repurchase your apps no matter which platform you jump to.
It sounds like such an old wife tale that people kept saying they can't play video formats. There are a number of ways of doing this. I have numerous friends who thinks this is the case, but it really is just a myth. There are even so many apps that pretends to be like a USB drive.
If you're curious though here's how I deal with your limitations & barriers. Not sure if it will work for you or not or if you want to change the way you do things.
I want one that I can throw ripped movies onto
Rip to H264. Even the piracy groups have switched to it. If you encode your ripped movies to H264 they will play on almost any device. Xbox, Playstation, Android, iOS, Windows Phone, etc. Even OS/2 Warp has support via VLC. (though good luck getting OS/2 installed on a machine with the guts to play H264 video) With all my files in H264 I don't have to worry about this at all.
I want a tablet whose memory I can expand with SD cards.
With cloud storage/services I feel like my iPad has unlimited storage. The one area I think this is an issue is transferring photos or videos from another camera into the iPad which is what the Camera Connection Kit handles for now. I suspect in the near future it will all be handled wirelessly. Looking back into history as soon as the local area network appeared people didn't really bother walking floppy disks around anymore. The same is going to happen with SD cards. I haven't owned an SD card in probably 6 or 7 years. I'm not really sure what I would do with one at this point.
I want one that lets me use it as a simple removable drive
There are a number of applications that just create a writable network share on the iPad. Seems easier to me than finding a cable and plugging it in. This also goes back to cloud storage/services that just sync the data for you automatically. I rarely find that I actually need to use these apps. I just put the file onto Dropbox and let it sync. Done.
bloated iTunes client.
I don't sync my iPhone or iPad to a computer anymore. Works fine without it.
This wont change your mind, but there are a few apps that you can throw any format video at. The downside is that you're limited to the internal storage and you have to manage it through iTunes (however, there is one that I have that will allow you to wirelessly manage your files).
I saw some of those and, while they would help, it's still a bitter pill to swallow.
I really just wish there was a tablet with the app quality and build quality of Apple devices but the openness and options of Android devices. Currently I'm forced to either work around Apple's simplicity/limitations or Android's mediocrity/obsolescence.
Sorry, I didnt have the ipad in front of me when I wrote the first post. The workhorse is AVPlayerHD, it can play just about anything we throw at it. I dont even bother with conversions. For car rides I just load up a bunch of movies that my son would watch and we're set. I only have the 16gb ipad 1, but opted for the 32 "the new ipad" for this reason alone.
It might still be worth a try. Specs and capabilities are easy to judge something by when you're looking to buy it (since they're all that you can really see without owning the device), but they sometimes matter less than the holistic experience once you actually own it. Basically: optimise for the common case. If 90% of the time you'll want to use your tablet as a tablet, not an SD card reader or portable drive, then it makes sense to pay more attention to the tablet experience than whether it can function as an SD reader or drive.
I'd recommend seeing if you can check out an iPad and whatever alternative you're looking into at a local store, and spend some time using them how you anticipate you would on a day to day basis.
While I hear there are some good android tablets, some are laggy (Kindle Fire, I'm looking at you), which gets incredibly frustrating over time. There are also other potential limitations, such as the app store (not to say Android isn't doing well there, but a lot of mobile apps still seem to start with iOS first, although this could change).
Disclaimer: I own an iPad, and I like it. I also have friends with both Android tablets and iPads who love their choice. If you feel that the features lacked by the iPad are important, then go for it and get something else. Good luck in your search!
(Side note: I totally agree about iTunes, especially on Windows.)
To use SD cards, use Camera Connection kit. To play common video formats, use apps, such as AVPlayerHD. To use your iPad as a removable drive, use iExplorer (no jailbreaking required). If you don't want to use iTunes, you can completely avoid using it as well. The only thing that requires iTunes is to put your music on it. iTunes can be optional if you don't need to do this.
Regarding repurchasing apps, it may be a good thing. There are plenty of good iPad apps, which fully take advantage of the tablet form factor. Although I have not used many Android tablet apps to prove it, Tim Cook should have good reasons to criticize about tablet apps on Android.
Out of curiosity- is this wanting due to your need for expandable space, for example, or your desire to tinker with the device?
The iPad certainly isn't for everyone, just like most consumer technology products are for certain types of people. But I think Apple's hit the sweet spot where for 99% of their customers, 16, 32, or 64GB of space is plenty and customization isn't really needed.
Well, the SD card simply isn't going to happen on any Apple iOS device, but what are your objections to jailbreaking? It's easy and addresses all of your software concerns. Yes of course it would be great not to have to do it at all, but how is it different than the rooting process you have to go through with most Android devices?
If Richard really cared about FSF he would stop making such a spectacle of himself as it's easy to discredit a movement with a gibbering lunatic as its frontman.
Then again, maybe he's setting an example of how programmers should make money in a post-FSF world (writing books and doing interviews)
He, might be crazy, but definitely not a gibbering lunatic. His position is perfectly logical, no matter how much it pisses you off/frightens you. It is the interviewer who was spouting an emotionally loaded false dichotomy, which is an effective rhetorical tactic for defending the way he's making his living and so might be a sane response, but is also nonsense.
Free Software is not about slavish compliance with licensing terms or inventing shiny new technology for technology's sake (that movement is called Open Source). Free Software is about having the freedom to control your computing environment.
I believe this is really, really important because in a world increasingly shaped and even dominated by technology, people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code.
Proprietary software violates this requirement, but at least you can reverse engineer it, hack it. With cloud services, even that option is removed. The user has lost all control. This is pretty obviously bad for a democratic society, but hey, it's great for tech wizards aspiring to be the next Mark Zuckeberg, so who cares about that? :-P
The same argument can be made for any sufficiently complicated device or technology, not just code. I suppose I could deconstruct my smart phone and reverse engineer all of its drawings, designs and schematics. Practically speaking though I am bound to its original designer's implementation.
Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy.
You are right, the same argument can be made, and often it should be made.
As an example, a lot of people are pissed off that they can no longer fix their cars themselves because of black-box designs and software restrictions. The ultimate result of that sort of thing is a monopoly on repairs and upgrades, where only approved mechanics who promise to only make approved changes can do useful work. This may be good for the bottom line of the car manufacturer, who ultimately wants you to buy another car, but it is not good for society.
Software is also a special case, in that it is rapidly becoming our society's primary means of communication and decision making. Some things, games and toys, don't matter really and are not a matter of great concern. But other things, operating systems and communication platforms, social networks, voting systems... it can be argued that allowing these to be closed and proprietary is something we should never accept.
Also, keep in mind that Intellectual Property is not a natural right - it is an artificial construct, a monopoly granted by government to encourage innovation and for the benefit of society. If it turns out that it does the opposite, hinders innovation (patent wars, anyone?) and disempowers society (censorship on Facebook?), then it has stopped serving its purpose.
"Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy."
You have conflated so much economics and governmental policy here I don't even know where to start. We (at least Americans) live in neither a free market nor democracy, for starters.
"people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code."
This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.
Are we "slaves" because we don't know the specifics of something inside our TV or car? no. and we won't be slaves if we don't get all of the source code to the software that we use.
You act as if it's a right and when enough people start feeling this way, the next step is usually to get the government involved to force software vendors to open up their source (Stallman has openly stated that he would like this). Viewing my source code isn't a right and should never be a right.
The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.
The same thing that is happening to other industries will happen to developers in 5-10 years. We are just at the beginning of the transition.
I've worked at many places that could have hired 5 developers, but only hired me because we were using open source and the majority of the what was needed was already finished. Another factor is that the younger generations, who have been using open source throughout their lives, are growing up and starting businesses.
I'm not saying this is a bad or a good thing, just my prediction.
This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.
That's doesn't necessarily conflict with HerraBRE's position. Personally, I don't think people should be forced to distribute their code, but I sure as hell will avoid such software if there's an open alternative. Ideally, I hope we as a society can eliminate the demand for proprietary software, thus eliminating it without ever violating anyone's rights.
The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.
More efficient competition is always scary. But for society as a whole, that's a very huge gain of resources that'll be applied somewhere else, possibly paying engineers to actually develop something new and worthwhile instead of reinventing the wheel.
In any case, we're on HN! Where's your contempt for the salarymen? ;)
If I don't like the license you use, I don't. Except when I have no choice, which has unfortunately often been the case due to natural monopolies or social pressure. A decade ago, that problem was Microsoft. Today it is becoming SaaS in the cloud (witness Facebook's natural monopoly on all things social).
Regarding devaluing developers by making the entire industry more efficient... you can't possibly believe that's bad for society. You sound like you feel entitled to a big paycheck and government granted monopoly protection for your work (that is what Copyright and patents and the like are, artificial government granted monopolies).
I disagree with that sense of entitlement. And as a result, I do think your so called rights (privileges would be a better word) should be restricted a bit. :-) But I honestly don't think it will harm you. Without a complete paradigm shift in how code is created, programming will remain a highly sought after and highly valued skill for a very long time. There are still so many unsolved problems out there, and people will pay to have them solved, no matter what the license and no matter what the legal environment.
I think this is hilarious. Stallman would rather have you live in poverty and get donations or basically become a tech support technician than sell software for money.
My problem with Stallman is that he doesn't compromise. For the same reason many people on HN hate religious right zealots, I dislike Stallman.
The only people in my mind that don't compromise are dictators and I'm glad he has no power over anything that I do.
Google's recent behavior was central in our decision not to embrace their technologies and APIs. If they're going to either be suddenly shut down or have prohibitive, anti-startup pricing applied to them then why should we hitch our wagon to their horse?
I'm still baffled as to why Windows 8 is not a dedicated tablet OS. I think it would be a dream to use on a touch device and commend Microsoft for the Metro design, but they had to screw it up by shoehorning it onto the desktop too.
I've given Windows 8 an honest try on my dual monitor setup and it just isn't happening. Metro is out of place, consumes 100% screen real estate (meaning fast context switching between windows or monitoring multiple windows is impossible) and is constantly frustrating with its hidden controls and undiscoverable features.
The fact that they had to include Windows 7 in Windows 8 is proof enough that Metro is not suitable for the desktop. Windows 8 feels like a bizarre mashup OS that has no place on the desktop.
Well you could say the same thing about backwards compatibility with anything.
The inclusion of 16-bit mode, XP mode, or compatibility mode in Windows 7 just proves that 32-bit computers are not suitable for the desktop.
The inclusion of GCN compatibility on the Wii proves the Wii is not a good game console.
The inclusion of VGA ports on my new laptop proves HDMI is not suitable for video display.
This is Microsoft, not Apple. Microsoft cares that your old applications keep running. Microsoft (figuratively) never breaks backwards compatibility (and if they do, there's a huge fuss made about it). Microsoft even goes as far to include very specific lines of code in their OS to make sure just one popular application keeps working (as shown by the now-famous example of SimCity for DOS running on Windows).
How much bitching was there when DOS was shoved to the background? And who would return to DOS now? You'll get over it. The world will survive.
Metro isn't even supposed to be used on a workstation. It is as simple as that. Of course "windows 7" is better for real work on a desktop, noone will ever claim otherwise (for other than marketing purposes or for bashing windows 8).
So I don't know what your beef is, just don't use Metro for stuff it isn't good for.
And use it for what it is good for, on your laptop in "tablet-mode" for instance. Don't use it on your workstation, that's just insane.
The fact is that it is on workstations, I'm simply judging what Microsoft has put before me. Telling me to ignore Metro if I don't like it is like selling me a muffin filled with chunks of pickle and suggesting I eat around them.
I would assume if Microsoft didn't intend for Metro to be used on the desktop then there would be no Windows 8 for PCs and it would be a dedicated tablet OS (like I suggested).
Media Center is in your windows 7, do you use it on your workstation?
An OS is full of stuff you never use and, unlike a muffin filled with chunks of pickle, not using the stuff you don't want is often as easy as breathing air.
Exactly. I used the OS for past week or so and haven't used much of metro at all. Because I am using it on my old laptop and haven't used metro as much.
I am planning to get a touch laptop in next couple of months and we will see how it works then.
Frankly, Shanley was really offensive in her approach and Christian's responses seem pretty measured. Not sure what the big deal is.