Comment

Thanks. It’s too bad that chart doesn’t really show any information. It would be nice to have some scales on the x and y axes to contextualize the download rate.

14 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One

Comment

I sure hope the rest of the population isn’t as shortsighted as you.

14 days ago on Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach milestone high as global warming worsens 1 reply 9 recommends

Comment

Saskatchewan is enjoying the highest rates of economic growth of any province in the country…

14 days ago on Canadian mounties claim first person's life saved by a police drone

Comment

Not unless your hand has no fingers and no thumb.

14 days ago on Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach milestone high as global warming worsens 1 recommend

Comment

Typical stupid idiot retort. Global warming is an inappropriate term because it makes people thinking of a tropical beach. Think about superstorms, environmental degradation due to flooding and drought on a scale unmatched in human history, and the mass extinction of many species of plants and animals that are more ecologically sensitive. Even if you don’t care about the environment at all, climate change will have negative effects on food prices and energy prices.

14 days ago on Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach milestone high as global warming worsens 6 replies 28 recommends

Comment

Your comments are altogether nonsensical. That you don’t find utility in the app does not justify a 1-star review. A 1-star review should only be given to an app that doesn’t work as advertised. Facebook Home does exactly what the developer page says it does, and it does those things well – so a 1-star review is inappropriate.

Let me give you an example using Google, your favorite company. Suppose I downloaded the Google Drive app, but I didn’t have a Google account and didn’t use Google apps. Does the fact that Google Drive offers no utility to me mean that I should give the app a 1-star review?

Of course not. That would be completely inappropriate. Now apply this analogy to Facebook Home and recognize the error in your thinking. This shouldn’t be that complicated, SilenceInTheLibrary.

14 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One

Comment

The reviews are inappropriate… That’s what we’re discussing. It’s difficult to discuss thing with you when you don’t take note of the original comment and subsequent replies in these comment threads.

Rating an app as 1-star that is well designed and otherwise useful, except to you, is not an appropriate reason to rate said app so poorly.

Suppose I had an iPhone. Suppose I downloaded Path. Suppose that I tried it, but none of my friends were on it. Does that warrant a 1-star review for an otherwise perfectly well designed and critically recognized app? Of course it doesn’t.

14 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One 1 recommend

Comment

“It’s completely useless”

It’s not completely useless at all. It may be completely useless to you, but to say that it is objectively useless is to make an incorrect statement.

15 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One 1 reply

Comment

Sigh. Please stop being so obtuse. The app is useful to its target audience. Do you think that Facebook Home, a beautiful and well designed app is a 1-star application? A 1-star rating should be applied to an app that doesn’t work or is badly designed; an app that causes the device to crash. Facebook Home may not appeal to most users, but it certainly doesn’t deserve the terrible ratings its received.

In any event, the substantive point was simply that this will disincentivize companies to try new things on Android.

15 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One 1 reply 1 recommend

Comment

There are technical constraints that prevent a world-wide rollout.

15 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One

Comment

Where do you see the download graph? Is it just that small graph in the corner, or is there a way to access a larger, more readable graph?

15 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One 1 reply

Comment

Totally agree. It’s ironic, because all of those 1-star reviews will have a direct effect on innovation on the Android platform in the future. Most companies don’t have the risk-taking stomach that Facebook does. If Android is seen as a hostile environment for companies, then they will be less inclined to develop for the platform. Or will be more inclined to first develop and refine the product on iOS where users are apparently more mature.

(And yes, I realize that a product like Facebook Home could not be built on iOS – which is why these 1-star ratings are more problematic.)

15 days ago on Facebook Home now available for Galaxy S4 and HTC One 1 reply

Comment

“Most people would move to a Google/Apple streaming music service depending on what device they’re using (Android or iOS, respectively).”

Yes, absolutely. I assumed we were talking about iOS users, specifically. An Android user would almost certainly find a Google-based service more compelling.

It’s true that some users might jump ship, so to speak. But I think that an iRadio service would tie in to iTunes and iCloud, so it would in some ways usurp the “app” experience. (I expect the same to occur on Android devices via a Google service).

15 days ago on Apple's iRadio talks stall as Google rushes to license new music service

Comment

So I think we’re actually arguing at cross purposes. Unlike SilenceInTheLibrary’s nonsensical comment, I actually agree with what you’re saying for the most part. I will say, though, that the idea of artistic control and the infrastructure of production and distribution (i.e. the music industry) are not mutually exclusive.

The record labels enable artists in many respects. The promotional work that is done behind the scenes, and at the expense of the label is not typically something that an artist or group could afford to do on its own, both for lack of skill and lack of financial means. Artists pay for the overhead, but under the current model they derive many benefits (arguably under the current model, the consumer actually pays for the overhead).

While the record label is often responsible for the suppression of musical creativity, the act of working within and pushing against boundaries is common among all artistic pursuits, so it’s not a problem endogenous to the record industry, nor does it necessarily undermine artistic output. Even an artist free of association will be constrained by money and time. Artistic pursuit is in part defined by this struggle.

It sounds to me like you’re arguing for better taste in the industry. I would agree with you. In that sense, I think we can agree that the industry doesn’t have to collapse in order for better artists to enjoy more exposure and better sales.

15 days ago on YouTube launches paid channels starting at $0.99 per month 1 reply

Comment

Your Louis CK example demonstrates to us that you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. The streaming model is the Pandora / Rdio model. The artist gives a license for his songs to be played, and receives a fractional royalty per play.

Do you think that the record company negotiated deals on said services would be better or worse than deals that individual artists could hope to receive without collective bargaining?

I’ll take the liberty and answer that one for you: no, those deals would be much less appealing than the record label deals. The reason is because the labels have leverage since they own the rights to a large catalogue of music. As an independent artist, you have no leverage. This is your first gross oversight.

Your second gross oversight is the assumption that “going viral” solves the promotion problem. That’s a neophyte’s response to a real problem. Going viral will help boost sales temporarily for a few artists per year, but the overall effect on an entire industry is negligible. Furthermore, that you think that an artist running their own Facebook / Twitter page is comparable to all of the promotions that are done (paid for) by the label makes clear your ignorance of the industry.

My thinking is pragmatic and well-reasoned. I realize that you want the industry to collapse in the hope that some dynamic and workable model emerges, but that’s naive thinking on your part. The effect of the decline of the industry will be that for most music won’t be a viable career. The revenue accrued to each artist will be significantly lower, and their window of exposure will be smaller, too.

If you want to have a philosophical debate about whether music making should be a career, I’d be happy to have that with you.

15 days ago on YouTube launches paid channels starting at $0.99 per month 1 recommend

Comment

You’re trying too hard to argue with me under the premise that I was attacking Google, but you’re totally failing in this pursuit since my comments were not specifically critical of Google.

Cutting out the middle men (i.e. the music industry) will not necessarily result in more revenue for artists. Artists will be unable to negotiate as effectively with distributors, which is increasingly important as streaming usurps the sales model.

The promotional machine that drives sales will also be diminished, so while some artists might make more money from content sales, almost all artists will enjoy less exposure, and as a result lower sales. Think price and quantity effects.

I’m actually not advocating for the middle men at all, I’m simply (objectively, and quite correctly) pointing out that there are consequences for the streamlining of industries. It isn’t always totally positive.

Nice try, though.

15 days ago on YouTube launches paid channels starting at $0.99 per month 2 replies 3 recommends