SEC Gets Win in Test of Authority to Regulate Cryptocurrency Sales - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-gets-win-in-test-of-authority-to-regulate-cryptocurrency-sales-11585099706 <comment><USER2> This is pretty straightforward:

 _The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") seeks to enjoin Telegram Group Inc. and TON Issuer Inc. (collectively "Telegram") from engaging in a plan to distribute "Grams," a new cryptocurrency, in what it considers to be an unregistered offering of securities. In early 2018, Telegram received $1.7 billion from 175 sophisticated entities and high net-worth individuals in exchange for a promise to deliver 2.9 billion Grams. Telegram contends that the agreements to sell the 2.9 billion Grams are lawful private placements of securities covered by an exemption from the registration requirement. In Telegram's view, only the agreements with the individual purchasers are securities. Currently, the Grams will not be delivered to these purchasers until the launch of Telegram's new blockchain, the Telegram Open Network ("TON")Blockchain. Telegram views the anticipated resales of Grams by the 175 purchasers into a secondary public market via the TON Blockchain as wholly- unrelated transactions and argues they would not be the offering of securities. The SEC sees things differently. The 175 initial purchasers are, in its view, "underwriters" who, unless Telegram is enjoined from providing them Grams, will soon engage in a distribution of Grams in the public market, whose participants would have been deprived of the information that a registration statement would reveal._

Telegram tried to split a security offering into two parts, neither of which, by itself, had all the components of a security offering. This did not fool anybody.

It's also a crap deal for buyers. If Telegram did an ordinary IPO, you'd get stock, a share in the profits of the company, and voting rights. "Grams" give you none of those things.

Attempts to frame a securities offering as something else are not new. The original _Howey_ case, which defined the law in this area, involved a sale and lease back arrangement of Florida orange groves, with the rights to harvest the oranges being tradeable. Others have tried to pull this stunt with warehouse receipts, chinchillas, minks, diamonds, bullion, pay phones, and condos. The ICO crowd is not as original as it thinks it is.

<comment><USER3> > It's also a crap deal for buyers. If Telegram did an ordinary IPO, you'd get > stock, a share in the profits of the company, and voting rights. "Grams" > give you none of those things.

This is the part I never understood. Even if you could suspend disbelief over the regulatory risk of this whole thing, it still seemed like a fundamentally bad offering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As usual, the article fails to link to the actual court ruling, even though they're usually perfectly readable without any preexisting legal knowledge. Here's a copy:

[https://drop.qoid.us/453109383-TG- Order.pdf](https://drop.qoid.us/453109383-TG-Order.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER5> this was obviously going to happen. how telegram could have imagined this going any other way is beyond me. i'm not even a lawyer and i could have told them this.

<comment><USER6> Well, maybe they should have hired you as their counsel then.

 _Unlike many of the SEC's targets, Telegram had the advice of a Wall Street law firm before raising funds, while the investors in its digital-coin sale included the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, as well as executives from Fortress Investment Group and SoftBank Group Corp._

<comment><USER7> And we all know how great SoftBank is with due diligence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The entire crypto industry is offshore now. Coinbase is a shadow of itself, doing 1/20 of Binance on a good day. All US players are buried under mountains of legal fees while the offshore players continue to gain market share. The only rational move if you have a physical entity is to 1) Ban US customers and 2) incorporate in Cayman, Seychelles, etc. Coinbase talks about "maybe launching futures at 10x leverage" but that takes them millions in legal fees and years of effort to allow this. Meanwhile Binance and FTX have 150x leverage and launching crypto-derivatives on oil, DOW, FTSE, forex, etc. etc. etc. It's game over for Coinbase, Gemini, all US guys. I don't blame the US given their heavy regulation focus on financial markets, it's what regulators in the US do, but it's simply untenable for crypto industry given it's a global market and the only restrictions to access are illusions mandated by governments.

Telegram made a mistake by taking any US money whatsoever. If they avoided that they would have had much easier time.

Blockchain doesn't care about borders, it's just math. US is playing a losing game but it's fine - the software doesn't care.

<comment><USER9> The key feature of coinbase and gemini is of course that they are following all the regs and are the most trustworthy exchanges out there. The people who want 150x leverage on a shady exchange are not the same customers. I would fathom that they are not even in the 'crypto' space as the history of shady exchanges going belly up (btc-e, cryptsy, bitfinex?) should keep anyone with a half descent memory up at night.

<comment><USER8> The market is proving that the demand for highly-regulated exchanges is far less than the offshore light-regulation ones. The volumes and liquidity speak for themselves.

<comment><USER10> This is not true; reported volumes are fraudulent or misleading for some of the exchanges you are describing. Look at the entropy of Binance daily volume compared to legitimate exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, etc. They used to be faking it even worse. Average real volume on legitimate exchanges has actually grown since the 2017 bubble.

And comparing real volume against the volume of synthetic instruments like Bitmex's perpetual swap is comparing apples to oranges. There is no fiat currency on those exchanges. There is literally zero real liquidity, simply the mechanics of liquidity that can only be cashed out on a reputable exchange.

<comment><USER11> For whatever reason my original account is rate limited. OTC desks execute trades on Binance / Bitfinex and hedge on Bitmex / Binance Futures. If Binance quotes you [XXX] BTC at $1 mil it will go through 100% of the time. You are out of your mind if you think they are faking vol. Perpetual futures charge the same bips if you go 100x, if you have 0.2% fee the exchange takes $2 at 1x or $200 at 100x, doesn't change the fees. Leverage inflates volumes but absolutely increases their fees (revenue), both from bips but also maintenance. You're on another planet if you think Gemini and Coinbase have anywhere close the revenue of Binance and Bitfinex. Sorry man.

<comment><USER10> > If Binance quotes you [XXX] BTC at $1 mil it will go through 100% of the > time.

1mm would even go through on Gemini. Even for crypto, that's tiny. You bring up an important point: have you ever noticed the correlation between fees and volume? Bitmex is the best example; they literally pay the maker of each trade and the taker pays an order of magnitude less than KYC exchanges.

Bitmex and Binance are doing well, no doubt, and Bitmex likely has higher revenue than Coinbase's exchange and Kraken combined, in part due to their built in market maker and de-leveraging mechanism. However, the numbers you are looking at will throw you off by an order of magnitude from true values for the argument you are trying to make. The big legitimate exchanges are doing quite well considering the market, although the volume is seemingly consolidating into Coinbase and Kraken.

If you know how to code, check out the entropies. Bitmex volume is real, but synthetic. Binance volume... maybe 40% real, being generous. There was a time when it was more than 90% fake, like most of the exchanges on CoinMarketCap. They literally faked it until they made it. No need to get feisty about it, just fact checking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [http://archive.md/a0a1D](http://archive.md/a0a1D)</comment>


Reverse turing test as an actual game: SpyParty - <AUTHOR> http://www.spyparty.com/ <comment><USER2> I'll review your project/ app/ startup live on periscope. I know stuffs about things so... post what you're working on and I'll try it out/ test it live :D.

Periscope username: dannymullan Streaming info: 2:30pm-4:30pm CST. Twitter: DanE_Beats</comment>


Google is not what it seems - <AUTHOR> https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8500970](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8500970)

</comment><comment><USER3> Almost all of the Internet players that provide "free" storage and/or email/photo services are actually performing information gathering for the state. To use any of these services, you have to provide personal information. So the public is providing two sets of information. One set identifies the user and the other set contains their day to day activities. It's actually quite creepy the way some of these players crosslink their services and share login credentials. I have this strong mental image of "analysts" combing through this information looking for "interesting" patterns. To say the public is woefully uninformed about the real purpose of this information storage/gathering is breathtaking.

<comment><AUTHOR> what option people have? wherever they host their content it will be accessed by the government

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hate commenting on political posts, but 1000 times this. The US military industrial intelligence complex has always been deeply embedded in the telecom and tech industry. Just because you have cool goth chicks on rollerskates and nerds in silver pants at Google doesn't mean they are any different. Hell, I vaguely know a cool goth chick who works in Ft. Meade. And now that Google is a company about the same size as Exxon, of course they have their shadowy fixers and Pinkertons. Facebook is the same. For all the noise made about how wealthy Russian oligarchs need FSB connections to succeed; it is the same thing here.</comment>


Emacs-jit: Emacs with an Emacs Lisp JIT compiler - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/burtonsamograd/emacs-jit <comment><USER2> This is interesting, but I have to be honest: if you are using emacs lisp to do raytracing, then wow.

I love emacs and its extensibility but it already is so extremely fast with zero latency for the normal things emacs is used for: editing. Even very complex editing operations with plugins that do all kinds of wild things are you type are as fast as I can blink. In what normal emacs use cases is a JIT needed?

<comment><USER3> > if you are using emacs lisp to do raytracing, then wow.

There's a great old saying: Emacs is a great operating system, it just needs a good text editor.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, Emacs is a great example of how a productivity-oriented OS should look like - giving you a _very powerful_ and efficient set of user-interface operations, and then letting you use them _everywhere_ , no matter the task you're doing.

Pretty much the exact opposite of a normal OS - hence many of us in Emacs world do treat our editor as an OS, and prefer to do everything within it.

<comment><USER3> If you are one of those die-hard emacs fans I'd love to hear how you would feel about using EXWM. It's an emacs window manager for X.

Screenshots found here: [https://github.com/ch11ng/exwm/wiki/Screenshots](https://github.com/ch11ng/exwm/wiki/Screenshots)

<comment><USER5> Unnecessary, you can split windows in Emacs, view PDFs in Emacs, run a shell in Emacs, browse directories in Emacs. The only thing you can't do in those screenshots is run Firefox, and I'm happy to alt-tab between my fullscreen Emacs session and my fullscreen FF session

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could an approach like this (with caching the compiled binaries) potentially be a solution to the emacs dumping problem?

<comment><AUTHOR> As the author of this patch, and someone that's followed the dumping problem as well on the list, and someone that follows emacs development I would say that...no, this is not a portable solution to the problem that would be accepted.

libjit does offer the ability to compile the code to a static vector that can be written to disk but that would then put machine specific code in the output .elc files making them unportable.

Also, at this state with the JIT it's not possible yet to fully compile all of the emacs bytecode; there are still some lurking bugs that need to be squashed that I'll (or someone else) hopefully have time to look into in the future to get this to 100%.</comment></comment>


Apple, it's time to merge iOS with macOS - <AUTHOR> https://uxplanet.org/apple-its-time-to-merge-ios-with-macos-4f04c947c19d <comment><USER2> You want me to go back to windows - don't you?

</comment><comment><USER3> That's like saying it's time for Microsoft to merge Windows and Windows mobile. ;)</comment>


One US pilot asked for more training on the 737 Max - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1584233/boeing-737-max-what-happened-when-one-us-pilot-asked-for-more-training/ <comment><USER2> That pilot won't disclose the airline, but the list of companies that based or deadhead pilots into LAX trips on the B737-Max is pretty short. Forty-five minutes from report time to push time narrows it down more.

That company has quite the "go, go, go fast, and find a way to get'er done" attitude on minimal crew resources. Guess what? Now, everyone flying the Max will get more in depth differences training.

As Gene Cernan could have said, "We'zz ups to lotsa CYA before the signoffs."</comment>


George Dyson's continued downplaying of British computing efforts is tiresome - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2012/03/george-dysons-continued-downplaying-of.html

<comment><USER2> The mythmaking around the early history of computing is fascinating (and maddening) to watch. In the rush to create compelling narratives around a few selected heroes, the complexities and the contributions of the many are too often shunted aside.

<comment><USER3> You keep finding this mythmaking pretty much up to present-day, and permeating through other parts of the computing industry as well. It'll take a long time to untangle this and separate the myths from reality.

My "favorite" example is the hyped up reverence for Apple's role in the early days of the home computer, and the "cult of Woz", when they weren't first by a long shot, and largely priced themselves out of the race for many years, with sales a distant third after Radio Shack and Commodore.

Meanwhile a bunch of early guys at Commodore who directly influenced a lot more people are pretty much ignored, not least Chuck Peddle (the father of the 6502 at MOS Technology without which most of the 70's and 80's home computers would've looked _very_ different, and of the KIM and Commodore PET computers, the latter which outsold Apple in the beginning, until replaced by the VIC 20)

To an extent it is down to who writes history - in this case Apple is the only survivor of the home computer wars, combined with being the only one of the larger players who were a predominantly Silicon Valley company (Commodore had offices there, but moved East, and never did as well in the US as elsewhere).

But as an old Commodore / Amiga user who's very aware of how short-changed Commodore has been by modern day mythmaking around the home computers, I wonder how much else of early computing history is twisted or forgotten that shouldn't have been...

<comment><USER4> But what are the rules of this "mythmaking" game you speak of? Seems like a pretty subjective game to get excited about in terms of right or wrong.

To play Devil's Advocate: Apple has been extraordinarily successful at inventing or popularizing multiple industries within the technology space. They're still around and doing very well financially and in the eyes of the consuming public.

Commodore/Amiga were neat in ways, but never could produce the "whole package" experience and business model they needed to last for the long haul. Surely they deserve some footnotes for their efforts, but their relative popularity/myth within the computer industry is just about where it should be.

<comment><USER5> It's more of a "Apple created the home computer all by themselves at a time when absolutely no one else was creating home computers. They invented the home computer from scratch," myth. In a decade or so, we're likely to see the same thing about Apple regarding the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Apple's 'marketing buzz' spiraling out of control within the general public until the statement becomes something akin to, "Apple invented everything that they've ever used from scratch... even their office furniture."

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I don't really know how to deal with your hyperbole. Who is passing along this myth that Apple invented the personal computer from scratch? Maybe you should add in that Woz invented electricity while you're spinning a tale?

<comment><USER3> Perhaps that was hyperbole, but read this article for example, and you can see the impression it leaves about relative historical importance:

<http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa121598.htm>

Yet, at the time, nobody really cared about Apple. The two big sellers where the TRS-80 and the Commodore PET. Apple was a distant third who most people thought was too expensive. It was relevant only because it was the only third place contender.

TRS-80 and PET were both pre-ordered in higher volumes than what Apple sold per year in the first couple of years.

But they get the vast majority of the article, including a lot of attention for the (for the purpose of that article) irrelevant Apple I (it was sold as a kit, sold in the low hundreds, and had plenty of competition which the article ignores).

The worst outright error in the article is to claim the 6502 was designed by Rockwell - of course it was designed by Chuck Peddle, Bill Mensch and a few others at MOS Technologies (Bill Mensch incidentally _still_ produce new models of it). Peddle was the person who personally got the 6502 off the ground and was responsible for the low price point - without Peddle, the Apple computers would've looked a whole lot different...

And the PET entry gets an incorrect NOTE about Commodore's start of the PET project which really only serves to diminish it's role (in reality, Commodore had bought MOS long before, and it was Chuck Peddle who had the responsibility to do a new computer and wanted to talk to Apple as an option before they decided whether to go ahead and do their own machine - the note doesn't match what _either_ Chuck Peddle or Woz says about it, though Peddle and Woz have very different accounts of the discussions). It also makes it seem like Commodore had nothing, but Peddle had designed numerous boards around the 6502, including the KIM computer.

If you're going to insert notes like that, why's there no note about how Commodore bid for a deal with Radio Shack to be their computer supplier, but Roach at Radio Shack opted to have his team develop his own instead? It's a similar story, yet somehow it's important only when it involves Apple.

This is pretty par for the course for coverage of the start of the home computer era. There are few outright errors in that article, but it's biased in a way that contributes to making Apple seem far more important.

If you want to get a better idea of the mythmaking around Apple, I suggest Brian Bagnalls "Commodore: A company on the edge", which contrasts a lot of the coverage about Apple with contemporary sources and eyewitness accounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> George Dyson is the son of the physicist Freeman Dyson, who worked at the Institute for Advance Study from 1953 during the time when von Neumann et al were building the IAS computer. He (George) gave a talk [1] in 2008 where he mentioned that he used to hang out at the IAS as a child and met von Neumann, Kurt Godel, and others. This probably explains his emphasis on the IAS and von Neumann.

I do agree with the opinion expressed in the article, though, that the British contribution tends to be downplayed. But as a brit myself we're used to that...

The Manchester Baby is in the science museum here in Manchester and its worth a look if you somehow find yourself in Manchester. The long-now talk is interesting, but you might want to fast-fwd past the stuff about canoes and tree houses.

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02004/jan/09/theres-plenty-of- ro...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02004/jan/09/theres-plenty-of-room-at-the- top/)

EDIT: typo

<comment><USER7> The Manchester machines were very significant for at least two reasons. First off, they were the first to feature "Williams tube" CRT memory, which was the high-speed memory of choice in any early computer effort that could afford it (including the IAS machine which is Dyson's subject, and for which he apparently fails to give Williams proper credit).

Second, it was the first machine to feature any kind of an index register, a facility that was quite widely copied. You can trace the influence from the spread of the Manchester name for the facility: they called it the "B-tube", a reference to the internal structure of their own machine. (Already having an "A-tube" for the accumulator, and a "C-tube" for control registers, they used the first free letter.) And if you read through the computing literature of the '50s, you'll find frequent references to index registers using terms like "B-boxes", which are otherwise inexplicable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there an accurate account of the international history of computing in existence in book form?

</comment><comment><USER9> One often forgotten but truly fascinating character in the early days of computing is Konrad Zuse [0] who arguably built the first computer. If you are interested in computer history make sure to read his autobiography "The Computer - My Life". At some point he was financed by Nazi-Germany arms producers. About this he said (rough translation by me from German):

Too often is the inventor the Faustian idealist who tries to change the world but fails due to the harsh reality. If he wants to implement his idea, he has to get involved with powers, whose sense for reality is sharper and more pronounced than his. Today such powers are, without expressing a value judgment, military and management. [...] In my experience, chances are slim to defend oneself against such pacts.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse>

</comment><comment><USER10> This review gives the impression that Dyson's book doesn't give credit for the Williams tube. It does. (The linked article in the Atlantic is guilty, though.)

It also links to an Amazon review championing Mauchly and Eckert; but there was a recent bio of Atanasoff (whose title I'm blanking on) saying basically that Mauchly ripped off Atanasoff, and von Neumann had plenty of contact with both sides, had a better grasp of Atanasoff's ideas, and probably worked behind the scenes to promote them and make sure they weren't patent- encumbered. (IIRC Atanasoff had a universal computer in mind but didn't try to make one as his first project because he wasn't going to get stuck Babbage- style taking on too much at once.)

Not to say this review may not have a point. I haven't finished Dyson's book yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> Imagine what those wartime guys could have done with a BBC Micro!</comment>


Opening an SVB Bank Account - <AUTHOR> I'm having difficulty understanding this "SVB currently charges $25 per month to maintain your bank account and waives this fee with a $25,000 monthly balance.?" What does it mean in plain english?(especially the waiver part) <comment><USER2> As long as you have 25k in the account they won't charge the fee.

I thought SVB got rid of the startup accounts?

They jacked up our monthly fee to like $100/month and we ended up moving to Chase.

<comment><USER3> Wow.

They charge people for privilege of giving them $25k+ to reinvest at their discretion for their own benefits?

This is lol.

<comment><USER4> Administering a checking account is not cost-less. Looks like SIVB's return on assets is 1.87% [1] implying $467 of annual revenue for the account at $25k average balance. This is probably more or less break-even (maybe it's $200?) - point being is they lose money on small accounts...

[1] [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIVB/key- statistics?p=SIVB](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIVB/key-statistics?p=SIVB)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the replies, since i'm outside of U.S I wanted to open a U.S bank account through Stripe Atlas.

</comment><comment><USER5> They'll waive the $25/month fee if you maintain a $25K balance every month.

</comment><comment><USER4> just note the that the $25k is a an average daily balance (so ~$750k in the account for 1 day a month or $25k in the account everyday of the month...)</comment>


Ask HN: I want to do "deep work" but I don't know what. I'm stuck - <AUTHOR> I completely get the benefits and necessity of "deep work" (as described in the book of the same name).
But I have a huge problem finding that work. I'm constantly changing subjects and never get anywhere. I'm stuck and desperate.
I think that "what to work on" is a much bigger problem than the "how". Yes, I understand the need to focus, to niche, to do the hard work and so on. But how to find such work?
My suspicion is that luck plays (again) a mucher bigger part in this than people like to admit.
How did you find your "deep work"? <comment><USER2> You actually described your problem: "constantly changing subjects". Stop it!

Deep work is not the goal, an obsessive interest in a single subject leads to deep work ethic. When you are truly intrigued and/or passionate about something then deep work follows. Not the other way around.

One clue to finding your niche is to notice what you get very angry over and want to do something about it. Having found that is the beginning of finding the "juice" and the rest follows.

<comment><USER3> As an extension to your comment, here's a decent advice which is based on the principle of DeepWork.

[https://azeria-labs.com/the-importance-of-deep-work- the-30-h...](https://azeria-labs.com/the-importance-of-deep-work-the-30-hour- method-for-learning-a-new-skill/)

So basically, instead of just going through different subjects try to work on 1 subject/topic for 30 hours (across multiple days, maybe take a break between days) and then check if you want to go further on the subject. Apparently, 30 hours is a good enough time frame to realise if you have an interest on the subject of your choosing.

I'm struggling to actually start with something interesting, and after reading your comment I remembered the process outlined in the article. Thanks!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You're basically asking people "What is my purpose?" and really no one here can tell you what you should be doing. Deep work is an art form of eliminating distractions and concentrating on the specific task at hand for a period of several hours uninterrupted. Whether its "work on a research paper" or "write a novel" or "learn a new programming language", these tasks are ultimately up to you to figure out what you should be doing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes, luck plays a part. The trick is to keep rolling the dice.

What worked for me was microcommitments. I committed to putting 15 minutes on whatever I felt I wanted the most.

At first, I spent a lot of it on game development. Eventually realized that I wanted another side project, involving training.

Microcommitments helped a lot. If I committed right away to deep work, I would have spent hours and days planning and building something I didn't really want to and burning myself out. But with 15 minutes, I learned quickly this was not what I want, this isn't working, partly because I need to do something else first.

It's tempting to sit around filling up a database for a day, designing tables and classes, and calling it deep work. But it's not really.

</comment><comment><USER6> When you walk into a gym with information about what's available on the ether, you are too concerned about Nutrition, weights, lower and upper body exercises but If you ask any fitness trainer what his salt, he will tell you that first few weeks three most important things to do are:

1\. Show Up every day (i.e. Days you want to come) 2\. Learn how to lift weights( lift weights ) right way. 3\. Drinking water.

The same, In my opinion, go for deep work. Doing it every day is important.

<comment><USER7> Yup I agree, best gym I signed up for the owner refused to do any personal training with me until I showed I was serious by doing the circuit he provided me twice a week for a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's some merit to the idea that you don't "find" your passion (i.e. what you mean with deep work) but that you "develop it"

Find something you enjoy doing but would like to get better at. I suggest coding/drawing for starters. Then buckle up and put in the hours. You WILL suck and it WILL suck but once you get the hang of it ...

Try www.drawabox.com

</comment><comment><USER9> You got the process wrong. It is not: first I figure out a subject, then I do deep work, it is the reverse: you start with deep work and go, step by step, into your subject. This does not mean you can not change direction, but the deep work is required before you carve out your niche.

</comment><comment><USER10> Youth.</comment>


Cube (YC W12) Goes Deeper Than Your Standard iPad Register - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/08/ycombinator-cube/

<comment><USER3> Does that qualify as trademark infringement? I can definitely see the case for customers being confused by the similarity to Square.

edit: Can someone please explain why this is being downvoted? I'd like to make sure my contributions are constructive.

<comment><USER4> Does that mean all shapes are off limits now?

<comment><USER5> No. Square and Cube offer very similar products.

If I started a fruit distribution company and called it Rhombus, there probably wouldn't be an issue.

I can't say whether there is definitive trademark infringement here (Cube seems to offer analytics services and targets a niche market, differentiating its product). However, I can't help but feel that "Cube" is a reference to Square.

<comment><USER6> I think trademark infringement is definitely too strong. That being said, I think it's a stupid name.

"Oh look we're going to be marginally competitive to Square, we're going to offer _more_ than _Square_.. CUBE!"

No. It's an unoriginal, hackish name, but at the end of the day it looks like it could be a decent product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The challenge in this space is not the technology, or more cool/useful features.

It's merchant adoption.

It's a massive barrier to entry when a local business has invested upwards of 10's of thousands of dollars on their existing POS system. Or, the flip side of the coin is that they have zero desire to get anything more technical than a $60 register from PriceClub. This is scary stuff to most local merchants.

It's a super long term play to get market share.

<comment><USER8> With 400K-580K restaurants and more than $600 billion revenue and 2.5% fees, and the barriers to entry are not throughout network effects , but through data lockout and habits , you don't need to gain a lot of market share to have a pretty good business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Gordon Ramsey has outfitted several restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares with iPhone-based (or other "new gen") POS systems, and I'm interested to see if they still use them.

There seems to be so much going on in this space, especially with the advent of low-cost, high-performance touch devices. I'm a little surprised I haven't heard of some massive win yet, like a major retailer transitioning. Kitchens are at least high-volume, I wonder if they're a good indicator.

<comment><USER10> Square seems to be the go-to AFAIK.. they probably have the widest following in terms of absolute number of businesses adopting them. I could be wrong though.

<comment><USER7> The Square register was a huge flop with most merchants (though they are addressing these issues with more recent updates). Most merchants I've interviewed that use an iPad as a POS solution have tried it, and dumped it for something that actually met their needs. Again, they are addressing these issues, but that was the feedback I received less than 6 months ago.

<comment><USER11> Can you expand on why it was such a flop with merchants ?

<comment><USER7> Sorry, I don't have much info other than it didn't have the critical features they needed in order for it to be useful. The details of those features I never asked about. What I can tell you is that I mainly spoke with cafes, restaurants and other food service related merchants. Only spoke with a handful of retail merchants... Hope that helps!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If they have the ability to add options to an individual product, they're already a mile ahead of Square. Square's biggest oversight with their Register app is that it's completely unusable for things like food orders. You can't add bacon to a burger with the touch of a button, you have to type it in. And if that bacon is an additional charge, you have to go back to the categories section, then go into an extras category, and add it to the order as a separate product.

If you've got five or ten additional charges for extras, you've now got a receipt that is very long and nonsensical, and you've wasted a non-trivial amount of time needlessly switching between categories.

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks interesting - glad to see some competition heating up in the POS space.

Any way to try out the service without fully signing up for an account? There are a few features I'd like to see if it has (that almost every other iPad POS lacks) and I don't want to create an account just to sandbox....

<comment><USER14> What are those features?

<comment><USER13> We've been selling a ton of product via Groupon and need a POS system to handle the redemptions of those Groupons.

One little quirk is that Groupon does NOT collect sales tax, so we're required to collect tax at the time of redemption.

We need our POS system to handle a payment of type "Groupon" for $X and then a second payment for $Y.

So - for example - if a product is $100 and tax is 5% (total due: $105), we need the total due to show as $105 (naturally), then apply the Groupon payment of $100 and show a balance due of $5, to be paid by credit card or cash.

Last I checked Square register doesn't support this, Shopkeep doesn't support this, and a few others I checked don't either. It's not rocket science - <USER2> the ability to accept 2 or more payments for each sale (Groupon + cash or Groupon + credit card) and have the balances get calculated correctly.

<comment><USER14> Isn't that the same as any coupon? Why not set up a "Groupon Coupon" that applies a $100 discount. It should end up with the sales tax at the end like you need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why limit to an iPad? For retail applications a tablet seems less useful (for starters, it's much easier to disappear when you turn around than your standard kiosk type machine).

With Windows 8 adopting touch there are lots of touch enabled PCs out there.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm interested to see how big a share of the market the "artisan store or coffee shop" is.

And how are they able to offer 2.5%, while Intuit and Square charge 2.75%? You would think that for non-enterprise customers, they would charge more.

<comment><USER16> _You would think that for non-enterprise customers, they would charge more._

You mean charge less? In my limited experience enterprise customers are less price sensitive and more "how do I not get fired for choosing this vendor over the status quo" sensitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How does this stack up against something like VendHQ? (Which I hear is pretty awesome because of the Xero integration)

<comment><USER18> Curious here as well. While it's wonderful that these POS entrants are coming out in droves for small business - I'm surprised to see so few focus on integrating the Brick & Mortar with web-stores. VendHQ has their Shopify integration but aside from that, who else (form any YC class) is offering a complete setup?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Cube certainly seems to have more dimensions than Square.

<comment><USER20> To be exact, six times as many dimensions.

<comment><USER6> Square dimensions = 2

Cube dimensions = 3

3/2 = 1.5

Cube dimensions = 1.5x Square dimensions</comment></comment></comment>


Better than E-Ink: Tcl NXTPAPER – New Reflective LCD with no blue/backlight - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzgij1q_W1Y&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> How is this different from a commercial transflective display, like [https://www.winstar.com.tw/products/tft-lcd/transflective- tf...](https://www.winstar.com.tw/products/tft-lcd/transflective-tft.html) or [https://www.distronik.com/tft-lcd/transflective-sunlight- rea...](https://www.distronik.com/tft-lcd/transflective-sunlight- readable.html) ?

</comment><comment><USER3> Wish they showed a bit more, I'd be interested to see how video or animations look on it.

I often get headaches that make looking at digital screens painful, even when dimmed. I'd be curious to see if a display like this would help.

</comment><comment><USER4> This seems pretty similar to the SHARP memory LCD displays that came out a while ago. I wonder if it has the same performance. That short demo looked pretty choppy.

</comment><comment><USER5> I want this in a 27"-ish monitor for programing and text work in general!

</comment><comment><USER6> So like a gameboy

</comment><comment><USER7> Wonder what happened to Pixel Qi screens? Where they actually better? They come and they go before you get to see them for real.

<comment><AUTHOR> The RLCD technology is actually much more advanced than PixelQi tech. The first recent commercial attempt of a RLCD display was a black and white tablet from Hisense, check here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s4dJu2_ur8&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s4dJu2_ur8&t=2s) and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXqCTk7FjLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXqCTk7FjLw)</comment></comment>


2011 Prediction #10: Apple Buys Time Warner Cable - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2011/01/2011-prediction-10-apple-buys-time-warner-cable/

<comment><USER2> I think another quickly growing internet company did the same thing in 2000 and was never the same after. Buying Time Warner will become analogous to invading Russia.

I'll throw out a good idea for Apple - buy Tivo. Price tag is right (around $1B). Access to a TON of good IP. Access to good software they can build off of and customize for Apple TV. Combine the good of Apple TV (streaming services, iTunes integration), the good of Tivo (great user interface, good hardware, apps), add an App Store...you might have a good product there.

<comment><USER3> $1b seems awfully high for TiVo. I'd peg them at half that or less. Their product although arguably superior to their competitors has been commoditized to no end. How can people buy ticks when comcast or directv offer their DVr "free"

<comment><USER4> I buy TiVos when I can get a lifetime subscription. One price, no recurring monthly or yearly bills. This usually happens around Christmas and for older models (Series 3 TiVo and earlier nowadays). Also, the box is mine.

I'm sure if I got a DVR from a cable or satellite provider, the monthly service cost would be included in my bill for as long as I have the device (a never-ending cost). I am essentially renting a DVR from the cable company. No thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As laughable as Microsoft buying Rimm. Why do people think these big companies will spend all their money on one big "splash"?

There's a zero percent chance this will happen.

<comment><USER6> OK, maybe not TW but the idea of Apple or Google buying a large content company is not so far fetched. In fact, given how quickly the cable + content guys grouped up and pretty much killed Google TV, I think the only way for iTV or Google TV to succeed is if they can break the stronghold by buying one a TV content company.

<comment><USER5> It would be one thing if TW were the only content provider out there but they're not. If apple were to buy any media company the others would be less likely to deal with them and start cutting them off. Apple creates products to view content with, they don't create content themselves.

<comment><USER7> If apple were to buy TW and I am not saying Apple will, but if they do, the market will be driven by customer demand. Enabling part of the market true IPTV experience will start pressuring cable companies to open up. Since IPTV is arguably superior technology customers will demand and in case when they have choice will prefer true Apple TV like services over traditional cable.

At the right price point, buying a current content provide would turn out to be a good move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why do people think Apple will make a huge acquisition? There biggest purchase by far was NeXT for 400m back in '97 with PA Semi and Quattro coming in 2nd/3rd at ~275m. A 30 Billion dollar purchase doesn't seem at all in their nature. Apple builds products and purchase companies as talent/ip acquisitions to help them reach their goals.

<comment><USER9> Because they aren't paying dividends and just building up mounds of cash. Which is a pretty weird way to run a business.

<comment><USER5> Most of the big tech companies have massive amounts of cash. Sure some give a dividend but its small amout and once you do that you stop being seen as growth company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Has Cringely ever made an accurate prediction? I've seen him linked to so many times, and each time it's with some eye-rollingly ridiculous claim, that no one ever seems to follow up on (or sometimes claims that are obvious to anyone paying any attention at all, or so ill-specified that you can never really call them right or wrong). I don't really understand why anyone links to him; he's not a particularly interesting writer, and he doesn't have a very good track record of making predictions or revealing anything that's not commonly known.

</comment><comment><USER11> If Apple buys anyone big, it will be Disney. [prediction #1]

<comment><USER12> Why would they do that? Disney already does pretty much anything Apple asks them to, and acquiring them would make Apple direct competitors with the other media companies whose content fills out iTunes. The two companies have very little overlap, so there's not much of a case for doing it to eliminate competition or to make the joint operation more efficient. And Jobs already sits on the board at Disney and owns a ton of shares, so where's his motivation to push for the deal coming from, given that he already has a great deal of power and money from the current setup without the day-to-day headaches of managing a massive media company?

<comment><USER11> I'm not betting on a $5 billion+ acquisition by Apple any time soon. But my prediction is that Disney is the target IF Apple spends billions on a big acquisition.

Apple would buy Disney for the same reason Ted Turner bought MGM/UA. If you are going to be a media distribution company (which is where Apple is headed) and you want total control (which Jobs always does), then owning content is part of the strategy.

The fact that Jobs sits on the board and owns a bunch of stock is evidence of his personal interest in Disney, not evidence against it. From a branding standpoint there is no better combination than Apple and Disney - don't be like Cringly and live between the Atlantic and Pacific - think worldwide. Jobs isn't insane enough to spend billions on a US cable network just to shut it down on the off chance that everyone in North Carolina will start using MobileMe 2.0.

BTW, Owning Disney would allow Jobs to dictate terms to other content distribution channels.

<comment><USER13> > then owning content is part of the strategy.

Why doesn't Apple buy the companies behind the best iPad/iPhone apps to make them iOS-only?

I mean, it would make sense in a way, and in the "Console Wars" console-makers have been doing this since the Nintendo-Sega days, buying studios and making exclusive games.

<comment><USER11> They don't buy them because: 1\. iOS apps don't cost Apple anything to develop. 2\. iOS app sales provide Apple with a 30% margin. 3\. The distribution of iOS apps is completely under Apple's control. 4\. They can always incorporate any important functionality into iOS. 5\. iOS apps aren't content.

<comment><USER14> >iOS apps aren't content.

Under what reasonable definition of content is this true? Angry Birds and Plants vs Zombies sure feel like content to me.

<comment><USER11> Does someone collect a license fee every time they are presented?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ubuntu introduces new theme and branding - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/ubuntu-dumps-the-brown-introduces-new-theme.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

<comment><USER2> _Not emulate, but blow right past Apple in the user experience we deliver to our end users_

You gotta admire the guy's ambition.

<comment><USER3> Damn right. And considering everything he's accomplished, I think he has the right to be. =)

<comment><USER2> I don't think ambition is something you have to earn, more power to him.

However considering the cat-herding involved in creating great user experiences from the top down, and considering how much Apple pays its engineers and designers, if he pulls this off he's 100 times the leader Steve Jobs is.

<comment><USER4> What they have earned is the right to brag.

Apple has a Unix that's very polished and usable, but is not that much Unix- ish if what you need is a traditional X desktop.

And OSX lacks package management.

<comment><USER5> Package management is really useful for servers, or other systems where there's a bunch of dependencies. Desktop apps hardly need it, and OSX apps in particular don't need it. The combination of the drag-to-applications-folder installing and checking for new updates to the app when you launch it solves the vast majority of this problem for the vast majority of users.

<comment><USER6> You're absolutely right, but as a developer, package management makes a significantly more pleasant experience.

I also really hate how every OSX app has it's own way of doing updates. Even if the OSX makes desktop apps not need dependencies, it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push. As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day.

<comment><USER4> > it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push.

No. If you are asking for updates and fixes, you are doing it wrong. It should be automated, because you shouldn't have to bother to remember pressing a button. I set up my mother with a Linux box and sure as hell I don't count on her pressing buttons without some prompting.

> As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day.

If you have a defective library that's bundled in five apps and needs fixing, you will have five upgrades instead of one. And, possibly, an OS update and a reboot.

But only if you are lucky and the publishers of the five programs are paying attention. Most likely, you will end up with five different bugs scattered throughout your system with many different libraries that really should be just one.

<comment><USER5> "Most likely, you will end up with five different bugs scattered throughout your system with many different libraries that really should be just one."

Actually, I prefer the five. When you have a shared library, and bugs are fixed, applications that use the library might well break. Shared libraries mean that either applications are at risk of completely failing to work, or that the library developers have to flag the bugfix as a new version to avoid that. Either way, incompatible bugfixes require application updates anyway, so you might as well avoid the breakage and use static libraries.

It seems to me that the only good non-mirage reason for shared libraries was disk space usage, and that's just not a problem any more. Down with shared libraries and dependency hell, I say! ;)

<comment><USER7> With a proper package manager, applications won't break with the ugprade of a shared library, because their dependencies will be such that the new shared library will conflict with the application (or, what usually happens, a new build of the application against that shared library is uploaded to the repository at the same time as the library). Sometimes the packaging of a program has bugs in it though, so the situation you describe sometimes happens, but I've only ever seen it happen when I'm installing random Ubuntu packages in my Debian install though.

So, yes, while you're right that shared libraries can sometimes cause the problems you describe, a good package manager will pretty much fix them. But what I love the most about Linux though is that if something bad like that happens (like the ABI of a shared library changing)... it's a minor inconvenience, but so what?

        apt-get source $package
        cd $package-$version
        apt-get build-dep $package
        dpkg-buildpackage
        cd ..
        dpkg -i *.deb

And bam, you just rebuild the program against the new shared library with the different ABI, and everything works. Obviously this isn't "user friendly", but then again I never had to do this before I started mixing packages from different OSes together. And isn't it so easy to do! You can just do that for any program in on your whole computer! "Hmmm, I wonder how this program works", and one command later you have its source code! Another command later and you've built all of that code, into a nice Debian package too. It's so wonderful to have such a powerful package manager.

<comment><USER5> It used to be really easy to junk a Debian system by installing random apps to try them and then uninstalling them. Even with more modern Debian-based systems like Ubuntu, installing and then uninstalling something (say, kubuntu- desktop, to pick an example that happened to me recently) does not leave your system in the same state it was before you started. Instead, you get (to a GUI user) bizarre random configuration changes, and programs that worked may now not work (or vice versa!).

Basically, as someone who switched back to Linux from Mac recently, Synaptic and the Software Center (and why there are two tools that show different-but- overlapping package sets is another WTF) are full of surprises and why-did- THAT-change?! moments.

<comment><USER4> > It used to be really easy to junk a Debian system by installing random apps > to try them

Oh.. The 90's...

Seriously: I moved to Debian-based distros in 2002 and never experienced anything like what you describe. And mind you I ran testing with packages from sid directly for a couple years.

<comment><USER5> Before switching to Ubuntu late last year, the last time I'd used Debian on the desktop was around 2000, so it's true that my experiences with Debian are mostly 90s-era. However, it's _still_ the case with Ubuntu that it's common to install something, try it, and then be unable to get things back to the way they were before (mostly speaking of desktops, WMs, and themes, here). It's not uncommon to allow Update Manager to update things and then find that programs that were working fine suddenly don't work. This happened to me just in the last month with Wine, and happened a while before that with PulseAudio.

I have the patience and time to spend a day changing my config until things work again, but it's certainly a ways behind both Mac and Windows in this area. Additionally (while I'm venting), Ubuntu trains you out of reporting bugs because if you actually reported a bug whenever things went wrong, it would be a part-time job. I actually had fewer update problems with Gentoo ca 2003, though at the time I had things to get done and just wanted stuff to work, whereas now that that I don't depend on my home system to make money, I find fixing the problems fun. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Ubuntu dumps the brown" is a particularly bad pun.

<comment><USER9> It's not actually a pun, but an an unfortunate visualization.

But perhaps I'm just being anal.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why are there no OEMs making strictly ubuntu machines? There's System76, but they're too complicated (20 different choices). Go look at hardware partners and there are no north american system builders! That's what Ubuntu is missing. Guys like us will install it, but if they want to be adopted by normal people it has to come with the system. You'll never get a strong commitment from big guys like DELL. They're too worried about pissing off MSFT.

I'll tell ya, Ubuntu Netbook Edition is the best interface for "simple computing" out there. It's like an iPhone for your desktop computer. I almost want to do a live test where I sit people down with windows 7 and Ubuntu Netbook Edition. I bet you Ubuntu Netbook Edition will win almost every time.

<comment><USER10> Support cost is the only thing I can think of. And pressure from MS. I looked just today for an Ubuntu laptop and ran into the exact issue you describe. Dell has Ubuntu on two netbooks, but that's it. Not that I can't install on my own, but I don't want to pay for Windows if I'm not going to use it (and knowing all the hardware is supported is a nice plus).

<comment><USER11> Sadly you get a discount from windows on most machines... same specs but the windows equivalent is usually cheaper.

<comment><USER4> The OEM license is paid in full by the adware/crapware that comes installed over it.

One more reason to uninstall Windows (besides Windows)

<comment><USER12> I don't see why they can't install crapware on Linux, cut out MS, and cut prices for customers while keeping a bigger cut for themselves.

<comment><USER4> They could, but that could, perhaps, increase the OEM license prices for that manufacturer.

Microsoft doesn't take being cut out lightly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Original article: <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Brand>

Not sure why neither sources or HN links to it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Am I the only one who thinks that at the GUI level Ubuntu is better than OS X? (I use Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 8.04 extensively)

<comment><USER15> Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.

<comment><USER4> OSX's biggest downside is having a fixed region of the screen that changes according to the context of the selected window on the desktop. That makes it impossible to check what two windows can do or even what program is responsible for them until they are selected. That's terribly inelegant solution that separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data (the menu).

Admit it. That's a draw.

<comment><USER15> _"what program is responsible for them"_

This is handled by title bars in Gnome, OS X and Windows, not window menu bars.

 _"separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data"_

The menus don't just act on what's in the window. At least some menu items act on the application itself.

In a multiple document interface with a system that ties menus to windows, the menu of one window acts on multiple other windows. The other windows are either sub windows shoved inside the main window or they are windows floating independently from the window with the menu, which means you need to return focus to the main window to use the menu.

In a single document interfaces, the same menu, application controls and all, is repeated on each individual window.

Furthermore, in both of those cases, once you close the window with the menu bar, you no longer have access to any controls for the application, which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open.

<comment><USER4> > which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without > at least one window open.

As opposed to "application buildup" MacOS users experience since the OS7 days, when they are on a clean desktop and five applications running for no particular reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just installed Xubuntu on a new laptop. I was blown away at how beautiful it looks in comparison with Ubuntu. I'm very glad to see Ubuntu get over it's fetish for its old ugly color scheme.

<comment><USER17> Xubuntu is beautiful and _fast_. I like it much better than Ubuntu.

<comment><USER18> It's the same thing with XFCE as the default window manager.

<comment><USER19> Thank you captain obvious

<comment><USER18> Well, saying "I like Xubuntu better than Ubuntu" kind of makes it seem like he thinks they're different. Xubuntu is just the name of the spin that comes with XFCE by default. If you're using Ubuntu or Xubuntu, you're still using Ubuntu.

The right comparison here would be, "I like Ubuntu's XFCE theme much better than their GNOME theme", or whatever the specific case is. Maybe he likes XFCE better altogether, and then it's "I like XFCE more than GNOME".

See what I am saying here?

<comment><USER19> Yep, my bad >.<

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I still think that this new design feels more like a theme than a default GUI of a OS (or DM in this case).

While I love Linux and I use it everyday, mostly as a server, everytime I enter in the desktop interface I do not feel the "home sweet home" I do on a OS X or Windows.

Linux DM are not comfortable, specially when you have KDE apps mixed with Gnome Apps and there's that mix of different gui + usability styles.

I've said this once, and I will say it again (running the risk of serious bashing): Linux should concentrate in only one DM and improve it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Window controls (max, min, close) on the right of the window title?? I hope they switch them back to the left.

EDIT: my mistake, I meant, why switch to the left?

<comment><USER22> They've found a new way to make your corners and menus more dangerous. It's not just a classic "turn off" button in the top right. Now you get a "close window" button just below "programs" and above "file menu" for free!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd like to see Ubuntu taking a really radical approach and giving the user a choice of more non-traditional desktop options such as these custom desktops, courtesy of lifehacker:

[http://lifehacker.com/5043712/roll-your-own-lightning-at- sun...](http://lifehacker.com/5043712/roll-your-own-lightning-at-sunset- desktop)

[http://lifehacker.com/5087956/customize-your-own-killer- enig...](http://lifehacker.com/5087956/customize-your-own-killer-enigma- desktop)

UI looks set to change radically over the next few years, it would be cool if they looked at the multitouch route:

[http://gizmodo.com/5457472/how-the-apple-tablet-interface- co...](http://gizmodo.com/5457472/how-the-apple-tablet-interface-could-and- should-work)

It can't exactly hurt Ubuntu's market share to really look at exploring the possibilities (sorry couldn't resist). Apple (naturally) and even Microsoft are really upping their game on the UI front and there's the danger of Ubuntu being left even further behind.

</comment><comment><USER24> > After six years it was time to refresh the face of Ubuntu starting with the > word mark

Yeah, that's a core principal of branding - as soon as the customers are familiar with your logo, change it.

Someone tell Apple, IBM, and Coca-Cola.

<comment><USER25> The Apple logo has changed at least 2 or 3 times.

And the Ubuntu change isn't drastic enough that people will stop recognizing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Not emulate, but blow right past Apple in the user experience we deliver to our end users"

I fail to see how that by any metrics are related to the new theme and branding efforts.

The user experience is not defined by the look and feel but by so many other factors. It would be interesting if they had actually better ways to deal with certain metaphors such as file browsing.

But as it stands right now although I love what Ubuntu are doing they are a long long long way from being anything close to Apple standards.

</comment><comment><USER27> Purple and /brown/? Really? Did they have to go there? That's uuuuuugly. Blue and green. Red and black. Purple and black. But Purple and brown? That's a harsh color transition, if I don't recall. What's next? The Hot Dog theme for Ubuntu?

BTW, I'm a huge Ubuntu fan. But man, purple and brown? Geesh!

</comment><comment><USER28> To nit-pick . . . let me repeat . . . to N I T P I C K, I reaallly think the window buttons need to be toned down. That one red button looks sends the whole thing back to something out of KDE 2 (no disrespect to the KDE, I run a KDE 4.3 desktop, it's more of a 90s-still-learning-how-to-design-desktops thing)

</comment><comment><USER29> Better than the brown.

</comment><comment><USER30> Pink is the new brown.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ubuntu: Now with grape flavor!

<comment><USER32> more like purple drank</comment></comment>


Shellfire – modular library and dependency framework for any Posix shell script - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shellfire-dev <comment><AUTHOR> I really loved the following:

 _You 're mad. You should grow up and use Ruby, Python or Go.

We're proficient in all of them. And we've delivered some seriously hard core stuff in our time: message queue brokers that handle 1,000,000 simultaneous users in C. Postgresql network protocols in Java. Static webframeworks in Ruby. Devops automation in Python, oh, and a portfolio trading system in C#. A professional uses the language most appropriate to the problem domain. We do have beards and sandles, though._

Source: [https://github.com/shellfire- dev/shellfire](https://github.com/shellfire-dev/shellfire)</comment>


Cybathlon - Tech Championship for people with disabilities - <AUTHOR> http://www.cybathlon.ethz.ch <comment><AUTHOR> attend it yesterday and was inspired and amazed ... We need more of these type of events, trying to push the limits of tech with competition and sportsmanship.</comment>


Should Robots Feel Pain? - <AUTHOR> http://hardavenue.com/robots-feel-pain <comment><USER2> Pain is probably the same in humans, animals, and even robots, that is to say a bad thing that should be minimised. So I would be very wary of programming AI to feel pain. See this tweet: [https://twitter.com/webmasterdave/status/793408981121269760](https://twitter.com/webmasterdave/status/793408981121269760)</comment>


The Irony of iPad: A Great Day For Open Technologies - <AUTHOR> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/27/the-irony-of-the-ipad-a-great-day-for-open-technologies/

<comment><USER3> I actually tweeted about this exact thing after catching up to the announcement:

      Despite iPad propriety, higher res + HTML5 make web apps
      much more relevant and far cheaper/faster to develop & iterate.

I think this is absolutely awesome for web apps. The only thing that's missing is the ability to sell "icons" on the app store that merely subscribe one to a web app and stick the link on their home screen. This would meld the ease of development and deployment of web apps with the ease of payment processing the app store provides. I don't see this ever happening because Apple couldn't control the ability to review subsequent changes before they were live, but it's a nice dream.

<comment><USER4> The elephant in the room is that no matter how much Douglas Crockford apologizes for it and tries to brush the fact aside, JavaScript the language, the browser DOMs, HTML, and CSS make an absolutely terrible platform on which to develop large, complex, and well performing desktop-style apps.

I can't be the only one who thinks this, and it seems like Google is the only one to have any success at all in doing this on a large scale.

<comment> old-gregg You are absolutely correct but you picked the wrong venue to express this view, hence downvoting.

From a purely technical perspective web platform is approaching DOS circa 1990 accelerated by sheer amounts of open source libraries available today. But it still provides pretty much DOS experience albeit on a high-res screen.

I am not sure it's a bad thing though: when you give developers absolute freedom over your hardware they will quickly turn your PC into a typical popup-ridden WinXP box with tray area half-screen wide :)

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure you haven't developed for DOS in the 90ties, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that.

People that bitch and moan about HTML, CSS, Javascript and about choosing a (high-level) language/framework for server-side development ... should really try developing for DOS, having to deal with Turbo Pascal or C (since C++ in the early 90ties was a mess), having to drop to 286 or 386 assembler to do their job, having to deal with the conventional memory limitations, going through hoops choosing between extended and expanded memory, or having to deal with the protected 386 mode, and always having to reinvent the wheel because open-source practically didn't exist for DOS ... like writing their own windowing tookit, or simulate multi-threading / background workers with hardware interrupts.

The truth of the matter is, we've never had it better. People bitching and moaning about web-dev are just conservatists ... but really, they should get over it since this is 2010, not 1992.

<comment><USER6> I don't know if they are conservatists or simply too young to understand what it was really like back in the "old" days.

The web is awesome. It's the most amazing technology platform the world has ever known. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all standard and interoperable.

People who complain about CSS should try changing the look/feel of an entire desktop app. People who complain of HTML should try building PDFs or Word Docs on the fly. People who complain about JavaScript should try writing some Assembly: DOS, Sparc, what have you...

People who complain about web programming should try to deploy an enterprise app to 10,000 desktops. It's a nightmare. The Web is a blessing to the world. Thank you Tim!

<comment><USER7> _People who complain about CSS should try changing the look/feel of an entire desktop app. People who complain of HTML should try building PDFs or Word Docs on the fly._

Actually, those two capabilities were two things that VisualWorks Smalltalk has had for something like a decade? Want your App to look OS X Aqua? One line of code, boom! Building apps on the fly? Business as usual for Smalltalk.

(To be fair, the Aqua/Motif/Windows emulated UI was half-baked appearance wise, but the underlying framework was good.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It doesn't matter how open HTML5 itself is. Going "to the cloud" is still a step backward for openness. I'd much rather be stuck with .doc files than have everything stored on Google Docs and transmitted using open Web standards. Openness is more than just file formats. Moving to the cloud is just as big a step back, if not more, than the App Store.

<comment><USER9> You know how there is the free-as-in-beer versus free-as-in-speech distinction? I think we need an open-as-in-I-can-build-stuff-without-your- permission versus open-as-in-consumers-theoretically-control-their-own-data distinction. I kind of like having the first type of open around. The second type, meh, whatever.

I make toasters for people who like toast. They pay me to make toasters so that they don't have to deal with the freaking breadcrumbs. The word breadcrumb sort of scares them, anyhow. They don't need open breadcrumbs. (Influential people, including many present here, think open breadcrumbs are a moral imperative. None of them buy toasters. I optimize accordingly.)

On the other hand, as a toaster maker, it is very handy for me that I don't have to apply to a Central Toaster Authority for a Certified Toaster Maker Certificate which will let me check out The Black Arts of Toaster Manufacturing from the library and use my Genuine Toaster Tools (cost $100,000 per set)) to start cranking out toasters.

<comment><USER10> I get where you're going, but the toaster analogy doesn't work. If you want to sell toasters (or basically anything that takes mains voltage) en masse in Western markets, you'll have to fork over several large to Underwriters Laboratories and go through their approval process.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but they aren't _nearly_ as notoriously capricious as the App Store. (Perhaps it's just not as well publicized?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true?

Apple doesn't give you access to the same experience from the web as from a native app, and simulations of such have up to this point been second class and will remain so. End of story.

A netbook-ish device with no way to put software on it except thru a proprietary corporate censored app store is a big loose. Beyond the hype, I think this device will be everyone's wakeup call. Noone cared too much about the iPhone app store problems because of its limited form factor. Truly, there's a limited number of things you can do with it in a reasonable manner and they were all covered generically about 6 mos after launch.

This device can do much more, but there's a lot you _won't_ be able to do because everything must be vetted by Apple.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, do people think if they say this enough times, it'll be true?

Apple has been spending gads of time, energy and effort to make the web experience as close to native as possible. This includes giving access to hardware accelerated CSS animations, access to GPS, and access to offline storage (I outlined a bunch more in the article).

For instance, there is _no_ reason the New York Times app they demonstrated today would not have worked fine as ipad.nytimes.com.

<comment><USER12> I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible. They don't get a cut of sales on native apps, and they can't control the content, style or functions to the same extent - are these issues not important to Apple? Seems they are from how they act about app approval.

<comment><USER7> _I don't see what possible motivation Apple would have to make the web experience as close to native as possible._

It makes it easier to sell the hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Except the iPad simulator in the SDK Beta doesn't ship with Safari. You can sort of fake it with S4, but only sort of. Just like you can sort of fake a native app with HTML5, but only sort of.

I've commented before how this is a disaster, and will be even more so as we become even more mobile. The precedent has been set and it's only going to get bigger and more ubiquitous.

That said, I'll still be getting an iPad. But mostly because I write apps for myself and the iPad is something I've been waiting for to fulfill a specific purpose that the iPhone only sort of takes care of.

<comment><USER14> Why in the world is Safari not on the iPad simulator?! I'd like to believe they'll fix that during an update, but I hesitate to think that Apple would do anything I find sane...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I also wonder why more people haven't mentioned the A4. Intel seriously needs their asses kicked. The A4 isn't going to be open tech by any measure, but the fact that it was possible may mean we will get more attention/innovation in that area-- not open by a direct technical standpoint, but openness in terms of market options/competition.

<comment><USER16> I was wondering what Samsung(current manufacture of the 3GS's A8 processor) was thinking during the announcement. With the iPad using in-house silicon I will bet the next iphone will as well. This is going to hurt any future ARM manufacturer that Apple might have used.

<comment><USER17> I'm hearing quite a bit of speculation that Samsung is the fab for the A4. If so, they are still getting a slice of the action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I whole heartedly agree with what Yehuda is saying here. If you're not writing a game and don't need direct access to the hardware (i.e. camera support on the iPhone/iTouch) I find it very hard to understand why you would _want_ to write anything other than a highly optimized HTML5 app. Wanting aside, I totally understand why people _do_ write native apps, both for reasons of integration-feel and for speed, but I'd like to think most app developers would rather have a highly optimized Safari and a robust / optimized Javascript API to write their apps with instead.

<comment><USER19> _One area in particular where iPhone web apps fall short of native iPhone apps is scrolling. This friction might make sense for regular web pages rendered on the iPhone's small screen, where by "regular" I mean "not optimized specifically for display on the iPhone". But it just feels slow — stuck — on iPhone-optimized apps._

That was the Daring Fireball page on PastryKit

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you read to the end? It's possible, with pure HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, to solve these problems. Apple has, and we don't need them to release "PastryKit" for us to get the same powers.

<comment><USER19> I was replying to your question about why it is sometimes better to have a native app, even though you may not need direct access to hardware - <USER2> experience is another factor.

Do understand that such a kind of experience may be deliverable today, with PastryKit or whatever someone else develops, but Apple can break this compatibility (which it cant do with its native SDK).

A new business model may exist where developers make advertising money off free iphone webapps. It is extremely naiive to believe that Apple will allow you to deliver the same user experience by bypassing the App Store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I fail to see the irony here. Apple is not trying to stifle innovation and control absolutely everything we do with their devices. As he points out in the article, Apple is the biggest driving force behind open web standards and their implementation in WebKit.

The motivation for the App Store is simple: consumers want an easy way to buy apps, and developers want an easy way to sell apps. If you want to take advantage of the payment processing, bandwidth, store interface, and marketing provided by the App Store, you have to adhere to their ToS. I'm sure Yahoo! Store has ToS as well.

However, if you want to roll all that on your own, go right ahead. As pointed out in this article, no one has done more to support you in that endeavor than Apple -- including a lot of support in WebKit and iPhone OS specifically for web apps on these devices.

It's not just a question of web vs. native, either. Even if _all iPhone apps_ were HTML5/CSS/JS, you'd still have to adhere to Apple's ToS in order to sell through the App Store, and you wouldn't have to adhere to them if you sold through your own store.

<comment><USER5> > _However, if you want to roll all that on your own, go right ahead_

You can't do that with native apps. You really don't have that choice, and while the browser is really capable, it means some precious functionality is out of reach ... like being able to handle the web-cam.

> _Apple is the biggest driving force behind open web standards and their > implementation in WebKit._

Oh, please. They took KHTML and invested some resources into it. Then it became a defacto standard for mobiles, because it remained LGPL, because KHTML was LGPL.

Surely Apple is doing his part, but to call it "the biggest driving force behind open web standards" ... Jesus!

Speaking of that, I guess you're not using Linux and have never encountered a page filled with Quicktime screencasts. And on Windows you have to buy a license to get full-screen? WTF is that? Sorry for the expression ... but driving force, my ass ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If the only thing we get out of the ipad and its ilk is a large installed base of flash free devices, it will all have been worth it. I don't like Apple's closed everything attitude, but I like adobe's even less. The enemy of my enemy...

</comment><comment><USER22> Weren't similar things said about the iPhone pre-App Store? (that mobile safari supported HTML/CSS/JS/etc)

Still, I don't think there were any groundbreaking iPhone web apps that didn't eventually become iPhone Apps.

<comment><USER23> I dunno, mobile GMail on iPhone Safari is pretty impressive.

<comment><USER24> That's only because apple won't let google release a mail client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I agree with Yehuda that any good browser platform helps promote web apps, and HTML 5 makes this even better. One point of disagreement: I think that it is awful to not have a sandboxed Flash implementation so the device could access hulu.com, conference videos, etc. This rules out my wife and I buying one of these because I would not by a web browsing device that could not access quite a bit of web content.

<comment><USER26> I agree that in the short term, not having Flash will wall off large sections of web content.

However, if the iPad takes off we will have to either provide alternate content or abandon flash on our heaviest flash sites. The web design company I work for will probably switch to standards-based Javascript animation and HTML5 video with the usual fallbacks for IE6. We already use JS for many things that used to be flash, like menus, slideshows, galleries, and animations.

When it was just the iPhone/iPod touch, with their relatively small browsing traffic, it was easy to shrug it off when a site didn't work properly. Expectations will be different with this device. My clients will be asking why their site is broken on their iPads.

The big video sites will implement an HTML5-powered player for the iPad because it allows them to go around the iTunes / App store model. Smaller video players will probably make the switch sooner.

Apple may be doing the developer community a favor by giving us a reason to leave flash behind. The runtime is fine on Windows but sluggish on OSX and slow and buggy on Linux; it's frequently using more CPU time than anything else on my system and often has terrible video playback performance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> the amount of effort going into pushing browser technology has always confused me with apple, unless they never aimed for the appstore to be a permanent thing.

but its a pleasant surprise, im excited by the type of applications we can build these days using very common web standards

<comment><USER28> The success of the internet and web keep Apple's computers relevant in a still-Microsoft-dominated world.

I was a Mac user starting in 1989 (and since then switched to BeOS and then Linux). Once everything started moving onto the internet and then the web, alternate operating systems became far less like neglected ghettos. Now as long as it has a good web browser, even the most marginal platform is pretty useful.

<comment><USER5> Yes, and what bothers me with this scenario is that things can always go around ... what do people think it will happen when Apple is the one dominating?

I can tell you one thing ... the Microsoft era will seem something like a golden-age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's ironic that Steve's much criticized initial suggestion of "why don't you make web apps?" in lieu of an SDK when the iPhone first came out is now more and more acceptable. Certainly Safari advances and all the negativity about the approval process have played a part in that.

I just find it funny that Steve had to be "wrong"* about something just to show how right he was about something else...

[*] open to interpretation of course, depending on how you feel about the SDK and the AppStore.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sell accounts on sites like Dropbox, Basecamp and 37signals on iTunes Store? Not a good idea for Apple, but maybe a good idea for someone else?

</comment><comment><USER31> What happens when this device becomes ubiquitous and Apple decides to support the features in HTML5 "they" want and not others, or to stop supporting it altogether. Will you switch to another browser on your IPod/Pad/Phone?

</comment><comment><USER32> Related news: Apple now allows VOIP apps with the new iPhone / iPad SDK

[http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/apple-lifts-voip-over- cel...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/apple-lifts-voip-over-cellular- restrictions-in-new-iphone-sdk/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Yeah, finally a 4chan-compatible device! =))

</comment><comment><USER34> I like this viewpoint.

</comment><comment><USER35> Apple has finally made a netbook - and they did it on their terms. Bravo!</comment>