Show HN: Density – The Heartbeat of a City - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/density-heartbeat-city/id955990160 <comment><AUTHOR> We posted Density a while back when we used mac address tracking ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7305097](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7305097)). We've since moved to a wirelessly connected door counter, would love some feedback.

<comment><USER2> Glad to see the change in methodology! I loved the concept then and still do, but freaked out at the thought of my MAC address being logged everywhere I go.

<comment><USER3> This is presumably one reason why Apple has stopped broadcasting your real MAC address while doing SSID probes, instead randomizing it.

<comment><USER4> And Android followed suit. The policy change pretty much bifurcated the industry. Half died or sold themselves off - [http://fortune.com/2014/10/29/after-a-blow-from-apple- nomi-s...](http://fortune.com/2014/10/29/after-a-blow-from-apple-nomi-sells- to-brickstream/)

The other half doubled down on MAC address tracking tech, arguing that it still generates meaningful data - [http://www.euclidanalyticsblog.com/2014/08/beacons-and-wi- fi...](http://www.euclidanalyticsblog.com/2014/08/beacons-and-wi-fi.html) Although I've heard they've started to move toward video and facial recog.

We were so small at the time of the announcement last June that we thought... "Why don't we just build a door counter. How f __ _ing hard could that be? "

...turns out it's like way, really f_ __ing hard.

But here it is - [http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1](http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be nice if you let people know before they signed up for an account what cities you are in...

<comment><USER6> Good point, definitely something we overlooked. Next build will include that, as well as the ability to request locations from anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really cool. My cousin and I had a similar idea but a phone would be used instead of a custom sensor.

Question - why would a business be OK with broadcasting a "quiet" status? Wouldn't that reflect poorly on them?

<comment><USER4> Can you give me an example of how quiet could be bad?

<comment><USER8> Bars, clubs, etc.

<comment><USER4> Yeah.

Well, I guess it could be bad if I knew that it was always quiet and therefore "a drag" (sorry, that was a weird word to use). But I suspect any bar or club that's reasonably solvent, especially in populous cities, has busy times.

Atm though we only show the traffic right now and notify when something is triggered, quiet / trending.

Second, I think there are people out there that are not looking for busy bars. Rather quiet ones. I certainly fall into that category.

We're not in any bars right now, though. I'll get back to you once we have more data.

<comment><USER9> What does "trending" mean? It's... popular right now for being quiet?

It seems like if you had the data, you could build both an app that's marketed to tell you when places are quiet, and an app that's marketed to tell you when places are lively.

EDIT: Or do you envision the app to do both? I'm having a hard time squaring "The Heartbeat of a City" with "Is your favorite place quiet right now? Check it out in realtime and get notified when it's convenient to drop by."...

> Second, I think there are people out there that are not looking for busy > bars. Rather quiet ones. I certainly fall into that category.

I'm curious what the market size is for people looking for quiet public places vs. lively public places. Is there already a popular app that targets the latter? Has anyone successfully filled the gap left by Foursquare eliminating check-ins?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very nice! You've taken a big step towards blowing up the assumptions behind the canonical version [0] of the minority game.

I imagine you're already thinking about how you can enrich your dataset and provide analysis that will help people solve real problems of consequence. Parking might be a big one: there's surely money to be made directing drivers to available public parking spots or showing businesses and real-estate developers the potential to share parking among uses that are statistically complementary with respect to parking demand.

And please add Kansas City.

0\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem)

<comment><USER4> Re: Minority report. Yeah, I think there's a space in the future where utility and privacy don't have to be traded for one another.

There's another cool company doing parking called Parkifi I think.

Someone else mentioned El Farol Bar. If we're causing too many people to show up or too many to stay home... that would be an awesome problem to have.

Re: Kansas City. Friends with some of the founders / early people over at Zaarly. We're definitely keeping Kansas City in mind ;)

<comment><USER10> Minority games, not Minority Report the movie. :P In game theory, minority games [0] are a class of games that includes the El Farol Bar problem, a class in which the payoffs depend on the number of actors who make each choice. For the most part, the strategic aspect of these games disappears when you have enough information about who has choosen what so far.

On the parking point—there do seem finally to be some real efforts underway to gather data about parking availability. At an average cost of about $40,000 per spot in a parking structure and low overall utilization, it's astounding that it's taken this long for serious attempts to emerge to find ways to allocate parking more efficiently. In addition to solutions that involve putting sensors in situ, car-makers are starting to think about how they can use the ever-expanding array of sensors in their vehicles to map parking spaces and track their availability [1].

But there are surely other open problems of the same sort that Density's data could help solve: how many people are jamming into the subway right now, or how many are at the farmer's market already? In this common sort of situation, your experience depends on how many other people are doing what you're contemplating doing, and your behavior will (or would) change with better information about who's doing what.

Look for those sorts of problems to apply your data to, I'm suggesting. There might also be opportunities to map demand irrespective of supply. In the parking situation, for instance, tracking the number of open spaces only gets you so far; you also want to know how much aggregate demand there is, because that helps you figure out whether to build more capacity. Second-order statistics like how many people are checking a location's activity in the app can help you estimate that sort of thing.

0\. See, e.g., [http://www-f1.ijs.si/~rudi/sola/MinorityGame- Seminar.pdf](http://www-f1.ijs.si/~rudi/sola/MinorityGame-Seminar.pdf) [PDF]

1\. [http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/02/remote-valet-mode-and- re...](http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/02/remote-valet-mode-and- revolutionized-parking-fords-smart-mobility/)

<comment><USER4> re: Minority Re..port... I've always been bad at reading. Do you know another example of a minority game? And is it a paradox or just a method of thinking about game strategy?

Parking - I agree. That one company has a unit that senses the presence of a battery in a parking spot.

Other open problems - I think your talking about how datasets affect one another. What's really interesting about that regarding foot traffic is that there currently isn't a way to know how many people came and went. Which means it's currently tough to draw connections between how foot traffic might affect the farmer's market or the subway or the financial district in San Francisco.

Can you explain map demand irrespective of supply?

Checking PDF..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Will there be an API for this data to allow business owners to extract it?

One of my clients is building a dashboard that correlates data from various sources, and this kind of data for physical businesses has long been a dream.

<comment><USER4> Yes. Actually, that's our model. We designed the hardware to be cheap enough to be free (situation dependent) and then we monetize the resulting data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is the data collected?

EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see the website where it's explained: [http://www.density.io/](http://www.density.io/)

Cool product!

<comment><USER4> This little guy - [http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1](http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1)

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is great, I was just thinking about a similar idea when I waltzed into my empty barbers the other day, good luck!

</comment><comment><USER13> Does this only work with places that have one entrance / exit?

Or could someone rig up say, an entire hospital with this thing and see stuff like admission / availability of the waiting rooms at nearby ERs?

<comment><USER4> Rig up... We can normalize multi-entrance places. Actually Blue Bottle is a multi-entrance place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Had the same idea a while back whenever I called a restaurant to check the wait time and it went to voice mail. App looks good, I will try it out this weekend.

<comment><USER4> Local business voicemails are the worst :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are there any plans to make the data available via API or maybe offer webhooks? Would be cool for other folks to mashup this data in various ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! That's actually our model. I'm really excited to see what people do with the data

Love the webhooks idea, I can see users hooking into something like ifttt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good concept! Just curious - can the device accurately track multiple people (or group) entering / exiting together in one door swing?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're essentially identifying patterns that occur in the voltage readout of two parallel sensors. Two different people, even if passing through without a gap, show enough of a difference in their pattern to tell them apart. It simply takes time to root out all of these granular edge cases.

<comment><USER16> Got it, thanks! Not sure what use cases you have already thought about but certainly see this being quite handy from a business perspective e.g. retailers can run real time customized offers/campaigns depending on the levels of density at their place to engage with the users better and improve overall experience (of course bottom line as well:)).

<comment><USER4> Like "reverse surge pricing"... free coffee until the place gets busy.

<comment><USER16> Exactly or maybe 20% discount on your favorite meal depending on the store/time of day/user profile etc. This can to some extent ensure the overall utilization of the retail store and thus profitability are improved. I'm pretty confident retailers wouldn't mind paying for this on a saas basis or some other similar model. This will also help on the user acquisition side as there's now a really cool incentive for downloading/using the app!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice, however given the name, the triangle logo associated a lot with destiny the game. [http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131219001817/destinyped...](http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131219001817/destinypedia/images/4/4e/Trademark- Confirms-Bungie-Destiny.jpg)

<comment><USER6> We came after, but they definitely copied us.

Here's how we arrived there: [https://medium.com/@kyle_ohara/simple-is-ing- hard-91730cf723...](https://medium.com/@kyle_ohara/simple-is-ing- hard-91730cf72301)

<comment><USER18> You call it "the Ingress", and it kind of looks like the Ingress app icon.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to create a simple mark these days without bumping up against other branding. Couple people mentioned Mercedes as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks interesting, how do you do this exactly?

<comment><USER20> Looks like the business has to purchase (proprietary?) hardware to install on- premises.

Usefulness will depend on whether the location you are interested in has the required hardware.

<comment><AUTHOR> Generally, we give the hardware away for free (circumstance dependent). We'd prefer to monetize the data. We don't really want to build a company on $49.99 / mo. There are a lot of other players in that game. Here's a picture of the sensors if you're interested: [http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1](http://i.imgur.com/zLUMAG8.jpg?1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Neat idea, though the lack of an Android client is disappointing; is one in the works?

<comment><USER6> We're focusing on iOS initially, but certainly plan on an Android app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Super cool idea. Best of luck with this.</comment>


GroupMe Is Now Sending One Million Texts Every Day - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/14/groupme-one-million-texts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> Group SMS is a very interesting space but the economics are very difficult to work with. At my first startup <http://inactiv.com> we had a very similar product in 2006. We were seeing about 50-60000 messages a day and that was limited only by our rudimentary infrastructure.

Over time we realized that those SMS costs add up so rapidly that you need a very good monetization to pull it off. Recovering such high ad rates will be very difficult. Maybe with Groupon/Foursquare like models, something more substantial may be possible.

It will be interesting to see the direction GroupMe takes. Do wish them the best though.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1) Why isn't this feature built in to smart phones? I know it's a big pain point for me on iOS. I assume it's not on Android if there is this much uptake.

2) How on earth are they going to make money? Their suggestion for location based sponsored group chat sounds terrible to me, because you'd be opting in to miniature twitter feed that clogs up your text inbox instead of being able to read it asynchronously.

<comment><USER4> iOS actually supports sending text messages to multiple people, and that "group" is maintained in the SMS app for later broadcasts.

However, when you receive an incoming text message you don't know whether it was coming to just you or CC a hundred other numbers, so there is no way to Reply All.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> America wants to group text. At GroupFlier.com we just reached 1M cumulative texts in 12 weeks. The demand as very broad as we see traffic from just about every age and activity group.

<comment><USER6> But does America want to pay for group text?

<comment><USER5> No they won't pay but if you shift enough of the traffic onto smart phone clients and show mobile ads you have a killer business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I started withTXT in 2004. We had a group messaging product, GroupTXT, that was marketed to Fraternities, Sororities, and other university student organizations. The product was fairly successful, but even with the organizations paying healthy monthly fees and some advertising revenue, the messaging costs were eating us alive. At the time we had direct SMS agreements with the major cell carriers. I havent kept up with the industry and with costs, but every time I see a successful SMS messaging company sending millions of messages I always have to wonder how much investment money they are burning through.

</comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that the smart thing for GroupMe to do is to use push on smart phones and sms on non-smart phones. If they aren't already doing this, it's an easy win to reduce their volume over SMS.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think this was the original value proposition behind Twitter. I would say the only reason people were originally interested in it was that it could enable SMS broadcast.

The main thing SMS has going for it is ubiquity. Too bad it is so expensive for some people - there needs to be a replacement technology whose price is in line with the costs of delivery.

</comment><comment><USER10> What are the barriers for them to develop their own SMS infrastructure? Even if they got a crazy discount down all the way to $0.01 per text, that's still unreasonable for a message form that can fit in a single packet.

I heard somewhere once "if you own the infrastructure you can charge rent" :). Maybe at their volumes it's time they stopped leasing.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know how much it costs them to acquire a new number? In other words, every time a user creates a new group, they are assigned a number. How much does that cost GroupMe?

<comment><USER12> They're definitely getting the Twilio volume discount price. Probably paying a lot less then the stated: <http://www.twilio.com/pricing-signup/volume- pricing>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hope this company monetizes this quickly and is able to last because this is one of those few apps that as soon as I saw, I utilized. GroupMe just got 10+ active users. Haha.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wait a second. How are they paying for all those texts to be sent out if the service is free? If they are using twilio or something similar, the costs are 2c per SMS.

Are they managing to send out the SMS for free somehow??

<comment><USER15> Last I heard they were still using Twilio.

Do the math.. ouch!</comment></comment>


Microsoft Screwed Up In-App Purchasing on Win8 - <AUTHOR> http://emadibrahim.net/post/35214414445/microsoft-doesnt-want-your-money-but-i-do#top

<comment><USER2> well, other than "doesn't work", "broken", and "can't", I dont know what exactly the problem is.. care to explain further?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought I explained it well in the link but here we go again: \- install taskorami

\- click sync

\- click get unlimited sync

\- NOTHING HAPPENS

It is suppose to prompt you to confirm your purchase which SOMETIMES WORKS...

Another example:

\- install Fresh Paint

\- Click on a variety pack

\- Click Buy

\- It will say PURCHASING and nothing happens

Again, it is supposed to ask you to confirm your purchase

Don't worry nothing will be charged to you until you confirm the purchase.

If that doesn't make sense, contact me at eibrahim at g mail dot com

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is anyone having the same problem? I don't even know who to complain to??? Very frustrating!!!

<comment><USER3> Well, what have you tried?

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried fresh paint which is a Microsoft product.

Yes I have a CC and I have made purchases before even an in-app purchase... It's works... the problem is that it works SOME times.

<comment><USER3> I actually meant 'what have you tried' in terms of getting help from Microsoft. You said that you don't know who to complain to - what have you tried in order to find out?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Things that drive me nuts about OpenGL - <AUTHOR> http://richg42.blogspot.com/2014/05/things-that-drive-me-nuts-about-opengl.html <comment><USER2> One of the biggest headaches for me is debugging. As the author says, the facilities for reading state back out are often questionable. Even where they're not, I'd rather not spend all my time rolling my own custom OpenGL debugging tools. I'd love a cross-platform OpenGL debugger--even if it only handled basic stuff.

For example, when nothing renders, I don't want to waste an hour, staring at my code with no direction, until I realize I forgot a call to glEnableVertexAttribArray. Instead, I'd like to boot up my trusty debugger and go through a sane process of narrowing down the problem, like I do for just about every other class of bug.

Also a sane way to debug shaders would be fantastic. The usual advice is to write debug info out as color values. The fact that anyone considers that a healthy debugging strategy just illustrates how far behind graphics programming is in terms of developer friendliness.

I don't know if it's better on other APIs. OpenGL is the only one I use, because I never have occasion to develop Windows-only apps.

<comment><USER3> If you're on an nvidia GPU, check out nvidia nsight. And this is also one problem with GL, if there are good debugging/profiling tool they often only work on one OS and/or for specific GPUs (and I hope this is where VOGL will come in and fix that).

Other then that I don't even think of OpenGL as a single standard anymore. It's more like "Nvidia GL" "AMD GL", "Intel GL", "Apple GL", etc... there is a core set of functionality which works across all implementations (and which could be cleaner), but if performance is more important then easy portability, you need to implement driver specific code paths anyway. Whether this is good or bad I haven't yet made up my mind completely. At least on GL you have an environment where GPU vendors can experiment and compete through extensions.

<comment><USER2> > if performance is more important then easy portability, you need to > implement driver specific code paths anyway

I think that's fine, because as you said, it encourages GPU vendors to innovate. Plus, it probably affords more of an opportunity to squeeze every last drop of performance out of each card.

On the other hand, I'd start to get upset if we had to write card-specific code just to do the absolute basics. (Which isn't the case right now.) There are tons of apps that need only a tiny fraction of the performance a GPU offers. For those apps, it would be insane having to maintain multiple codebases just to, say, draw a box with a texture and Lambert reflectance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      * GL extensions are written as diffs vs the official spec
      So if you're not a OpenGL Specification Expert it can be extremely
      difficult to understand some/many extensions.

This is spot on. I was thinking last week about writing a webapp that displayed the spec with a list of extensions you could check to have them merged in.

Then I decided I was yak shaving and went back to actually working on my project.

<comment><USER5> Something like this? [http://webglstats.com/](http://webglstats.com/)

<comment><USER4> That's really useful in itself, but no, I mean something that lets you read the actual OpenGl spec with the extension text patched in.

If you skim the text of an extension [1], you'll see an awful lot of this:

> Add a new section "Buffer Objects" between sections 2.8 and 2.9:

It'd be very nice to read those sections without having to have the full spec open in another window. Especially because some _other_ extension you're using might be modifying the text as well.

1: [http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/vertex_buffer_objec...](http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/vertex_buffer_object.txt)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After spending a few months porting a Direct3D9 game to work in OpenGL 2.x, this article certainly resonates with me. It's quite easy to get code working nice and fast in one driver, while in another it stalls and drops down to 1 fps because you didn't anticipate the driver developer designed their version of the API to work under different performance characteristics.

Meanwhile in Direct3D9, the game still runs smooth at 60+ fps on all major drivers on most recent hardware. Granted, it's a bit of an Apples vs Oranges comparison, but it certainly causes a lot of headaches especially when you need to go so far as to modify the art so it batches better.

There is also still a lot of conflicting information on how best to use OpenGL. OpenGL 3.x certainly helped by consolidating a lot of stuff which was in extensions, but in my case its not really that good for me as I still have to put up with the land of OpenGL 2.x.

<comment><USER7> > OpenGL 3.x certainly helped by consolidating a lot of stuff which was in > extensions, but in my case its not really that good for me as I still have > to put up with the land of OpenGL 2.x.

Ha, where I work we still get support tickets about our ancient GL1.5 renderer from time to time. If only we could drop it.

And then I get home and see people on /r/gamedev suggesting that OpenGL 3.2 is outdated and not even worth supporting anymore. I even got downvoted for saying that my less-than-three year old laptop ran GL3.2. Maybe I'm just in need of an upgrade...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Mantle and D3D12 are going to thoroughly leave GL behind (again!) on the > performance and developer "mindshare" axes very soon.

Huh? Performance, maybe, but how is "mindshare" being measured here?

DirectX "beat" OpenGL a long time ago - does the author claim OpenGL beat its way back to the top? If so, I can only assume that was due to GL on mobile platforms. But those mobile platforms - iOS and Android - still use GL, and are growing? How can D3D12 and Mantle beat those when they don't even run on those platforms, while Windows - the platform they do work on - is anyhow already under DirectX control?

Furthermore, GL is seeing another area of growth through WebGL, which now works on even Microsoft's browser.

Am I missing something? That mindshare statement seems completely off base.

<comment><USER9> He's referring to mindshare among professional (game) engine developers - those people who try to get maximum rendering performance out of multiple platforms. His statement is totally on target for reasons I enumerated with a blog article on this subject back in December: [http://inovaekeith.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-opengl- probably-...](http://inovaekeith.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-opengl-probably- isnt-graphics-api.html)

As for WebGL Apple intentionally disables WebGL support on iOS - except for in iAds - so game devs can't circumvent the app store. Since WebGL is needlessly restricted to the feature set of the OpenGL ES specification its usefulness is severely limited. WebGL also has many other problems such as the fact that JavaScript is slow as hell.

<comment><USER8> I read the blogpost, but it seems to focus on why OpenGL isn't good - not on measuring mindshare of OpenGL? Yes, perhaps Mantle and DirectX are better, and that might in theory lead to more mindshare. But the fact remains that OpenGL is standard on mobile and on the web, which should increase OpenGL's mindshare.

Yes, WebGL is disabled on iOS. It's disabled on OS X desktop too, for now. Hopefully that will change soon.

> JavaScript is slow as hell.

I wouldn't say that 67% of native speed is "slow as hell", and that's where things currently stand. Perhaps you have a specific workload in mind that happens to be slow - how did you measure?

<comment><USER9> The blog states that if the Mantle specification is adopted by other manufacturers, particularly on mobile, then it will become the new cross platform standard and OpenGL will cease to be relevant. 67% of native speed is astronomically slow in the world of real-time games where improving per-frame performance by 3ms is considered a huge win. Getting all of your nice special effects and post-processing implemented while still running at a smooth 60fps is very difficult - especially on mobile.

<comment><USER10> > Getting all of your nice special effects and post-processing implemented > while still running at a smooth 60fps is very difficult

And has very little to do with CPU speed. There are some games where CPU speed is important but there's a large subset (I'd be willing to bet 95%) of AAA games where only GPU speed is important and they run just fine on low end CPUs.

<comment><USER9> The whole point of D3D12 and Mantle is to decrease driver overhead, improve multi-threading support, and increase the number of per-frame draw calls that can be made. Those are all CPU performance improvements so I think it's safe to say that CPU speed is quite important or else AMD and Microsoft wouldn't be going through the trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >> 20 years of legacy, needs a reboot and major simplification pass

This was attempted. It failed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#Longs_Peak_and_OpenGL_3....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#Longs_Peak_and_OpenGL_3.0_controversy)

<comment><USER12> Mainly because the CAD industry refuse to move forward.

<comment><USER13> Mainly because design by massive committee doesn't work. It gets you supremely useless things like HTML5 canvas.

<comment><USER14> Can you explain the uselessness of HTML5 canvas? I've found some uses for it ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think it's instructive to compare with OpenCL. It was designed to be very similar to GL, but didn't have a backwards-compatibility legacy. It's still not exactly _friendly_ , and some of the nicer bits are optional, but it does serve the purpose of being a hardware abstraction layer for parallel processing. It strikes me as being many times simpler than GL, even though its fundamental purpose is only a bit simpler.

<comment><USER10> OpenCL is actually much worse. it requires way more querying of what the hardware does to use it rather than abstracting it away like other GPGPU libraries.

While OpenGL can be full of extensions, if you ignore the extensions and stick to the base it's pretty easy to write a program that doesn't have to care what system it's on

<comment><USER15> OpenCL requires a lot of querying the hardware because that information _can 't_ be abstracted away without removing the ability to do effective performance tuning. If it were possible to make effective use of a GPU given a well-tuned BLAS, OpenCL wouldn't have been created in the first place.

OpenGL extensions are likewise absolutely necessary to make full use of the hardware, but the extensions mess is way worse than the range of optional OpenCL features.

<comment><USER10> You don't need _full use of the hardware_ most of time. Sure you get some flurishy extras but few apps/games if any need those extensions to be fun and beautiful. I know of no games that require extensions to run. Those that use them are rarely all that much better with them than without.

So my point stands, you can generally use GL without worrying about hardware. Not so with CL.

<comment><USER16> _You don 't need full use of the hardware most of time_

If you're bothering to write something in OpenCL/other parallel computation framework, you probably care about that stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So is there a reason graphics programming is still in the dark ages. This sounds like assembly programming where you have N different add instructions with slightly different semantics for how flags are set.

<comment><USER18> The primary reason is that these APIs are very thin abstractions over the actual assembly-level instructions sent to the graphics card. It's certainly possible to write a higher-level abstraction; it's been done many times, in the form of game engines and so forth. The risk of doing so is that you narrow down the possible types of visual effects you can implement, and historically, the implementation of unique and original visual effects was a big part of the way AAA games competed with each other.

In principle there's no longer any reason why it has to work this way, because now we have shaders. These are a more domain-specific tool than a C API, and can thus safely present large cross-sections of graphics card functionality in a higher-level way without taking power away from the graphics programmer. So, for example, people modding Minecraft can introduce their own visual effects stages by hotloading shaders into the standard Minecraft graphics pipeline.

EDIT: I haven't talked about performance. For game developers, rendering a frame quickly is as important as having total control over the output of the rendering process. For the most part, building an API higher-level than OpenGL also means dictating a particular scene graph structure, as with OS-specific window system APIs. If the API imposes a certain way of organizing your scene graph, this can have serious impacts on your game's performance, because the scene graph traversal is optimized for one type of scene and you're using it for another. I'm not sure I'm simplifying this explanation very well, but that's the gist of it.

<comment><USER7> I don't disagree with what you're trying to say, but this is my line of work so I have a few nits, sorry.

> these APIs are very thin abstractions over the actual assembly-level > instructions sent to the graphics card

If only this were the case... The drivers end up doing quite a bit, to the point where most renderers spend most of their time waiting for the driver to return. This is part of the reason Mantle was a big deal, and why DX12 and GL5 promise to be lower level.

> In principle there's no longer any reason why it has to work this way, > because now we have shaders

Shaders don't replace all the fixed function parts of the GPU, and they don't try to. Maybe someday they'll replace more of it, but there are still several fixed function stages in the rendering pipeline.

Not to mention, setting GPU state will pretty much always be completely independent from shaders, and required for many visual effects. D3D or CG FX files try to abstract this, but I don't think they're popular anymore.

> For the most part, building an API higher-level than OpenGL also means > dictating a particular scene graph structure...

The general premise that any layer on top of the driver will limit on the way you structure the renderer is accurate, but scene graphs are an antipattern inside a modern renderer. Plenty of engines use them for higher level organization, but keep it far away from the renderer. All that pointer chasing murders the cache.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > 20 years of legacy, needs a reboot and major simplification pass

Since OpenGL 3.2 > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_3.2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_3.2) there is a strict division between core profile and compatibility profile. If you want a major simplified API just request a core context instead of a (default) compatibility context.

<comment><USER20> It doesn't help when you need to target DX9 cards that only have OpenGL 2.1 drivers.

<comment><USER19> The only graphics cards from the last years that don't support OpenGL >= 3.1 are from Intel before Sandy Brige. Since Sandy Brige OpenGL 3.1 (for which my remark is also true; the only difference is that in OpenGL 3.0/3.1 you probably want to use a forward-compatible context instead; this remark only makes sense with this specific OpenGL versions) is supported and since Ivy Brige OpenGL 4.0.

Thus you only drop support for computers with only Intel GPU and processor older than Sandy Brige. When I consider how many app developers drop support for older iPad/iPhone versions that are much more recent than pre-Sandy-Bridge CPUs and hardly anybody complains (the same is, of course, true on Android), I really have difficulties understanding where the problem is.

<comment><USER20> Game developers targeting the casual user market, where most owners have a 5+ old computer running XP think otherwise.

<comment><USER21> We're to the point where 5+ old computers are running vista. XP is really finally starting to phase out for game-capable computers.

<comment><USER20> True, I have forgotten how old Vista is.

However, it does not change the fact that many of those systems are only 2.1 capable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Having only ever made OpenGL applications, I feel a transition to DirectX may be in order

<comment><USER23> Yeah, so your code can only run on Windows. That's clearly the future. You should trust Microsoft, the company with the most vision.

<comment><USER24> If Microsoft has the best API, you _should_ develop exclusively or preferentially on Microsoft platforms.

Autodesk's entire product line migrated to a D3D-only rendering pipeline. Why? Because D3D is the superior API.

<comment><USER25> Do you have any info on "Autodesk's entire product line" migrating to D3D-only?

I know many of Autodesk apps run in Linux, Mac OSX, Windows and iOS--so I'm curious. The only reference I can find is a long reply from an Autodesk Inventor developer [1] from what looks like around 2007 where OpenGL was removed form their Windows-only app (Autodesk Inventor). It sounded like his beef was with the sub-par driver support for the OpenGL spec amongst video cards and not with the API itself (which I appreciate as an issue, but is very different from this discussion about it being a poorer API).

[1] [http://forums.autodesk.com/autodesk/attachments/autodesk/78/...](http://forums.autodesk.com/autodesk/attachments/autodesk/78/442801/1/autodesk_inventor_opengl_to_directx_evolution_788.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >>The API should be simplified and standardized so using a 3rd party lib shouldn't be a requirement just to get a real context going.

Nonsense! OpenGL is an evolving specification for the best-of-best. Why take away the tools that make games exceed the theoretical performance of a GPU? Removing features is unjustified if we know how to use them.

What the author needs is a wrapper and many exist. For example, Qt will let you write graphics code that runs on the desktop and mobile.

Certainly nobody would call for the end of WinAPI because thats how we wrote the other APIs!

<comment><USER27> Simplification does not mean removal of performance or features. In fact, most of the recommendations he makes (such as DSA) could perform better than current OpenGL.

>Removing features is unjustified if we know how to use them.

This is not the path that OpenGL has taken, as shown by all the deprecations and removals done in previous versions.

<comment><USER26> >>shown by all the deprecations Yes, but they also added a bunch of stuff. Going from #version 120 and #version 430 feels like a whole different language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Some good points here but what it misses is that generally time-wasting due to crappy API is less than time wasting due to having to learn a different api for different platforms. Performance is a bigger issue and it will be interesting to see whether opengl can improve here or mantle develop on other platforms (and be reasonably fast on them).

<comment><USER29> I disagree, crappy API design wastes an enormous amount of developer time and effort. OpenGL is full of legacy cruft and has lots of room for improvement, streamlining, and simplification(same with d3d12 for that matter). There is a lot of needless complexity, hoop jumping, and wheel reinventing when it comes to 3d graphics programming(not to mention, countless common "gotchas" and tricks of the trade that are not as well documented and easy to learn as they could be.

<comment><USER28> I don't disagree. The point I'm trying to make is just that using a non cross- platform api is likely to be just as time wasting (in having to port a program or just learn something new for the next one). And that user speed is effectively more important than both of these. The article is right, but it needs perspective. There's a reason for OpenGL's success - just that this is not because itsn fun to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> We should be much more worried about the higher level interfaces/languages that app developers actually program to. They're stuck in the stone age. The level of abstraction needs to be raised many notches and programmers need to be freed from running around in circles after performance tricks.

<comment><USER3> Nah, just use a higher-level frameworks or a 3D engine for this. You give up some control and performance, but gain productivity. What we need at the moment is less abstractions, because D3D's and OpenGL's abstractions don't fit the current GPUs very well (D3D works around this somewhat by breaking API backward compatibility with each new release)

<comment><USER30> That's what I was talking about, those frameworks/engines aren't on a trajectory that's going to lead away from the current graphics programming quagmire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't argue with most of this.</comment>


The first official SproutCore book is now available - <AUTHOR> http://www.packtpub.com/creating-html5-apps-with-sproutcore/book

<comment><AUTHOR> Overview:

\- Write next-gen HTML5 apps using the SproutCore framework and tools

\- Get started right away by creating a powerful application in the very first chapter

\- Build your understanding of SproutCore as you follow through the most complete reference to the framework anywhere in existence

About the author:

Tyler Keating is the current head of the SproutCore project, and one of the foremost experts on SproutCore, and on writing native caliber web applications using HTML5 and JavaScript. Although he began his career as an Electrical Engineer at SaskTel, a persistent desire to write software eventually led him to new jobs of writing desktop apps, then server-side web apps, then native mobile apps, and most recently, SproutCore, best of all the world's apps. He currently runs his own consulting company, 7x7 Software Inc, which provides professional software development services, as well as SproutCore training and support. Whether speaking, or writing, Tyler strives to be a compassionate and conscientious source, who recognizes that nothing is ever black or white, but nevertheless tries to clear the shades of grey, and deliver something concrete and usable to every receiver. He lives in Regina, Canada, with his wife and three daughters.

</comment><comment><USER2> Original announcement here - [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sproutcore/BiuSXKCcB...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sproutcore/BiuSXKCcBso)</comment>


Is Bitcoin vulnerable to a "bank run"? - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/peter/is-bitcoin-vulnerable-to-a-bank-run-8g6 <comment><USER2> Matt Levine answers this better in [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-28/regulator...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-28/regulatory- doughnuts-and-fx-fees). The short answer is no, because:

> if bitcoin speculators want to sell their bitcoins for dollars and nobody > wants to buy bitcoins for dollars, then the dollar price of bitcoin will go > down and the bitcoin speculators will be sad. But that is always true of > everything; it is a feature of markets, not of bank runs.</comment>


Unintended consequences of coronavirus (from Jason and Chamath new podcast) - <AUTHOR> https://smashnotes.com/p/all-in/e/covid-19-political-economic-social-ramifications/s/what-are-the-unintended-consequences-of-coronavirus-lockdown <comment><USER2> We may also see some positive effects: Some companys may see the benefits of allowing homeoffice, others may see the benefits of not giving incentives to its employees to come to work ill. Perhaps a year of reduced travel and trade may also benefit the climate change...

Somewhere i have heard the phrase "Nothing is so bad that it doesn't have some good sides"...

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely. This is also going to make sure we all take a deep breath, and stop being so consumerism focused for once. It's insane that our economy takes a nose dive the day people aren't allowed to spend frivolously for two weeks.</comment></comment>


Alexa, are you listening? - <AUTHOR> https://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/blog/alexa-are-you-listening <comment><USER2> I may have posted this same sentiment on the other threads on this topic so please feel free to ignore.

I see some confusion as to why anybody would want these devices in the houses whatsoever and would like to offer an answer:

Quadriplegia.

Imagine walking into your house one day and all of the keys had been taken off your keyboard, every light switch is smooth, all of the doorknobs have disappeared, the controls on your stereo have disappeared and every other switch, lever and/or physical method of interacting with your devices had disappeared. That was what it was like to be me as a quadriplegic Geek.

Then came the Amazon Echo and its ilk. The Echo coupled with Home Assistant[1] has absolutely revolutionised my life and enabled me to do all of the things above that I wasn't able to do before. It's a pretty compelling reason for me.

Am I worried about my privacy? Absolutely. Am I any more worried about the Amazon Echo than I am about the microphone in my iPhone, television, MacBook Pro, iMac and weirdly my fridge? Nope.

As others have pointed out it's a trade-off, I could be completely private and not be able to do anything or I could accept this somewhat Faustian bargain and be able to control almost every aspect of my house. Crappy situation to be in, but there is.

There are a few open source alternatives coming through which keep everything within the wire, but until they get traction enough to be out interact with all my other devices I can't use them. Which sucks.

Anyway, hopefully this comment was helpful and am available to answer questions on any topic other than physics. I'm rubbish at physics. :-)

[1]: [https://home-assistant.io/](https://home-assistant.io/)

<comment><USER3> I want these devices for their simple convenience...

My teenage children often leave lights on in the basement of my home. "Alexa, turn off the basement lights".

I'm also slightly afraid of heights, so I've considered installing smart LED's in the can lights in the eves of my roof. "Alexa, turn the house red."

Sometimes I get hot or cold after I've already gone to bed and I don't want to walk to the thermostat to see if someone has adjusted it. "Alexa, set the temperature to 70 degrees."

I worry about the loss of privacy but the day to day convenience is also pretty compelling.

<comment><USER4> with all the info available about rampant blanket NSA spying/access, and the content of most privacy policies, the basic operating procedure anymore should be to assume that all devices are pwned.

if you're cool sprinkling always-on microphones around your house for convenience, more power to you.

I can't do it.

<comment><USER3> You probably carry a microphone almost everywhere you go. Your smart phone might or might not record by default but it can certainly be made to do so.

<comment><USER5> > You probably carry a microphone almost everywhere you go.

That's projection; some of us value an expectation of privacy more than minor conveniences.

> it can certainly be made to do so

Except that isn't the intended purpose of the device. You still have an expectation of privacy. When you normalize an _expectation_ that you might be recorded by 3rd party devices, the 4th Amendment longer applies[1].

This isn't about technology, "targeted advertising", or the NSA. Blinded by shiny baubles and a handful of not-strictly-necessary conveniences, you're normalizing social expectations to accept regular automated recording the "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[2].

Defending internet microphones because they are convenient isn't useful or convincing. Lots of things sound good when you only consider the benefits.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853560](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853560)

[2] [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/533/27.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Leaving debug pads is not a vulnerability that most people care about. Expecting physical tamper resistance is unnecessary for regular appliances.

Even if the debug pads weren't available, one could replace the flash, or use a scanning electron microscope to modify bits in the main microprocessor. This isn't a smart card.

Here's a vulnerability that almost every device has: an attacker with physical access can replace the device with an identical looking device. The new device might even have explosives!

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't even call leaving debug pads a vulnerability; I'd call it being not totally anticonsumer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't get the fear mongering. It seems infinitely more likely my computer is compromised than some single purpose device that doesn't load code from third party developers or visit random web pages.

If we're expecting that Apple/Google/Amazon/Microsoft are the people attacking us then they have easier ways. If we expect it's outsiders then how do they even get to my Alexa?

<comment> shawn-butler They raise the issue of having Alexa devices in semi-private places like hotel rooms[0].

I think people have an expectation of privacy in a hotel room. And I assume major hotels have security measures in place to catch consumer-level eavesdropping devices.

Rooting an Alexa device in this manner seems like something that could easily be done by a prankster requiring no specialized equipment.

Has anyone stayed in Wynn hotel in Vegas? Are the alexa devices just out in the open or built into the room somehow that might easily show tampering? Or, maybe they have only the latest version with the debug pads disabled?

[0]: [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wynn-las-vegas- anno...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wynn-las-vegas-announces- the-addition-of-amazon-echo-to-all-hotel-rooms-300377995.html)

<comment><USER8> Hacking an Alexa is probably one of the more difficult ways to bug a hotel room.

<comment><USER9> More difficult, sure, but also probably less likely to be detected over the long term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "The $foo is vulnerable to a physical attack that allows an attacker to gain a root shell..."

This is true for nearly any device, including your cell phone, your MacBook, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

And every time these devices come up there's so many comments on how they would _never_ have one in their home, ostensibly because "it's always listening".

This is sickeningly naive in my opinion. Any device with a microphone is capable of the same thing. You shouldn't be trusting your phone any more than an Alexa device.

<comment><USER11> _You shouldn 't be trusting your phone any more than an Alexa device._

I don't

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is really cool (rooting devices is wonderful -- and they should all be open for home modifications!), but also not something that has any real effect on the average consumer.

Physical attacks are, in my opinion, uninteresting, because you may as well just plant an old fashioned bug.

Consumers should be wary of purchasing used devices like this generally. I am not, however, aware or any wide spread scams involving physical attacks on consumer electronics.

<comment><USER13> > Physical attacks are, in my opinion, uninteresting, because you may as well > just plant an old fashioned bug.

The one benefit is the target is going to specifically locate this device in a location where it can hear them, and will relocate it appropriately if they move furniture, rooms, houses, etc. There's nothing physical to discover to tip them off.

It's a listening device disguised as a listening device. No need to hide, even though it's in plain sight.

<comment><USER14> But it'd be trivial for them to slip an extra bit of hardware, wire it to the existing mic and use that to do all the actions they wish. At the point where someone has physical access to the device the game is over.

This is not an attack - its an immutable law, if someone else has unrestricted physical access to your device, it's not your device anymore.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, planting a physical bug for longer-term surveillance is more difficult, because you need to worry about providing power to it, and about exfiltrating the data. A home assistant device, by its nature, has its owner ensuring both of those problems are solved for you.

<comment><USER9> Right, and you also need to worry about it being found. There's nothing physical about this hack that would tip off the owner that they have an (unauthorized) listening device in their home.

<comment><USER14> You still need to worry about it being found in the pure software case - there's far higher odds of me seeing some suspicious traffic than a small custom bit of RF gear inside. If someone's taking the thing apart and sees your physical extra bits, odds are they're doing so to dump the firmware, just like this guy... if they're not doing that, they're not necessarily skilled enough to spot whatever modifications you may have planted either. It really depends on the target though I suppose. Of course, at the point you have physical access, all bets are off, they could swap chips on the board with identically labeled ones which serve different functions - replace the firmware and signing with their own, etc. An essentially undetectable hardware modification.

<comment><USER9> Two things:

1) I doubt most people are monitoring their home LAN traffic at all, let alone to the degree that would let them detect something odd here. Even if they are, there are ways around it -- like simply compressing and storing the extra voice data and only sending it out when someone makes a legit request to their Echo. Certainly that's more data, but the access pattern would make it easier to hide.

2) This hack doesn't require any (lasting) physical modification to the Echo. You connect to the debug pads on the bottom, do some stuff, disconnect, and you're done. So there are no physical extra bits to find.

But yeah, my point here was exactly #2 -- physically there is nothing in your home that was not there before. In the case of a dedicated bug, that's something physical that the target of surveillance could find and know that someone is messing with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The Amazon Echo does include a physical mute button that disables the > microphone on the top of the device or can be turned off when sensitive > information is being discussed (this is a hardwire mechanism and cannot be > altered via software).

I had wondered this.

<comment><USER16> disturbingly, this is clearly not the case for ecobee.

<comment><USER17> ... oh I see, they made a new one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would never have one of these devices in my home, and I'm surprised I see so many of them in homes of people who are in the tech industry. I wondered if people in security would have them and so I contacted one of my good friends who is a security expert. "What's an Alexa device?"

He's a Kiwi. Amazon hasn't made it to NZ yet. He's only seen them on TV shows.

Interestingly this article is nothing about what gets transmitted, but just hacking the device. It would be kinda cool if we started to see projects to turn Amazon devices into one of the open source variants like Jarvis.

<comment><USER19> I think like, with most things, it's all about the tradeoff.

I have one in my house in the living room. It basically exists to have an easy way of turning on Spotify. We don't have sensitive conversations in the living room. If someone were listening, they'd mostly get me scolding my children and asking what's for dinner. The might also steal a token to connect to Spotify. My AWS account isn't linked to the same account as my Alexa, and requires TFA, so that's safe.

I wouldn't put this device in my bedroom. I also was less interested when my kids were young enough that I might actually have a sensitive conversation anywhere. I'd considered putting one in my tv room to control the tv, but that's about it.

I don't regard the Alexa as a greater vulnerability to my house than my phone, and I already accept owning a smart phone. I am concerned about the same things you are, but I view it as more of a trade-off than a simple "just don't do it!" attitude.

<comment><USER20> > We don't have sensitive conversations in the living room

Wow. That seems like an amazing commitment. Do you have a SCIF where you discuss your bank statement with your SO?

<comment><USER16> Given the Equifax leaks, you might reconsider if your bank statements aren't reasonably public information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It baffles me that anyone would allow such a device in their home, let alone pay for the privilege.

<comment><USER22> This also confused me when I saw it as well. I wasn't sure if the first echo was an April fool's joke or if they were serious.

I was even more confused when people actually started buying them. It's always startling when I go to a friend's house and Alexa gets triggered accidentally.

<comment><USER23> It's the new thing, people will always buy or use the new thing just because it's the new thing.

<comment><USER24> This is a major factor.

People in general are easily impressed by shiny new baubles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This requires physical access. You can plant surveillance gear all over the place if you have physical access.

</comment><comment><USER26> Seriously as others have pointed out thats NOTHING. Anyone can do this to pretty much any device, I did that to my ISP's router even and don't feel its any less secure because of it. Its an interesting hack but its not proof of any insecurity of Alexa.

I don't think its such a good idea to over-dramatize these things for personal gain (like the author) because it hurts the security researcher community as a whole. I've already lost ANY trust of any security guys talking about the end of the world vulnerability they found, 99% of the time its bullshit like this. But I can read their disclosure and quickly discern whats irrelevant, I can imagine most non-IT people not able to do this and thus becoming MUCH more desensitized to ACTUAL vulnerabilities. Yet another boy who cried wolf security guy, they should've published this as "how to root your alexa" that would've been actually cool, this is just garbage.

<comment><USER27> Did you actually try reading the article? It is an in depth guide on how to root the device and a far cry from a scare piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I recently got a Google Home, and I've been thinking about how to potentially build a "is-the-microphone-actually-recording?" device. A basic one should be possible just by watching the power draw, but that would probably trigger if it decides to download a firmware update or whatever too. I expect this has been done before?

<comment><USER29> Of course it's listening, at all times. Otherwise it would not be able to react to the trigger phrase. What is interesting is whether it sends this data anywhere, and that is probably impossible to ascertain, since it could store it for a while and tunnel it out with innocent looking traffic.

It would be interesting if it could be determined if it stores the passively obtained data at all. If one could monitor writes to memory while in passive state it might give a clue.

<comment><USER30> Since apparently it can be rooted without affecting the listening process, it should be possible to monitor writes in pure software.

Of course, it may detect the monitoring and avoid writing in those cases /tinfoil

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What's with the glut of anti-alexa articles recently? Am I just in the minority of security conscious people who think Alexa is pretty benign?

<comment><USER32> I honestly just expected better from HackerNews folks. I am not irritated oh_sigh, I am just very disappointed.

<comment><USER31> Disappointed in which direction? That I wouldn't care much about alexa as an exploit vector, or that a lot of nerds do care?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think I might be one of the few people in this thread who now want to buy an echo specifically to root it and play with possibility connecting it to my own servers...

</comment><comment><USER34> I solve the sensitive conversation problem by having my device hit an IFTTT task to disconnect itself from the lan. Then I have another task to turn it back on.

<comment><USER35> Couldn't the intermediate conversation be stored and sent when there's connectivity?

<comment><USER36> Are you talking about a hypothetical hacked Echo, or a standard unmodified Echo device?

<comment><USER35> Ahh, I was talking about a hypothetical hacked Echo as described in the article, or perhaps the sort of Echo modified by Amazon due to court order.

I think now that the top-level comment concerned a standard unmodified Echo device, so my comment doesn't apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'll worry about this when I need to worry about someone breaking into my home and finding a reason to modify electronic devices utilizing the debug ports on stationary products.

I also don't take myself so seriously when I don't find a need to.

</comment><comment><USER38> Great, now you could simply buy Echo for someone on your Christmas list, hack it, and give it to them. And you could always blame it on "hackers".

<comment><USER30> Or you could give them _any_ electrical device, and stick a mic and transmitter inside it.

<comment><USER35> Physically modified devices are harder to blame on "hackers".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I expected a scare piece on privacy but I got an in depth technical break down of an alexa security bug.</comment>


A little love for Linux Mint - <AUTHOR> http://openattitude.com/2011/11/02/a-little-love-for-linux-mint/ <comment><USER2> I did exact same thing - go from ubuntu to mint when unity took over.

Sadly it has most of the same silly bugs as ubuntu - a different dock fails to load pretty much every time I start it being the most annoying. I swear I saw some of those strange ubuntu scrollbars some places too but I can't find them right now.

Shame it doesn't have an equiv to WUBI. All linux should have an equiv to WUBI.</comment>


Cable companies have started showing fewer ads because of Netflix - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-companies-cut-ads-because-of-netflix-2015-11?IR=T <comment><USER2> Aside from ads, freedom of choice with respect to just what you watch seem to be the other key motivator.

With the capability of streaming and on-demand services, why would any consumer put up with having to choose any channel with a fixed programming schedule? I almost certainly don't want to watch what you're trying to sell.

No other industry seems to operate in this manner. When it comes to books, games, music, etc, consumers choose specific products. With cable TV you don't get that granularity of choice. Netflix just brings the traditional TV model into alignment with seemingly everything else.

Anecdotally, cable prices seem to rise but the new channels that are sold to me as a benefit are the exact opposite of what I watch. More sports channels? Despite me having never tuned into a single one? If you're going to profile me, at least make an effort to do it well.

<comment><USER3> 2 points. I won't speak for myself, but from what I've gathered from friends:

1\. A lot of people seem to like video ads. Movie ads specially tell you 'whats hot', and general ads put you 'in the loop' so to speak. I've tried to install ABV for a couple of people who won't let me because they actually like ads (as in youtube, not the shiny bright popups). This may be true for more people than HN crowd would assume.

2\. One of the biggest problems I have with non-cable is that I need to think. When I'm with friends, we spend a very considerable amount of time trying to agree on what we want to watch, and often end up watching some stupid cute cat video because we couldn't decide. TV solves that. Perhaps if cable were referred to as 'a curated platform of best video content, being streaming 24/7', the conception would change?

<comment><USER4> Number 2 is true and very frustrating. I'd like to have a Netflix channel option. Sci-fi channel, horror channel etc. Did you ever call up someone else and tell them to turn to a channel then share in the same experience?

<comment><USER5> One issue with this will be that so much media seems to be moving to very compelling stories, and you don't want to miss any. You used to be able to tune into the middle of a show without really missing anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It astounds me how much US TV airtime is devoted to adverts - roughly 18 minutes out of every hour, AFAIK (plus any split-screen advertising shenanigans).

In the UK, (outside the BBC, which doesn't have adverts) TV broadcasters are limited to an overall average of 7 minutes per hour, with limits of 12 minutes for any individual clock hour (which drops to 8 minutes during primetime).

The BBC's Natural History unit deliberately inserts ten minutes of "disposable" content that can be cut from the program when it is broadcast on commercial channels (e.g. the 'Yellowstone People' segments that were included at the end of episodes of 'Yellowstone' when it was broadcast on the BBC, but are dropped when it's broadcast on commercial channels).

<comment><USER7> I also find it astounding that people pay $50-60/month for a cable service that is 30% adverts.

At that ratio, the cable service should be paying them.

<comment><USER8> Same thing for the mobile web. Since I pay for data usage I am more concerned about things like video pop-up ads or even little things like web devs failing to download an ad image appropriate for the size of my screen instead of the original resolution image.

<comment><USER9> Completely agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is why I dumped cable in 2008.

"Hour long" American TV shows are some of the shortest in the world, and are filled with redundancy as viewers "forget" where they are in the show after a stack of ads every 6-8 minutes. This degrades the quality of the programming to the point it is not worth watching.

PBS programs are 50+ minutes long, and BBC are 58-59 minutes long. The local PBS station has been showing short ads in the last 10 minute segment of the hour. That's acceptable and much better than interrupting the programming.

In the future Broadcasters will not need transmitters, and Cable TV won't exist. All programming will be delivered over the Internet. Instead of tuning to channel 10 on your TV, your TV connects to the channel 10 website and you can choose what you want to watch. If you pay extra, you can see shows without ads.

</comment><comment><USER11> Even among my less technologically advanced friends and family there's maybe only a handful of people who still watch shows regularly on cable television. My in-laws watch TV shows but they record them and skip over the ads. Pretty much the only thing that I know of that anyone watches on cable and still sits through ads is live sports.

Watching cable networks flail around and completely fail to understand that their business model is not relevant anymore is always hilarious. Now that Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu have really good original programming there's even less of an incentive to have cable.

<comment><USER12> But don't the cable companies own Hulu? So they have realised the change is coming, and have already adapted.

<comment><USER13> Except Hulu (at least used to, it may have changed recently) still shows ads to their premium subscribers, which is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

<comment><USER14> It changed. There's an ad-free option on Hulu now.

<comment><USER15> Hulu just started offering an ad-free option recently.

<comment><USER16> Note the asterisk, though. Apparently a few shows are contractually obligated to include ads on Hulu, even with the "commercial-free" option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A question for those who have done more thinking on this than I have:

I see cable TV going the way of the dedicated phone line - a bundled benefit you get for a very small fee on top of the primary benefit, which will be the internet connection. The overall cost of a subscription will remain roughly the same, but the cost will be allocated to the internet connection: much like mobile carriers are now basically free voice+text across the board and the cost of the plan is based solely on the data tier you want, what I see happening in the future is that both cable TV and home phone are going to be small add-ons to your $90-$120/month internet bill. In many markets there is virtually no competition present to prevent this, and in those where there is, collusion seems to be a foregone conclusion.

This seems inevitable to me given the rise in cord-cutters and, as a recent headline pointed out, the "cord-nevers". Is this what's going to happen?

<comment><USER18> I have Time Warner internet-only service in NYC and they are constantly trying to sell me cable as a $10/month addon to my $35 50mbit internet package. I imagine it's a pretty limited set of channels, but they're very much already using that sales tactic.

<comment><USER19> Same thing with Charter for me. They constantly try to sell me a $7/month addon that will give access to over-the-air channels through cable. I got that with a >$10 HD antenna, so I'm not sure what the value would be. (and I've barely used that...)

<comment><USER20> I've been trying to (unsuccessfully) research why OTA broadcasts of channels exist in the first place. Why do/would these networks provide their service for free? I thought transmissions were to be encrypted.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER21> Ads.

<comment><USER22> from what i understand OTA channels are free because the public airwaves are a public utility and they are funded by the ads they sell. cable just took this model and decided to reverse the costs from the ad generators to the consumers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Consumers are being trained there are places they can go to avoid ads."

With that kind of rhetoric no wonder they're still in denial.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, that comment also jumped out at me as well. I really cannot fathom their thought processes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wait until some of you start getting the 300gb data caps Comcast is trying to force down people's throats. They are gracefully allowing me to have my old un-metered service back for 30$ more a month.

300gb hasn't been a reasonable number for years now, and with more people leaving cable, this is clearly an attempt to monetize cord cutters further. Disgusting company.

</comment><comment><USER26> I can count on one hand the number of times my children have sat down and watched network TV. They are 4 and 7 years old. With ~15 minutes of commercials per hour, I've probably saved them from watching thousands of commercials, which I think is a good thing.

<comment><USER27> Mine only ever see it in hotel rooms on vacation. The first time they experienced it, my son got very upset because we could pause it when he had to use the bathroom. The commercials irritated my wife & I so much we just turned it off entirely.

<comment><USER9> My wife and I watch Netflix when we do watch anything (we have twin two year olds, so this is a rare luxury). For some reason or other we turned on 'regular' tv the other day and there was an NFL game on. We could not believe how many commercials there were! Also, just how insultingly unintelligent they were. I mean, who actually would want to watch these commercials!?

<comment><USER28> As a football fan, the quantity of commercials is something else. CBS is particularly bad. You'll often see a touchdown, PAT, commercial break, cut back to the kickoff with the ball in mid-air which results in a touchback (so like 5 seconds worth of "content" which is really just a ball flying through the air and a guy catching it and kneeling down) followed by another round of commercials. It's insane.

When I get particularly frustrated with it, I pause the game and go do something else for a good 15-20 minutes, then come back so I can at least fast forward through some of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My roommate called me recently that the TV was not working at home, because his girlfriend wanted to watch TV.

As it turned out, we never plugged the cable into the TV, we have lived in the same house for 3 years and neither of us ever watched cable TV during that time. (we do have a cable subscription because where we live you can't get cable internet without the TV and radio part attached...)

I never understood why someone would pay a ridiculous amount of money (compared to say netflix) for a cable subscription and still think it's OK to be watching to ads for 25% of the time...

It's time for cable companies to accept the truth: their technology and business model is old fashioned (a free harddisk record to "pause" TV is a solution to a problem that should not exist!).

<comment><USER30> My girlfriend and I lived in our house for two years without even hooking up the roof antenna. Eventually I bothered to do it (not trivial, long story) because my girlfriend wanted to watch football. The idea of _paying_ for network TV with ads is hilarious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> 15:38 per hour of showtime + 2 minute of re-runs in some programs. Netflix got zero, just enjoy your movie.

Looks like cable companies are still in denial phase. How about ad-free versions of their channels?

<comment><USER32> > How about ad-free versions of their channels?

Apparently that was what cable was all about at the beginning

It's hard to lure back people to an inferior product.

<comment><USER33> The ad-free historiy of cable also tells you the future of Netflix and other streaming services. Bait...and switch!

<comment><USER34> When I had Hulu Plus, it was actually worse than cable because it forced you to sit through commercials. If I recorded the show on cable, I could fast forward through them at least.

<comment><USER35> Hulu Plus recently added an option where you can pay a bit extra (like two bucks a month) to make it ad free. It makes it a way more pleasant experience.

<comment><USER36> Only on certain shows, Hulu is still owned by networks that don't "get it".

<comment><USER37> Yes, but it's a short list. At the moment. Considering that the first derivative is at least for the moment away from ads, I am cautiously optimistic. I'm hoping that once Hulu has the data on the people paying those $2/month that it will reveal that there's a statistically-significant relationship between those shows still having ads, and the $2/month customers watching less of them per capita.

(My wife recently wanted us back on Hulu for Seinfeld, and it was a big factor in our decision to go back that we could turn off the ads, except in a set of shows we don't much care about.)

My understanding of the economics is that $2/month is _significantly_ more than they can hope to make in ads off me, so I'm hoping the money is enough to overcome any residual desire to advertise. (Once the ad addiction is broken, there's good reason to believe it'll stay broken. Nowadays it's easier to get people to just _give_ you a buck rather than shave away pennies at a time through ads. Thirty years ago that wasn't true.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Even beyond airtime, the stupid ads and logos blotting out the screen during a show is becoming inexcusable. Sometimes those things can take up a third of the screen!

<comment><USER39> And I noticed the other day that the Discovery channel logo is now animated. Its bad enough that it squats in the corner like a dog taking a shit, now your eyes are drawn to it because its moving. Fucking bastards!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been off cable (television as a service) for close to two years now. The space where TV exists for value, is our local programming and news. The national relevance is almost moot from a television source, considering I read online news more here and Leister Holtz on NBC. The net savings basically was 1/2 the Time Warner bill -> $105 -> $56. That's almost $2500 in the last two years. That's a refactor of savings into something like a boiler upgrade, or solar panels to portions of the house to extend the savings even further. Either way ... small bill, big savings.

</comment><comment><USER41> As much as I dislike cable due to all the advertising, I eventually signed up because I wanted to catch some NFL games (was just doing streaming Amazon, Netflix, etc for quite a while prior, with no NFL). I initially got an HD antenna, but reception was spotty where I live and some local channels wouldn't even come in. The amount of advertising on cable is really annoying, but it is a shame that it seems somehow very difficult or impossible to actually stream a live NFL game without having a cable or satellite package of some kind. Following online 'gamecasts' that don't actually show the video of the players on the field just isn't the same.

This is frustrating because it seems the NFL and television network providers have effectively made games impossible to watch live unless you go through the 'funnel' they want you to go through to watch it. Due to this, I've felt much less freedom of choice to select from what source I choose to obtain live NFL games, in comparison to movies, TV shows, etc, which I can generally end up finding on a streaming service of some kind to buy from.

A plus that I had forgotten about, is the on-demand stuff with a cable package, which is similar to the other streaming services I'm used to (usually no ads, or maybe one at the start of streaming), except it's nice to not have to pay for a season of a show (like I might on Amazon) if the station the show is on was paid for as part of the cable package.

</comment><comment><USER42> Netflix has sponsored all this cutting edge research on recommendation engines, and it can predict very well how much I'm going to enjoy something. Why in the world won't it just show me a list of 4 and 5 star things? Are they afraid I'll just watch those things over the course of a month then stop subscribing?

The clunkiness of their UI isn't incompetence, it's by choice, right? Or am I missing some important part of their UI that's hiding in plain sight somewhere?

<comment><USER43> As someone who prefers movies to series, their recommendations were fantastic for their DVD plan. Their streaming selection is much more limited (I found that maybe 10% of the movies I wanted to see were available) so they have to mask it.

(I have no idea if their delivery service recommendations are still good because they decided my address was fake when I moved and cancelled my account)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The article makes a confusion between cable companies (Comcast, TWC, Charter, etc.) and TV/content networks (Time Warner, FOX, Viacom, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER45> Here's another explanation: every year the TV audience gets older [1]. Advertisers notoriously chase the coveted 18-49 demographic. Younger viewers are increasingly not watching traditional TV.

So, you can view Time Warner's move to cut ads in prime time as simply a way of raising prices by reducing supply (inventory).

As for cable companies shoving TV packages down customers throats, well that's easy to explain. The bargaining power a cable company has with media companies is directly proportional to how many TV subscribers they have. So every Internet-only customer a cable company has marginally raises the per-customer cost of TV.

This is also why Comcast wanted to merge with Time Warner. It's simply about reducing TV costs.

This business model really has to die.

[1]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/09/05/t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/09/05/tv- is-increasingly-for-old-people/)

<comment><USER46> Time Warner Inc. (the company discussed in OP's article that owns HBO, CNN etc.) has been a separate company from Time Warner Cable since 2009.

TWC is the one that Comcast tried to buy (and is now trying to merge with Charter).

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's absurd that one can pay for premium cable TV, and still must be forced to listen and watch advertisements. I refuse to watch cable TV advertisements. HBO is the only network I can stand to watch now. I have the most basic cable package because my Internet came with it, and it also came with HBO. I get so annoyed by advertisements on TV.

</comment><comment><USER48> I wonder whether netflix et al will introduce ads once cable is dead and the VoD market is saturated. After all, they too want to increase their profit at any point in time.

<comment><USER9> As long as Netflix can appease investors by attracting new membership, they won't need ads. Once membership peaks they will have to start thinking of ways to keep their QER in the black (because investors can only see one single quarter into the future). That's when we have to worry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Second thought is the add revenue in YouTube and how Google is slowly making it impossible to view something without an intro ad to a video spot I want to watch. Sanity on product reviews, or modifications might actually drive me away from YouTube and stick to reading. I use the MVPS.org hosts file to ad- block most of the website content I review, as I pipe it into /etc/hosts and c:\%windows%\system32\drives\etc\hosts files to keep myself from the flash -> ad-virus injection methods for security reasons. However, YT is driving me crazy with 30s ad spots for like a 3 minute video and you can't walk around them no matter how you try unless you browser jack or regional change some things (right?). Anyway .... venting on Google's ad pushes myself.

</comment><comment><USER49> Now if the DVD vendors(hopefully a dying market) could only get the picture that when I rent a movie for my kid to play in the car, I dont want to have to skip 30 minutes of ads to start what I rented...

</comment><comment><USER50> > cable channels have actually sped up re-runs to get two minutes more of > advertising per show.

Wow. It's like a reverse TiVo, fast forward through the content to show more ads.

<comment><USER51> Yep!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6i1VVikRu0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6i1VVikRu0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'll be honest that a major reason I stopped watching cable. I use to freak out because of the frequency of ads. Intro to the show? Followed by an ad. I understand the length of ads but constantly interrupting the show is what upset me much more. I'd rather watch 7 minutes of ads at once then 7 1 minute ad segments.

Now I never worry about it because of Netflix. If only I could get rid of Ads for podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER53> The REASON cable TV caught on initially decades ago was the promise of cutting out ads. There were NO ads on Cable TV initially.

<comment><USER54> And the lesson is that eventually there will be ads on Netflix too.

<comment><USER53> I actually think they will eventually.

It may be in the form of forcing you to watch preview like you are forced to with DVDs

Or they may decide to raise monthly fee by $2 a month but you won't have to pay if you elect to allow ads.

It will happen. Share holders will eventually demand it when their growth slows down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Why anyone younger than 50 still pays for cable is a mystery to me. Once the fiber internet infrastructure across the US becomes the norm it makes more sense for all shows and services to be provided over the net even if they keep a similar nonstop 24/7 airing format. You just wouldn't be downloading while it is turned off.

</comment><comment><USER56> So if they are showing less commercials how are they planning to lengthen programming to fill the 30/60 minute time slots? I understand new content can be altered, but re-editing old content would be most difficult.

</comment><comment><USER54> Too little, too late.

</comment><comment><USER57> Supply and demand -> They can charge more for less.

</comment><comment><USER36> Too late, I'm already done with cable.</comment>


Microsoft Should Have Acquired Oculus Rift, Not Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/03/25/microsoft-should-have-acquired-oculus-rift-not-facebook/ <comment><USER4> It seems to me like if they wanted to buy it, they would have done so at a much earlier stage. Their hardware and labs teams seem pretty on the ball to me and would likely be already experimenting with this stuff. I have to guess that they already have something in the oven (VR is a natural match for Kinect) and didn't feel like shelling out a ton of money for something their eggheads were already cracking the code to.

My guess is we'll see a competing VR product from microsoft at _next_ year's E3 or a little before - watch and learn from Sony's overexposed rollout and maybe even nab a few dudes from the Oculus team who want to continue hacking and don't like the Facebook creep.

<comment><USER5> > maybe even nab a few dudes

Hate to nitpick, but let's not forget about the awesome women engineers and designers out there, including at Oculus.

<comment><USER4> I use the term dude to refer to people of all genders, sexes, and persuasions

<comment><USER5> To be honest, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that and made a negative assumption about what you wrote. I'm sorry. I wish HN would let me take that one back.

<comment><USER4> well since it was directed mainly at me and I've done the same thing plenty of times, consider it taken back!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Weirdly enough, I find myself wishing that Microsoft had purchased them instead of Facebook. They've got the hardware experience, and they've proven they're willing to put their money where their mouth is with the Kinect. Never would have though that I'd be sad that a company I liked didn't get bought up by Microsoft...

<comment><USER7> Plus, Microsoft has had some great hardware on the market. Aside from high-end gaming/graphics peripherals (where other manufacturers excelled better than Microsoft), Microsoft hardware has always been top notch.

However, had Microsoft bought it, I'd be concerned that it would end up being some Xbox/Xbox-live only type item.

<comment><USER6> Definitely would be something to worry about. But Microsoft did provide PC drivers for the Kinect, which would at least have given me hope for what they'd do with this

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's rumors microsoft is working on VR. They also have an amazing 3d game creation platform for beginners called "project spark", very good at building developer communities a and would be happy to sell more PC's. Assuming they can create decent VR glasses, they seems to have the winning combination of hardware + content.

Even better - project spark content would be free, which is a powerful tool to achieve mass appeal.

<comment><USER9> After they abandoned XNA, I would be hesitant to use something like spark.

<comment><USER10> This was exactly my thought, too. Upon investigating Project Spark, it seems like something more akin to a pumped-up LittleBigPlanet than an actual game development framework. I'm sure folks will have fun playing around with it, but not much more than that.

<comment><USER8> The interesting thing to do is to look at the progression. Project spark is a huge improvement over little big planet 1 both in graphics and game variety , and maybe programming model/power. Why won't this kind of improvement continue , or maybe there will be some collaborative model between spark and some framework ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There will be a flood of "Should X have bought Oculus Rift" articles - <USER2> anyone should have bought Oculus, but I suspect Facebook has a plan, and while I don't know what Facebook is planning, but I suspect its going to be just as much of a surprise as this purchase was.

For what its worth, I'm more comfortable with the relationship I have with Facebook that with Google, because at least its clear on the surface what that relationship is - in the same vein I'm more comfortable with my relationship with Apple, compared to Google, for the same reasons.

<comment><USER12> Facebook has been much more flippant with privacy policies and their use of data than Google has ever been. I only see unfavorable comparisons of google to facebook on HN and it really baffles me. It couldn't be farther from the truth.

<comment><USER11> Google is still outrunning their 'don't be evil' motto from years ago - <USER3> the relationship between Google and my data is murkier, or 'feels' so, because Google just started out with search, then added all this other 'stuff' and the associated privacy difficulties thereof.

With Facebook, from day one, I knew what my relationship with them was, I knew they were out to make a buck with my data, and I needed to be careful what I let loose into their platform.

With Apple, the relationship is even clearer, I buy things from them, they sell me a device, and some minimal services with it, for a fixed price, and the relationship doesnt generally change over the term of me owning that device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm pretty sure Microsoft already has its own VR product in development. That internal leaked doc a couple of years ago about xbox 720 revealed something similar to a wearable headset.

Combine VR with the holodeck Microsoft has going could be interesting in term of VR GUI.

<comment><USER4> Yeah I just commented to the same effect. Natural fit for the Kinect ecosystem, and their hardware labs _love_ this kind of stuff. And they can even keep a secret!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The whole VR thing has been around for a while and every now and then a jump in screens and sensors make it better and smaller and lighter as well as cheaper. That aside Oculus from what I can tell have nothing beyond that, a development kit for a device they made, and from what I know and probably wrong, that is it. Ok they have some talented people, but what is stopping Microsoft reproducing what Oculus already have to get a headset that does the next flavour of 3D.

But the only consumer VR affair was maybe a Sega affair and who knows, maybe they have some patents waiting to bite. But it is one of those techs that has been around for a while just waiting to go mainstream. Same was teh case with touchscreens, had them in the 80's even, just better on many levels now. As is the tech for VR headsets.

So should Microsoft of brought Oculus, No as they already have experience in that whole area and or the talent to make a something happen if a market is deemed there. Facebook on the other hand, are not as well rounded in the software and hardware as Microsoft and with that easier to borg in the skills needed and if you can get that as a package bundle, all the better.

</comment><comment><USER15> Oh god no. I might be just too old. But back in my day Microsoft would buy a company and kill their product. They were referred to as the "Evil Empire" back then, they'd consume companies left, right and center. I still have a bad taste in my mouth and wish they would go away rather than this slow painful death.

<comment><USER16> I recall many a purchase that was killed. Modern day, Google has taken over that role.

Look at Microsoft acquisitions of late - Yammer and Skype being two of the larger ones that come to mind. Still there and running.

<comment><USER17> Skype may still be running but their service has become significantly worse after the centralized all the servers instead of the previous P2P architecture. At least I can clearly tell the difference.

<comment><USER11> I've had the opposite, the service has improved since MS bought them, I suspect thats because I'm in the continental US, and networkwise close to the datacenters Microsoft/Skype is using.

<comment><USER18> It seems more reliable in China too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That was my first thought. MS or Google. Certainly moreso either of those than FB. At least there's some product & competency fit. For FB, it just seems like "we need something other than social, lets throw this at the wall and see if it sticks."

Who is next?

</comment><comment><USER20> Err, seriously people, the deal is done. It irritates me to see such pointless articles being posted on HN. Can Microsoft go back? No. Is there anything they can do about Oculus? No. They why the heck are we reading this article?

</comment><comment><USER21> Probably not, a better solution would be for various companies to license the tech from OVR, put some kind of value-add or design into their version of the device and sell it themselves.

</comment><comment><USER22> Feels like it was more of a missed opportunity for Apple.

Gaming is a weakness of Apple's Mac line. The situation is a lot better than it used to be, but is still a weak area. In one swift move they could've made gaming on a Mac better than anywhere else, and any developers who were not already developing for the Mac would have very good reasons to reconsider their position.

</comment><comment><USER23> The question on Microsoft is really what type of games... Is it $50 a game, or free games with lots of social upgrades?

Either company could also do things like putting you ringside at a football game.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't think so, as MS would promptly ruin it by closing it and folding it into the xbone rather than being available for PCs.

</comment><comment><USER25> No. Neither Facebook should have.

</comment><comment><USER26> Who?

</comment><comment><USER27> Absolutely. The XBOX division has shown their dedication to this field and Facebook has only shown that they love advertising and collecting data.

</comment><comment><USER28> Not unless you think changing the device's name to "Microsoft Windows Rift Pro Edition 2015, Powered By Azure" would be a plus.</comment>