Youtube remains unprofitable 3 years after Google acquisition - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/a-sun-valley-romance-three-years-later/?src=twr

<comment><USER2> _He cited research from Credit Suisse_

Seriously? People are _still_ citing that hack-job of an analysis? It didn't even take peering into account - it was ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> It's true across the tech community; someone can post a completely wrong analysis of pretty much anything and as long as it fits peoples' expectations, they'll keep citing it even if it's wrong, and it's incredibly aggravating.

Some common examples include Windows having a lower TCO than Linux, Theora being better than H.264, and of course practically anything in the realm of politics.

<comment><USER4> I think this is getting more and more common because of so-called "tech" bloggers not fact-checking their stories and generally overhyping social media (twitter/facebook/youtube etc..) because of their relative simplicity compared to something like the intracacies of bandwidth economics.

Unlike traditional journalists (though clearly not the NYT!) these guys don't have black books of knowledgable people to call up and ask on a certain issue.

Social media makes everyone's opinions and views a lot more equal (when really they shouldn't be) and these stories eventually bubble up to traditional media, which have the view that since the whole "blogosphere" is talking about it as fact; it must be fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> video search isn't big today, but it'll probably be huge in the future, may be as big as text search if not bigger. same can be said about video advertising. at that time, who do you think is going to have tons of inventory at their disposal? Google

it is just part of a bigger strategy - text search, book search, audio/video search etc.

youtube is a long term investment. as long as G has money to keep it running/improving, they have nothing to worry about.

may be 5-10 years from now, the same ppl would say that the best investment that google made, is youtube.

<comment><USER6> Video search isn't big today because there is exactly ONE use case for it: [heroes season 2]. Text search works perfectly fine for that -- you type in [heroes season 2], you _will find_ Heroes, season 2. It is probably one of the best single domains for searching -- canonical or near canonical names for everything, with disambiguating numbers that users _actually know_ , and built-in metadata which links all your canonical names together in a pattern users actually understand! Brilliant!

OK, so we've got Heroes season 2. Now we have the problem: do people want to pay money for it? Answer: well, no, not if they can get it free on Youtube. Piracy is Youtube's killer app. Unlike the iPod (piracy is the iPod's killer app, too, unless you think 20-somethings are filling 8 GB iPods at $1 a song), Youtube doesn't have plausible deniability or a convenient way to extract money from the pirates.

<comment><USER5> what if I am searching for a particular scene (say a 2 min scene), in a particular episode of heroes, in a particular season?

<comment><USER7> How can you automatically detect that from a video? And if instead of automatically detecting it, you just let the users tag the video, why does text search not work? Finally, even if they manage to get a useful video search working, why do they need Youtube for it, when they can crawl the web for video?

<comment><USER8> One thing you can search is closed captioning, like SnapStream does:

<http://www.snapstream.com/tvtrends/>

<comment><USER9> YouTube has also added a closed captioning feature, but I'm not sure how it is done. I assume this is also working towards video search.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Important point about the cost of the original acquisition:

"Even so, it's important to remember that Google paid for YouTube in stock, not cash, that represented a tiny fraction of the company's total market capitalization. (The deal was initially valued at $1.65 billion.) And immediately after the merger was announced, Google's shares rose, which in some sense seemed to pay for the deal on its own."

</comment><comment><USER11> This probably doesn't surprise anyone but their current business model is terrible. Why would anyone click on a text based ad which distracts them from the video they want to watch. I don't see why anyone would voluntarily do that. At some point google is going to have to bite the bullet and have video ads. Even if they are on after a video is shown they would be far more effective and desirable for advertisers.

<comment><USER12> Because, if youtube is ever profitable, they will be sued. over and over until the end of time.

much better to just miss breaking even. Shovel all the user data into doubleclick, and all the video data into crazy data mining algorithms.

<comment><USER13> On the surface, your argument has intuitive merit. However, you don't sue a business unit (Youtube), you sue a company (Google). Google is profitable.

<comment><USER12> On the surface, your argument has intuitive merit. However, youtube isn't a business unit. it's a subsidiary.

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/look-ahead-at- google-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/look-ahead-at-google-video- and-youtube.html) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6153267-7.html>

edit: sorry, that was sorta snarky. and things may have changed since the viacom lawsuit. (it was a subsidiary in late 2008)

<comment><USER13> Touche! Didn't do my homework on this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> it is not direct profits but it is indirect profits and strategic intentions as the reason google bought it. google wants you to use its services, the more you do the more you depend on them. video, voice, data, etc. they make profit as a whole, so you cant look at one unit and say it doesnt bring in profit. the longer you associate google with your video, voice and data needs they win.

<comment><USER15> Actually, the more you use Google's free services the more you cost them. It's the non-techies who are clicking their ads which are making money for Google so, for all their technical marvels, Google's revenue source(s) are pretty narrowly defined.

I can almost picture Steve Ballmer slapping his cheeks with a mocking "Oh, no! Google's dominating yet another money-sucking cost pit! Whatever shall we do?!?!" before bursting out in laughter.

<comment><USER16> I think Ballmer stopped laughing at google sometime between them crawling out of their garage 10 years ago and them approaching MSFTs market cap today.

<comment><USER15> Until GOOG approaches MSFT's revenues, I don't think Microsoft will worry. If there's a 'war' between those two companies, Microsoft is probably handling it as one of attrition.

Google has one strong source of revenue (search advertising) and has been thrashing about for years in an attempt to build at least a second source without notable success.

Microsoft has many different sources of revenue and continues to build on each. To take out Google, all they have to do is have Bing, Yahoo and the rest patiently chip away at GOOG's search advertising dominance by a few percentage points each year and that revenue will dry up. Then, without that revenue, all of Google's vanity projects will collapse in a heap.

Google's many projects remind me of the Flying Lawnmower: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNWfqVWC2KI>

You can make anything fly if you have a strong enough engine shoving it and Google's engine is its search advertising revenue. Once that revenue decreases enough, their lawnmower will fall to earth, and Microsoft is surely happy to see them tack on new expensive doodads like YouTube and Chrome O/S to hurry that day forward.

<comment><USER17> Somehow the anecdotes of Ballmer throwing chairs and threatening to "fucking kill" Google run counter to your speculation. Either Microsoft is getting worked up over a non-threat or Google is more dangerous than you think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google may be playing up the notion that YouTube is very unprofitable. Making VCs think that online video is a bad business will help reduce new competition. And, unlike eBay's Skype acquisition, there's probably little shareholder pressure for Google to prove that it made a good choice.

</comment><comment><USER19> My general calculation on YouTube is this:

-At Google Search, you do a search and get a text ad. Each text ad is about 400 bytes, each search page (with your results) is around 5k. Serving up the webpage is done from another site.

-At Google YouTube, you do a video search and get a text ad alongside it. Each text ad is 400 bytes, each search result you look at (eg, video) is about 2MB.

So, are you going to make as much, after paying for bandwidth, with a factor of 400 (2,000,000 / 5000) difference in bandwidth?

</comment><comment><USER20> It's been a while since I learned something _new_ from a nytimes tech article.</comment>


TensorFlow – A curated list of dedicated resources - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jtoy/awesome-tensorflow/ <comment><USER2> How is Keras not on here!

<comment><USER3> Tsk, because you haven't put the PR in yet. Or at least you hadn't at the time you wrote that.

Don't worry, someone probably read your comment and did it for you. [1]

[1] [https://github.com/jtoy/awesome- tensorflow/commit/b1e6278cb9...](https://github.com/jtoy/awesome- tensorflow/commit/b1e6278cb9328e0fad3a586e2be857cf81704161)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> how is it that these awesome lists grow so fast?

<comment><USER5> People need a place to find high quality resources without spending too much time searching for them.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Bluehost went down for me for half a day -- is that normal? - <AUTHOR>

I have a simple WordPress site hosted on Bluehost. It was unresponsive on Monday morning, and it took Bluehost half a day to fix it.
While the site was down, Bluehost was unable to give an ETA on when the problem would be fixed. Bluehost support did tell me that the problem was another customer hitting the SQL server too hard, causing the entire server to be slow. They also implied that this kind of problem was to be expected given I'm on shared hosting and paying so little (less than $10/month).
This is the first time in around 6 months that I've had any problem with Bluehost.
My question is: is this kind of half-day outage, with no ETA for resolution given, indeed normal for low cost shared hosting providers like Bluehost? If not, any suggestions for alternative providers? <comment><USER2> Bluehost has a reputation of being crap. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1471861>

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=blu...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=bluehost&start=0)

</comment><comment><USER3> BlueHost doesn't rate all that badly on the shared hosting chart (I am tracking this data - they are 6 out of 19 among some of largest providers). That sort of behavior sounds like crap, but it happens to most of them because of the nature of shared hosting. I am not sure that half a day to get a SQL load under control is normal though. I've had hosts just suspend my account right away when I go over or they kill the offending script.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I figured they should do -- just kill the offending script automatically. They confirmed to me after several hours of outage that they had their best admin working on it. Not sure what there would be to work on that would take that long.

The shared hosting chart you mention sounds great! Is that available somewhere?

<comment><USER4> I'd love to see this data as well.

<comment><USER3> Same goes for you as I wrote: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3405908>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Had similar experiences with DreamHost, the server load avg was 13!!! nearly all the time. For 20$/mo, I got a linode and have never looked back.

<comment><USER6> A load average of 13 doesn't mean anything without any context. If its a server with 24 CPU threads (which is common with modern CPUs nowadays), why is 13 concurrent processes bad?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This can happen with any shared hosting environment. Bluehost is no exception.

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't speak for BlueHost, but bad neighbors are hard to deal with in pure 'shared hosting' environments, and are regrettably unpredictable, and hence harder to mitigate against.

I've had similar problems in the past with Dreamhost and its ilk.

For a little more money, you can switch out to Linode which is at least VM- based instead of fully-shared platform, but the tradeoff is that it is more expensive, and you also have to administer your own services. It's also possible that you lose some of the burstability of a shared hosting platform as the caps are hard caps.</comment>


Ask YC: Can someone recommend a Ted.com-like video player platform?  - <AUTHOR>

I am looking to deliver lots of video lectures and wanted to see if there was an existing solution as a video player platform. It could be for pay, but ideally open source.
I like the Ted.com- elegant interface with large screen playback, and chapter-marking technology that lets users find/skip to key moments in lectures.
Let me know if you need more clarification. Thank-you. <comment><USER2> Omnivisio, (<http://www.omnisio.com/>) allows you to annotate and add comments to the video.

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks real good. Thank-you!

<comment><USER3> FYI we will be launching the slide-sync feature in the next couple of days which we hope will be really useful for video lectures.

Ryan

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you looked at YouTube's API:

         http://www.youtube.com/dev
         http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/overview.html

<comment><AUTHOR> THis was one of my options. I am looking into it, but thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Look at Viddler (<http://www.viddler.com>). You can put markers in the video progress bar indicating various chapters, and other supplemental information, such as lecturer names, etc. For an example of large sized playback with markers, check out <http://tv.winelibrary.com>.

</comment><comment><USER6> Google Video

</comment><comment><USER7> How about ted.com?

<comment><USER8> TED.com doesn't let you upload videos. The site only hosts videos from its own conferences and the player is probably custom-made.</comment></comment>


USPTO likely to adopt 'peer-to-patent' (Feb 2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=34113&page=1&utm_source=Peer+To+Patent+Email+Announcements&utm_campaign=2090490afa-Email_Announcement_10_11_10&utm_medium=email

<comment><USER3> I finally realized the other day what I think is the core miscommunication between the pro-patent and anti-patent camps.

Patents stifle innovation when capital costs are low to 0.

If I can build something fun (and potentially commercializable) for $50 dollars + my time, then there's no way I'm going to spend multiple (ten) thousands of dollars to license someone's patent. The innovation dies right there.

Yeah, these monopolies make sense if I have to set up a plant, or do years of research, but that's not true in software anymore.

There's another factor at work. Creative types can't help but make things. They don't necessarily need a financial incentive to make stuff, nor would they want to get bogged down in those details. They make stuff because it's fun to do, and they have some (un)reasonable expectation of commercializing some projects.

Great engineers make stuff even when no one is paying them. They can't help it.

<comment><USER4> My reading of economic history, thus far, has suggested that patents cannot be justified. Even steam engine patents could not stand the test of empirical evidence.

I cannot yield to your economic reasoning, as I already reject it.

I will be happy though, to read more economic history and dig into it more, as soon it somehow fit into my budget and time.

<comment><USER5> C'mon man throw us a bone here. What exactly did 'your reading of economic history' teach you? Why can't patents, even the steam engine one, be justified? What test of empirical evidence? Why do you already reject his reasoning? Why do you need to read and dig more if you're already decided on the issue?

<comment><USER4> _C'mon man throw us a bone here. What exactly did 'your reading of economic history' teach you? Why can't patents, even the steam engine one, be justified?_

Patents will not increase innovation, and they shift activities from secret invention to invention whom designs are easily reverse engineered.

When the industrial revolution was in full swing in England, there were many steam engine inventors that were working on it, but they keep getting in the ways of each other. Instead, inventors, especially James Watt, ligate rather than improve or manufacture their design. Since their work are built on each other, steam engine tech proceed much more slowly. After the repeal of Watt's patents, engine production increased dramatically.

 _Why do you already reject his reasoning?_

His reasoning is flawed based on the fact of taking into account only capital cost, but the cost of using humans to develop it. The cost of development has to exceed the cost of duplication. Therefore, it does make not sense that patents are useful in more capital enterprises because the relative costs of development versus production are similar.This is my economic reasoning.

On empirical evidence, his reasoning does not simply match. Moreover, invention and inventing are not the begin and end process of innovation. Innovation is much broader than that. It is also about marketing, finding out people need certain products and so on. Inventions, by themselves are useless without entrepreneurs turning it into a business. If there are only one entrepreneur for one inventions, than it might just fail in the marketplace. What if the inventions satisfy no needs? The process will simply be slower, be plagued with ligation and so on.

Big companies do not alway win, nor are they able to copy everything with efficiency, and nor do they recognize all business opportunities.

 _Why do you need to read and dig more if you're already decided on the issue?_

As much as I am sure of what I believe in, I taken the maxim "When you meet Buddha, you kill him" seriously. My position on intellectual property is very strong, thus it will be a continuous target of refutation. If my arguments are well supported, but in fact wrong, than there is no one to convince me that in fact, I was wrong.

Though, the more I read, the more I am convinced on my positions that we should go ahead and abolish the system altogether.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Once again, prior art has nothing to do with it. Software patents are as ridiculous as patents on different colors of shoe laces. Software algorithms are mathematical expressions. I don't need to show prior art to prove that having a patent on 46,456,456 + 235,566 = 46,692,022 is meaningless even if nobody has done that particular calculation before me.

<comment><USER3> > Software algorithms are mathematical expressions. I don't need to show prior > art to prove that having a patent on 46,456,456 + 235,566 = 46,692,022 is > meaningless even if nobody has done that particular calculation before me.

Straw-man argument by over-generalization.

A better analogy would be that software systems are machines that can be fully specified in some formal system.

But then, so are physical machines, for most useful levels of abstraction.

The distinction is simply not as clear-cut as you're making it. If a software system can simulate a physical system, should there be a difference in patentability?

If you're speaking narrowly of individual algorithms, then perhaps you have an argument, but what's important is how you pull all the various algorithms you need together.

<comment><USER6> According to Donald Knuth[1]:

"[To a computer scientist] every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be... An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe."

[1][http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no- patents/brevet...](http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no- patents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html)

<comment><USER3> And this proves what? I can find quotes to support an arbitrary position too. :P

<comment><USER6> It proves nothing of course. I just think that Knuth makes a compelling argument and I tend to agree with him. Mathematics by definition has no relationship to the physical world. When we create these relationships they fall outside of mathematics and become things like physics or chemistry. Patenting mathematical formulas is kind of meaningless, but more importantly, very harmful. If we were to patent them, we couldn't afford to teach them for example.

Next, the question is whether algorithms fall under mathematic. Knuth argues that they do and I agree.

<comment><USER3> Ok, this isn't an answer to your points, but have you read Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis?<http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646>

"I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. I discuss various implications of the ERH and MUH, ranging from standard physics topics like symmetries, irreducible representations, units, free parameters, randomness and initial conditions to broader issues like consciousness, parallel universes and Godel incompleteness. I hypothesize that only computable and decidable (in Godel's sense) structures exist, which alleviates the cosmological measure problem and help explain why our physical laws appear so simple. I also comment on the intimate relation between mathematical structures, computations, simulations and physical systems."

<comment><USER6> I have not. From a quick look this stuff feels like String theory, which we conveniently cannot prove. Once again, only a mathematical concept with no connection to the real world that we need to concern ourselves with. It's also a "theory of everything" which I have learned not to trust (these theories tend to overlook some big issues, like the fact that quantum effects only show themselves at roughly atomic scales and just assume that the cumulative effect at large scales does not cancel out).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Isn't there some legal strategy reason why challenging patents is a bad idea? Like, the due process involved is minimal, and having survived a challenge, the facts behind the challenge strengthen the patent in court?

I bring this up because I remember this being one of the big complaints about the current patent system, and "peer-to-patent" would appear to make that even worse.

<comment><USER8> > _Isn't there some legal strategy reason why challenging patents is a bad > idea? Like, the due process involved is minimal, and having survived a > challenge, the facts behind the challenge strengthen the patent in court?_

At the margin that's indeed a concern.

Many patent attorneys think, however, that --

A) _On average_ you're likely to get a better take on patentability from an examiner, who has at least some background in the technology and who doesn't have a presumption of validity to overcome;

B) Suppose you have prior art that you think invalidates the claims of a patent application, but you withhold it from the patent applicant in hopes of using it later on as a defense in infringement litigation. The patent owner's trial counsel is likely to argue to the jury that your actions then speak louder than your words now. " _If the prior art was so great,_ " counsel will argue, " _why didn't they give it to the patent applicant to be forwarded to the patent examiner? They're just trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and making you do extra work evaluating this supposedly-great prior art reference, when they could have saved you the trouble by having the examiner look at it in the first place._ "

<comment><USER7> Does the latter argument actually work in court? Is it the expectation of courts that people will continually monitor patent applications looking for things to invalidate?

<comment><USER9> That's how I've always understood it. The examiner is supposed to check for prior art, but (1) it's hard and (2) that cuts into revenue. The fallback mechanism has always been the patent appeal - generally the appellant has an interest in voiding the patent or some of its claims for business reasons, but there's no reason you have to.

So yes, it's the expectation of the courts that people will continually monitor _granted patents_ and appeal them as necessary. And I guess patent applications as well.

<comment><USER8> > _So yes, it's the expectation of the courts that people will continually > monitor granted patents and appeal them as necessary._

I dunno about that. My sense is that a patent owner's counsel would not try to argue that the accused infringer had a general duty to monitor pending applications or issued patents. The argument would be, instead, that the circumstances suggest that the prior art in question wasn't so good after all.

Keep in mind that jurors are usually non-technical. Therefore, patent litigators try hard to find understandable indirect- or circumstantial evidence that can get the message across to the jurors. EXAMPLE: If someone walks into the courtroom in a dripping-wet raincoat, that's indirect evidence of rain. EXAMPLE: Widespread imitation of an invention, or praise for it, is regarded as indirect evidence of nonobviousness.

In this hypothetical, the patent owner's counsel argues that the defendant's failure to bring the supposedly-killer prior art to the attention of the patent examiner is indirect evidence. Of what? That the prior art wasn't so good after all, and that the defendant is trying to put one over on the jurors.

<comment><USER9> Wow. This goes to show you how easy it is to overestimate what you know - <USER2> patent experience is all about translating stuff from German (or French) into English, so now that I think about it, all the appeal documentation I've ever seen has been before the European patent appeals court. The thought of defending a patent in front of a "jury of your peers" is frankly something I never even thought of.

The insidiousness of ignorance...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wrote the following as part of an email to the USPTO when it was requesting comments for Bilski Guidance a few weeks ago. I threw it together on the last day so it's not entirely well thought out, but I'm curious what's the HN take on the general idea of such a framework like this:

 _"One framework for thinking about software patents is the Edison Criteria - inspiration vs perspiration. Thomas Edison said:

'None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.'

This statement illuminates the fact that there are several domains under which inventions can be categorized:

1\. Easy/inexpensive to derive, and easy/inexpensive to implement or produce (ex: Amazon 1-click check out)

2\. Easy/inexpensive to derive, and difficult/costly to implement or produce (Google Search)

3\. Difficult/costly to derive, easy/inexpensive to implement or produce (pharmaceuticals)

4\. Difficult/costly to derive, difficult/costly to implement or produce (Saturn V rocket, Large Hadron Collider)

Easy and difficult are, of course, relative values, and there are certainly grey areas in between, not every invention or innovation falls neatly within one of these criteria. However, if the objective of the patent system is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, then I suggest the PTO allow patents only for #3 and #4, but not for #1 and #2."_

The idea is that #1 is obvious and easy - others would likely come up with the idea independently and implement it, creating competition, improvement, and falling prices. Patenting inventions in this area would hence harm progress in the 'useful arts'.

#2 has a natural moat (cost of implementation) and hence does not need additional protection from patents, and may fail the obviousness test anyway.

#3 is costly to derive and has no natural moat (as demonstrated by the generic drug industry) and hence needs additional patent protection to preserve the incentive to make the large investments required for progress in this domain.

#4 is both costly and has a natural moat, and I'm not entirely sure how patents should apply here, but it's not relevant to issue of software patents and Bilski.

What do you guys think of categorizing inventions/knowledge like this for purposes of deciding what can be patented or not?

<comment><USER9> If it's difficult to derive _and_ produce, you're not likely to need patent protection. Patenting a large hadron collider would be money and thought wasted - it's a unique undertaking and people will come to you to use it anyway.

The bleeping 1-click patent, though, God, it's enough to make my head explode if I think too much about that being patented. An utter perversion of the original intent of the patent system.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, Amazon 1-click was the public start of the insanity. Peer-to-Patent formalization just can't come fast enough, it's a great idea.

And under this framework, difficult to derive implies a need for patent protection, in order to prevent one entity from piggybacking off the derivation work and investment of another. But difficult to implement implies a lack of need for patent protection due to an implementation moat/barrier. Combine the two, and it gets into gray areas.

I used the LHC as an extreme example, but I can imagine other less extreme examples of #4 where the patentability is not so clear. Say, quantum processors - lots of time and research is going into deriving them, and they certainly won't be easy or cheap to produce, but the payoff may mitigate the implementation/production cost and be particularly attractive to some company looking to piggyback off the derivation work/expense of another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> alok-g There are three requirements on an invention to be patentable -- It "must be new, non-obvious, and useful". All three clauses are important there.

The proposal handles the "new" part only, and as IgorPartola suggests, it has issues. IgorPartola's argument "prior art has nothing to do with it" is still incorrect though since the "new" is still important. If the "new" part has difficulties, they can be more readily handled via litigation, provided both parties are given balanced opportunity to litigate ([http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/eff_apache_software_fou...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/eff_apache_software_foundation_and_microsoft_urge.php))

A lot more difficult is to judge the "non-obvious" part. Many patents that should not have been issued fall in this category and would remain hard to handle even with litigation.

Anyone has ideas on how to handle non-obvious part?

</comment><comment><USER10> Quick! file an app for 'peer-to-patent' and we'll be riiiiich!

</comment><comment><USER11> ... eight months ago.</comment>


The UN Wants to Build Floating Cities to Save Us from Climate Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/sea-levels-are-rising-time-to-build-floating-cities/ <comment><USER2> This idea really appeals to me. Altho I think one way to gain support is to do the right thing..the right thing being planting forests or grasslands or carbon sequestering zones that is equivalent to 1-5-2x the Area of the floating cities.

Further:

1\. Example: if 10 acres is the size of the floating city, it should also support 20 acres(more is better if they can afford it) of land with newly planted forests and grasslands to restore habitat and to sequester carbon.

2\. If they can support more land(funded by the floating cities denizens), they can buy more on land to rehabilitate while maintaining a base with solar panels, food forests, maybe even dairy and hives..all eco system supporting activities etc. even short term vacation spots. Hello Airbnb! Haha!

3\. The richer the floating city's denizens are with their work or trade or whatever economic activity, the more they can invest in carbon sequestering activities. Example: fruits and rice and grain will become precious commodities and more $$$. They can trade it with others.

4\. We would still need metals and minerals etc. we can't take all the population to sea. Also the question of how this will change marine biology and eco system is a question.

</comment><comment><USER2> I am also thinking about the marine eco system. I don't think any survival plan is feasible unless world population comes down to 1-2 billion from current figures.

Instead of worrying about how to feed 10 billion by 2050..we should be thinking about how we can bring it down to 1-2 billion people within 2 centuries for the long term survival of the species.</comment>


Ask HN: BitsyBox needs beta testers for web platform - <AUTHOR>

We have a new startup called BitsyBox. Without giving too much away, it's a platform to help developers create sites more easily, and to allow site owners to take greater control of their content.
Our web app is currently in private alpha. However, we are giving away our first 20 beta invites in the next 2 weeks. We launch publicly in September, but our beta testers will get all the information and tech support they need starting now.
Not only will all beta testers receive six months of BitsyBox for free, but one lucky participant will even win this electronic drum machine t-shirt (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/generic/ac0b/). We chose this t-shirt because it is obviously awesome -- maybe next time we'll give away the Chain Mail Shirt (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/generic/9080/) but for this round of testing, it was too expensive, despite it's obvious advantages in protection against weaponry.
You can sign up two ways 1) by emailing firstname.lastname@example.com or 2) follow us on Twitter @bitsybox.
We'll notify the selected 20 beta testers next week. <comment><USER2> sounds like an application i can use. let's give it a try. BB</comment>


Has Apple Peaked? - ezequiel-garzon http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/opinion/nocera-has-apple-peaked.html

<comment><USER2> I'm neither an Apple fanboy nor a hater. I have an iPhone5, but I use a Windows 7 desktop PC. (I am, however, an Apple Maps hater after using it for a few days.)

The annoying thing about articles like this is that it's basically the professional journalist's version of trolling... making an outrageous statement in order to garner attention/clicks. He can come in and shit all over Apple, and suffer no consequences if he's wrong.

I would be infinitely more interested in his opinion if he actually shorted the stock and put his money where his mouth is, journalistic rules against trading aside.

<comment><USER3> One thing he correctly points out is how much better Apple Maps would have been if Mr. Jobs were around. Apple Maps is too big of a blunder for Apple to contain its criticism.

<comment><USER4> Garbage statement - both you and the NY Times article. Speculation from a position of ZERO information is stupid and transparently so.

No one know why Apple rolled their own Maps and no one could possible know how different it would be if Steve was still alive.

The only think I really know is that Apple is smarter than you or the NY Times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For the unfamiliar, Betteridge's Law of Headlines[1]:

 _"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'"_

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

<comment><USER6> _The unfamiliar_? This article is referenced on HN at least once a week now

<comment><USER7> And for a good reason. I find the noise to signal ratio of these articles relatively high and I think many would like to see less of them.

<comment><USER8> _Will HN ever stop upvoting linkbait, references to Betteridge's Law, or self- referential jokes?_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The canonization of Steve Jobs as some sort of saint auteur is just freaking ridiculous.

Apple has made missteps in the past, _while_ Steve Jobs was alive. That Jobs was not around for this particular misstep isn't particularly interesting or relevant. The disappearance of Google Maps is a consequence of the breakdown of relations between Google and Apple, and that is not about Steve Jobs.

Making it about him is just stupid. Google has power over Apple in this case, and Apple is bearing the heat for it, Steve Jobs or no.

<comment><USER10> It's baffling. The G4 cube, Motorola ROKR, retroactively downclocked Power Mac G4s, Mac OS X pinstripes... the man was behind some amazing stuff, but it's not like he was somehow immune to screwups.

<comment><USER11> Your argument is a gigantic strawman. Nobody has ever claimed that Steve Jobs was perfect and never made mistakes. People admire him because he was an amazing visionary whose product ideas revolutionized several industries.

<comment><USER10> People have been saying _repeatedly_ that this maps problem would not have happened with Jobs at the helm. I can only conclude that they think he never screwed anything up, because why else would you say that? Do you know?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If I live in Manhattan and extensively use Maps for public transport info, is it true that feature no longer exists?

If so, I'm going to wait before upgrading to iOS 6. Widespread blunder like this does so much to hurt the Apple brand especially in light of an ambitious competitor like Samsung. Apple should realize that even its biggest fan boys will begin rethinking if you cripple basic parts of their product repeatedly. There will come an unforced blunder that couldn't be fixed by an update or use of a cover.

I've been an iPhone user for years but am seriously considering a move to S3 after coming across a few use cases that make me hate Apple.

Basically the trend I am beginning to see is that if you are making enterprise specific apps, sooner or later you come across a basic and intentional iOS limitation that makes you hit your head against the wall.

<comment><USER13> Yup, no more public transport info. Until Google releases their iOS Maps app (assuming they do), the best solution seems to be loading up maps.google.com in Safari instead.

<comment><USER14> I believe it is pending approval.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Apple will never be able to match Google in Maps. Here's why:

Apple does not have any technical depth.

I am a former Apple employee. Apple can't do technically hard problems that require a multi-person effort. Yes, Apple can and has done good Hardware. But hardware is not technically hard - its an art. Apple is good at Art. Google is good at science.

<comment><USER16> Wow - did you work at the Apple Store, because that comment is very short sighted. In terms of technical problems that require multi-person effort, OSX is a testament to that, as is Motion, Logic Pro and Compressor. All those are highly technical pieces of software that lead their respective markets. To say Apple can't "do" technically hard problems is extremely short sighted.

<comment><USER17> lol!

Motion's a joke - to say it leads its respective market is ridiculous - <AUTHOR> Effects leads the motion graphics segment, and Nuke leads the compositing segment.

The only highly technical app Apple has had that lead the market was Shake, and they completely fucked that one up (due to their secrecy and not telling their customers plans for future releases) and ended up killing the product after the majority of the Nothing Real team left and all their high-end customers had moved to Nuke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Part of this is the same old rehashed-to-death "would Jobs allow a misstep" revisionism, but the question about protecting the current success is a more interesting one I haven't seen elsewhere. Apple, from '97 until now, hasn't been afraid to cannibalize their old mainstay products -- and that's where I think the absence of Jobs (and just the sheer size of the iOS success) might change things.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have a Powerbook G3 Wallstreet that's still running (and the battery still holds a charge) after almost 15 years and I have an iPad I use extensively for reading. Until last month, I used Ubuntu on everything and now that I have a MacBook, I'm not sure why there has been such a fuss over OSX. I'm probably moving back to Ubuntu. I also have an Android phone that I wouldn't trade for an iPhone.

I don't love or hate Apple (or Microsoft for that matter) but I think if Apple is indeed on the down-slope it has nothing to do with the maps application. My beef with both Apple and Microsoft (locking the hardware so I can't use it for other purposes is pretty shady) is that devices I used to be able to peer into layer-by-layer (if I so choose) are now completely opaque. You've essentially reduced an advanced user to the same state of novice-hood as the general population. No thanks!

 _EDIT_ \- But it just works! I hear that from so many people and it just isn't true. The suite of tools I generally use have the same issues on all three platforms so the only distinguishing characteristic is whether I can actually fix it.

</comment><comment><USER20> This iOS6 Maps controversy smacks of Antenna-gate. Picking on one shortcoming and heralding the downfall of Apple/iPhone.

Yeah, it sucks that iOS6 maps aren't as good as iOS5 maps.

Does taking a step backward on (important) iOS app mean Apple has peaked? Probably not.

Will the general consumer be happy enough with the iPhone5/iOS6 as a whole that they will tolerate (and then forget about) Maps's reduction in quality? Probably.

Will Apple improve Maps so that in 6-12 months where the iOS6 maps quality is on par with iOS5 maps? Probably.

Time will tell - but my money is this is a classic case of the media/blogs trolling for page views, the general consumer not noticing (ala antenna-gate), and all this will be forgotten in a month.

...and Job's reign had missteps as well - from imac disc mouse to iphone cellular performance on at&t to mobileme to iphone4 antenna. Apple's great power is they make the _entire package_ so enchanting that consumers tolerate issues until they can be resolved.

<comment><USER10> I can tell you that I never encountered a real user who cared about antennagate, but my Apple-using friends are talking nonstop about how awful the new maps are. Antennagate was something that affected essentially nobody, but got picked up as a great story by the media. These maps deficiencies are affecting a _lot_ of real people, and making some of them pretty angry. Most people became aware of antennagate from the media, but everybody I've talked to has learned about iOS 6 maps either from using it and finding it to be sub- par (which is how it happened for me) or talking to people who did that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> You tell me?

[https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL](https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL)

There were plenty of disasters while Jobs was present... anyone remember the iPhone4 antenna disaster? Apple will reiterate and fix and all will be well again. I doubt they will ultimately lose many customers over this.

<comment><USER22> Stock price is a lagging indicator of stagnation, if it's even an indicator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why didn't they publish this two weeks ago... oh right...

IOS is in refinement, the focus internally is elsewhere.

The iPhone came from nowhere (just ask Nokia) and so will the next big thing.

Of course it might flop, but basing any long-term Apple analysis on IOS5 and iPhone 5 is very short-sighted.

</comment><comment><USER24> It is nearly impossible to stay "the best" for a long time. Apple is going to be great and very profitable for many years to come. But the amazing run they've been on for the past decade will slowly start to fade as entrepreneurs around the world all try to take a piece of their billion dollar business.

</comment><comment><USER25> What a bunch of baloney. The author is just rewriting history to be sensationalist. The maps have some problems, we all know it already (need one of those batman slapping robin pictures).

Apple has mis-steps just like any company. FCPX was very recent and was a total disaster at launch and Steve Jobs was very much there. Have we already forgotten "antenna-gate" with the iPhone 4? There's an expectation for Apple to be so perfect that if any problem happens the ship is going down. No company can break new ground year after year and not have some rough starts.

</comment><comment><USER26> _If Steve Jobs were still alive, would the new map application on the iPhone 5 be such an unmitigated disaster? Interesting question, isn't it?_

No, it's not interesting. It shows a simplistic view of Apple and how companies function. There were missteps while Jobs was alive, and obviously Apple's recent announcements were plans that Jobs was somewhat involved in (he worked almost up until his death).

In a month or two this Maps debacle will be stale news, and the bloggers will onto the next shiny toy or minor misstep.

</comment><comment><USER27> When a company has had the run of success that Apple has, there is almost nowhere else to go but down. This article is just capitalizing on the statistical probability that Apple has no way of creating another breakaway product that would catapult them into a hitherto unknown league of corporate success.

</comment><comment><USER28> Fortunately, Steve Jobs had the idea for Apple TV (a real TV not the little box) that could give Apple another runaway success. With their designer Ive's and the UI designers still around, I see no reason why Apple TV won't propel Apple for many years to come.

<comment><USER29> TV is fading. Yes, Baby Boomers still watch it. But those under 30 mostly watch video on phones, computers, tablets now.

<comment><USER30> I do not think AppleTV is the same as that TV you are talking about. AppleTV turns that large screen in your living room that used to only get data from a cable into a large Internet-connected display that shows on-demand photos and video (soemtimes from those phones and tablets). In a sense, the TV just is the largest display in the house, in a place where it is convenient for multiple people to look at it from comfortable chairs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't think apple has peaked but growth could be slowing. Like Google and Microsoft, there are many places where they can improve.

It looks like they rushed a few things. They are clearly under pressure from other competitors and they are sweating bullets trying to maintain an edge.

I think the worse positioned companies are the OEMs. Samsung, HTC, and Nokia do not control the software stack. Microsoft and Google are moving towards making their own hardware.

I think Samsung, HTC, and Nokia have peaked. Plain and simple.

</comment><comment><USER32> About two years ago, I thought the iPod had peaked and couldn't go anywhere. Yet look at the new iPod Nano.

<comment><USER33> The problem is not that apples new products aren't improving, but that they are no longer miles ahead of their smartphone competitors. Android is now a compelling alternative. Apple will eventually release a iPhone nano, but Samsung will release a galaxy micro before or soon after.

Has any company in history been so large and yet so reliant on a single product? Because of this I am fat to nervous to invest in apple, despite loving their products.

<comment><USER34> > Has any company in history been so large and yet so reliant on a single > product?

Google? (AdWords)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> While the maps might not be up to Google's in quality, especially in regard to public transportation, turn by turn navigation is a huge upgrade that wasn't available in Google Maps for iPhone users.

The title/article comes off as mostly click-bait journalism.

</comment><comment><USER36> No, it hasn't peaked. iPhone peaked, just like iPod peaked. But make no mistake, Apple is in a favorable position to be the 'american Sony' for decades to come.

Apple TV? Apple watch? Apple console?

Who knows, but whatever comes next, Apple will deliver.

</comment><comment><USER37> They probably have, but that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of great contributions ahead.

The last decade at Apple has been a once-in-a-century run; we might all die before seeing another company pull something like that off again.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's a silly article. What's really being exposed is just how far ahead Google is with map data aggregation. It's suddenly very apparent that after Search, Google's got great map data.

</comment><comment><USER39> Sure. With The New iPad. Now it is already in decline.

</comment><comment><USER40> If it reshifted to data science from hardware, it has the most cash of any tech company and could grow even larger. Steve Wozniak recently talked about smartphones having AI so this might be already in the works (focus on improving siri rather than stylishness).

<comment><USER41> I hope Apple understands that when it comes to a physical computing device, people (including me) care about look and feel (stylishness) a lot more than voice recognition.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, but what happens when your phone is google glass (could happen in 2 years). Style would end up be just the frame you can buy anywhere.</comment></comment></comment>


Fragment Search - <AUTHOR> http://www.gerv.net/software/fragment-search/ <comment><USER2> Note that [http://www.openannotation.org](http://www.openannotation.org) is working on related standards for anchoring comments.

Is there a reliable way to create audio/video fragment links that work across the most popular sites?</comment>


Ask HN: Is 'Technical Debt' a concept outside of the IT profession? - <AUTHOR> Technical Debt is a well-known concept used a lot within the practice of software development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical about this concept, especially because it does sound reasonable, but why isn't it a thing outside of IT?
How do architects of infrastructure, buildings or vessels deal with this? Do they use such concepts?
How do medical professionals deal with this, is it a thing for them?
I feel that Technical Debt is a term that often obfuscates what is really going on instead of clarifying it. <comment><USER2> I think technical debt requires the concept of 'updates' in order to be applicable to an industry. If you ship something without a mechanism to change it later (eg a building or a ship) you can't really have 'technical debt', because there's no mechanism to pay the debt off. You have to fix the problems before you ship else they'll be in the product forever. In software we have the advantage that we can update things later so we can ship even knowing there are problems in the product and still pay the debt off.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In politics, a "reactionary" is someone who defends technical debt, that is, practices which may have once been pragmatic but no longer are. A "progressive" is someone who proposes a from-scratch rewrite, replacing the technical debt with something which breaks users' old workarounds by being buggy in new and unexpected ways.</comment>


IBM CEO Ginni Rometty's Letter to the U.S. President-Elect - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibmpolicy.com/ginni_romettys_letter_to_the_president_elect <comment><USER2> Hey IBM, maybe instead of offering to create "new collar" jobs, you should stop shipping your existing jobs to India:

[http://insights.dice.com/2013/09/27/justice-department- hits-...](http://insights.dice.com/2013/09/27/justice-department-hits- ibm-h-1b-hiring-practices-045/)

<comment><USER3> $44,400 in penalties? Is that a joke? I would be surprised if that even covered 10% of the price of the investigation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IBM allegedly helped the US government run the camps where citizens of Japanese descent were imprisoned during WWII (and allegedly provided technology to the Nazis that was used for the Holocaust).

What will IBM do if the U.S. government tries to lock up masses of Latinos or Muslims? What will your company do?

<comment><USER3> Come off it, there have been four generations of workers and leadership since then. If IBM isn't a responsible corporation, bring up modern examples.

Or maybe we should boycott Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, GM, Coke, Puma, Adidas, Bayer, Siemens, Zeiss...

<comment><USER5> What is it that you theorize immunizes modern workers from the forces that led IBM's employees to participate in the Holocaust? Do you think IBM's 1930s employees didn't realize that genocide and mass relocation was wrong?

Further: tech giants have for the last several decades been arming the world's most repressive regimes with information technology. What do you think the Great Firewall of China was originally made up of? Whose databases do you think track activists in Iran and Egypt? What evidence do we have that modern tech companies will do anything different than IBM did, faced with the same "opportunities"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Almost none of these measures can be unilaterally actioned by the President. They will all require Congress to pass bills. The very same Congress who have been completely incapable of addressing the biggest issues facing the country.

Great ideas though and relevant in many countries in particular around a combined high school/vocational education program.

<comment><USER7> It remains to be seen how Trump will use "Executive Orders" if things don't go his way. As things are going, there's hopefully 2 groups of people in his cabinet. One to tell him what he can do and another to tell him what he cannot.

<comment><USER5> Virtually no discussions I've seen on the Internet about executive orders seem to involve people who really understand executive orders. Executive orders do not in fact give the President the power to override Congress. All they do is define the manner in which the administration will execute the authority granted to it by Congress and the Constitution.

So it is indeed true that Obama altered immigration policy through executive order by changing enforcement priority to avoid deporting children, and it is indeed true that Trump will change that back. But in neither case is a President making new law by doing so: US immigration law doesn't require the administration to have or not have those priorities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is transparently a government sales marketing flyer. Why are we discussing it?

</comment><comment><USER8> This read to me like:

"We need to be relevant! We are not one of the FAANGS! Please hook us up with some sweet, sweet deals!"

</comment><comment><USER9> I would imagine their consulting arms placement on the H1B listing might be a concern for them which makes point 1 of their letter a bit disingenuous.

Hard to really tell what the policies will be until the secretaries are actually picked.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just a reminder: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)

<comment><USER11> Please don't drop flamewar-style comments into unrelated threads like this.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure this qualifies as that. IBM's role in politics has been historically fraught. Is everyone here really aware of IBM's role in the Holocaust? That really happened.

The whole thread is problematic. I dug into some of the claims --- for instance, I'd like to see IBM's "15 ideas" for saving 900 billion in healthcare costs (I was unable to find anything other than anti-Obamacare spam sites suggesting IBM had offered to foot the bill for the whole system in exchange for running it on IBM hardware).

I'm not sure there's much to this story, and so I don't think there will be much to the thread.

<comment><USER11> If it doesn't qualify as entirely unrelated, I think it still qualifies as flamewar-style ("Here—fight!"). The story might be different if the commenter had something to say, as the guidelines ask when broaching these topics.

<comment><USER4> Scott - Is this comment appropriate?:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962658)

I understand it's tricky. I certainly don't want to start a flamewar, but I do think that these issues are critically important and should not be ignored.

I'd appreciate your feedback if you think it could be improved somehow.

<comment><USER11> One thing in that comment that could be stronger is the connection between IBM's behavior then and now ("connect the dots" as a prominent commenter might say). It's perhaps enough to just be reminded of past behavior of the same corporation in order to warrant asking the question in the present context, but saying so may have addressed the objection that you've received.

<comment><USER4> Fair enough. I want to find ways to address these issues and get people thinking, not flaming.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Doing Windows, Part 3: A Pair of Strike-Outs - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2018/07/doing-windows-part-3-a-pair-of-strike-outs/ <comment><USER2> I love the roast they did to apologize for Windows being vaporware for so long.

> Gates said that Ballmer had wanted to cut features: "He came up with this > idea that we could rename this thing Microsoft Window; we would have shipped > that a long time ago."

</comment><comment><USER3> The interesting question remains: why did they keep going? Windows 1 failed horribly (just like similar products), why make a second version? And secondly, why make it compatible with windows 1 if nobody was using it anyways. This is usually the perfect moment to fix old mistakes, change the architecture, etc. It was all there in windows 1... GlobalAlloc, SendMessage, etc.

You can take a windows 1 binary, patch the PE header to say it's for windows 2, use Borland resource editor to recompile any embedded resources, and then it will run on 32bit windows 10.

<comment><USER4> What architecture changes would you have wanted for Windows 2.0, given the constraint of running on an original 8086? (IIRC, that constraint wasn't lifted until Windows 3.0.)

<comment><USER3> This was more of a general comment. I mean sure, if you couldn't have designed it any better given the technical constraints this makes sense, but just from personal experience there is always something you wish you'd have done differently in retrospect. This is why I can only assume there must have been at least one critical customer they didn't want to piss off, or it was somewhat of a proof of dedication to backwards compatibility, as in "see, even if nobody is using our product we still make the next version compatible".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a fantastic, in-depth series (I can't wait for more!) It really shows how much success is based on luck and timing. Be sure to read the first two parts, if you haven't already: [https://www.filfre.net/2018/06/doing-windows- part-1-ms-dos-a...](https://www.filfre.net/2018/06/doing-windows-part-1-ms- dos-and-its-discontents/)

</comment><comment><USER6> A very enjoyable read, but it's a shame there was no mention of Digital Research GEM, which did ship in 1985. I remember trying it on various Amstrad PC machines in the UK and being very impressed. I never saw an Apple Macintosh at that time, even for sale in a shop, probably due to its price. A few years later GEM starting shipping with Atari ST machines. I presume the fate of GEM was ultimately tied to that of DR.

<comment><USER7> He has already done an article on Atari ST, and GEM is included there.

[https://www.filfre.net/2015/04/the-68000-wars-part-2-jack- is...](https://www.filfre.net/2015/04/the-68000-wars-part-2-jack-is-back/)

He is basically working through the years, touch upon the major topics of each one as he goes. I suspect that he is building some background on Windows 3.x, the first really successful version of Windows, with these articles.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Backup tools for distributed home LAN backup? - <AUTHOR>

Options for tools to run on multiple computers in a lan so that each computer can be backed up to all of the other ones?<p>Are there apps for this? <comment><USER2> Well, I don't know such an app. But that can be done pretty easily, by installing an FTP server on every machine (or setting up a CIFS folder) and configure manually every computer to backup on the others...

Then, if you provide more information (environement, OS, hardware, number of machines to backup, volume of data), maybe someone would come up with something to help you ?</comment>


Someone please fix text-editing software - <AUTHOR> http://wrst.ca/?p=412

<comment><USER2> The article compares "clean" insertions and deletions on paper with commentary "piled up in the margins" from tracked changes. Yes, marginalia is more foreboding than a simple strikethrough, but that's not a digital vs. hard copy issue.

Comparing apples to apples, the deletions and insertions in track are just as visually simple as on paper. The article's suggestion of more in-lining, if applied to comments on content from multiple editors, would be a nightmare. You wouldn't be able to fit some sentences on the screen; they'd be crowded out by all the interruptions.

The article also complains that small punctuation changes can become tedious. That's also true in either form, and the solution is probably organizational. You can reserve a punctuation (and S/V agreement, spacing, etc.) pass for right before publication, or just have a standing agreement that minor cleanup needn't go in track (just accept those yourself as you insert them).

I feel like the most significant failing of track isn't when comparing it to paper. If you're widely circulating a doc for comments, merging edits from a dozen commenters is its own special form of hell. That's true on paper, too, but not in editors that allow real time collaboration, like Google Docs. (That's admittedly a tradeoff, depends on how much you want a single individual acting as gatekeeper for all changes.)

<comment><USER3> As a technical writer, I completely agree with you.

I also wonder if the author knows that you can modify the way track changes shows different types of changes (it sounds like she has everything in balloons, which could indeed be a nightmare with enough changes).

Something like GitHub for documents could potentially solve the collaboration issues, but I couldn't see myself replacing Word anytime soon. Word's formatting capabilities are unparalleled, track changes works well enough for my purposes (and better than anything else I've tried), and the cost and time spent implementing a new solution and training all of my coworkers would be too great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Outside of the professional writing industry, Track Changes is a blessing. Funny how he complains about Track Changes. When I show new users the Track Changes functionality in word they get giddy with excitement. It's not perfect, but it's a hundred times better than what I usually expect from a stakeholder "hey, I sent back your Word document with some changes. What? No I don't remember what page I made them on."

<comment><USER2> > hey, I sent back your Word document with some changes. What? No I don't > remember what page I made them on."

Compare and merge even let you pretend everyone you know neatly tracks their changes, whether you've told them about it yet or not.

[http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306484](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306484)

<comment><USER4> ... wait, you can do that? Awesome!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How much is she or her peers willing to pay? How much do the existing tools she mentioned cost?

How does the hard copy method handle multiple editors/reviewers?

<comment><USER6> I'm really interested in this project: a request from a particular industry to provide a valuable, bespoke product. I'm ready and willing to work on something like that.

But the above questions are important.

"Track Changes" is included with Microsoft Office (so we compete with free). Printing on paper is also free.

A worse problem: the article is not clear enough about what editors would actually value.

Dear Karina Palmitesta: Commission someone to build exactly what you want, get your staff to test it and provide relevant feedback. You should expect to pay for this. If you believe you can sell this to your peers, negotiate a profit- sharing agreement. You should still expect to pay for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like a shoe in for an editor with git as a backend, and cute, inline diff visualization. Seems not terribly difficult to get an MVP out?

<comment><USER4> I've run into this problem before, in a different field:

Everybody uses Word. Unless you can get your "inline diff visualization" to support Word documents, it's not going to work.

<comment><USER7> That would probably makes things more difficult to MVP, but it seems doable to create a plugin for Word that's kind of pretty, and handles edits, editors, drafts, etc through git (maybe even distributed, although local would work fine).</comment></comment></comment>