DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/drm-in-html5-is-a-victory-for-the-open-web-not-a-defeat/ <comment><USER3> "protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely."

 _Good_. This is what we want. This is what victory looks like. They are perfectly entitled to homebrew whatever weird little network they want, which is about as likely to compete with the web as Blockbuster's braindead internet video rental system was.

Eventually they'll decide they're tired of not making money and come around. Until then, they'll continue to get robbed by the professional pirate crew at YouTube, etc. Not my problem.

The only way the open Web can lose now is if it makes the deal with the snakeoil DRM devil, which works¹ just well enough to be dangerous but excludes large swaths of users, opens up gaping security holes in everything and generally makes everyone's life difficult.

¹ works=plays, not that the content protection stuff works.

<comment><USER4> I am afraid you are confusing web and internet. Most of the customers won't care what technology delivers their content from "the cloud".

And I still don't get what war is "open" (whatever that means) web fighting, against what is it fighting and why should anything win or lose.

      > "Why are you obsessed with fighting, stick to fishing
      > from now on."

<comment><USER5> That means youre not on an OS where youre waiting hopelessly for netflix / flash to work reasonably.

<comment><USER6> Flash is just one approach from many possible.

It could be some proprietary VLC-like software that runs only in Win8 and Win9.

The point of having this in HTML5 is to avoid this proprietary mess.

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will actually avoid any of the proprietary mess. The encryption/decryption framework is still based on proprietary blobs that will have to be distributed. And they can be distributed with prejudice.

That is, just because you're on a browser that supports this exchange standard doesn't mean that you'll have access to the blob that actually does the decrypting. The major distributors will just continue their current strategy of platform/device lock-in.

I had gone into this thinking it would be a cool way to easily allow protected/authenticated cross-platform playback. But it does nothing of the sort. Content providers will still discriminate, and we'll be powerless to stop them. This just provides a common API for their discrimination. So... I guess that's something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Rather, it defines a set of APIs that allow JavaScript and HTML to interact > with decryption/protection modules.

Which are non-portable, and only work on particular devices.

Which is:

* the opposite of open.

* a return to "you'll need browser X on OS Y to use this website"

Early versions of iOS and Android were hampered by non-open web until those technologies faded away.

Our next OSs - Tizen, Firefox, Valve box, Ubuntu if they ever get their shit together, whatever other unknown unknowns - won't be able to access any of this content.

I sit right beside a W3C member all day who assures me this is 100% the case (and will at some point blog about exactly this).

<comment><USER9> Whenever you do anything on the web your browser is talking to a whole stack of machine specific stuff, graphics drivers etc. The browser is just an abstraction layer on top of this.

I don't see how this would necessarily be worse than the current status quo. Big content providers who demand DRM are just using things like Silverlight instead which don't provide any official support for any of those OSes so they can't access that content anyway (without some wine hacks).

At least this way it is possible to produce a Linux variant that does support these things without having to ask MS for a silverlight port.

<comment><USER10> These abstraction layers solve problems. Propietary DRM binary blobs try to solve a problem that is impossible to solve: how do you show content to someone and simultaneously hide it?

So the only way out is to make it inconceivably expensive for an attacker, which leads the way to obfuscation, and eventually, as we have seen, invasive technology like kernel modules and other nonsense. They keep on adding abstraction layers, but the other way around: going ever deeper.

I personally see no value in providing an API to someone trying to solve the halting problem. Especially not if the next step is having them pressure us into installing their distributed halting problem solver.

<comment><USER9> Well I agree that it largely seems like a waste of time, but I don't get how it necessarily makes anything worse.

If you don't want the kernel modules etc you can still use an OS that doesn't package them or allows disabling them. You will still be in the position you are now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > But the claim is disingenuous when used as an argument against DRM. Deprived > of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are > not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching > away from the Web entirely. Want to send DRM-protected video to an iPhone? > "There's an app for that." Native applications on iOS, Android, Windows > Phone, and Windows 8, can all implement DRM, with some platforms, such as > Android and Windows 8, even offering various APIs and features to assist > this.

> In other words, the alternative to using DRM in browser plugins on the Web > is not "abandoning DRM;" it's "abandoning the Web."

This shows a lack of understanding of what makes the web great. There's really no difference between a native app and a EME backed DRM layer. The web isn't about the browser window that it resides it; it's about content rendering the same on every platform. A page using EME is not going to render the same on every platform.

This is the status quo, with development costs being shifted from media companies (who no longer have to write separate apps for every platform they care about) to the platform owners who have to implement an approved DRM scheme or get their own scheme approved.

<comment><USER12> This is pure bullshit. EME doesn't change how something is rendered, only whether certain content can be delivered at all. And we already have existing standards-backed cases where different platforms get different content (or no content at all). Coincidentally, it affects the exact same thing EME does: media rendering. I can deliver an H.264 video and be standards-compliant, yet rendering differently in Safari vs Chrome (because Chrome refuses to support H.264).

<comment><USER13> > And we already have existing standards-backed cases where different > platforms get different content (or no content at all).

And that has been one of the biggest problems on the web, that we should _reduce_ , not worsen.

<comment><USER12> Sadly, it appears impossible to reduce it, because the companies involved cannot come to a solution that works for everybody. So the two choices are 1) allow for this in the standard, or 2) throw your hands up in the air and not standardize it at all.

We've already tried the "not standardize" route. It didn't work out very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know the prevailing attitude here is anti-DRM at all costs, but I think this argument hits some incredibly good points. Basically there are only a few options for delivering available to companies like Netflix:

      1. Write native apps
      2. Use HTML with a plug-in
      3. Integrate DRM into HTML
      4. Don't use DRM at all

I don't think that option 4 is realistic in the near term, as much as we'd like. Maybe one day we can get there like with music. I do think that TV and Movies are a much different market, where rental is more attractive than purchase, so it might not be totally viable.

That leaves native apps, plugins, and DRM support in HTML. Can anyone who thinks the web model is the best way to deliver content and apps reasonably argue that DRM in HTML _isn't_ the best of those?

For more fringe platforms, a standard like EME is the only hope for support from mainstream contest providers. Without something like EME you're at the mercy of the providers cost / benefit analysis: are there enough paying users on your platform to justify the costs of supporting it. With EME you're at the mercy of the platforms cost / benefit analysis: are there enough users of all the content providers to justify supporting EME. That is more likely to be true.

Yes, there are problems with supporting fully open systems, but those were there anyway, without EME. If you choose to only run OSS without hardware DRM you might have trouble watching Netflix. My guess is that that's ok with you on principle.

<comment><USER15> For me personally option 4 is entirely realistic (and in fact the only realistic choice), since I try to avoid all DRM at all times anyway.

<comment><USER14> So you don't use any of Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon streaming, iTunes movies and TV, Google Play, Hulu, etc.? (I suppose you also don't use DVDs, BluRay, PS3 or XBox?)

That's fine, but you can't expect all consumers to be the same. Most want access to the content more than they want, or even care about, DRM-free access.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can I get something clarified here, because I'm a bit confused about one aspect of this.

So these DRM extensions are platform-specific binary globs that will be simple to talk to via JS. The idea being that you write an HTML5 page that has a <video> tag in it, which takes content from a URI, passes it to this binary blog, which then returns you something to render. (basically, don't worry if I got the API wrong).

These binary extensions: who writes them? Is there going to be a generic "Windows" DRM binary blog that gets called if you're on Windows for YouTube, Netflix, HBO, etc? That's written by (e.g) Microsoft? Or are you going to have to install DRM binaries from each website, like drivers, into your system?

If it's the latter, how the BALLS^ does anyone expect that to work on linux, or more importantly (in terms of tasty tasty money) iOS? Do they actually expect it to work on iOS, or will they just deliver content through apps? If it's apps, what problem is this solution solving exactly? Is it just a way of getting rid of the downsides of flash? Because in terms of cross platform compatibility it's obviously creating its own issues.

^I wouldn't usually talk like this on HN, but I think it's warranted here

<comment><USER17> The problem it solves is the following: Netflix needs DRM to get content deals, Microsoft wants to get rid of Silverlight which Netflix currently depends on, Google wants to be able to play Netflix on their Chromebook. All would much prefer if DRM was painted in the positive lights of HTML5.

Silverlight and Flash are reproducing the browser's HTML5 video functionalities of decoding and displaying videos. EMEs are the minimum necessary to add DRM to this existing setup.

They don't care about iOS or Linux, they're just pushing forward their aligned interests.

<comment><USER18> > _Silverlight and Flash are reproducing the browser's HTML5 video > functionalities of decoding and displaying videos._

Flash has been able to decode video since 2002 (Macromedia Flash Player 6), long before there was a thing called HTML5 video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Mozilla, in particular, is fighting this very outcome. The underlying > justification for its development of the Firefox OS smartphone platform is > that it wants to ensure that the Web itself is the application platform, and > that software and services aren't locked away in a series of proprietary, > platform-specific apps. And yet, it is precisely this outcome that > opposition to EME will produce.

It's not in Mozilla's interest to support EME because they won't be available for their platform. They're essentially plugins with a narrower API and I don't see how it would make sense to have them if you have access to the source code and the decryption key.

</comment><comment><USER11> I suggest reading the comments here:

[http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi....](http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html)

Many are very well spoken, for example: [http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi....](http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html#c4842288)

</comment><comment><USER19> 1\. "Even if W3C decided to drop EME, there are enough important companies working on the spec--including Netflix, Google, and Microsoft--that a common platform will be built. The only difference is whether it happens under the W3C umbrella..."

This is probably true, but that doesn't make EME a good thing. Okay, so some powerful media companies are colluding to develop a shitty content delivery platform. How does that at all entail the idea that HTML should throw support behind it? Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean you have to officially endorse it.

2\. "Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely."

I really don't see this as a problem. The web simply _doesn't need_ these DRM- enamored content distributors. It will do fine without them. In fact, if the web loses them, the web wins.

3\. "Opposition to EME will produce" a situation where software and services are "locked away in a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps".

This is just a stupid thing to say. DRM _requires_ a series of proprietary, platform-specific apps, regardless of how they're implemented. The proposed CDMs (content decryption modules) that EME requires are _also_ proprietary and platform-specific. They are quite simply no better than traditional HTML plug- ins like Flash or newer delivery platforms like native mobile apps. "A rose by any other name". Except that DRM doesn't smell sweet at all.

4\. "A case could be made that EME will make it easier for content distributors to experiment with--and perhaps eventually switch to--DRM-free distribution."

While it's technically true that EME might make it slightly easier for such experimentation, that's really besides the point. _Ease of implementation_ is absolutely not what's stopping these content distributors from such experiments. Business politics is what's stopping them. If a business decides that it wants to try a DRM-free model, it will try it. The implementation details hardly affect the decision.

</comment><comment><USER20> If EME gets ratified as a standard, the w3c has effectively declared itself corrupt to the point of no longer being useful and no longer relevant to the future of the web.

W3c approving this is w3c approving its own resignation as a standard organization. I'd rather not see that happen.

</comment><comment><USER21> How is shrinking the surface of the required proprietary, platform-specific binary blob from "the full application stack of Flash or Siverlight" to "just the DRM bits of Flash or Silverlight" not a step forward?

<comment><USER22> At least Flash is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Will any CDM be so widely available?

<comment><USER21> Why wouldn't it be?

<comment><USER22> I should have said Flash is available for IE, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Considering that some of those browsers have a "no new plugins" policy, it seems likely that they will not allow any third-party CDMs. Thus it's hard to imagine that any single CDM will reach a 95% desktop install base.

<comment><USER21> Ah, I think I get it. You're saying we should keep content locked up in Flash indefinitely because you don't believe that a better solution can get the penetration of Flash? Is that right?

<comment><USER22> I see "locked up in Flash" and "locked up in EME" as equal, so I'd prefer the one with more adoption.

<comment><USER19> I also see them as equal, but I'd say I'd prefer the one that implies no official endorsement of a closed system by an open standards committee. That Flash also happens to be the one with more adoption is a bonus point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23>
      "Even if W3C decided to drop EME, there are enough important
       companies working on the spec—including Netflix, Google, and
       Microsoft—that a common platform will be built. The only
       difference is whether it happens under the W3C umbrella, or
       merely as a de facto standard assembled by all the interested
       parties."

Someone tell this author that when you see a horrific 10 car pileup, you're not supposed to say: "Well at least it happened on OUR land".

</comment><comment><USER24>
      they're unlikely to even notice if one or two videos (for
      example, one of the Netflix-produced broadcasts like House
      of Cards or the forthcoming Arrested Development episodes)
      are unprotected. It wouldn't make a difference to them.

I'd notice. The only reason I'm considering getting Netflix is to watch Arrested Developent. However, I basically only have Linux machines and so I won't be able to.

</comment><comment><USER25> The main argument here seems to be having a "testing ground for unprotected content".

We have had a testing ground for "unprotected content" for several thousands of years, from stone tablets right up until the CD. I would say it works pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER26> This will totally stop piracy.

<comment><USER27> Judging by their actions, it appears that their goal is to merely make their product harder to consume. It's self sabotage / destructive behavior, but they appear to ignore any appeal to reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The title fits in nicely with the other slogans:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DRM IS OPEN

</comment><comment><USER29> It's a crappy solution, but if they want to cripple their service I don't see it costs me anything. Heck, it may even work out better in the long run - <USER2> less trade you do with someone the less intelligence you have on their activities, and people have something relatively simple to get into the habit and skillset of disobeying authority on.

It's always going to be necessary to have people with the skills to circumvent authority. In the absence of external selection pressures keeping society honest mutation and internal interest groups ensure that you'll diverge from an acceptable standard of living.

This doesn't seem like a bad thing for my interests. It may be a bad thing for the interests of those who just want everyone to be able to go to any webpage, click a button and go, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think there are many great comments already on the w3 site regarding EME, but it seems the main and strongest arguments are still:

1\. Why should the w3 bend, kertow, or even care about the content business model and profitability? 2\. Why should the w3 with a supposed focus on openness even consider adding in something like EME? 3\. Who are these mystery users, apart from the content barons, who are apparently in full agreement that we really do need Digital Restrictions Management in the browser?

This whole thing stinks.

</comment><comment><USER30> The author seems to make the simple mistake of convenient for him to watch DRM content in his browser == good for the web.

<comment><USER31> Pretty much.

Providers refuse to provide DRM-free video now because they know that as long as nobody takes the plunge into DRM-free, they can wring marginally more money out of every customer with DRM. But once one company takes the plunge into DRM-free, this model is over. Customers will demand it of the other companies, and the ones who want to stay in business will have little choice but to abandon DRM and the unethical-yet-slightly-more-profitable models that depend on it.

This worked for music. All signs indicate that it's working for books, though that is still in progress. It will work for video, too, if we let it. All that's required is a few more years' worth of patience. Unfortunately, the W3C doesn't seem to get that.

<comment><USER9> I'd be curious what the effect of DRM on movies is to the bottom line for holywood.

I mean what the DRM software does is make it harder for me to save a copy of a netflix stream to my harddrive to watch later after my netflix subscription has expired.

But it doesn't make it any harder for me to hit up the pirate bay and download the exact same content minus the DRM.

<comment><USER11> DRM is about protecting future revenue streams, not current ones. Once you've bought a movie on iTunes you're locked into using it the way that the media company and Apple have agreed upon. You cannot watch it on your Xbox or vice versa. You cannot transfer it to more than 5 devices. You cannot come up with a creative new way to play the content. Rather, any innovation has to be first approved, allowing the possibility for you to be charged for it again.

<comment><USER9> So really it isn't anything to do with stopping piracy (since the pirates can just pirate anyway) but to try and make non-pirates possibly pay multiple times for the same content?

<comment><USER11> Or new uses of the content, yes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook is returning a 503 No Server Available right now - <AUTHOR> http://facebook.com/

<comment><USER2> Thankfully, it is back up. I just couldn't for the life of me stand all the silly, bloody tweets on Twitter trying very hard to be funny about the whole ordeal.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> pi@pi ~ $ curl -I [http://facebook.com/](http://facebook.com/)

HTTP/1.1 503 No server is available for the request

Server: proxygen

Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:54:55 GMT

Connection: close

Content-Length: 2131</comment>


Keccak wins the SHA-3 competition - B-Con http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/winner_sha-3.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4604188>

</comment><comment><USER2> So, if I'm writing a new application in 2012, should I use SHA-512, or keccak? If course SHA2 will have better library support... What other considerations are there?

<comment><USER3> Given that Bruce Schneier wrote that he'd prefer not having an SHA-3 winner since the SHA-2 algorithms were not showing any weaknesses yet...

<comment><USER4> So you'd prefer they wait until SHA-2 suffers weakness before starting to bring out SHA-3?

<comment><USER5> You mean like years and years from now? Nice "sky is falling" attitude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear media: It's pronounced 'ketchup'.

<comment><USER7> It's pronounced "shah three."

<comment><AUTHOR> Because that is the chemical formula for ketchup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let's say I know a little bit about crypto in general, and wanted to write a software implementation of Keccak/SHA-3 as an academic endeavor. How hard would it be? I'm not looking to produce something that will be certifiably secure against side channel attacks, just something that is reasonably performant and can produce the correct results.

<comment><USER9> Trivial. See this "Readable C implementation of Keccak": <http://www.mjos.fi/dist/readable_keccak.tgz>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find it interesting that the contributors work for semiconductor companies. I would've thought that something like this would be more likely to emerge from a team with a mathematics/CS/academic background more so than hardware. Perhaps these algorithms can (and will) be going strait into some new hardware cryptography IP cores?

<comment> unix-dude I only tangentially follow the semiconductor companies...

However, I know several advanced algorithms in the realm of cryptography can be computationally expensive, and as demand for security grows, several of these semiconductor companies have implemented things in the hardware to optimize certain forms of encryption. (I can't remember if it was Intel or AMD that released a chip with some sort of built-in support for security).

This is just a theory, but if they're going down this road, it would make sense for them to develop a highly secure algorithm that they know can be easily implemented and optimized on the hardware level. If they're developing specialized algorithms AND hardware, they can probably take it into account during the design process and further optimize their boards.

Or, a bunch of semiconductor guys are also crypto-geeks. Which is pretty likely anyway :D.

<comment><USER11> You were maybe thinking of Intel® vPro™ Technology ?

<comment><USER12> AES-NI perhaps: [http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and- tech...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and- technology/advanced-encryption-standard--aes-/data-protection-aes-general- technology.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why is the Bid/Ask spread so high right now for STMs stock? [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=STM](http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=STM)

<comment><USER14> This is normal for low volume stocks during after hours trading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there a free to use and fast implementation of SHA3 in C available ?

<comment><USER16> <http://keccak.noekeon.org/files.html>

The C code appears to be public domain. Which might be a problem in regions in which public domain is not a thing but should otherwise be fine for use in most projects.

<comment><USER17> It's not the problem, the code is under Creative Commons Zero public domain dedication <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wikipedia already has a 3 page description of the Keccak hash approach <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keccak>

</comment><comment><USER19> it's funny, we have new standard, so sha256sum, .., sha512sum utilities should start providing us different results - Keccak, instead of SHA-2 :) i'm wondering how the naming issue is going to be solved</comment>


Show HN: React adaptation of Sam Herberts SVG Loaders - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ajwann/svg-loaders-react <comment><AUTHOR> I love these loading indicators and thought I would roll them into some nice React components.</comment>


Stupid, Stupid xBox - <AUTHOR> http://ilikecode.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/stupid-stupid-xbox/ <comment><USER2> _"how it is crushing its original console competitors"_

Previous gen:

> Xbox sales: 24 million

> PS2 sales: 153 million

Current gen:

> Xbox 360 sales: 76 million

> Wii sales: 100 million

> PS3 sales: 70 million

(all data from each console's respective Wikipedia)

How is it "crushing" its competitors?

Otherwise, I bought an XBox360 recently to get the Kinect for openFrameworks hacking and played a little bit with the console. All the points in the article regarding the UI are spot on - it is TERRIBLE to use. Nintendo's UIs are no reference either, but at least they're functional, while Sony's XMB is actually quite good (although the PS Vita's OS is a horrible thing to behold, which is scary for the PS4).

<comment><USER3> All the other caveats aside, I'm willing to consider those results "crushing", particularly when it comes to Sony. Yes, Sony and Microsoft are close to parity, but think about how quickly Microsoft _got_ to parity. This is their second console, ever.

<comment><USER4> The PS3 is Sony's third console, ever.

<comment><USER5> Fourth. The PSP came out between the PS2 and PS3.

<comment><USER6> The PSP is a console?

<comment><USER4> If we can include the PSP, we can include Windows too. That's a huge gaming platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He has a massive point -- " _Why can't I write a game for xBox tomorrow using $100 worth of tools and my existing Windows laptop and test it on my home xBox or at my friends' houses_ ".

I am wiling to guess that game development will follow the path of app stores. Consoles like the OUYA [1] will start to take over. The cycle from development to distribution will be cut by orders of magnitude. xBox needs to get on it and so do the other consoles!

[1] [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind- of-...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video- game-console)

<comment><USER8> This is the promise of things like the Oouya console but they have yet to be proven commercially viable in the market.

There are some interesting forces at work here. The amount of time and effort needed to build a truly cutting edge game console has historically been high, further tools to get the most performance out of the hardware have required similar investments in expensive engineering time. This combined with selling the consoles into a very price sensitive market.

In order to recoup those costs, given the market realities, the console makers have traditionally resorted to extracting a 'tax' out of the game developers. On the theory that charging a few extra $ for your game to cover the cost of the tools / access is possible, whereas trying to fund the tool development on the back of base console sales is not possible.

Historically this has been the PC's "secret" weapon against game consoles for a long time. The cost of building tools was offset by developer fees across a much wider base of developers. "Free" tools were good enough if the hardware was sufficiently over powered, and gamers would spend $3500 on a machine that "normal" people would budget < $1000 for. That makes things flexible.

Then there are the phone games, which like PC games, have the advantage that the phone is useful for other stuff and there are more developers trying to write apps for it.

Ooya's promise is that the existing Android infrastructure / developers will support tool development, and the wide variety of handsets will constrain there efforts to work on systems that are similar to the modest abilities (relative to all android platforms) of the Ooya console.

So to respond to the articles point, the reason you cannot write a game for Xbox using $100 worth of tools is because if Microsoft only got $100 from everyone writing a game for the Xbox you would not have enough money to actually create the tools, much less support them decently. Their best effort at this was XNA but they have since killed that due to lack of adoption, if you are EA you can pay big bills, if you aren't, there are not enough of you to pay any bills.

<comment><USER9> I just bought a fairly capable gaming PC for around $1,000. It's not the absolute fastest thing but it certainly performs more than well enough for all the indie games I've bought.

<comment><USER10> " for all the indie games I've bought."

Those are typically not the graphics-intensive ones. I'm not sure what specs your machine make it into a 'gaming' PC, but I have yet to see anyone in the industry call a machine with the specs that 1000$ gets you today a 'gaming machine'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been shouting this for as long as I could: Once Apple (or maybe an Android company or even someone new) enters this market in earnest, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo should take watch.

Apple has the infrastructure to deliver games, has tiny/medium/large touch devices that can connect via bluetooth in many customers hands (which already play games), and many many game developers familiar with the platforms. Every big studio has an iDevice team and there are hundreds of good iPhone games out there. If Apple can position the AppleTV as a console (maybe open it up to developers) or build something more along the lines of a traditional console, they will crush.

You can already do cool stuff like stream the game to the TV via airplay and use the device for a score/map screen (basically a WiiU) and it works surprisingly well and doesn't need cords or anything.

The only other real competitor here I see is one of the bigger android vendors like Sony or Samsung. If Sony could get the company in shape and stop producing products that compete with each other, they have many of the same advantages as Apple. They have android devices, experience making console/tv/etc hardware and even own game studios. They make every kind of electronic that goes in the tv room. But Sony has had this for years so that seems unlikely. They have already had huge employee slashes and are floundering.

Samsung has the same thing going on. They make everything and they have huge android phone/tablet penetration. I could see them easily jumping in on this and I hope they do. More competition blowing the doors of this stagnant industry could lead to a renaissance of smaller game studios.

 __EDIT __I should add that Valve also has a chance here. There are many rumors swarming about a valve console or something similar. They have the distribution system and the games market experience, but have no experience with how to make hardware. Remember the last time that happened? I believe they called it the "red ring of death". I'm not saying valve can't pull it off but hardware is _hard_ to get right. I look forward to what they do.

<comment><USER12> >If Apple can position the AppleTV as a console (maybe open it up to developers) or build something more along the lines of a traditional console, they will crush.

This opinion is pushed around a lot, however I cannot really see it happening, and I doubt Apple will ever pursue such a strategy.

For Apple to enter the console market, they would have to compete with the big boys, meaning if it can't push 100 million polygons at 1080p it will never get great adoption (who will want develop for a console with graphics out of 2005, and who will buy a console that doesn't have Call of Halo 7?). This means they have to create a modern console platform AND sell it at the price of an iPad. I'm not sure how the ghost of Jobs will take the news once he finds out Apple is selling hardware at a loss.

Next I doubt they would have anything to gain other than "you can now play CoD on the Apple ecosystem." They would lose money on the hardware, they wouldn't make much on the software if App Store profits mean anything ([http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/tech/29964545...](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/tech/29964545_1_app- store-gene-munster-apple) reports they may have made ~$300 million). It just doesn't seem like a good idea finically. As far as the game console ecosystem goes I don't think MS/Sony/Nintendo will ever have to worry about Apple.

All in all, I am not really convinced that the App Store market will work for any of them. I strongly believe only Valve has the resources (and direction* ) to transition into the digital delivery era, at the expense of introducing yet another company into my living room. Still the question is how do you effectively deliver a magic box capable of playing Call of Duty at 1080p at the price of current consoles sustainably/profitably. Vavle's success so far doesn't worry about hardware. Their customers are either willing to spend $1000+ on a gaming every couple years, or just suck it up and blame Dell/HP for why their laptop can't play CoD.

* If Sony got their shit together, you are right, I believe they would take over the living room. They almost did it with PS2, and if the PS2 had come a bit later, or the PS3 was able to sell as much they might have done it. I think Sony could have built an Apple level brand loyalty (in the sense of having a Sony Computer, Phone, Laptop, Console) and (if they got much better at software development), they could have built a Sony store to manage your content on all those devices (after all they already own most of the movies and music). In another universe Sony may have been a Google + Hardware.

<comment><USER13> I honestly don't know if Apple will enter this market, but I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about the profit margin as the reason not to.

I think they could build a next-generation-console-capable Apple-TV and sell it at or below $199 while keeping their 40% margin. They would sell you each additional wireless controller (and it would be sweetly designed, I suspect) for the standard $79 peripheral cost.

The primary contributor to their bill-of-material cost savings vs. competitors is that they already own and/or license at huge volume their CPU and GPU cores and know how to fabricate them in multi-core formats with high-speed cross- connectivity. They can also buy RAM and flash for SSD storage at better costs than anybody else. These are the primary cost drivers (basically money flowing to IBM, nVidia, etc for CPU/GPU and money flowing elsewhere for RAM/SSD/HDD) for xBox, PS, Wii.

Apple would have dramatically lower overall startup costs versus the original xBox/xBox360 and PS2/3 given they already have a toolchain and SMP operating system with sandboxing, an App Store and its back-end, user-accounts and payment infrastructure, and numerous other costs shared with the rest of the Mac and iOS ecosystems.

Apple wouldn't have a lot of work to do to train developers: tell us the screen resolution, how to interact with the controller and any other new hardware capabilities, tell us anything special about the GPU's and let us go to town with the existing toolchain we are using for iPhone and iPad.

So, again, I have no idea if they'll do it, I just think it would be a very profitable business for them.

<comment><USER14> With Tim Cook's track record of world class supply chain management it will surely be profitable for them.

When the iPod was introduced it didn't compete on tech specs with the other music players. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." - the famous last words dismissing the iPod.

When the iPhone was introduced it did have innovative tech but it was secondary to the overall experience.

I'd say when, not if, Apple really wades into the TV market, they should be able to achieve the same kind of disruption. TV's are an obvious choice for Apple, because the TV is one of those consumer electronic devices that occupy a sweet spot between status symbol and the everyday always connected lifestyle.

Thanks for the article. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo better watch out!

<comment><USER12> It would be absolutely revolutionary if Apple could do it, and it almost seems too good to be true. If that supply chain was opened to anyone else it would be like getting the power of an xBox 360 at $99, forget the raspberry pi.

Now I am not too keen on the video games industry and an insider might have differ, but I've tried to do my fact checking. In a way the device you described for Apple's target specs is what Nintendo did the Wii - and were hugely successful for. They sold 100s of millions of units, and it wasn't sold at a loss so they minted money. However, despite their huge shipments, only Nintendo enjoyed success. The people who bought the Wii, only bought 1 or 2 games (like WiiFit and WiiSports) and it became incredibly hard for third parties to market big budget games to them. Effectively the 3rd party abandoned Nintendo.

Secondly, if the system is not powerful enough, I believe gamers will reject your platform. I believe this is more important than the "No wireless" issue because gamers are the only ones who will spend $59.99 on a big budget game, and as a result 3rd party companies will suffer. You can't sell Call of Duty at 99 cents, and gamers don't want to play a Call of Duty that looks like it was made in 2002.

So the market, I believe splits into 2 groups - 1.) Average folk, who want the box. 2.) "Gamers", who want the software.

We can already see this today. There are Netflix Machines like the Roku (1.) and consoles (PS3). However I believe that the the console guys (Nintendo/Sony) will eventually win out, because they provided the hardware (the hard part) first. Its relatively simple to get the indie devs on your side - open up the platform. But to get the big budget guys on your side you have to convince them that they won't waste 50 million producing the next CoD because it will be drowned out by the likes of Angry Birds and Temple Run.

Lastly, I am not sold on the fact that Apple will be able to push the same numbers as Sony on Apple TV without "big boy" support. If EA is not going to support your system I don't think the Apple Box will sell as much. (the Apple TV only sold 2.7 mill while PS3 sold 10 times as much). While Apple is known as the company that can sell a brick to the masses, I am not sure they can sell 25 million consoles without some big franchise names at launch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The modern round of game systems are quite flawed from a UI/UX perspective, as the author here points out.

My Playstation 3 forces me to do various updates to watch Netflix (which is what I use the system for 90% of the time). All of the systems ask you to input text in a super-awkward way to setup various aspects of the system (on- screen keyboards really suck for typing in complex WPA2 passwords).

The XBox 360 is the most annoying by far, as it _constantly_ bothers me about signing onto Microsoft Live. There were some fraudulent transactions on my account (which I thought was super-odd, because I use lengthy/unique passwords on everything), which Microsoft (after a 30-day period) refunded to my bank account. But I haven't been able to sign onto XBL since, and haven't really bothered to call Microsoft for support. The PS3 doesn't constantly bash my head in with sales and random junk when I just want to watch Netflix. Also, Microsoft seems to think that UI changes every 18 months is a _great_ idea. They don't seem to add much value.

Sadly, the Wii has been turned on maybe three times. It kinda feels like a dinosaur at this point. I use my Raspberry Pi more these days for gaming...

<comment><USER16> Seriously, the fact that I can't plug in an old keyboard to the PS3 for the occasional password or search drives me nuts.

<comment><USER17> Unless they've changed something you should be able to use a keyboard with the PS3. I used to have a wireless USB keyboard/mouse that I used with my PS3 for web browsing.

<comment><USER15> Yea, it still works- but its clunky as my only extra USB keyboard in the house is a huge Unicomp one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Though I can't speak to the internal politics of Microsoft, I can say that as a gamer I don't remember ever getting upset at the pain points the author listed. Granted, I'm coming from a technical background (as are most people here), so I'm obviously not in the perspective of the small child the author sometimes takes in the picture captions. However, I feel there's a tension between the complexity of an application and the affordances it provides. To use one of the author's examples, choosing where to save an update (a useful affordance to have, I think) requires that the user suffer a bit more complexity. In my experience, the xBox doesn't manage this complexity poorly.

That being said, the author has a strong point in regards to the indie game market. Game development could and should be as simple as it is on Android because the platform's support is there... it's just locked behind layers of legal and financial obstacles. I'd love to see an xBox Live market where indie games are strongly promoted, and I can't imagine the cost to Microsoft would be strong enough to outweigh the revenue gains they'd make if they took a percentage of sales.

<comment><USER19> Really? Every time I try to use my Xbox, I have to deal with the idiotically slow UI. Seriously, if I press the Xbox button, it pops up a grey rectangle, and takes several seconds to load in details. The dashboard is cluttered with ads (although only one tile is labeled so).

Browsing games to buy on the Xbox itself is painfully slow. Many, many, seconds, just for simple screens to load.

This guy totally nailed the reason I don't start up my Xbox as often as I'd like: It's annoying to get into. Once I'm in a game, it's _usually_ OK, although the slow saving thing is jarring. But the thought of it starting up, asking to update and reboot (usually 2 or 3 times in a row) - ah screw it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a very revealing article:

\- It gives official confirmation of the (somewhat obvious) idea that the XBox was a defensive move against general living-room entertainment boxes.

\- It shows that he has a very distorted view of the gaming landscape, if the truly thinks that the XBox is the dominant platform, or that mobile games are a genuine threat to console gaming (they most certainly are not).

\- He singles out _Apple_ of all companies, as the biggest threat to mobile gaming, despite the fact that Apple doesn't seem to be too interested in anything other than simple 99¢ iOS apps, dismissing the companies like Nintendo who, for all their recent troubles, have a long and storied history with gaming that Microsoft can only hope to compete with.

\- He brings some good points about the interface though. But that's honestly not the XBox's biggest problem.

<comment><USER21> "- It shows that he has a very distorted view of the gaming landscape, if the truly thinks that the XBox is the dominant platform, or that mobile games are a genuine threat to console gaming (they most certainly are not)."

The threat of mobile gaming on the PC/Console gaming landscape has been recognized by some of the largest stars in the industry, eg: Gabe Newell states Valve wants the PC in the living room but the biggest competitor is Apple.

[1] Dice 2013 Keynote with Gabe Newell at 7:30 minutes in. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeYxKIDGh8I>

<comment><USER20> Pardon my skepticism.

Notice how Gabe is talking about how Apple is a threat not to consoles, but to PCs moving into the living room (i.e. his company's plans). To people who don't know the industry well, this might not be easily differentiable, but the reality is that the two come from fundamentally different lineages.

The thing that sells gaming platforms is not "natural progression into the living room", not an "upgrade cycle", not "development tools". It's the _games_.

If Apple takes a similar approach to living-room gaming as they took to the iPhone, with an open development platform, or an "Apple TV" that plays games, but is not primarily focused on games, you'll see roughly the same quality of games come out there as on the iPhone. And notice how no iPhone apps sell for more than 99¢ these days.

Apple has no history of game development. It's not a part of their DNA. And the gaming industry is a difficult business to succeed in. So to take any other approach would be monumentally difficult for them.

The biggest threat to console gaming is not Apple. It's the consoles themselves.

Consider the case of the iPhone vs. handheld consoles. The iPhone was released in the heyday of the Nintendo DS. The DS sold like hotcakes throughout its lifecycle, and didn't slow down at all even as the iPhone's app store exploded onto the scene.

It was only once the 3DS came out that handeld consoles started to have difficulties. Of course _now_ everyone starts blaming smartphones for taking the market away from them, but look at the console: it has a lineup of games that's mediocre at best, it focused on 3D features that nobody cares about, it had hardware flaws like a terrible battery life, and it was very expensive at launch. No wonder it disappointed.

If consoles end up failing, they will fail on their own merits. It won't be because of an app store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think it's funny how Nat capitalizes "xBox". The official capitalization that was finally settled on was "Xbox". It annoys the marketing people to no end when people capitalize it wrong.

I always thought xBox looked cooler.

<comment><USER22> It totally does. I always thought the official was "XBOX"; "Xbox" looks like the way someone uninformed would write it or that it was an afterthought of a product.

<comment><USER23> Using correct English capitalization rules makes someone "uninformed" now?

<comment><USER24> Given that it's a proper noun and the pronunciation is "X Box", I would think the pseudo-initialism "XBox" would be more proper English.

<comment><USER23> Given enough time, everything becomes assimilated to look "normal". Consider the words RADAR (RAdio Detection And Ranging) and LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) -- what started as initialisms became normal words after people started using them regularly. It can presumably happen to newer words like "Xbox" and "Gmail" too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I see a couple comments here, including the highest voted top level comment, questioning how the xbox can be "crushing" their competition given that a straightforward reading of console sales indicates things aren't so cut and dried.

However, the xbox is crushing its competition, in several ways, and let me explain why a naive reading of unit sales is misleading.

Many consoles sell at a loss, especially initially, or on a very small margin, console sales alone are meaningless. Console sales themselves just serve to expand the player base, enabling follow on game and service sales where the vast majority of the profit to the console maker and of course to the game makers comes from.

Here's where things get interesting. Nintendo has always sold everything at a profit, so they've never lost money on incremental console sales. However, again that margin is still fairly small, what they need is game sales. And for the Wii that's been a disaster. They sold a huge amount of consoles but a lot of the people who own them don't play them very much, and they don't buy many games. This is a big reason why Nintendo has stopped making a profit overall as a company the last few quarters, which has been rather disastrous for them.

Now let's look at Sony. They started off with a crazy console design, which is almost an experimental prototype device, this is not the sort of thing one usually does with a console. The result was that the hardware of the console was hugely expensive, which meant that they were losing a huge amount of money on every console sale, about the same as the cost of a Wii. This meant that Sony needed to have strong follow-on game sales to make up for such huge loses. However, because the console was so difficult to develop for they struggled with game availability for a long time. Eventually these factors started to become less of a problem. Multi-platform game engines eventually matured sufficiently to where it wasn't a huge problem to target PS3/360/PC releases for most games, and that has helped PS3's game library tremendously, in addition to a very small handful of excellent exclusive titles (such as Little Big Planet, Heavy Rain, etc.) Also, eventually Sony managed to reduce the hardware cost of the PS3 down to a point where they weren't bleeding money on each sale so horrifically. However, despite all of this improvement it's questionable whether the PS3 has made a total profit for Sony overall, and if it has it's likely not very large. Worse yet, a lot of Sony's big efforts such as the playstation network and the Sony Move have not taken off and not garnered much enthusiasm in the market.

And then we get to the 360. This console certainly has its fair share of problems and debacles. At launch it was definitely sold at a loss to the company. It struggled with reliability problems and expensive warranty extensions through many of the early hardware iterations. And sales in Japan have always been weak. But, somehow it managed to come out ahead. The 360 never sold at as much of a loss as the PS3 and it didn't take long for them to get to a point where they reduced hardware costs enough to make a profit on console sales. Even with the expensive $1 billion warranty extension their balance sheet on pure hardware alone is far, far better than Sony's, which means that MS actually needs to sell fewer games per console to come out ahead in total profit. As it turns out, people who own 360s are far more active gamers than people who own other consoles. They play for more hours per month, and they spend more money on games. Of all of the consoles currently on store shelves, the 360 has the highest multiple of average number of follow-on game purchases per console. But it doesn't stop there. The Kinect add-on has been one of the most popular consumer electronics devices in history. Also, whereas every major competing online multiplayer service is offered for free (Steam, Origin, PSN), Microsoft's Xbox Live Gold service costs money. On its own it has subscription volume and costs similar to the most successful MMOs in existence (such as WoW). That's a testament to the sheer volume of people who think that Microsoft's service offering is valuable enough to pay cold hard cash for, but it also, of course, goes straight to Microsoft's bottom line, to the tune of around a billion dollars per year. And because it's a digital service the development costs are fairly low. But wait, there's more. In addition to game sales, xbox players are also more likely to purchase DLC packs and other digital content such as xbox live arcade games. Again the incremental costs on these digital goods are fairly low so Microsoft (and the game publishers) make a much higher margin on them.

What does this all mean? Several things. First, in total Microsoft has been far better at consistently extracting significant profits from the gaming market over the lifetime of the current console generation. Second, Microsoft has far more momentum in terms of game sales and customer loyalty and enthusiasm than the other console players. Third, Microsoft is making far more headway than other console makers in earning revenue from digital goods and services, where the profit margins are the highest. Fourth, many game makers find that they make a lot more money from the xbox versions of their products, which helps ensure that exclusive games that aren't on the xbox are a rarity.

And this is precisely why this year we will see all 3 companies release new consoles, and why Nintendo has already done so. Because without a significant disruption in the status quo the result is that the xbox will continue to outpace everyone else, and continue to gobble up more and more market share and gaming revenue. Nintendo is trying to give themselves a chance to stay relevant. And Sony is trying to put themselves on a new footing. And Microsoft is trying to hold onto what they have or extend their lead.

Note that I intentionally left out a lot of complicating elements such as competition from PC and mobile/tablet gaming, introduction of new console makers, etc. That may play a role in the future but it hasn't played a significant role in the fight between the different home consoles so far.

<comment><USER26> I am just curious - where are you getting the console costs from? From what I know this information is highly sensitive and even most insiders don't have an access.

Also, what scale do you use to compare costs? From the fact that you call Kinect (sold ~18M [1]) "one of the most popular consumer electronic devices in history" and Move (sold ~15M[2]) "has not taken off" it appears that either you are using some kind of highly non-linear measure or are better informed than almost everybody else.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#cite_note-18-million-1>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3_Move#cite_note-15_million-4>

<comment><USER27> I have no idea on the concrete numbers, but the two sources you cite appear to be separated by almost one year (jan/2012 for the Kinect and nov/2012 for the Move one)

<comment><USER26> Indeed, the sales figures are not synchronous. This is why I asked if GP has some special data, because the publically available one does not confirm his/her assertions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The segment about terrible error messages really resonated with me. I was actually just thinking yesterday about how, after so many years, Windows errors on personal/home computers still tell you to talk to your "system administrator". Microsoft has never understood the basics of the personal market. Bad UX is in their blood.

</comment><comment><USER29> "...experiencing your competitor's stumbling failure (yes, Sony, Nintendo – you are, I'm afraid, stumbling failures)."

Can someone explain how Sony and Nintendo are stumbling failures in the console market? How extreme their failure must be, to feel comfortable stating it as a common fact requiring no explanation! I must be way out of touch.

<comment><USER13> See InclinePlane's comment, above - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5210998>. (s)he said it better than I was trying to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> My Xbox is the only product/service I use where I feel that I am directly interacting with Microsoft. For me, the Xbox is the last area where Microsoft is relavent.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't know if people on HN are following the rumors related to the next-gen consoles, but it looks like MS is going to be addressing at least one of these issues: UI fluidity. If the rumors are accurate, then MS has a multi-pronged approach to making the UI a lot more fluid. While the 360 reserved 32MB of RAM for the OS, rumors suggest that MS is reserving 3GB (out of a total of 8GB).

Furthermore, MS is apparently using a hardware-based display plane system where there are 4 independent display buffers that can be refreshed/displayed at different resolutions and framerates. 3 of the display planes are for the game to use (one for the HUD, 1 for foreground, 1 background) and 1 plane dedicated to the OS.

I do 110% agree with the author that having a more app-store like ecosystem would be absolutely huge, and if MS were to properly implement, would let them compete vs Apple.

If I had the money I'd buy both MS and Apple stock, because one of them is in the best position to win the living room in the next 5 years.

<comment><USER32> The arguments he is making are about UX, not UI fluidity.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, I'd say that the UX has actually _deteriorated_ in the years I've owned an XBox. As they've tried to push more and more non-game content, access the games has gotten worse.

The other things, like the settings screens, are just as bad as ever.

I wouldn't award Sony's crossbar interface any points either. After a few years (on two systems), I've learned where to go hunt for the 2 or 3 things I usually use... but that's not a complement.

The Wii, despite being sluggish, at least had a UI that made it very quick to launch games. I haven't used a Wii U so I don't know if it's any better. Based on my 3DS, I highly doubt it's objectively "good".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Since it isn't clear in the article, ilikecode.wordpress.com is Nat Brown: <http://kotaku.com/164683/a-brief-history-of-the-xbox>

He's commenting on this thread too as natbro.

</comment><comment><USER33> Developing for the console seems really harsh.

Somewhat related, an indie company managed to get a fighting game out on PSN and XBLA. It just got an update on PS3, but it can't get updated for Xbox because the patch is bigger than 4MB. [1]

Keep in mind, these are free updates that fix bugs and stability issues, not paid DLC. Even so, patching is really, really expensive. [2]

[1] [http://shoryuken.com/2013/01/08/skullgirls-xbox-360-patch- de...](http://shoryuken.com/2013/01/08/skullgirls-xbox-360-patch-delayed-due- to-size-limitations-four-to-five-dlc-characters-originally-planned/)

[2] [http://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a- con...](http://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-console-game)

</comment><comment><USER34> The console industry used to sell high-end wedding cakes. Now they sell wedding cakes, some sheet cakes, and occasionally a pre-boxed slice if there are leftovers. These are your only options for snacking in the living room. You order a wedding cake, go pick it up in a few days, and hope it tastes good.

They are about to find out what happens when piping hot cookies are hand- delivered in 30 seconds or less to the living room, for free.

The only thing Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have going for them right now is that the iPhone and iPad are drawing away virtually all of Apple's not- inconsiderable attention.

Here's how it will work: Apple will release a $99 controller. It'll look like a SNES controller mated with an iPhone 3GS: 4" standard-resolution multitouch screen, D-pad, four buttons, two shoulder buttons, and a Lightning port. (Inside is NOBODY CARES. gyro, bluetooth, Wifi, iOS SOC, battery.) And, naturally, it will be the least embarrassing looking item in your living room.

You'll take it out of the box, type in your Wifi password, log in to iCloud, and THAT IS IT.

The Apple TV (of which there are millions already installed) leaps into action. All the plumbing is silently set up, the App Store icon appears, a free showpiece game immediately offers to install itself, and Apple connects a half billion users to the television overnight.

Most of the Wii U's best controller ideas are co-opted, the overall controller complexity is a scant third of anyone else's, it retains all the power of touch controls, it requires no complicated setup whatsoever, all the game state is cloud-backed, dozens of touch-resistant game genres suddenly find a home in the lowest-walled garden of any shipping console, customers can add more controllers if desired, and the whole panoply of mobile software can infiltrate the last screen standing.

The Apple TV is a freaking trojan horse, if Apple wants it to be. Nobody else has the UX to stave them off, or the ability to hit the price points Apple can, or their sheer distribution power, or their sheer brand power, or anything.

Free cookies. Not nut-and-raisin filled wedding cakes. Which one is your kid going to reach for?

<comment><USER35> None of that is going to happen.

Apple is horrific at the gaming business, and that isn't going to change any time soon. Why? Because it's not a priority, and isn't going to be any time soon.

The substantial infrastructure pieces that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have built up in gaming - Apple has none of that, and it isn't going to magically appear. Apple would have to make gaming a top priority, and they will never do that.

<comment><USER34> How are they horrific at the gaming business when they're moving billions of games a year? And what infrastructure pieces are they missing?

GPU-rich devices installed and networked, check. Friends lists, check. Local multiplayer, check. Networked multiplayer, check. Distribution, check. Billing, check. In-app billing, check. DRM, check. Ad story, check. Developer program, check.

All they need is a controller if they want the living room.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why can't you write software tomorrow and have it available to xBox customers the next day? Why can't that other malware author have his Trojan ready to install on millions of xBoxes?

If you are going to sell to console users you have to accept that the platform will live or die based on how easy it is for consumers to use, and how safe they feel using it. The platform will need developers, but it doesn't have to cater to their every whim to survive.

Developers are only important as far as providing reliable and trustworthy applications is concerned. The gatekeeper of the market needs to ensure that software sold through their market doesn't hurt their customers.

Believing that making life easy for all developers (altruistic and malicious alike) is The One True Way to platform popularity is placing far to much emphasis on the small group of people responsible for supply, and nowhere near enough emphasis on the customers.

Follow the money, take care of the people supplying it. If some developers get upset along the way because the world doesn't work the way they want, just shrug and carry on.

I would have no trust for a market that would let me publish the software I write. I write crap :(

<comment><USER13> ha! i guess i write mostly crap software, too :) i really wasn't trying to imply that you should simply open up the market to self-publishing with no restrictions or oversight. that would screw the customers and therefore the brand very quickly. we did this poorly at microsoft with windows in the early days, and they are still doing it. it's tragic how easily malware still spreads on windows. it's amazing to me that android has so much malware, that google didn't think through security and sandboxing well enough. or revocations, etc. if i were to make a recommendation for xBox development, it would be to build a developer program where I could develop on my console and a few other (100?) consoles (so i could test), akin to how we can do iOS development, and apps would have to be submitted to a store and approved with a little less weird oversight than Apple uses, but quite a bit more oversight than Google or Microsoft uses, to make sure they aren't doing something evil or stupid or aren't malware. it's not so much a belief that making life easier for developers is the most important thing as it is the belief that a free market will allow customers to get great apps and will prevent artificial barriers in distribution and promotion from blocking innovation. customers will spend money where there is innovation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> For the love of all that is holy, please make the font darker.

<comment><USER13> (sorry that is a lame font, let me find the knob on that gizmo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Having recently fired it up again the xbox experience (outside of xbla) remains decidedly old school:

\- You still need the correct dvd inserted to play.

\- You can't turn the xbox off and expect it to save your progress.

\- Some games are tightly integrated with xbox live, good luck not paying for it.

\- It takes forever between the xbox boot time, initial game load time, copyright notices, in game menus, and save game load time to actually _start_ enjoying a game.

\- Installing games to the hard drive for a slight load time bump is very, very slow.

Since picking one up I've been really spoiled by the ipad mini. Just pick it up and play, don't sweat the details.

</comment><comment><USER39> I hate the Xbox 360 because they make it so hard to stream video to it. What the hell, Microsoft? The PS3 is a great DLNA renderer right out of the box.

</comment><comment><USER40> To add to OP's usability gripes, as a new Xbox owner (bought it over Christmas) with a grand total of 4 bundled games and a Kinect:

Kinect menu interaction needs to be improved. Kinect Adventures has it right for its age group, showing a full mirror image of the user on its menus, but Kinect Sports is a mess of deeply nested menus, which my 4 year old, who has been able to navigate an iPad since age 2, can't get right yet. Dance Central uses an un-intuitive swipe from right-to-left, that took a while for me to figure out. I suppose controllerless UX is still in its infancy, but still...

Then we get to the sign in system: the sign-in, sign-out is very confusing, and in Kinect Sports, almost useless - I never know who the second player is going to be. I also have a very weak mental model of how Kinect ID facial recognition works -at what point are you signed into a game?

I still don't really understand XBox Live vs XBox Live Gold. Why should I subscribe for utility apps I already have, or to use a clunky web browser?

Oh yes, and no NTFS support, on a Microsoft platform.

<comment><USER41> Ern I believe we purchased the same xbox package deal for christmas. My pet peeve WRT kinect is the agony I feel when I have to wave like a lunatic 25 times for 2-3 minutes to navigate a simple menu of songs when there's a perfectly good hand controller that could have done what I want in seconds.

One undiscussed economic effect is free trial/demo games and their impact on the market. Before I tried the demos with the kids, I'm planning on getting kinectimals and not getting minecraft... after the demos its intensely the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> After letting the article percolate for a bit. Just think about what the industry will look like in 10 years.

\- internet game distribution is going to change content delivery just like it changed VHF/DVD rental stores. The game stores will be gone, walmart will not display/sell them.

\- those who can provide a pipeline like netflix for games are going to destroy the current establishment. It will likely be worse than what netflix did, simply because the development of games is easy compared it TV/Movies.

\- the idea of xbox, playstation, wii might be gone. There might be a generic console with an online pipeline connected to it. Or maybe you will have a xbox, playstation, wii portal that will connect you to the pipeline just like what netflix does for movies?

Maybe I'm just talking out my ass but it looks like things are going to massively change.

<comment><USER13> The dawning horror for the console vendors is that the change is already happening around them and on every iPhone, iPad, Samsung, Android, etc device. These already have digital-only distribution. These already have very high- quality GPU's that push almost as many triangles as an xBox 360 or PS3, and are on a faster product-iteration-cycle. Some of these - iPad3 and Samsung Galaxy Tab's - already have higher-resolution screens than your 60" HDTV and many people are using them more hours per day and spending more dollars per device than they ever did on consoles. Yikes, if I were still in the console biz, I would push like hell to move a little faster than updating hardware every 7-8 years and doing poorly with software.

<comment><USER42> _The dawning horror for the console vendors is that the change is already happening around them and on every iPhone, iPad, Samsung, Android, etc device. These already have digital-only distribution. These already have very high- quality GPU's that push almost as many triangles as an xBox 360 or PS3, and are on a faster product-iteration-cycle. Some of these - iPad3 and Samsung Galaxy Tab's - already have higher-resolution screens than your 60" HDTV and many people are using them more hours per day_

You could argue a very similar point by replacing mobile devices with PC in your argument. But I console vendors don't look in horror in the PC market.

You are also missing a fairly big aspect of a game console, the games themselves.

 _many people are using them more hours per day and spending more dollars per device than they ever did on consoles_

Do you have a reference for this? Sounds interesting, but I haven't seen the comparison before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Game consoles are irrelevant from point of view of gaining/retaining big chunk of consumer market. There is a reason why Apple avoided this market (instead of focussing on music, then phone and of course tablet), while Microsoft was busy competing with Sonys and Ninentendos in early formative years of Xbox. In less than five years, this whole game console thing will be a feature in TV/tablet etc.

</comment><comment><USER44> _I have heard people still there arguing that the transition of the brand from hardcore gamers to casual users and tv-uses was an intentional and crafted success. It was not. It was an accident_

Oh common man, YES it was intentional. MS worked its ass off on transitioning to casual users. Changing the ENTIRE UI, the addition of Avatars (MS's version of Nintendo's Miis), the advertising and marketing.

<comment><USER13> i'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. if you are: heh, good one. if you're not: there's nothing wrong with putting some of your wood behind encouraging casual gaming and expanding your market, but putting ALL of your wood behind it? what else did they get accomplished in this time period? not enough other things if you take a look at how many people and how much money was being spent on R&D in that division.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This article is spot on. Why are indie developers not racing to develop apps for Xbox? Xbox should treat all apps, games, music, radio stations as equal, be they from indie developers, microsoft or from big name publishers. Provide a seamless tile space navigable via touchscreen.

Oh, no wait, Apple is doing this already, and when it comes to the TV, we'll stop wishing Xbox could do it.

</comment><comment><USER46> I've also been yelling this to my friends for some time. I actually can't figure out why Apple hasn't yet released an Apple TV with a more powerful graphics and some active cooling, plus a controller.

Allow iOS games and you have a serious, serious competition crushing game platform with a TON of existing games and content. Instantly.

<comment><USER47> No storage. Where is the AppleTV supposed to keep the gigabytes needed to run some of these titles? Is it going to stream off the cloud every time you run it?

<comment><USER13> yes, it would have to be a new Apple-TV with at least some more local storage. the current models have 8GB, I think. tweaking that up to 128GB or 256GB would open up a lot of possibilities without making a $199 price-point impossible. but hey, what do i know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> It seems obvious to me that the next Xbox will support small developers via some form of the Windows App Store. No point having a unified App Store if that wasn't to be the case. I feel there's a strong chance that many existing apps will Just Work on the next Xbox.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think it's interesting that to note that the article stated a 60% YOY decline even though their stock price hasn't reflected this. For the past three years the stock has stayed relatively within the same levels. But nonetheless a very interesting post.

</comment><comment><USER50> Mark my words in 5 years time it will be Valve and Apple in the living room. Sony, MS, and yes, for real this time, Nintendo are done. The wave has crested and basically Samsung and Google are the only other companies who are trying to ride it.

</comment><comment><USER45> Does Steve Ballmer ever read articles like this?

</comment><comment><USER51> Apple isn't making much money at all with the 30% cut of app sales. Their margins are huge on the iDevices. Since XBox is sold near cost, the move to 99c games and apps will just increase the costs needed to approve games while providing little profit or benefit to MS. Increasing the cost of hardware is another option but that's not easy either. Staying at the niche of high end games and including lots of media content is probably the better option.

<comment><USER52> > the move to 99c games and apps

Steam has plenty of games in the 5, 10 and 20 $ price range.</comment></comment>


Show HN: One stop platform to grow your career - <AUTHOR> https://www.theacoto.com/ <comment><USER2> I have a strong revulsion towards platforms that attempt to extract money from job seekers. It always feels just so unsavoury, so scammy.

Most employers would never dream of charging candidates to apply for jobs (it's downright illegal in many places).

Job boards don't charge candidates. The employers pay instead.

Sites like this seem... close to crossing that line.

> No more hassle in contacting unknown people asking for advice or referral. > Ask them directly whenever you need them.

To me, this is a bad dynamic. Paying to get access to people who might be able to offer advice.. sure, that's OK if it's done well.

But paying to get access to people who might refer me to the company for a job - I would question what any upstanding company would think if they knew that their employees were taking part in something like that.

My advice for Acoto would be to stay the heck away from any "pay for referral" business.

<comment><AUTHOR> First, of all let me clear few things regarding what you said about us. You could have understood it more correctly by asking but you decided to judge it. Nevermind let me clear those things as follows:

1\. First of all, it is not a job portal and we are not asking money to provide jobs to people.

2\. All the content made by professionals is free of cost.

3\. Now let us come to the referral part where you misunderstood us as to what we meant to say. We never said you will be paying to get referrals from experts. The user is paying only for two things on our platform and that is: One on one consultation or interview preparation and rest everything is free. Now a user has a chance to get a referral from two places and that is if during interview preparation an expert feels he is up to the mark or if the user has score good amount of points on our platform we might refer him to our partner companies.

Should have at least checked the prototype gif before commenting what you interpreted.

Do let me know how can I change the text so that no one else misunderstands this again.

Have a good day!

<comment><USER3> If your site was misunderstood, you should take that as valid feedback that you did not communicate your product effectively. Clarifying it for us is a great response, but acting like someone was not justified in critiquing it in the first place is simply a false expectation on your part. If you post on HN, you will get critique.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it. No issues!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To copy & paste a previous comment I made about the concept of _" constrained supply"_: When discussing "platform economics", economists often like to identify the "constrained supply" because that dictates where to prioritize efforts. In Uber, the constrained supply is _the drivers_ , not the passengers. In dating apps, the constrained supply is _women_ , not men. In a Q&A website, the constrained supply is _the expert answerers_ and not the question askers. (This matches our intuition that generating new questions is "easy" and a larger population can ask them but answering questions is "hard" and therefore it's a smaller population that can do it.)

For Acoto, the constrained supply is the "expert mentor". So it's logical to want to know about the benefits for the mentors... but when I try click on the link to in the landing page:

 _> Want to register as an expert? There are numerous benefits of partnering with us. Click here"_

It's just a sign up page asking for mobile phone and email address. No benefits specified. Being opaque about this is not a good look.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Thanks for asking. As we are in early-stage we are reaching out to experts directly and we are not expecting them to come to us directly through our website. Using this we do have many professionals from top firms.

As we continue further we will change the website and list down the benefits mentor will get in our platform. We added that link just to make sure if by any luck a mentor lands on our page he/she can contact us. It is mainly for users.

Do let me know what you think now :)

<comment><USER4> _>. Using this we do have many professionals from top firms. [...] if by any luck a mentor lands on our page he/she can contact us. It is mainly for users._

That's fine if Acoto's main web landing page is tailored for the job seeker audience but it's still important for the candidates to know what the (financial) _incentives_ are for the mentors.

Being secretive instead of transparent about _how you plan to attract and reward mentors_ and how you _make money_ is a negative signal to users to not trust the website. You can state the mentors' benefits in a blog post and/or a deep link sub-page on your website. Users will want to know _" what's in it for the mentors?"_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure I would keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback. Apart from that how do you feel about our idea and also about the English text as other comments are mentioning that the text looks fishy or a type of scam?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Pages Your Friends Like - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/pages-liked <comment><USER2> I see "This page isn't available"

<comment><USER3> It's just a search for 'pages liked by my friends'.

<comment><USER2> I don't use FB (and wouldn't stay logged in if I did).

<comment><USER3> Okay, that explains why a page on Facebook that requires a Facebook account didn't work for you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Imagining an America Without Sports - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/imagining-america-without-sports-98627 <comment><USER2> Noam Chomsky has an interesting section about sports in _Understanding Power_ – he essentially asks: "what would society be like if all the attention given to sports was put towards politics?"

 _When I 'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief... _

[http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know- so-m...](http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-much- about-sports-so-little-about-world-affairs)

<comment><USER3> I've always enjoyed this quote, but I disagree that there is much in the way of serious "analysis" happening when ESPN talking heads are arguing about football game outcomes.

This Onion classic has always nicely summarized the seriousness of these sorts of conversations for me: [http://www.theonion.com/articles/you-will-suffer- humiliation...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/you-will-suffer-humiliation- when-the-sports-team-f,10804/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        Last week, on the first day of the fall term, he asked the students in his
        Cultural Politics of Sport class for their thoughts.

        "The students said they would see an America without sport as a world
        that is deficient. Almost none of them said something good about it,"
        King says, also noting that in a class of 50 students, only one didn't
        have an active relationship with sport—watching or playing—in the
        last week.

Students in a "Cultural Politics of Sport" class are hardly unbiased when it comes to sports. It's unsurprising that they all watch or participate in sports and feel that they'd be deficient without them. I'm sure I could round up 50 peopke that hate sports and want them banned, but they wouldn't be representative of the general population either.

</comment><comment><USER5> _It's very telling that there have been very few proposals from feminists or kinesiologists or sports marketers to come up with a way that men and women can compete together, or men and women can compete on a different kind of a playing field._

This has puzzled me for decades. There are some sports in which men and women compete together at the highest levels (e.g. horse racing), and there are some efforts at other mixed competition at lower levels. However, these seem to be minimized by everyone, and not even referenced as a benefit of which we'd like to see more. I can't think of any arena besides sports of which that could be said, although perhaps it might almost be said of the military. Even the military is criticized _to an extent_ for the opportunities it denies women. Yet, sports get a complete pass.

It is true that many sports would have to change in fundamental ways to allow women and men to compete together at the highest level. That isn't really an excuse, though, is it?

<comment><USER6> Seriously asking, what opportunities are denied to women in sports?

<comment><USER5> Is there a single woman on any of the teams in any of the leagues listed at the following?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_lea...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue)

<comment><USER7> It's a list sorted by _revenue_. Female sports don't make a fraction of what male sports do. Female's in general are not as interested in sports as makes are. Whether cultural or not is debatable, though I imagine at least a large part of it is. However, a list like this is not proof that women are not allowed the _opportunity_ , only that, when given the opportunity, they have failed to capitalize on it. Look at the WNBA.

I of course admit that the argument can get circular. Current culture -> unsuccessful female sports -> reinforcement of current culture.

EDIT: Care to comment? What about this is factually incorrect?

<comment><USER8> They get paid less; they don't get to set their pay; but it's somehow _their_ fault that they get paid less?

<comment><USER6> It's the same for men in fashion. It is just a matter of market value. We are talking about opportunities here, not how valued they are.

<comment><USER5> You can talk about whatever you want. When I kicked off the thread, it was to point out how the _structure_ of sports in our society puts women in a ghetto, in ways that e.g. the admittedly imperfect tech industry doesn't even _approach_ , and yet sports get a _complete_ pass on this. Even many outspoken feminists settle for Title-IX-style resource-grubbing rather than challenging the basic structure of the ghetto.

 _Any_ argument you might make defending the sports status quo would have applied to any sexist cultural institution ever. Case in point: every single sentence in the comment to which this is a response.

<comment><USER6> I guess we are talking about very different things. I am talking about opportunities in sports, not about the state of the sports industry.

The men's basketball medal counts just the same as the women's in the Olympics. They both had to train and practice the same to get to that point. That's all I care when I think about opportunities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why do we care about a hypothetical that is about as likely as an alien invasion?

The more interesting questions are the sociological ones which ask why anyone cares so much about sports in the first place. I don't care about sports in the slightest, but I can keep myself entertained indefinitely with an internet connection or an IDE. I don't think that's true for most people.

Sports seem to me to be a reflection of the modern human's boredom and need to fill all of those hours with something exciting, dynamic, and community- oriented.

<comment><USER9> There's nothing modern about sports. We are much LESS* excited about them - than the Romans were. We also don't pay our sports stars anywhere near as much __.

_[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VPENAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56&dq...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VPENAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=history+of+the+decline+and+fall+of+the+roman+empire+greens+massacred+blue&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mSDEVKj2GoTMmwWr84GoDQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20decline%20and%20fall%20of%20the%20roman%20empire%20greens%20massacred%20blue&f=false) _*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7942...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7942699/Wealth- of-todays-sports-stars-is-no-match-for-the-fortunes-of-Romes-chariot- racers.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh, Pacific Standard... good job, you actually managed to get me to read more than half of it before getting to "white privilege".

<comment><USER10> > "white privilege"

It's frustrating that it's mentioned so often, but perhaps that's because it's so frequently present in our society. That's what frustrates me. I look forward to a day when it's so rare that it barely needs to be mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sport, like culture, is not about any one individual, or any one kind of participant: the "observation" that physically powerful male individuals dominate sport is a) a fallacy, because it's b) a snapshot of a microcosm mis- framed, because of a certain bias. Sport and culture ought to be a perfect balance of the individual and the group, so if the society around it is out of balance, sport will reflect that: not "perpetuate" that. Feels like people are pointing at a mirror here and chastising it, not taking note from it and changing something on this side of the reflection directly.

If anything, "America" needs to consolidate its sport habit and just not dissipate so much, because by doing that it gets diluted and has a hard time competing with the rest of the world. Other subcultures "master" a sport with more depth across the group, versus being so spread out across so many specializations and being an inch deep and a mile wide.

And by compete I don't mean "be better than" or "best" them, I mean "adhere" to the well balanced state of play and acuity mixed together, along with the deep immersion in one of the best schools teaching "human nature" in a way one can actually learn from and do something with, versus behavioral sciences which are theoretical or abstract and usually lead to political or pharmaceutical work. Sport and "street smarts" go together, but on a total scale -- one can "grok" an entire nation by assessing its sport programs, provided the population is well enough represented in that program... complete with laying bare the governmental and artistic, even religious underpinnings of a subculture of this planet/lifeform we all find ourselves being.

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice to see a country without such institutional tribalism. I still can't get over how much of my college fees went to athletics.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think sports are great, good exercise, good fun, team work and strong friendships and a healthy night out each week.

Watching strangers play sports is insane. Without some personal vested interest, where is the point? The answer is sports betting: when you add betting into the mix it does indeed make sense again.

<comment><USER13> I don't know. I personally see it as being more like going to watch a pianist perform. Sure, I can play a piano piece and it will be good fun and a fulfilling experience. But a professional pianist who has devoted their life to the art can do things that I am not capable of, and it's wonderful to watch. Likewise, sometimes it's just amazing to watch professional athletes showcase what the human body is capable of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It may be popular to be all super intellectual and look down upon sports as an activity of brute simpletons, but how much of the development culture uses sports terminology and idioms?

"team" "winning" "hit a home run" "move the goalpost" "sprint" "scrum"

<comment><USER15> How much of business culture uses military terminology or idioms? If sports were eliminated I'm sure we would find something to fill the gap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is funny. A bunch of nerds upset that millions of people like something they don't understand.

<comment><USER17> I don't see anyone being upset. It's a hypothetical that asks a few people what would be the impact if sports didn't exist or play a major role in American culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't hate all sports, just the one that doesn't make much sense, like baseball.

</comment><comment><USER19> This seems like on overreaction. It's only in the US that sports are so laughably and harmfully bundled with education.

<comment><USER12> That's false. In Canada, I had to pay for my university sport teams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> No _pro_ sport would be fine.

<comment><USER5> I submit that college sports are far more damaging to society than pro sports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> i'm for it</comment>


Tesla Edges Out Toyota as California's Top Auto Employer - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-16/tesla-edges-out-toyota-as-california-s-top-auto-employer.html <comment><USER2> Url changed from [http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/26/tesla-motors-now- califor...](http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/26/tesla-motors-now-californias- biggest-auto-industry-employer/), which points to [http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092197_largest-auto- ind...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092197_largest-auto-industry- employer-in-california-electric-car-maker-tesla-motors), which points to this.

Submitters: please do your due diligence and track down the original source.

<comment><USER3> Voters: please do your due diligence and don't upvote content farms

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Other interesting numbers:

_

Revenue per employee:

Tesla: $413k

Toyota: $932k

Ford: $792k

Daimler: $581k

_

Gross Margins:

Tesla: 25%

Toyota: 19%

Ford: 12%

Daimler: 22%

_

Having the lowest rev/employee, yet the highest profitability, bodes well given Tesla's high growth rate.

(numbers courtesy Google Finance)

<comment><USER5> > _yet the highest profitability, bodes well given Tesla 's high growth rate._

Comparing these companies like this is a bit odd. Tesla produced 25,000 cars last year. The others produce millions. Tesla produces a single, "luxury" model, which by definition has good margins. That's tougher to maintain at scale, with lower end, higher competition car classes.

I'm actually surprised Daimler's margins are as high they are. Ford has a lot of legacy costs.

<comment><USER6> Additionally, in 2013 about 12% of Tesla's revenue came from emissions credits rather than selling cars. That's going to do funny things to marginal profit numbers per car.

<comment><USER7> The 25% number for Tesla is from the most recent quarter, where they received no revenue from selling emissions credits.

Their profitability has actually increased quarter to quarter even as their emission credit sales have dropped to zero.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love what Tesla does in general, but ... is this really news?

BMW is Bavaria's biggest auto-industry employer. Microsoft is Redmond's biggest IT employer. It's because the headquarters are located in that particular area.

Edit: now that the title/URL has changed it seems slightly more relevant.

<comment><USER4> It is news because there used to be a large auto industry in California. Ford operated a huge factory in Milpitas, for example. The real news is that to some extent, manufacturing is coming back to California.

<comment><USER9> Fact is manufacturing all moved out of California. Tesla is still a boutique small little tech outfit. Who knows if they'd be manufacturing in California when they're the size of Ford/GM/Toyota

<comment><USER10> A bit of background on this: until 2010, Toyota and GM jointly operated a factory in Fremont, CA, called NUMMI[1]. When the plant closed, Tesla bought part of it, which is now where the Model S is produced.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI)

<comment><USER9> Yes. I know NUMMI. We did a field trip there once. It's an old GM factory from the 60s that transitioned to Toyota co-ownership because they needed to built cars in the US to get around import taxes and GM needed to get their employees, who (according to your link were) At the time of its closure "considered the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States". Still doesn't change the fact that when Tesla is the size of GM/Toyota etc, running tens of plants, I doubt any (besides maybe old NUMMI) will be based out of California.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes, but Toyota just relocated their headquarters to Plano, TX, so it's hardly an "edges out" \-- Toyota left.

<comment><USER12> Toyota announced their intention to relocate. They haven't actually moved yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This says more about the Auto Industry than it does about Tesla, a luxury brand.

</comment><comment><USER14> Couldn't they move to almost any state and the same claim would be made? I don't think this is news.</comment>


Music Hack Day - 24 hours to build music-related hacks. - <AUTHOR> http://musichackday.org/info/

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a list of hacks here: <http://musichackday.org/info/Hacks>

I particularly liked the Music Zeitgeist which analyzed the lyrics of popular songs from the 1950s to the present day: <http://zeitgeist.cristianobetta.com/charts/decade/1980>

The "best hack" prize went to Music Bore - an automated DJing system: <http://musichackday.org/index.php?page=MusicBore>

<comment><USER2> That Zeitgeist project is interesting. It shows (of course only for this subset) how negative the popular mainstream music has become. It's mostly no more "hooray, I am in love, holidays, just happy, let's party" but "she/he broke my heart, the world is so terrible, my rehab #3" etc. I can't stand all this negative-emo stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would've been nice to hear of this a few days earlier. ;)</comment>


KNN Classification Using Neighbourhood Components Analysis - <AUTHOR> https://kevinzakka.github.io/2020/02/10/nca/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, author here. Thought I'd share this post on a classic algorithm called Neighbourhood Components Analysis. I almost never see it mentioned so this post is an attempt to rectify it. It's accompanied by a PyTorch implementation with a few modifications. There's also a neat discussion about its relationship to the contrastive loss function. Cheers</comment>


Ask YC: Do you register more than just the .com for your site? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> If you're Guy Kawasaki you spend over $1000 (just for the first year) registering _55_ domain names for a single website:

<http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/06/by_the_numbers_.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to do this (back in 1998-2002 or so), but it doesn't really make sense to do so, unless you intend to actually use them differently, or if your domain somehow makes more sense with ".net" after it or something.

</comment><comment><USER4> I register all available major TLDs (com/net/org/cn/jp/kr/etc) and I register them for 10 years (because of SEO).

<comment><USER2> _(because of SEO)_

How does registering for 10 years help with SEO?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also curious how many years people register their domains for.</comment>