Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10986 <comment><USER2> One time I was trimming a huge set of overgrown bamboo/weeds in my yard, and this bird yapping slowly drifted into my consciousness like, pay attention, alert! I looked up and this tiny bird was darting around the power line and other branches above me, directly facing at me and chirp chirp chirping in a distressed seeming way.

I looked on for maybe 20-30 seconds a bit confused then went back to the trimming, but barely a moment later I saw what I realized was a nest filled with eggs wedged in among the top branches I was just about to cut down. I gave up on the trimming and went inside to ponder bird intelligence & cross- species communication.

<comment><USER3> I felt my brain lighten significantly.

I'm not surprised that animals can communicate "simple" signals like danger, fear, etc. But how would I love for them to be able to exchange finer and longer messages. That would be so fun to imagine we were deaf for thousands of years and also that would make lots of new things to experience. ps: cats and dogs

<comment><USER4> Paul Watzlawick in his "Pragmatics of Human Communications" explains that (at least so far) animals seem unable to meta-communicate (in the sense of communicating about communication).

If I remember correctly (it has been decades) he mentions as an example that cats are perfectly capable to communicate "I want food", using a combination of vocal and "gestures".

What they cannot do is communicate something like "Listen, I have used the _meow_ for _gimme food_ 9 times already, what are you? deaf? stupid? or just trying to punish me for when I threw up on the carpet?"

<comment><USER3> Quite possible, maybe that kind of meta level requires more gray matter.. That said the sentiment of exasperation (which triggers our "listen I did this and no result occured") is probably accessible to many life forms, except it's probably expressed as "body language" .. or a more violent behavior.

<comment><USER4> I suppose (but I am just a layman) that animals do not really have any sense of time.

They can express "I am hungry" or "I am extremely hungry" but they cannot express "I have told you I am hungry for the last 20 minutes" because they have no conceptual model for "things as they were 20 minutes ago".

This does not mean that they have no ability to learn (including learning to recognize humans) but for them I suppose it is just a bunch of "state" which classify me as "nice guy who feeds me" or even just "I know I can trust him not to be a menace" but they have no way to reminisce about when we met for the first time, etc.

("Future state" is probably even more inscrutable to them - they have strategies to cope with the present, some ingrained as instinct, some learned "by experience" but I sincerely doubt that they can contemplate something like "tomorrow I will try doing this").

<comment><USER3> Makes me wonder about the link between alleged prediction plane in humans, self perception, perception of others and communication

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It all evolves slowly but steadily.

Given an animal that can produce sounds, if sounds are meaningful enough it can be a big advantage. Given more animals that produce sounds, the ones that can transmit more information will survive.

It's weird to think that there's nothing between complex (human) and simple (sheep) when it was the result of a gradual evolution. Big jumps are rare.

<comment><USER6> >when it was the result of a gradual evolution //

What's the evidence showing it was gradual? Big jumps may be unusual statistically [what set are you sampling? 'planets with apex predators that are bipedal mammalians' looks like too small of a sample to make statistical inferences??] but then so is genesis and it seems that happened.

<comment><USER7> punctuated evolution stipulates this very thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've recently binge watched Attenborough's documentaries and I came across this one

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

These birds spending a ridiculous amount of time building intricate monuments. They are picky about colors and styles and one specie builds very specific structures.

Birds just have so much free time.

<comment><USER3> When they're not avoiding cats that is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This book [1] is fascinating, and there's not much out there with the same info that isn't buy the same author or his circle of friends. There are a couple youtube videos.

Humans (who's livelyhood depend on it) can understand what birds are talking about. There's a story in there about an african safari tour guide driving along slowly with tourists and when he hears a certain sound, pulls over and shows his customers a rad snake or a lion.

One of the themes of the book is (re)learning how to do this, and how it can be therapeutic(?) and is a great form of _meditation_

The book's site had bird call recordings (probably not the same bird as the OP!) for those that are looking for them.

[1] [https://www.hmhbooks.com/whattherobinknows/](https://www.hmhbooks.com/whattherobinknows/)

<comment><USER10> I've recently rediscovered how intelligible birds can be. I can't claim to understand what they're talking about, but I suggest to anyone with some free time to go outside at a time when the birds are active and to spend minutes focusing on their different calls. You really will begin to recognize the sounds and link them to behavior or events.

<comment><USER11> Devices can share data via sound. One approach is called Chirp.[0] So maybe birdsong encodes more information than we think.

0) [https://www.chirp.io/](https://www.chirp.io/)

<comment><USER12> Acoustically coupled modem.

<comment><USER11> Right. So maybe birdsong is modulated in ways that we haven't yet figured out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The blue jays around my yard make a particular toot when a human gets too close. It's reliable enough that I know someone is walking by the house whenever I hear it. (There is not a lot of foot traffic here.) They don't seem to make the same noise for dogs and cats. The squirrels are better dog and cat alarms.

I've pondered whether the toot might mean "human" or "oh shit" or something else. Supposing it is denotational like "human", I'm also very curious if different populations of blue jays use vocalizations differently in places with different threats. That would imply the sounds are taught and learned, which I'd say is a stronger indicator of language than, say, sounds that are instinctively understood but happen to be compositional.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how much tribes know and rely on this kind of signals in their lives; probably implicitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Listen to recordings here:

[https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/great- tits-s...](https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/great-tits-sing- syntax)

<comment><USER15> Nice!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It doesn't make any sense to "approach the caller" and _then_ scan for danger. The sounds could be understood non-compositionally and the actions worked out pragmatically. It's like saying that a monkey responds to "peel the banana, eat the banana" in the correct manner but not "eat the banana, peel the banana".

<comment><USER17> I'm not a linguist, but this seems like a wrong analysis to me. It seems to me you're imposing a specific word order paradigm where it may not be applicable.

Perhaps these birds "parse" compositions in order of most recently received (e.g. as something like a LIFO), or by some other rule that is nevertheless (compositionally) significant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The title immediately made me think of To Dissect a Mockingbird:

[http://dkeenan.com/Lambda/](http://dkeenan.com/Lambda/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I swear I have a blackbird that does the Star Wars theme song pretty regularly. I was floored the first time I heard it!

I also know the (surviving) magpies also have a name for me that is probably not polite. That's the price to pay to have any /other/ birds in my garden...

</comment><comment><USER20> For those like me who didn't know, there's a pdf, under "tools" menu at top. Link: [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10986.pdf](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10986.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER21> Received: 20 August 2015

Accepted: 05 February 2016

Published online: 08 March 2016

Views: 19,562

Citations: 13

</comment><comment><USER22> Great place for a voice recognition program that can add to our knowledge about the environment

</comment><comment><USER15> I wish there were links for sound files in the article...

<comment><USER23> [https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/great- tits-s...](https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/great-tits-sing- syntax)

<comment><USER15> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Someone should send this to Noam Chomsky.

<comment><USER15> Yes. A parrot could tell him: "You won't believe what a Japanese great tit just told me..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Mod: Please add the year (2016)

</comment><comment><USER26> "call treatments played to Japanese great tits."

umm

</comment><comment><USER27> Bullshit. That requires brain capacities birds does not possess. These calls are random variations learned from experience (by mimicking other birds).

With enough of machine learning I could publish that trees have a sign- language.

<comment><USER28> You, my friend, need to do a little more comparative neurology research and keep up to date with findings in brain science.

<comment><USER27> I would stay with MIT linguists, if you would permit me.

No animal signal system has a _regular_ structure and no animal has a brain capacity for producing an arbitrary sequence of phonemes. Only mimicking capabilities.

Thank you.

<comment><USER29> > _No animal signal system has a regular structure and no animal has a brain > capacity for producing an arbitrary sequence of phonemes._

Are you absolutely, one hundred percent, positive about that?

No animal?

<comment><USER27> Read about how much time and resources has been spent on monkeys and dolphins and what the findings are. Hint: no regular structure. Emotional signals and stress calls only.

<comment><USER28> Here's prairie dog language: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Deliveroo Stopping Operations in Germany - <AUTHOR> So I got this email today and found no info in any news site about it:
Hi NAME
I am writing to inform you that, regrettably, from August 16 we will no longer be delivering in Germany. This was not an easy decision and one we have not taken lightly.
At Deliveroo we're on a mission to create the very best food delivery service in the world, and at the heart of this is offering a service that works brilliantly for our customers, riders and restaurants. Where we cannot do this to the level that we expect and you deserve, we won't operate. Therefore, Deliveroo's focus will now be on growing our operations in other markets around the world.
Thank you for ordering with Deliveroo - we have enjoyed being able to bring you amazing food from some of the many brilliant restaurants in Germany.
The service will be available as normal up until August 16.
If you have credit on your Deliveroo account we'll refund this amount to your bank account on August 19. Depending on your bank, this will take 5 - 10 business days to reach your account.
We want to thank you again for using Deliveroo, and we hope to see you again soon.
The Deliveroo Team
 UPDATE
News outlets picking it up now:
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/food-delivery-app-deliveroo-to-stop-serving-germany/2019/08/12/1d172c16-bcf5-11e9-a8b0-7ed8a0d5dc5d_story.html?noredirect=on
* https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/08/12/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-deliveroo.html
* https://federalnewsnetwork.com/world-news/2019/08/food-delivery-app-deliveroo-to-stop-serving-germany/
* https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-12/food-delivery-app-deliveroo-to-stop-serving-germany <comment><USER2> Updated TechCrunch article [https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/12/deliveroo-is- exiting-the-g...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/12/deliveroo-is-exiting-the- german-market/)</comment>


Facebook cuts off friend data from 'competing' startup Voxer - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/18/facebook-cuts-off-friend-data-from-competing-startup-voxer/

<comment><USER2> When a company feels its user is using its data for commercial purposes and has shown some threats to its business, the company would restrict the access to its APIs and/or services. Names that I can recall now are Apple, LinkedIn, FB, MS, and Google.

The irony is no matter how nice a company plans (or fakes) to be, business rationale usually triumphs all other things. Do no evil anyone? ;)

<comment><USER3> yeep. which is why you should never bet your business on the good will of another, because it runs out eventually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Facebook later told TechCrunch that it won't give access to data to any company that doesn't share much back". Is that documented anywhere? I never heard about usage restrictions based on sharing. This is going to get a of lot startups worried...

<comment><USER5> _This is going to get a of lot startups worried_

I find it really silly that a startup wouldn't be worried to begin with. Think about this for a second: building a network effect is _extremely_ hard. Extremely hard = lots of time = lots of money. All of the sudden, a company (like Facebook) is giving away access to their massive identity database away _FOR FREE_. Let me rephrase, they are giving away something they've spent massive amounts of money to create for free.

If someone can't compute that, then I feel no sympathy for your startup that goes tits up.

<comment><USER6> s/Facebook/Google/ and you have the contacts import debacle of a couple years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd say the over/under for a clone of Voxer from FB is 6 months. I'm taking the under

<comment><USER8> Try -16 days:

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832250/facebook- messenger-...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/3/3832250/facebook-messenger- voip-calling)</comment></comment>


A Fake Set of Amazon Web Services - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/christhomas/fakews <comment><AUTHOR> I always wondered why aws-localstack was built in such a complex way when it's already understood that Docker containers should be built with a single responsibility principle in mind.

Yet here they are with their hulking container, bash scripts, makefiles, etc, etc.

I thought if I tried, I could do better. So here is my first attempt. It successfully mimics S3, DynamoDB, SNS, SQS. Although I'm sure that it doesn't fully support everything. It might support everything that people need to in order to test their systems against it.

Obviously, I didn't write the individual software myself. But I'm packaging them in such a way that might be useful to other people. I hope that somebody can help or advise on how to improve it. Or extra services that I might need.</comment>


Let's get Salman Khan (khanacademy.org) on the TED stage - <AUTHOR> http://alexisohanian.com/lets-get-salman-khan-on-the-ted-stage

<comment><USER2> I think he's a good candidate for a MacArthur fellowship, too.

<comment><USER3> Give him the Nobel Peace Prize

<comment><USER3> I genuinely meant this.

Better wording might be "I think his work is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize", to avoid the impression of sarcasm ?

<comment><USER4> In what possible way could his work fit the guidelines for awarding the prize, as described in the will of Alfred Nobel?

<comment><USER5> This is exactly it. I have been trying to tell people that the Nobel Peace Prize is _not_ the "Awesome Person" prize. Nobel was very clear on what a person had to have been working on before receiving the prize.

<comment><USER6> In the words of Alfred Nobel: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". [1]

Apparently, for some strange reason, someone nominated Adolf Hitler, too. Now I learned at least something today.

[1] <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a noble effort, but Khan seems like the type of guy who likes to be left alone, contributing to the world as best he can. Spending time at TED would just slow him down.

<comment><USER8> He is a fantastic speaker - <http://vimeo.com/11731351> and interviewee - <http://mixergy.com/salman-khan-academy-interview/>

<comment><USER9> Thank you for the links, they're brilliant. Especially the first one, really gives you an insight into the man who's getting me (and thousands more around the world) through college. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I could have sworn he already did a TED Talk - I remember first learning of Khan Academy _from_ TED - but now there seems to be no trace of him on the TED site.

Am I crazy, or did he do a talk that was subsequently removed?

<comment><USER11> You may be thinking about GEL? [http://www.khanacademy.org/video/salman-khan- speaks-at-gel--...](http://www.khanacademy.org/video/salman-khan-speaks-at-gel --good-experience-live--conference?playlist=Khan%20Academy- Related%20Talks%20and%20Interviews)

<comment><USER10> Thanks - that is the video I saw. The format is so similar to TED, though, that I wonder if he'd have anything substantially different to say in a TED talk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Salman is a premier TED candidate as he is "doing it" and it will be interesting to hear what he is dreaming about for this space.

Stupendous choice Alexis.

</comment><comment><USER13> The font on that blog makes me want to gauge my eyes out.

<comment><USER14> Gauge your eyes out?

I think you mean gouge.

<comment><USER13> I do indeed, sorry - my fingers have a mind of their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would like to fill in the form to nominate him but I can't find his email address

<comment><USER16> <http://khanacademy.org/people.jsp>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> His contribution is impressive, but it has a long way to go.

Good online instruction presents very different challenges not found with traditional classroom teaching or "professor-as-focus" videos. It's an instructional medium unique to itself, and still finding its legs.

I completely disagree with course content that's been created using poor- quality audio and "visuals" (not video). "Good enough" is not only disrespectful to the student but completely unnecessary given the quality and cost of great content production tools available the past four years.

Higher-quality means more post production work, however, but it's worth it because "when it's done right, it will always be done right."

Four rules have emerged so far in this new medium: 1) The material must take center stage, not the presenter, 2) students prefer granularity of subject matter in short vignettes, 3) done well is always done well, promoting repeatable instructional excellence, 4) high-quality audio/visual production tools are a must.

A lot of us, not just Sal, employ these principals in our work. But overall, it needs to bake a little more before being presented at TED or before the MacArthur Foundation.

The educational paradigm is shifting, and indeed being disrupted, but not in the way most people think.

<comment><USER18> To me this sounds like much of the pedagogy I grew up with in the late 80's, which emphasized production values over clear presentation, or assumed that production values were an indicator of quality of presentation.

The underlying assumption then was that "modern students" needed to be "entertained" or somehow spoken to "in their own language" whatever that is. Your points, especially "high quality audio/visual production tools are a must", echoes that sentiment to me.

All in all that seems to me more disrespectful to students than letting the subject matter speak for itself, and assuming that young students are as capable as we are of seeing the magic in geometry, or calculus, if it is correctly and clearly explained.

Edited: Also, producing 1600 videos puts him rather apart from others in the field, even those producing awesome graphics.

<comment><USER17> This medium now allows for both: excellent production and clear presentation. If it's presented well the first time, it will always be presented well.

The problem with production in the 80's and 90's was time and cost. High cost and long production time guaranteed the problems you point out.

But the cost of high-quality production today is so low as to be non-existent. Production time is still a factor -- as it is in software development.

Sal chose quantity over visual quality and hit the long ball. But c'mon, a Blue Snowball USB microphone is only $99 and produces crystal-clear audio.</comment></comment></comment>


Private equity and hedge funds backing patent trolls - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/044.html?partner=yahoomag <comment><AUTHOR> Seems like an easy bet for a hedge fund to make... 10 million for a lawsuit and an expected value of a lot more than 10 million. I don't blame the hedge funds though, I blame the insane patent laws.

</comment><comment><USER2> Parasites joining other parasites... oh well.</comment>


What Makes Jio Different? - <AUTHOR> https://simplanations.substack.com/p/9-what-makes-jio-different <comment><USER2> Thanks for the great explanation of the evolution of telecom technologies.

However, I found the business case lacks substance. The author claims that an offline retail giant will have a higher chance of success when they try to go online because they own a telecom arm. There is no reasoning or justification provided.

</comment><comment><USER3> They are essentially the Tencent of India correct?</comment>


People Loved MoviePass Nearly to Death - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-16/with-vultures-circling-moviepass-still-believes-in-a-happy-ending <comment><USER2> The icing on the cake in this article is the following picture caption:

"Mitch Lowe, chief executive of MoviePass, in the company's office at a WeWork in Manhattan."

So the movie company selling dollar bills for half price is leasing their HQ from a real estate company that owns no physical asssets but has $5b in upcoming leasing liabilities as they proudly arbitrage 15 year triple net leases into 1 - 3 year terms for startups.

At some point the gas on the fire will stop and it may be awful cold for a while.

<comment><USER3> I'm with you on MoviePass, but I'm unconvinced there's any problem with WeWork's business model. Lacking any assets or output of their own hasn't stopped middlemen from making a mint since the invention of trade.

<comment><USER4> The problem isn't the lack of assets, it's being heavily dependent financially on other risky companies. This is part of what happened in the dot-com bust -- lots of media properties went under because their advertising portfolio depended heavily on splashy advertising buys from well-funded startups, so when the startups failed and the ads suddenly stopped coming, those publications' balance sheets rather suddenly went from boom to bankruptcy.

To apply to this case: WeWork's services are aimed very heavily at startups, small design/creative operations and solo operators, all of whom could easily be floating at the moment upon the same bubble. If that bubble were to burst, those customers would vanish and WeWork would be in a heap of trouble.

<comment><USER5> > _it 's being heavily dependent financially on other risky companies_

WeWork has a creative solution to this vulnerability:

"In mid-2017, the giant landlord Brookfield Property Partners L.P was in advanced talks to buy the Lord & Taylor department store building in New York City for about $700 million, when an unexpected buyer swooped in and sealed a deal... Behind the deal was WeWork Cos., which put together the $850 million purchase...

WeWork didn't put up the money. Instead, it came from a new real estate fund co-managed by WeWork and one of its early shareholders, private-equity firm Rhône Group. The fund aims to raise tens of billions of dollars from investors in coming years to buy buildings where WeWork would become a tenant, people familiar with the fund said."

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-the-workspace-giant- want...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-the-workspace-giant-wants-to-be- its-own-landlord-using-other-investors-money-1526212801)

<comment><USER6> Maybe this is a stupid question, but, why is that a solution? Presumably the fund's investors want to see the sort of returns they expect from investing in Manhattan real estate. Is WeWork / this fund prepared to turn into a Brookfield-like company if the market for short term leases to startups dries up? And can they produce the same percentage of profit on $850M that Brookfield would have produced from paying $700M for the same property?

<comment><USER7> When tenants go out of business you can rent your property to other tenants. If we work goes out of business, how will it hurt the owner of the property any more than it would hurt anyone else who would be the owner of the property?

Unless of course they are giving a deep discount to Wework, which would be concerning.

<comment><USER6> Because the new owner of the property paid $850M for something that an experienced non-WeWork-affiliated landlord was ready to pay $700M for.

So, either the new owner is correct that WeWork's model is sustainable will make them 21% more profit, or they'll be hurt once they try to turn into e.g. Brookfield (or sell their property to e.g. Brookfield for a loss).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The theater chains await MoviePass' demise so they can announce their revolutionary chain-specific Pass for just $30 _/ month.

_ \- Conditions apply. No more than one movie per calendar week. Surcharges applicable for IMAX, 3D, and other premium features. Opening nights and weekends excluded. Blackout dates apply.

<comment><USER9> Would you consider $30/month to be a lot?

I pay €23.40/month (about $27.50/month) to be able to watch as many movies as I want in all German UCI cinemas. There are no limitations (I think our record is watching five movies in a day) or surcharges. (I think some select newly renovated or built cinemas do take surcharges for certain special seats or cinemas, but I'm not affected in the city I am in.)

That's definitely worth it for me, considering that I watch a couple hundred movies per year in the cinema. (You need about 3-4 movies/month to easily get above the €23.40.)

The other big chain chain cinema in the city (cinemaxx) offers a similar flat rate (but at a higher price) and this flat rate hasn't been in place forever, but for at least a couple of years. I would have assumed that you can get something similar everywhere and if not, why not?

<comment><USER10> I had the same at Cineworld in Ireland a few years ago. I think at the time I was paying ~€15/mo and a single ticket was €8.

At the time there were a few restrictions, you needed to pay more for 3D or IMAX, and you had to collect tickets from the counter. This last part meant going at peak times was discouraged (as you needed to queue and weren't guaranteed a ticket), so I usually went at off peak times when the cinema was usually empty.

<comment><USER11> This certainly seems like a way for cinemas to drive up utilization.

If my local Cinema (incidentally Cineworld) offered it I would seriously consider going there more often.

<comment><USER12> Is this not the same thing?

[https://www.cineworld.co.uk/unlimited](https://www.cineworld.co.uk/unlimited)

For reference, at my local Cineworld in Greenwich, 17.90 is less than the cost of two adult tickets.

<comment><USER11> Mine's in Germany, I assumed it's part of the UK chain because of the name. After some searching I'm still not sure whether it is. If it is it seems like the management has pretty much abandoned it - Here's the website (pricing): [https://cineworld-luenen.de/kino/tree/node4217/city280](https://cineworld- luenen.de/kino/tree/node4217/city280)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They boast of the CEO growing customers from 20,000 to 2M by cutting prices. But by cutting prices, they lose more money per customer. So by growing customers they grow losses.

One thing you see time and time again is some version of the old joke: "We lose money on every unit, but we make it up on volume!"

<comment><USER14> Yeah and then you can simply change the movie pass feature and add some other type of subscription model and sell stuff to your user base.

It's a smart way to grow your app, but they need to be smart to sell something good to monetize their usr base wel now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just can't stop wondering: had they been VC-backed rather than a public company, would they manage to raise >10x their current market cap? There are plenty of other examples like Uber and WeWork that get plenty of funding based on speculation of finding a better business model in the future; what stopped MoviePass from riding that wave?

</comment><comment><USER16> There's probably a profitable business model in selling a cheap movie pass that lets you watch all you want Monday through Wednesday. Movie theaters would go for a bulk buy for their dead days.

</comment><comment><USER17> Pricing can turn a good business into a dumb idea that doesn't really deserve to exist. MoviePass in one direction, Juicero in the other.

<comment><USER18> Bird and Lime, too.

<comment><USER19> What's dumb about their pricing? As far as I know the $1 plus 15c/min is profitable for them and yet not discouraging users?

<comment><USER20> I still think private ownership for something that is 7.5 - 12kgs makes more sense. Always with you, charge yourself, not cost prohibitive. The market for transient ownership and use still doesn't make that much sense to me, but I guess it works.

<comment><USER19> I actually bought one of the scooters bird used because they're cheap and they don't usually have one right by my house... but I still rent them semi- frequently. They come in handy whenever you need to do a one-way trip, or spontaneously realize one would be useful and didn't bring yours, and it's kind of nice to not have to worry about maintenance/charging.

<comment><USER20> I see a place for both, like you say, but I think this might make it harder to be financially viable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The CEO is betting that people will sign up and forget they have a subscription.

No business survives when its runs on their customers stupidity.

<comment><USER22> That's how Planet Fitness sells gym memberships for $15/month. People are not good at predicting their future behavior. I don't like their gyms, but the business model can make money.

If movie pass owned the product they were selling they might have been able to pull it off.

<comment><USER23> Nope, gym memberships work the way they do, because people feel like they should have a gym membership and cancelling one is considered a failure, plus actually going to a gym is not fun. I've had a membership for over a year and I haven't been once, but I would feel bad about cancelling. There is no expectation on anyone to own a cinema pass, and there is no reason not to use it if you have it. Right now the cinema is so expensive that I only go to see the biggest blockbusters - I might be interested in the smaller films but I can't justify paying to see a film I might not like. But with a movie pass? I'd go all the time.

<comment><USER24> > plus actually going to a gym is not fun

Going off-topic here but: you're doing it wrong. The gym is supposed to be fun; have you tried joining different classes or swimming? If you're not into working out solo (I'm usually not for example) there are usually group classes of all types available. Talk to them: they'll be happy to help you find something that you'll enjoy doing or alternatively just cancel the membership, if you find that embarrassing just don't mention it to anyone.

Nobody would ever go to the gym regularly if they didn't find it to be a genuinely fun activity.

<comment><USER25> I went to the gym regularly for for more than a decade. Throughout the years I did "tradition" workouts, classes, swimming, yoga, spinning, pilates, solo workouts, workouts with a friend, everything you could possibly think of I tried.

Still not fun and was never fun. Working out while watching TV even makes TV unenjoyable.

Even the activities I did as a kid weren't fun: soccer, dance, gymnastics (which I was good at).

I did it for the same reason I clean the dishes, because it's something I "should" do and it improvedy quality of life.

<comment><USER26> Have you tried weight lifting? I hate pretty much all rote cardio but I have been lifting for almost 10 years now. Since it is low reps, you don't get that progressive burning. Plus, it is cool to see progression as you get bigger and stronger over time.

<comment><USER25> Yes, of course I have. Weight lifting certainly falls under both "traditional workouts" and "everything you could possibly think of."

I can certainly appreciate some people get enjoyment out of physical activity, but just the same, some people find it miserable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think this is a perfect example of what the people want I'm home all companies are too blind to see it. Of course we want to go to the movies, but with the current pricing and alternatives such as Netflix and torrents (where it is legal) why would we? Some companies are just too stubborn to survive, trying to maximize current profit while destroying their long-term viability.

<comment><USER28> It will be interesting to see what happens. Demand has spoken at this price point. Will supply come around to accept it and produce movies for e.g. $25m instead of $100m?

<comment><USER29> There are tons of relatively modest budget movies out there. They mostly aren't what draw the big crowds though. It's the big action franchises that make most of the money, not the small prestige dramas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If anything, it should show movie theaters that if they dropped their own prices, more people would go to the movies...

<comment><USER31> I feel the same about concessions. I realize it might all be calculated to the penny for peak income but I would be more keen to regularly buy concessions if I wasn't paying close to $20 for a soda and a popcorn. I would think dropping the cost a bit might increase the number of folks buying. (The margins on it all are what really piss me off.)

I also wish it wasn't essentially a flat price for everything. A small, medium or large anything is generally just fifty cents to a dollar away from any other size. I want a small soda and popcorn I get pressed to size-up for that extra few cents to get a gallon/barrel of each.

<comment><USER32> "The margins on it all are what really piss me off."

Not that it's your problem as a consumer, but factor in that your ticket price pretty much all goes to the studio. (correct?) And getting $8.50 for the large which costs $0.14 better than getting $8.00 for small which costs $0.12

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It seems like MoviePass is stuck between a marginal cost rock and user expectation hard place.

But if AMC adds their own pass subscription, I don't think they would be. My impression is that theater chains have great margins and very low marginal cost to add one more viewer. In my area, there are only a few theaters playing the major hit movies, and I don't think it would be a problem to subscribe to a particular theater.

I really think AMC is holding onto a $19/month plan for unlimited movies, which would be profitable for them out of the gate.

</comment><comment><USER34> I signed up for MoviePass 5 months ago, thinking I'd be more likely to go watch movies in a theater if it "doesn't cost anything" to go. Sadly, that's not been the case for me. I haven't been to the theater once, so I've basically wasted $50.

Time to cancel MoviePass, and I guess also time to admit that I just don't care that much about seeing movies on the big screen.

<comment><USER30> I suppose I was the opposite. I enjoy seeing the big titles of the year, but I usually only go to one or two because I really don't mind waiting another 3 months for it to come out on bluray or some instant video service. Whereas after I got moviepass, I go see pretty much everything that catches my attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Does it make sense to get MoviePass while it's still alive?

On one hand, the subscription costs less than a single movie ticket where I live, and even as an infrequent movie-goer I'm pretty sure I'd save money.

On the other hand, they're obviously going to crash and burn, and who knows what they'll do with my account at that point. What's the worst I can expect? Spam? Robocalls? Identity theft?

<comment><USER36> Don't do it. You have to install their app and use a special credit card they send you in conjunction with the app. That's how they ensure you are not cheating/sharing.

I had it for a month and then tried to cancel before my renewal; it took 3 _full_ weeks (21 days!) of pestering their support over email every 3-5 days to escalate my refund case, and I had to threaten a BBB case before my ticket actually got escalated, and I finally got refunded 4 days after the threat. They do not have phone support at all.

<comment><USER37> I don't have Movie Pass, but according to moviepass subreddit they do have phone support: 646-400-0801 11AM-8PM EDT.

(Might be newly added depending on when you cancelled). Doesn't necessarily mean they have good customer support, but probably a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER38> [https://www.reddit.com/r/moviepass/comments/7qa8t5/moviepass...](https://www.reddit.com/r/moviepass/comments/7qa8t5/moviepass_faqs/)

<comment><USER39> > _For ticket verifications, if an unreadable stub is uploaded; you get one > free pass. Upon the 2nd unreadable stub, your account will be terminated._

So there you are, a simple way to terminate your own account :-)

<comment><USER36> Damn, wish I saw that in the TOS, would have saved me a lot of trouble haha. But as indicated, the (MUCH needed) phone support came out in Jan 2018. I cancelled in November.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So they plan to make up the gaps by selling their customers data. How valuable is this data in the first place? It feels that so many companies, whether social network, search engines, advertising companies, etc are all building the same profile. At the end there is only so many attributes a company can collect on its users, if everyone has them are they worth anything?

<comment><USER41> data alone is kinda worthless. time + granular data is valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Oh wow, I had been watching what happened to NASDAQ: HMNY in summer 2017, but I had not kept paying attention since then. Yikes.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why do cinemas not like it? They get paid for each ticket and people go more frequently.

<comment><USER44> AMC spells it out in a press release. [http://investor.amctheatres.com/file/Index?KeyFile=389925821](http://investor.amctheatres.com/file/Index?KeyFile=389925821)

 _The AMC average ticket price for watching a movie at AMC Theatres in the most recent financial quarter was $9.33. From what we can tell, by definition and absent some other form of other compensation, MoviePass will be losing money on every subscriber seeing two movies or more in a month. [...] In AMC's view, that price level is unsustainable and only sets up consumers for ultimate disappointment down the road if or when the product can no longer be fulfilled. AMC also believes that promising essentially unlimited first-run movie content at a price below $10 per month over time will not provide sufficient revenue to operate quality theatres nor will it produce enough income to provide film makers with sufficient incentive to make great new movies. Therefore, AMC will not be able to offer discounts to MoviePass in the future, which seems to be among their aims. While AMC is not opposed to subscription programs generally, the one envisioned by MoviePass is not one AMC can embrace._

<comment><USER22> > AMC also believes that promising essentially unlimited first-run movie > content at a price below $10 per month over time will not provide sufficient > revenue

MoviePass has proven theaters are interesting to more people than I'd have thought in a world of 70"\+ TVs and 4K streaming. A smarter Pass could experiment with non-peak times, second release movies, and concessions.

Average ticket price really isn't the best metric with the fixed costs of a theater.

<comment><USER45> It's also a way to get out of the house with your SO if you both like movies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't think the idea of selling advertising is very good for MoviePass, as in suggestions on what to watch or where to eat, etc. They could have some success with different tiers of service and letting the studios pay to have their movie in a cheaper tier - like a Bronze package at $10/mo that only gives access to movies where studios have paid them X and people have to play a higher rate for Silver, etc. to recoup the cost of seeing movies they would take a loss on. That could make some sense since studios have turned many movies into advertisements for merchandise.

</comment><comment><USER47> I think cinema subscriptions are obviously the future: I don't even think the cinemas care that much about ticket prices. Food, candy, beverages – that's where the money is earned.

<comment><USER48> This might lead to cinemas making their staff care about people bringing in their own snacks though, which would suck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Like me opening a business next to Walmart and $100 a month offer to buy, say, $500 Walmart stuff for each user. I'd make up in volume pretty quickly :)

MoviePass would make sense if the major theater chains did it and focused on slow days. If the lights are one, movie playing and theater staff has to be on site, adding additional users would cost next to nothing. Add popcorn and soda purchases and they'd make out like bandits.

</comment><comment><USER50> "Nearly"? I'm pretty sure MoviePass is toast, just a matter of time before it's gone. Enjoy while you can!

</comment><comment><USER51> "How Bloomberg Blamed 2M People for MoviePass Permitting 2M Signups It Couldn't Afford"

</comment><comment><USER52> They should change the model to only sell the tickets at or after the listed start time of the movie. That way all the tickets sold are all profit since those tickets probably wouldn't have been sold anyway.

</comment><comment><USER53> AMC has been struggling at keeping people in the theaters. Shouldn't they be thankful for a company like MoviePass that gets people into theaters again, even if it's at a lower ticket price?

<comment><USER54> And most theaters make up the money from the beverages and popcorn.</comment></comment>


Walmart will now allow shoppers to access PayPal cash in stores - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/walmart-will-now-allow-shoppers-to-access-paypal-cash-in-stores/ <comment><USER2> Maybe they'll get around to it like CVS finally did and just take Apple Pay/etc.</comment>


Crunch Makes Games Worse - <AUTHOR> http://gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulTozour/20150120/234443/The_Game_Outcomes_Project_Part_4_Crunch_Makes_Games_Worse.php <comment><USER2> > "Crunch sucks, but if it is seen by the team members as a fair cost of > participating in an otherwise fantastic employment experience..."

Oh, I see: _workers_ should repay _employers_ for a "fantastic employment experience".

Boy oh boy. I say if your industry is such that you must have this sort of in- depth investigation in order to simply work normal work-weeks, your goose is already cooked.

<comment><USER3> If people continue to work in the games industry despite the workload and pay they must be getting something out of it.

<comment><USER4> People continue to _join_ the games industry - attrition rates are sky high and the vast majority do not last.

Perhaps the argument should be reframed as - why is it that despite high- profile and commonly known, and _completely batshit insane_ working conditions, do people still sign up (and then quit the industry entirely)?

Are we doing a poor job publicizing these conditions, or are the stories just so horrifying that they become almost outlandishly unbelievable?

<comment><USER5> I'm armchair psychoanalyzing, but I think it's largely because the people entering the games industry are young and it's exceptionally difficult to grasp how terrible something like 80 hour work weeks are until you've been through a few. I mean, it's fairly common for university students to forgo sleep crunching for finals or spend ungodly amounts of time playing their favorite game. Add in "it's not work if you love what you do" and "I'm a special and unique," and you can see how someone might be persuaded to join the games industry in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this is a terrible idea.

For what it's worth, this also seems to be true of the legal and medical professions as well. And, more relevantly, startup founders.

<comment><USER6> Its probably relevant that games, the law, medicine and start ups are all perceived as being quite glamorous by many.

The games industry seems quite similar to the music and fashion industries in some ways. They are all glamour industries that attract a lot of young people with stars in their eyes who will put up with poor conditions and pay that can be as low as zero. All for the chance to "make it".

<comment><USER7> This isn't really a good comparison at all. Game developers make around 10-20k less than a typical software engineers salary. That's still far more than a lot of lines of work.

 _Maybe_ what you're saying is true if you're talking about self-employed indie devs, but that's not who the article, or your parent post is talking about. Also, very few of the tons of potential game developers go this route. Most just apply to every gamedev shop in their area.

There's also really not a concept of making it big. Without looking any up, can you name 5 game developers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I work at a huge company for 6 figures total annual compensation, right out of college. I come in and go home whenever I want to, and I probably clock an average work-week in the high 30s. If I'm particularly interested in something I'm working on, that number might go up a bit temporarily, completely of my own volition.

I have never heard of someone being asked to work more hours, and I imagine a manager even bringing it up would be very taboo.

This all applies only to my team, as I'm sure there are some at my company under more pressure. But the point is the same: why would anyone do this to themselves? We may be in a bubble, but at least for the moment, software developer is a cushy job with lots of great opportunities available. Why anyone would work 100 hour weeks in a sweatshop baffles me.

Who cares whether it makes games better or worse? I'm sure I could put out a better product if I worked 80 hours instead of 40. But I'd rather go home, sleep with my girlfriend, read a book, or (heh) play a video game. Our CEO is doing fine and doesn't need my charity.

<comment><USER9> The games industry is like the fashion industry. Young boys, girls respectively are super motivated to get a job in the industry, they think they're not interested in doing any other job. That desperation enables the industry to take great advantage of them at the lower levels: if they're not willing to work under those terms, there are a number of eager replacements.

I'm not morally judging the situation, I think of it as a natural effect of market forces. A rational person would just go to another industry. I'm a software developer who was never anywhere near the game industry, fwiw, though I have had an appreciation for computer games since childhood. But In these industries, there are enough enthusiastic, perhaps not quite rational people, to keep that workforce unusually pressurized, metaphorically speaking.

<comment><USER10> I agree except for one thing: I am morally judging the situation. Just because market forces have given you the power to ruin the lives of people who trusted you, doesn't make it morally okay to do so.

<comment><USER11> I guess you can judge the people, but I'm at a loss what you mean by judging the _situation_. I mean, if the incentives align a certain way to make a thing very likely to happen _that thing is going to happen_. The people responding to the incentives might be assholes, but you can't really judge the situation on the whole, any more than you can judge a seed for growing, once planted.

The thing is, it seems that the incentives don't actually line up in the first place. According to this data, the most successful games companies will be the ones where the developers work reasonable hours and are treated with respect. So what's going on?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Who'd have thought that the business-types (Rubin and Spector) are supportive of crunch, while the developer (Paxton) doesn't like crunch? Apparently, the business types _like_ turning their organizations into meat grinders while the developers like _not_ being overworked and exploited.

<comment><USER13> At this point I'm half-expecting they do it for the feeling of power, rather than for the goal of making a better game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The priceless quote here for me is:

 _"Schedule 40 hours a week and you get 38. Schedule 50 and you get 39 and everyone hates work, life, and you. Schedule 60 and you get 32 and wives start demanding you send out resumes. "_

That's a pretty great approximation of my experience with the concept.

</comment><comment><USER15> I used to work in the Hollywood animation industry. I had friends who worked in the LA video game industry around then.

Crunch was, quite simply, an expected part of life in both industries. I think it may be something that emerges from the way human brains work, when dealing with projects that take more than a year to finish. People slack off near the beginning because, wow, they have YEARS to get it done. (Or obsessively try to polish a small part, because, again, wow, YEARS.) As the release date approaches, it starts to feel more like an actual thing, and people start panicking because there is a colossal amount of money involved in a big-budget game or feature cartoon. You can't take longer because you're running out of money, and you have a ton of sunk costs in the advertising that says a specific date, there are merchandising tie-ins waiting for the release, all kinds of things pushing towards "the team works crazy hours and burns out".

Me? I draw a graphic novel now. The only deadline I have to make is the self- imposed one, and I'm lucky enough that my finances have enough slack that my schedule can have some slack, too.

<comment><USER16> _I used to work in the Hollywood animation industry. I had friends who worked in the LA video game industry around then. Crunch was, quite simply, an expected part of life in both industries._

Much of Hollywood animation is unionized. (animationguild.org, IATSE Local 839). Crunches mean paid overtime. From the Animation Guild standard contract: "All time worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week shall be paid at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification. Time worked on the employee's sixth (6th) workday of the workweek shall be paid at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification. Time worked on the employee's seventh (7th) workday of the workweek shall be paid at two (2) times the hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification. All time worked in excess of fourteen (14) consecutive hours (including meal periods) from the time of reporting to work shall be Golden Hours and shall be paid at two (2) times the applicable hourly rate provided herein for such employee's classification."

This discourages unnecessary "crunches".

If you would like The Animation Guild to represent you and your fellow employees at a game company, print up some of these cards and get your fellow employees to sign them: [http://animationguild.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/12/Represe...](http://animationguild.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/12/RepresentationCard.pdf) You can force your employer to have a union election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What do people expect of an industry where supply and demand is completely out of whack?

Supply of programmers in the games industry is almost completely inelastic. No matter how little they get paid (relative to tech standards) and how poor conditions become, young programmers will continue to flock to the games industry because it's perceived as "cool."

Why people make employment decisions based on what they _play_ in their free time I will never understand. I also love reading books, watching movies, and eating food—but I have no delusions that those would be good career options.

More generally, I think the best way to improve working conditions across the tech industry is to kill the meme that working on "sexy" tech is important. So long as companies are able to attract talent through silly stories or sexy projects, rather than a good work environment and competitive salaries, programmers are going to continue to be abused and perceived as unprofessional.

Lawyers don't choose which firm to join based on who has the coolest name. It's time that programmers stopped chasing cool and started acting professional.

</comment><comment><USER18> From the article referenced ([http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-23-game- devs-w...](http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-23-game-devs-when- does-crunch-cross-the-line))

> As we get deeper into the process we discover that things that sounded good > on paper don't work in practice. Things that worked in prototype don't work > in a fully textured and lit level. And then the folks providing money or > distribution randomize and disrupt by demanding demos or screenshots at the > most inconvenient times!"

That quote was listed as one of positive quotes for crunch, but it solidifies even more that the process is broken and/or better project management has to be done.

<comment><USER19> You can't schedule something unknown.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Welcome to white collar america programmers. It sorta sucks but at least you can afford a boat you never use and a house for your ex-wife to raise your kids. Signed Doctors, Bankers and Lawyers.

<comment><USER21> If you take out the boat and house, sure. Most game developers I know working in the bay area don't make six figures.

<comment><USER22> No, they make like $95,000 which is only five figures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The guy who wrote this is making linear correlations on likert scales? SERIOUSLY? Looks like some pretty poor understanding of stats.

<comment><USER24> Why is this bad?

<comment><USER25> A number of people argue that Likert scale responses are properly treated as ordinal data, meaning that 1<2<3<4<5, but not necessarily that |1-2| = |2-3| or avg(1,5)=3. Treating them as numerical data often (depending on what you're doing) implicitly makes some assumptions about calibration of the ordinal scale that might not be warranted (e.g. the distance between a "1" and "2" response might be very different than the distance between a "2" and "3" response).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Could these results be driven by sequels? I would expect that a sequel would need less crunch time (many big problems have already been solved) and have a higher ROI (they're likely making a sequel because the franchise is popular, and less effort is needed).

</comment><comment><USER27> Crunch is typically the result of poor planning or design on the fly or by focus-group. So, to that end, it's not the crunch's fault, even though it sucks, it's the fault of design and production not getting their ducks in a row.

<comment><USER28> Maybe, but that's not quite what their survey showed:

        The four strongest correlations with our crunch-related questions were:
         +0.51: "There was a lot of turnover on this project."
         +0.50: "Team members would often work for weeks at a time without receiving feedback from project leads or managers."
         +0.49: "The team's leads and managers did not have a respectful relationship with the team's developers."
         -0.49: "The development plan for the game was clear and well-communicated to the team."

(+ = this response was positively correlated with crunch)

<comment><USER27> I'm just going off my experiences over the last seventeen years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sony's H1Z1 launched its early access (i.e. alpha) late last week and their president was saying the dev team was doing 18 hour days, and they worked 2 of the 3 days of the MLK weekend. Again, early access, not release, etc.

</comment><comment><USER30> In my experience crunch is often caused by poor direction, political games, understaffing, under-budgeting other such factors that are crippling to the game quality. So, naturally, a project that is in crunch is likely to fail in sales and in reviews. The article authors address this, but only at the angle of "Does it help to salvage a failing project?" and I agree with their negative conclusion. Crunching is not going to salvage anything.

Why would it? Your publisher changes the requirements every quarter and the game's genre every year, your producers (managers) are busy trying to get each other fired, people are leaving because they think the game is going to suck and they have not seen a bonus in 5 years, you cannot hire anyone because they think the game is going to suck and you don't have money anyway so you could as well crunch trying to ship whatever with whomever is left but crunching is not going to fix these issues.

Crunching can only improve a project that does not have any crippling problems. And it usually does (again, from my experience). It works because nobody can schedule 2+ years creative work for 200+ people with such a precision that on the last day of the schedule you check in the last line of code, export the last asset, pack a build and send an 80+ (hell, even 60+) metacritic game to the manufacturing. Game production is an iterative process. The more iterations you make - the better the game becomes in your eyes if not in the reviews. This is why people crunch voluntarily. They want to ship better games.

</comment><comment><USER31> I wholeheartedly agree, crunch is damaging to any industry over extended periods of time. It doesn't matter if you're a game developer, web developer or architect, crunch affects everyone. It is an outdated way of thinking that the game industry has failed to let go of that the more people and effort you throw at a problem, the quicker it gets solved.

The more hours you throw at a problem in my experience as a developer, you end up with more problems than you started off trying to solve. You lose focus, when you lose focus things that were once obvious are not in your peripheral vision and you make mistakes. It is akin to driving a vehicle tired, you are more likely to be in an accident.

Sadly the gaming industry is notorious for this kind of behaviour of expected crunch. Yeah, you push yourself to get out a game, but then what? You start working on another new game or DLC for the current game and you find yourself working 80 hour weeks again, what was the benefit of those long hours other than keeping your job? It is a repeating cycle.

People have been decrying the crunch in the gaming industry especially since the 90's and yet, nothing ever changes or improves. Someone writes a blog post or article, people unanimously agree things need to change and then it all blows over until the next article comes along. What's it going to take: a spate of sleep-deprived, stressed game developers taking their own lives?

I accept the fact that avoiding crunch altogether is unavoidable in any industry, but we need to better manage it. We need to have a framework in place that prevents people from being expected to work 80+ hour weeks for years on end. Sometimes you need to put in some extra hours to finish a project, that's cool, just don't factor it in every time, expect it for months or years on end and above all: don't forgo compensation for the sacrifice your employees are making under the guise of "we need to do this"

Look at mostly every single AAA game released in the last few years, more issues than you can poke a stick at. Look at GTA V, when it launched people couldn't even play the multiplayer component, same thing happened to the highly anticipated and hyped Destiny and pretty much every _insert game name here_ \- is it the fault of the developers who were enslaved to complete the game? No. It is the lack of resources, lack of care for sane work hours, lack of compassion or concern for employees that causes large games with budgets that rival Hollywood movies to fail spectacularly on launch.

When is the last time a large company like Rockstar Games or Electronic Arts released a game that wasn't broken or buggy to some extent on launch? Besides having an extremely generous budget to hire the best and produce something spectacular? I can't recall a time that happened in the last few years. Perfection is not a priority, churn and burn is the name of the game. Get it out now as long as it is complete and we'll sort out the bugs with a patch shortly after launch. Oh, and hurry, the investors want to see a quick profit on this one.

Some of you might recall the famous post from an anonymous blogger by the name of EA Spouse. A wife of a video game developer working at Electronic Arts pouring her heart out over the toll his long hours take on him and his family, the excessive work hours he puts in: [http://ea- spouse.livejournal.com/](http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/) \- large publications lapped the story up, people were outraged and yet here we are in 2015 reading another article about long hours. Things will not change until something bad happens (and probably not until it starts happening frequently).

We've been talking about things needing to change for far too long, but nothing ever seems to get better.

<comment><USER32> _Look at GTA V, when it launched people couldn 't even play the multiplayer component_

A staggered release of features is quite a good solution to the problem. There's no reason why a game has to be feature complete before it's released. Some parts can be added in subsequent minor versions. It happens with every other kind of software.

<comment><USER31> You misunderstand. My point was millions of dollars were spent on producing GTA V, years of development work put it and for a while after launch you couldn't even play the GTA Online component which was one of the advertised features. It wasn't so much there were issues or they were releasing it non- feature complete. My final point being: you can make developers put in excessive overtime to finish a game, but it won't be a pretty result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Naughty Dog makes best in class games. They also have some of the worst crunch in the industry. I therefore conclude the title somewhere between incomplete and wrong. There's no blockbuster game on the market that wasn't crunched on. That's not excuse, just a simple fact.

Can we have "crunch makes your startup worse" next? Then we an see a raise of hands for how many now successful startups were born in crunch.

<comment><USER34> did you read the article? the article addresses this in the second paragraph. it then goes on to compare levels of crunch with metacritic scores and ROI data, and finds that crunch statistically significantly hurts projects.</comment></comment>


Project Ara – Google's modular phone project - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/04/google-project-ara/ <comment><USER2> A musing about the aesthetic of modular:

My first 21st century "gadget" (for some obviously arbitrary definition of the term) was an ipod nano. I'm not very sensitive to the niceness of things in general so I was pretty surprised at how much I liked how it looked and felt in my hands.

It was, cold metallic, small, sleek and completely solid. It had no give in it at all and felt like a magic rock. The solidness of it made it feel futuristic. I find that I like my SSD laptop a lot more than the old HDD one for similar reasons. I think it has to do with it not revealing anything about how it works.

I imagine artifacts of the future continuing along these lines. Impenetrable to analysis by the naked A solid mass of synthetic minerals arranged in a very precise way so that electrons are precisely directed this way or that way. But to the naked eye, there is no cause and effect beyond the minimal input and output.

On the opposite side, I can get a lot of enjoyment from messing around with something like a foot-treadle loom or 18th century brass navigation instruments. Even just looking at them is fun. They are complicated enough to be very clever and interesting. Too clever to invent yourself. But, they are still simple enough to understand using your eyes. You can get an "aha!" from seeing the flying shuttle work on a loom. The objects themselves being so common in mythology also adds to the flavor. You can see the incredible potential of adding more gears and levers.

It's an accessible cleverness that you can experience pretty directly. I find it fascinating that space cowboy fiction & steampunk exist. First, future tense nostalgia is an interesting concept. Second, I think it shows a kind of longing for objects that are both futuristic but understandable.

The loom is obviously a human artifact. The ipod is something we intellectually understand to be an artifact, but emotionally it doesn't feel like human one. A magic object doesn't hint at its workings.

Beyond the practical advantages of a modular device, I think there is a steampunk-esque appeal to the idea. We could weld together a brass spaceship using an energy crystal to power the electron sail (both naturally obtained by barter or pilage ).

<comment><USER3> You are the sort of person who would enjoy using modular synthesizers.

* Not responsible for possible bankruptcy/ divorce/ loss of employment resulting from acting on above advice

<comment><USER4> Forum to pump that paycheck into:

[http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/](http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/)

<comment><USER5> A thousand times yes. Muffwiggler is the place to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Once upon a time, when I was younger, I felt very strongly that I needed a computer with everything replaceable. I wanted to replace a CPU when it got too slow, new graphics card, upgradable RAM, storage, etc. But I found that in the end while I'd make small upgrades, I still replaced my computers at close to the same rate. That because some standard that was built into the old machine was no longer fast enough or wide enough for newer uses, or an interconnect standard changed (think ISA, to PCI, to PCI-X, to PCI-e) The other reason is while i could upgrade some parts, I couldn't upgrade all the parts, and pretty soon those parts were now two or three years old. They were no longer as reliable as a brand new system.

I wonder with these modular phone ideas, if we're looking at the beige box PC industry all over? And whether it will be a good fit to mobile or whether you'll buy your modular system in a year, and then find in another two years that there is a new modular interconnect version without backwards compatibility, and gradually you won't be able to find modules that work with your current frame, so you have to replace that, and maybe the some of your old modules don't work with the new frame, so you have to replace them at the same time. Like a lot of beige bok PC geek, you'll end up with a drawer of old modules in a drawer that you hardly ever find a need for, but you cant bring yourself to throw them away unless they're actually broke. The smart person will just buy all new modules when they replace the frame (that what most people did when they replaced their beige box, because why upgrade but still carry over that old junky graphics card). Pretty soon your at a point where the primary benefit of modularity in not upgrading pieces, but the ability to spec exactly the phone you want when buying. But in reality there are a lot of phones on the market now, and you can come pretty close.

I don't know that this will be the case, but its how I'd bet it would end up playing out.

<comment><USER7> Google might benefit strategically from a market where phones are commoditized down at the hardware subsystem level. This would further disempower hardware integrators like Samsung.

The analogy is Microsoft:beige box::Google:component phone.

<comment><USER8> > where phones are commoditized down at the hardware subsystem level

This is already happening with the various Chinese manufacturers and the Mediatek MT65xx platform. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of different models, all slightly different looking and with different dimensions, but based on the same internal reference design with minor changes, often to the point of ROM interchangeability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is absolutely the right direction, but not in the way you think. This shouldn't be branded as a phone -- size and look matter too much. It should be branded the tool of the future, designed for people people in the field: electricians / construction workers / scientists / tinkerers. Let me plug in an altimeter, leveler, or multimeter. That is what is missing on my iPhone, and this is the first thing I've seen modular enough to pull it off.

And, yes, I've been thinking Tricorder this whole time=).

<comment><USER10> I'm curious to see what I will be able to do with the interconnect myself. For instance, could I rig something up to hook a couple of modules to my laptop or car?

<comment><USER11> This question was asked at the tech conference yesterday, and they may clarify it in the MDK [0] but the project team seemed to downplay this aspect, preferring to pitch the idea of a "low cost mobile phone for the next billion users."

Still, the modules can be emitters (ie., BT/ZigBe modules) although they were unclear about how module developers would get these certified. And I guess no one is stopping you from adding cables to a module, but the UniPro based and M-PHY current specs wouldn't get you very far... 10cm cable perhaps?

[0] [http://www.projectara.com/mdk/](http://www.projectara.com/mdk/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think John Gruber over at Daring Fireball said it best:

 _" I remain highly skeptical that a modular design can compete in a product category where size, weight, and battery life are at such a premium. Even if they can bring something to market, why would any normal person be interested in a phone like this?"_

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/04/15/project- ara](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/04/15/project-ara)

<comment><USER13> Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed.

Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made".

Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a few 5c friends) suffer from poor battery life - How would a phone where you could easily swap for a new/better battery be inferior?

Gruber should remind himself of the first generation of pretty much any tech product. Bulky, ugly, and clumsy could describe a lot of projects that push technology to it's limits.

<comment><USER14> It does matter when comparing with alternatives. Modular phone with comparable specs to other phones (screen size, cpu, camera, etc) would probably be bigger, thicker, heavier and uglier. In other words, even when a customer is buying a big 5"\+ phone, then I think he/she will probably not choose the modular one.

<comment><USER13> I think the key is the purchasing model. A "free phone" with contract every 2 years creates a situation where the consumer doesn't value repairing/upgrading their phone.

If you had to pay say $600-$800 for a phone upfront, one is upgradable/repairable and the other is not (but faster/sexier) I think some (maybe many) would choose the former.

<comment><USER15> I know people that just toss an $800 laptop like it's nothing when something goes wrong. We truly live in a disposable society.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "I know people that just toss an $800 laptop like it's nothing when something goes wrong. We truly live in a disposable society."

Nope. You just happen to know people who can afford to toss an $800 laptop. For most of the 'lower middle class' people I know purchasing a laptop is a big deal and only happens once every 3/4/5 years. Even then they don't spend more than £400. Even when their laptop is practically unusable through age, damaged parts, viruses etc. they continue to use it because £400/$800/a new laptop is a lot of money.

<comment><USER16> But the only difference is the amount of money, not the attitude. No one thinks "I can afford a new laptop, but I'll rehabilitate this old one anyway."

<comment><USER17> I must not be anyone then. I have a (nearly) six-year old Thinkpad that I've upgraded a few times. I could have afforded a new replacement at any time, but I'd rather keep using the machine I already have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd actually love it if this idea extended far enough to let me double my "phone" as an impromptu laptop/desktop. I know that we can use a bluetooth keyboard or whatever and kind of simulate things. But I'd love to carry around a single computing device that I can drop into a cradle at home and it's using my two big desktop monitors and nice keyboard/mouse, and when out and about, head into a coffee shop and swap the screen out for a larger screen and keyboard, and then head onto the subway and just swap the screen back and use it like a phone. Then end of the day, head to the gym and swap out a few parts and have it just play music for me while I work out. Head out for a hike on the weekend and configure it like the Gym, but put in a better GPS unit and a bigger battery or something. Go to the store and swap out the GPS unit for a barcode scanner so I can comparison shop a bit. If something breaks, I can fix it myself. Go home and plug it into an HDMI port and watch movies or play games or something. Want to read a book? Swap out the screen for an e-ink screen. Going on a trip? swap in the GPS device, big battery and the Nokia camera module so I can use my nice lenses and find my way to the sites. Swap the screen for the bigger screen later so I can review and edit my photos for the day.

I could trade my notebook, camera, desktop, console, media devices, mp3 player, e-book reader and tablet in entirely.

But all my data is present for me and I can work on it, context appropriate to the interfaces I have available at that moment.

I wouldn't mind having a few bits and parts floating around my backpack if it gave me the flexibility to do that kind of thing.

<comment><USER19> I like the modularity idea, I don't know if I'd want to be swapping components five times a day though.

If the idea is just to have the same files/data on all your "different" devices, I think I like the idea of running a central fileserver with that stuff on it, and having separate phone, desktop, etc, that each do two or three things and do them well, and they all mount the fileserver, which has a much storage as you want, gets backed up regularly, is where indexing happens, is where long-running downloads happen. and everything mounting that gets the same files. oh, and a server is less likely to go missing or stolen or soaked.

Your idea is the simplest way to preserve application state between "different" devices, my idea is the best way to preserve saved-file state (and only that) between using different devices.

Your idea has been done to some extent by the Motorola Lapdock, but I don't actually know anything about it.

<comment><USER20> You're indeed correct that Moto attempted something similar with the Atrix.

As a onetime Moto Webdock owner though, I'll attest to the fact that the grandparents dream is far from realized. At the time, the phone was simply too underpowered to provide a usable experience running _just a browser_ (outdated Firefox at that). I picked the accessory up on Craigslist and it quickly found a resting place in my closet -- it was neat, but only in the proof of concept sense.

I'd love to see a company attempt something similar with today's hardware. A phone like the Nexus 5 / HTC One could provide a pretty slick experience, given enough RAM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The first time I saw a modular phone was long ago (2000) in the lab of a very large hardware company where they had a prototype from a start-up they'd invested in.

It was made like a deck of cards, cpu, display/kbd, battery and cell components could all be swapped out. There even was a camera module for the back. It didn't make it. The main reasons iirc were that people see phones as integrated wholes, that contacts breed failure and that making an integrated phone versus one made out of pieces is simply cheaper.

Curious how this one will fare!

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

<comment><USER18> > that contacts breed failure

Just like in software, the interfaces are where the complexity lies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> People are viewing this project as a 'lego' phone that sounds great in theory but doesn't charm practically. However manufacturers can take a middle ground approach where future electronics slowly move towards hot swappable components. Upgrading & replacing defective parts shouldn't require a screw driver and perhaps as easy as plugging in a USB cable.

When I'm buying a high end phone & spending $600, I'd want it to last 5-6+ years. However the current ones typically stay relevant for barely 2 years and the residual value is below $200. How about a phone that I'm not scared to drop because if something breaks, I can easily swap out a new LCD, ofcourse at a reasonable cost. Many users like me would be willing to sacrifice the form factor slightly to get the ability to make my device last longer.

However all this goes against how manufacturers make money i.e. make you buy new product frequently & charge an arm & a leg for repairs.

<comment><USER3> There are other models, like sell the razor cheap and charge more for the blades, which can support a product ecosystem, albeit a smaller one than that for grooming products.

Consider that the FOB price for replacement cellphone cameras is under $5 in quantities of $100. The hardware is cheap, the labor of installing it into a phone that needs repair is not. But if you make it user-installable (as here), you can sell the exact same camera for maybe $20-30, with only a minimal increase in the cost of production for the modular package. So this could work out quite nicely for component manufacturers by giving them a small additional revenue stream from enthusiast/hobby buyers.

All those people complaining that it won't be competitive with other phones for consumer dollars are _totally_ missing the point. Of course consumers will continue to prefer all-in-one products from brand name manufacturers like Apple and Samsung, for the same reason that most consumers want a car that Just Works rather one that requires them to be an amateur mechanic.

And yet, there's a thriving retail business in auto parts, because a lot of people _do_ like to hack on their cars or carry out their own repairs. And likewise, there's a market for modular phones among hackers, engineers, high school and college students, and all sorts of other niches, who want flexibility but don't necessarily want to go down the Arduino route with soldering and building their own cases and PCBs. Simple example: stick two camera modules into one of these things, and you have a super cheap 3d camera platform.

This will be absolutely huge in the developing world where utility >> convenience or aesthetics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I find this interesting in contrast to Nexus devices. Two or three years ago, most Android phones had SD cards and removable batteries. These features have been conspicuously absent from recent Nexus phones in spite of their appeal to the power-user and developer markets who are among the most likely to want such features.

I hope it gets some traction. I'm seeing a lot of sameness in high-spec Android phones, and something like this might help manufacturers learn what kinds of variations might sell without having to take the risk of mass- producing and marketing a new model.

P.S. - if any manufacturers are reading this, I want a high-spec Android phone the size of an iPhone. My Nexus 5 is somewhat uncomfortable in my pocket and too hard to use one-handed due to its size.

<comment><USER24> Moto X.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure what part of my comment you're responding to, but I don't think the Moto X is a good response to anything I said. It doesn't have removable storage. It doesn't have a removable battery. With a 4.7" screen, it's much bigger than an iPhone.

<comment><USER25> Have you seen how big it is next to an iPhone? Pretty close in physical size, despite the screen. [http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/reviews/142861-image/Appl...](http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/reviews/142861-image/Apple- iPhone-5s-vs-Motorola-Moto-X-001.jpg)

<comment><USER23> My mother owns a Moto X, bought on my recommendation. It is much closer in width to my Nexus 5 than it is to the iPhone and barely more comfortable for me to use one-handed than my Nexus 5. The difference in width is apparent in the photograph you linked.

I commend Motorola for an excellent job eliminating non-screen area on the front of the Moto X. It's a very space-efficient device in that regard, but my complaint is about reaching all areas of a touchscreen with my thumb while holding it in one hand, and nothing fixes that like a smaller touchscreen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yeah, right.

I remember computers built in the 90s and 2000s, touting their modular construction and never having to buy a new system again. I wonder if those machines are still in operation?

I think what would guarantee longevity is something that is rock-solid good, inexpensive, repairable, and easy to develop on. I'm thinking of track records of computers like the Commodore 64, iMac, or in vehicles like the beetle, video game consoles, ipod, iphone etc.

<comment><USER18> You mean, pretty much any computer not made by Apple? Sure, I still have my home-rolled desktop from 7 years ago. I just put together a new machine earlier this year I expect to get at _least_ that much life out of. I don't even buy top-spec parts, just good price/performance ratios for each part and cobble it together. And if something breaks I can fix it myself.

It's not too technical and not too hard to do. About as complicated as making a full dinner with main course, two side dishes and a dessert.

On the flip side, every other machine I've had that was closed, mostly laptops, but I'm thinking of my C64, and my Coco2, when the smallest piece died on those things, right into the trash they went. There's literally nothing you can do to fix them that doesn't involve an engineering degree and a lab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If one of the modules can be a keyboard, then I know a fair few people who will buy one...

<comment><USER28> The keyboard is _the_ module I want.

I used my T-Mobile G2 until it died a month ago, and had to do an emergency replacement, which ended up being a Nexus 5. I'm going absolutely insane not being able to just type without thinking about it. When you have to think about your input and often correct it, you are no longer able to simply stream your thoughts, and each micro-interruption is actually quite a distraction from getting things done. It's frustrating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yeah this is probably just one of Google's projects where they try and make a device that totally uses the concept, realise that most of it's pretty bad and redo it with a device that uses it for the single part that worked. The cynic in me says 'replaceable battery' but I'd like to see replaceable SOC.

<comment><USER13> Screen and battery are the two most common complaints/issues with current phones. Simply allowing consumers to buy and swap these two parts would go a long way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As technology continues to shrink more functionality into less space, it crosses the threshold where human limits require the device be _at least this big_ (whatever that size/shape minimum is). A screen can only be so small before it's practically unreadable. A touch area must provide at least so much space between tap targets and accommodate "fat fingers". The box of a phone must be big enough to hold comfortably to an ear. A small matchbox-size device would just plain be too awkward to use.

Seems Apple initiated the unchangeable phone (no swappable battery, extremely tight/solid tolerances) in part to get all that core functionality inside a box that small. Sufficient battery required X _Y_ Z volume; making it removable wasted a nontrivial amount of that, affecting talk time & durability.

Now that core functionality can be _smaller_ than the minimum usable size, including battery life acceptable to most users, there's some space again to "waste" on components like pluggable interconnects, module packaging (so a part is not fully exposed when removed), air gaps, etc.

"This here's a good axe. It's had nine handles and three heads."

"This is the last phone I bought. It's had nine batteries, three CPUs, two displays, four radios, ..."

</comment><comment><USER31> If you read Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution [1] book (sequel to Innovator's Dilemma), you'll see him talk about "integration" and "disintegration" (basically the modularization of a product or market).

So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are highly integrated, for several reasons. One is that the market is still new, so there isn't much of an "ecosystem" to begin with. Another is that the company with the "first mover's advantage" wants to keep stuff proprietary as much as possible, and another is that the product still kind of "sucks" in some areas (camera, battery life, in early days of the iPhone for example - compared to the traditional competition). So they need to make everything work as tightly as possible, to squeeze all the possible optimization out of it.

But eventually, the market becomes mature, the ecosystem grows, and the products become "good enough" for most people. So much of that extreme optimization or need to keep everything proprietary and in-house isn't needed anymore, and you actually start getting some advantages from the modularization of the market, such as buying a better modem than you can make from a "modem company", and so on.

For a while I wasn't sure this was going to happen to the smartphone market (ignoring the fact that there has been an increasing trend towards customization through colors and whanot), because for one the smartphone is a very tighly put together product, and it's hard to imagine how it could've been separated into a dozen different pieces without being junk, and two, for a while the trend was towards increasing "closeness" of devices, rather than openness.

But it seems it's going to happen, and ARA looks just about right (I wasn't a big fan of the Phonebloks pin-model). Still, even if the strategy here is "correct", and most likely on the _right side of history_ , Google will still need to excel at execution, and make sure using such a phone gives very few disadvantages compared to a regular phone, but many more advantages (being able to use whatever camera you want, without buying a $700 phone every year, and so on). Otherwise, people could be turned off by the initial version, and then it will be a lot harder to convince them what a good idea this is. But for now I'm optimistic.

[1] - [http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating- Sustainin...](http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustaining- Successful- ebook/dp/B00E257S7C/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1397650807&sr=8-1&keywords=innovator%27s+solution)

<comment><USER32> > So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are > highly integrated

Not sure about this one, seems like the opposite to me. Twenty years ago, PC's were very modular, and it was very common to add/upgrade a sound card, memory, cpu, video card etc. Fast forward to now, and for the most common computing devices (think tablets and smartphones), there is almost zero modularity or upgradability. Even with current PC's (i.e. mostly laptops), it's increasingly limited.

The same trend is apparent in other similar technology. For example with analog TV, people could add a PAL block if their TV was NTSC or SECAM. Upgrading your car used to be significantly easier etc.

<comment><USER33> You're forgetting the first wave of PC's - Apple II, TRS-80, TI-99, C64, etc. These machines had very little modularity compared to the wave of beige boxes that followed the IBM PC standard. I think Christensen even uses that as an example.

<comment><USER34> The S-100 buss based machines before those were very modular, if perhaps not PCs in the same sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I give this about a 5% chance of success, and 1% market share, maybe less, if it does succeed. That's still more than 10 million units per year, so not a failure. But this isn't going to be _your_ next phone.

If it falls much below that unit volume, the scheme implodes because the optional components will not find enough of a market to get manufactured.

In order to succeed, the internal connectivity scheme needs to not go obsolete over at least two, and preferably three product generations.

It also needs to find a market. People still build their own PCs for gaming, for lab automation, and other distinctly minority pursuits. So far, the niche for this product seems to be "people who find the idea attractive but can't articulate an actual need."

<comment><USER36> If all my module slots can go to batteries, I'll be tempted.

<comment><USER31> I think they said at least 2 modules can be used as battery (the larger ones).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Raise your hand if you bought an "upgradable" mother board in the 286 and 386 days.... Do you still have it?

I have a computer that still uses some of the same screws that my 486 used. For a long time I kept the original hard disk spinning even though I didn't store stuff on it... But when IDE connectors went away I stopped bothering with keeping it for nostalgia.

Even my case is no longer compatible, the power supply stopped being compatible long ago.

Some of this is "advancements" some of it is just that manufactures want to sell you new stuff.

Houses are about the only thing that are modular and you can say you will only need to buy one... The house I grew up in is nearly 200 years old. So far it hasn't needed to be replaced to do incompatibility.

</comment><comment><USER38> There is a market, or should I say: there are markets: * people who often broke their screens (my current boss is at 3 screens in 2 years, and counting) * enthusiast, early adopters, developpers,... * There is probably a good way to market it in developing countries too.

I would love having that phone, even more with a firefoxOS running on it. Having that plateform with open hardware specifications would be a huge boon for it to become a viable ecosystem. I could see firefoxOS and windows phone boarding it quite easily if it take.

PS: whereas specifications are open or not, IDK at the moment, not a lot of reliable information being available. Wishful thinking on my part I suppose. Still hoping.

</comment><comment><USER39> As someone mourning the fall of the full-qwerty physical keyboard phone (yes there are the new BB phones, but by the next time I upgrade I anticipate that BB will be dead), this gives me hope. There may not be enough people who want them for manufacturers to make whole phones, but maybe there are enough to support a market in quality keyboard modules.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is not marketed at me.

My phone buying thought process: Does this phone have the software I care about? Are apps tested to work with my exact device? Sold.

I do not want to spend a split second thinking about modules or RAM or anything and I'm a very technical person. I cannot imagine my mom dealing with this crap.

What is the market here? I would pay a premium to NOT deal with modules.

<comment><USER41> Once this is out, you _are_ paying a premium to not deal with modules by not getting one. It's a $50 phone you can swap components in and out of as upgrades become available. To me, that's infinitely better than buying a new $300 smartphone every other year.

But there's also a second appeal. Right now, phones are impenetrable black- boxes. You get what the manufacturer thinks you want. The reason I think a modular phone will become very popular is the same reason the AR-15 is the most popular gun in America: because you can play with it. You can swap parts in and out depending on what you need.

"Oh, I'm going hiking today? Better stick my extra-big battery and wide-field camera into my phone."

"Apple's putting a new zillion-byte SSD in the iPhone 9Q? Well good thing I can just buy the zillion-byte module for my modular phone instead of having to buy a whole new one."

And a million other examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Where are all those comments, blog posts and experts' analyses saying Phonebloks could never work in this world?

</comment><comment><USER43> I think the real-world use cases for a modular consumer device--like the Sasquatch of meaningful OOP code reuse--is overstated.

I think this could work for business use. But the consumer equation is tricky. Phones are fashion. Also phones take a lot of abuse.

</comment><comment><USER44> I really don't think phones will stay the way they are for decades. And modular phones definetely won't bear up for decades.

At some point every piece of the phone will have been exchanged, making it a completely new phone.

<comment><USER45> Is that a new phone though?

 _invents the question of the philosopher 's modular mobile phone_

<comment><USER44> The ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the exact same question.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_change)

<comment><USER45> I love that that Wikipedia article references Sugababes - a British pop band which has changed entire line up over it's existence (begging the question is it still the same band).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I wish someone had done this for PCs 20 years ago.

<comment><USER41> Can you clarify what you mean? Maybe not 20, but 15 years ago my dad was mucking around in the guts of our family computer, performing his own upgrades. By the time we got rid of that thing the only original component was the case. And nowadays you can order any piece of hardware you want off the internet and slap it in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> heh. you guy really have any hope? just count the number of devices google and its nexus partners released without even a sd card slot! motorola too since the google devices started.

the market demands that fast obsolency and they are evil now. the only thing holding back the nexus one as a strong daily phone is that it have no space for more than 5 modern apps. it does if you hack android 2.3 to install apps on the SD...

anyway. i wouldnt hold my breath. this is being done just to fail and harm other people pursuing it honestly. cynic much? probably. but i am mostly stating facts. how much does a sd slot saved in costs from your $600 phone? nothing. hiw many years its lack cut from the device longevity? more than half.

edit: plus the feature they advertise more is electro magnets! on a device where the biggest concern is battery... and which will have a case anyway that could hold everything together in case they used simple mechanical latches.

</comment><comment><USER48> It's a little gross that they seemingly picked up the PhoneBloks project and then entirely erased any traces of the original product and its creators. Hopefully that team's still involved and getting compensated...

<comment><USER49> From reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Ara#Development](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Ara#Development) I'm not sure it's fair or accurate to say they "seemingly picked up the PhoneBloks project."</comment></comment>