PayPal Acquires Braintree for $800M - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/paypal-acquires-payments-gateway-braintree-for-800m-in-cash/ <comment><USER2> Boy, everyone is so negative about the purchase on here! Braintree's customer base is far too large at this point for PayPal to _just shut it down_ ; that would be terrible PR because Braintree is critical to many businesses at this point. It's also not that easy to just go rip out one processor for another on a huge legacy code base.

PayPal would be making things worse for themselves if they did that and this purchase, is IMHO, an attempt to make things better for them and to bring them into the modern software world. I'm sure they also acquired Braintree for their engineers!

<comment><USER3> Yes, and PayPal definitely has a history of not upsetting its customers, avoiding negative PR, and not making things worse for themselves. We can certainly bet on them to handle this acquisition in a reasonable way.

<comment><USER4> Show me a company working as a purely Internet bank of sorts and I'll show you a company with pissed off customers. Truth is, this business is very hard. For every time Paypal misidentifies a target and blocks their payments, they correctly identify scammers many more times. We tend to think "is it that hard to tell a scammer from _blah legit site_?". The answer is _yes_ because guess what scammers are thinking everyday when they wake up? They are thinking _' how can we look more like a legit business so our payments go through'_.

I say this as someone whose had to go through paypal's painful process several times in over a decade of use.

<comment><USER5> I don't think the problem with Paypal are the payment blocks with no notification, the problem is their _complete and utter refusal to talk to the customer about it_.

They have anti-fraud systems. Fine. Fucking let me talk to someone who can put their fingers on the keyboard and get it sorted out without a front page article on Hacker News, Reddit, and The Consumerist to shame them into action.

<comment><USER6> PayPal has been trying hard to change this image. David Marcus, who took the helm, has been shifting focus on customer satisfaction. Here is an interesting article on David Marcus: [http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/12/if-its-not-broke- break-it-h...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/12/if-its-not-broke-break-it-how- david-marcus-is-dismantling-paypal-to-save-it/)

<comment><USER7> I can tell you from personal experience and experience of 25-30 others here.. Its a smoke screen. The last few people who tried to do what David says to media have either been canned or now serving in timeout zone. Again the President means well but culture internally is much worse. Its a company filled with people whose skills are way past their prime trying to hold on to what little mileage left. David wants things to change but the middle layer won't. More often than not they are the ones who make calls on day to day operations. Many senior execs who tried to get shit done were moved out by these politicians. Even today diplomacy/politicking is valued in the company over talent or Data or logic/reasoning.

as far as topic at hand is concerned, MR from Braintree will be working closely with DM and directly. So expect only good things. Buying Braintree is a business play. (Just check out their numbers and clientele). PayPal can try to get clients like AirBnB or Uber but those startups would try every other bush before PayPal.

Hope this helps

P.S: I work for PayPal and probably one of the strong proponents of it. The above opinions are purely mine. and No i have not been canned or put in a timeout box.. yet!

<comment><USER8> I've seen similar anecdotes before, but what I don't understand is why obstructive middle management haven't been shown the door. If it really is a mid-level problem how can the politicians manage to hold off executive management? And if they really are the problem, and both the front-line guys and executive level are willing to change, what reason is there to keep the naysayers around instead of firing and then promoting from within?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm always amused when I read the statements from newly acquired companies. They refuse to call it what it is, a purchase, and instead frame it as an alignment, a partnership, anything that allows them to distract from the fact that they are no longer autonomous.

<comment><USER10> One hardly ever hears the term "takeover" these days :)

<comment><USER11> That's probably because we all know what takeover means so they try to describe it and dace around what it actually is to make it sound better.

It's how you say it not what it is although by my book it's still the same damn thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Congrats to Stripe for all the new users!

<comment><USER13> I heard that. As I've said before, people revere the PayPal mafia, but revile PayPal.

As it's been said by others here, this is certainly good for Stripe because more than a few Braintree customers will flock their way to avoid PayPal, but it also creates opportunities for other upstarts in this arena.

That being said, there is a certain amount of lock-in for these products, so while it's relatively easy for a business to transition their new users/payers from Braintree to Stripe/others, it's pretty painful to transition existing users/payers out of Braintree as all existing users would need to re-key their CC numbers and billing addresses.

<comment><USER14> If only PayPal had joined Braintree's "Credit Card Data Portability" initiative [1]. I'm betting that's dead now with them joining PayPal, if it's even still active. If it is, get your data out quick before PayPal can lock it in!

[1]: [https://www.braintreepayments.com/blog/open-letter-to-the- ce...](https://www.braintreepayments.com/blog/open-letter-to-the-ceos-of- paypal-and-authorize-net-help-end-the-credit-card-data-hostage-situation)

<comment><USER10> I'm somewhat annoyed that they do not publish the list of providers who have joined this initiative [1].

[1] [http://www.portabilitystandard.org/](http://www.portabilitystandard.org/) (FAQ Q #1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The big winner here is not Braintree (though all the founders and current investors are to be congratulated) but Stripe. PC & Co, keep at it :)

<comment><USER16> Thanks! We will :).

(Today belongs to Braintree, as you say -- congrats to all of the folks connected with the company.)

<comment><USER15> Braintree, check, Ogone, Check. Who is next?

<comment><USER17> Klarna

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has put me off of Braintree and on to Stripe, but not for the reasons you might suspect. You see, I still want to take PayPal payments from my customers who prefer it. But it doesn't seem like a good business to have all my eggs in one basket, and using a competing payment system gives me the ability to switch PayPal off if they try any shenanigans.

<comment><USER19> That's why I only code against Spreedly [1] instead of directly against any payment processor. One API instead of 53, switch processors just by changing a variable, and you can securely store customers' payment info without locking yourself into any processor's vaulting solution either.

1: [https://spreedly.com/](https://spreedly.com/)

<comment><USER20> But instead you are reliant on Spreedly. Looks interesting though.

<comment><USER19> Which is a much better thing to be reliant on.

Payment processors are in the risk business -- becoming a risky account to underwrite, or their making a mistake in evaluating the risk, means you lose your account, any money that hasn't yet made it to your bank, and any customer info you have stored. Because the processor bears all the risk for chargebacks and bankruptcies of its merchants, it's an extremely thin margin business.

Spreedly is in the secure API business. They don't care much about the health of your business, the risk associated with your transactions, or anything else the processors care about. They just have to pass around messages and get paid a fee every time they do. It's a fat margin business.

The risk of losing a Spreedly account is much lower than losing a payment account. The risk of Spreedly suddenly going out of business is much lower than the risk of a small merchant account provider/reseller going out of business. And if you _choose_ to stop relying on Spreedly, they'll hand you all your customer data (securely) to take elsewhere, which most gateways with card vaulting refuse to do. It's not a choice of who to commit to, it's freedom from vendor lock-in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the long run I suspect that this will be a huge win for Stripe.

<comment><USER22> agreed.

<comment><USER23> If Paypal doesn't buy them too.. according to this article[1] the valuation is 500m, so less than what PP paid for Braintree..

[1] [http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/brothers-vow-not-to- sel...](http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/brothers-vow-not-to-sell-stripe- web-firm-valued-at-500m-29544203.html)

<comment><USER24> Doesn't this article say specifically Stripe is not for sale?

I don't know if there are other investors than Y Combinator though, there might be one that will push for a sale.

<comment><USER16> > _I don 't know if there are other investors than Y Combinator though, there > might be one that will push for a sale._

We do have other investors, but (luckily) they're as uninterested in selling as we are. We've always been clear with them that we want to build this for the long-term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is the rational behind this move?

From my perspective, Braintree had a good brand ( compared to paypal), locked- in customer base and sizeable cashflow (my conjecture based on their fees). Incumbents and first movers in this industry have a huge advantage over newcomers - so they were not as much at risk from newer start-ups. They were also risk averse in how they accepted new customers .

Could they not have restructured, focused on serving their existing customers rather than chasing growth, maybe downsized a bit, and gone for the long run viability with an IPO in about 5 years?

<comment><USER26> They took on a lot of VC and there is no way that an IPO would have valued Braintree at the level that PayPal did. With the amount of investment they took on, they needed an acquisition of at least 500-750 million to get the 10x return their investors expected.

In short, when you take on enough investment, your options are IPO or acquisition, whatever makes your big investors the happiest.

<comment><USER27> > _They took on a lot of VC and there is no way that an IPO would have valued > Braintree at the level that PayPal did._

So actually the VCs aimed the company to be bought by PayPal ... and succeeded. Seems that most people misunderstood Braintree's business model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looks like Braintree will have to change all their "we're not PayPal!" marketing now.

<comment><USER29> As a Braintree customer I am a little worried. I went with them for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones was the fact that they're not PayPal.

<comment><USER30> PayPal likely purchased them because they aspire to be more like Braintree.

<comment><USER31> Is there any evidence of this? Besides 800m in cash

<comment><USER30> David Marcus has previously acknowledged that PayPal needs to improve: [http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/09/david-marcus-paypal- custom...](http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/09/david-marcus-paypal-customer- service/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's disappointing, because among that market segment, Braintree is the only one that offers phone support, and for that, I fancy them over Stripe, Balanced, and others.

That said, maybe now with Paypal support, they will reverse their stance on crowdfunding. If not, I'm desperate for a professional payment processor that doesn't ask me to send an email if I have an issue.

<comment><USER33> Michael from Braintree here.

You can expect the same solid customer support from Braintree as always, delivered by the same support, accounts, and risk teams. You can also expect even more innovative technology and products to come during this new chapter for Braintree. If you have specific questions about your account, you can always talk to a real person at 877.434.2894 or email@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Speaking to RTÉ News in Dublin, Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison said he and brother John have no plans to sell the company. He said they already have experience of selling a company early in their careers and saw what that involves."

[http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0903/471900-stripe- laun...](http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0903/471900-stripe-launch/) The video interviews with Patrick are worth a look too.

Patrick is 24, his brother is even younger. I am with Stripe from the day they launched in Ireland, it was easy to choose them over the likes of Braintree and Paymill who aimed for simplicity but still required quite some formalities. Also, Paymill is Samwer brothers, a turn-off for some entrepreneurs and developers.

<comment><USER34> "Speaking to RTE News in Dublin, Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison said he and brother John plan to sell as soon as possible at the largest possible price". If you can't imagine the opposite quote ever happening then there's no point putting much weight on the initial one - no matter what the circumstance.

<comment><USER15> Except that that wasn't the quote.

<comment><USER34> Perhaps it would have been less snippety to say "What else can they say when asked?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> We were just about to add payments to our site, and Braintree was high on the list to checkout. Any other suggestions in addition to Stripe?

-edit- This seems like a good list: [http://gatewayindex.spreedly.com](http://gatewayindex.spreedly.com)

<comment><USER19> If you do at least $3-5k/month in transactions, a real merchant account from a bank/ISO/MSP. I pay $0.05 + 0.04% markup over interchange. Even after the monthly and gateway (Authorize.net) fees, that's around 2%, compared to Stripe's 2.9% or PayPal's 2.2% (I qualify for their merchant rate discount). Amex cards are the only ones I pay more for by not doing a flat rate.

[By coding against Spreedly, it's possible to do things like send all Visa and MasterCard charges to Authorize.net, and all Amex charges to PayPal for the flat rate, without ever seeing the cardholder data myself. I don't though.]

<comment><USER36> I'm more interested in micropayments but this interchange stuff seems a bit complicated. How would a $2 payment work out with interchange included ? I mean, what fees would apply for a $2 credit card payment ?

<comment><USER37> So you'd have to pay interchange, plus whatever your processor charges on top of that, which will depend on them, and volume. You can definitely shop around a little bit, there's probably several local people who can talk you through it and bring you some offers to the table from various processors, but also get a quote from people like TSYS, First Data, and Chase Paymentech directly.

I'm remembering fees varying from $.05 to $0.10 and 0.10% to 0.15% on top of interchange. The visa interchange rates are available at (1) to give you an idea. You're mostly interested in the eCommerce categories probably, so you'll be paying 1.80 to 1.95% plus $0.10 on top of whatever you're paying from you're processor for credit cards, debit cards are cheaper.

Many people that do micropayments will try to combine some transactions together, in order to save money. That said, you might be interested in paypal micropayments (2), as they only charge $0.05 + 5%, which for a $2 transaction, is a big savings.

1: [http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-usa- interchange-...](http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-usa-interchange- reimbursement-fees-april2013.pdf)

2: [https://www.paypalobjects.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropaym...](https://www.paypalobjects.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropayments.html)

<comment><USER36> Thanks for the detailed information. That certainly clears things up a bit.

I've been using Paypal micropayments for the past year or so and it's been the best bet for $2 transactions (I pay 6%+$0.05 for cross border payments). Ends up being $0.17 per transaction. I haven't come across anything that beats that by a large enough margin so as to replace Paypal yet.

The only downside is that Paypal is applying the standard 6% fee to $20 transactions as well (as opposed to the lower 2.9% fee), so I either need to route these transactions to a non-micropayments Paypal account or do something else with them... this is what I am currently working on solving. The difference doesn't come out to be much for a $20 transaction but with higher transaction volume it will certainly stick out as a sore point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> If you remember Google Checkout has been scrapped and merchants won't be able to accept payments after the 20th of November 2013. One of the three companies Google recommended as a replacement payment gateway was in fact Braintree.

[http://tamebay.com/2013/09/paypal-to-acquire-braintree- googl...](http://tamebay.com/2013/09/paypal-to-acquire-braintree-google- checkout-clients.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Venmo, which was acquired by Braintree. Its no secret that PayPal wants to dominate mobile payments - yet, most people don't even know that you can send money to other people for free using PayPal (an essential component to mobile person to person payments).

<comment><USER40> I agree. The new PayPal wallet app that just launched recently is fitting for an older generation and could be improved 100x with Venmo. It will be interesting to see how they will fold Venmo into the current PayPal app, or would it make more sense to keep them as separate apps? I think the latter makes more sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Well this has put me off ever using them.

<comment><USER42> Thats ok. I'm pretty sure they won't exist for much longer now anyhow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm amused that photo-sharing companies are more valuable than CC payment processing companies that actually generate revenue.

<comment><USER44> COGS for your standard photosharing app are much lower than for a payment processor and they don't have to deal with crazy amounts of risk (CC chargebacks). But yes, I get your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Ouch. I feel for Braintree customers. I expect many of them chose them primarily because they were not PayPal.

</comment><comment><USER46> Anyone got stats on the acquisition split between owning parties (founders/investors/employees)?

<comment><USER47> People always ask for this, and the answer is always going to be "We won't disclose that." Publishing the cap table is invariably going to be net negative for the people on it.

To the limited extent that having rough numbers helps improve your estimation of what the payoff matrix is if you build a business to where it is worth $800 million: typically, the founders would split several hundred million, most employees would get $X0,000 to $Y00,000, and exceptionally early employees plus key executives (CEO, etc) walk away with a few million. The remainder (several hundred million) goes to the investors.

Braintree's numbers might be different due to their bootstrapped pre-funding trajectory or due to choices made by the founders, but ultimately their numbers are their numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> We are just about to start using BrainTree, for the only reason that they are not PayPal...

<comment><USER49> I've been a Braintree customer for several years and have been really happy with the service and support, but if I were in your shoes I'd probably take a hard look at Stripe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> congrats to the team. building payments is hard (braintree has been at it since 2007) and it's great to see a successful exit for a solid team & company

</comment><comment><USER10> Title is a bit misleading, Braintree is not acquired by Paypal.

1\. The transaction is planned between eBay and Braintree.

2\. At this point eBay has plans to acquire Braintree (agreed to acquire).

<comment><USER30> Yeah, but Braintree's CEO is reporting into David Marcus, and all of the quotes from the eBay side are talking about PayPal. For all intents and purposes, Braintree has been acquired by PayPal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> "Braintree" not "Briantree"

<comment><USER52> Maybe it's because the CEO of braintree is called "Bill Ready". Heh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'd be curious as to what this would likely mean for an employee of Braintree (or Venmo) holding, say, a 0.25 to 1.5 precent equity slice (or option).

Note that I'm not asking anyone from either of those companies to leak, here. Just that I'd be curious what the payout (if any) would likely be in this scenario, drawing on past models.

<comment><USER54> Are you incapable of multiplying by a decimal? I wonder how much somehow who owns 1% of $100 has. Any rough ideas?

<comment><USER53> Equity splits are a bit more complicated than that, actually.

Especially when company B buys company A, and in turn is bought by company C.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Although I am sticking with Stripe, I hope that they leverage features like Venmo with PayPal's (rather large) user base - mobile payments are terrible as it stands.

It'll be interesting to see if large partners (GitHub, AirBnB, etc) stay onboard through the transition or if they are coerced by competitors.

</comment><comment><USER56> Im happy for them, but you have to admit a lot has changed since this one was published:

[https://37signals.com/svn/posts/2800-bootstrapped- profitable...](https://37signals.com/svn/posts/2800-bootstrapped-profitable- proud-braintree)

</comment><comment><USER57> Paypal will kill it, PAYPAL are the absolute worst company in the world and terrible to for any new businesses who endup having their money "held" for ridiculous amounts of time, and no customer support.

<comment><USER30> Why do you think PayPal bought them? It probably wasn't solely for the userbase, right?

<comment><USER58> My take:

1) Braintree is a dog fart compared to paypal. They certainly weren't bought for the user base. (although, their size probably probably affected the choice between stripe and bt)

2) David Marcus was acquihired from a team of 5 (a 'real startup') and has been working to startupify paypal. [1] Perhaps he thinks Braintree could be an example to the rest of the company.

3) Venmo is the most successful peer to peer mobile payments app. Peer to peer mobile payments will transition into wallet, and then banking. It's an important position to own.

4) Paypal's customer base is 'aging' like yahoo's has been. Braintree has a younger, hipper market segment (than paypal).

5) Stripe is cooler than braintree, but another order of magnitude smaller, plus they don't have the white-glove support of Braintree. From what I've heard, DM is continuously frustrated by Paypal's support. I believe BT's support is seen as a learning opportunity for PayPal. Also, Braintree was able to successfully copy all Stripe's innovations. Braintree has large, mature intl. presence, too.

Not an expert but thats my attempt to be 'objective'

[1][http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/12/if-its-not-broke-break- it-h...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/12/if-its-not-broke-break-it-how-david- marcus-is-dismantling-paypal-to-save-it/)

<comment><USER59> Venmo is also used by Simple[1] [2] so it's already in banking. That may have influenced things. If Simple get big then Paypal could end up processing a significant amount of banking transactions.

[1] [https://simple.com/](https://simple.com/) [2] [http://pandodaily.com/2013/09/20/mobile-payments-are-one- thi...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/09/20/mobile-payments-are-one-third-of- braintrees-business/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm curious if PayPal will begin to shift to make accepting PayPal requests as simple as credit card. I suppose the problem with that is the need to supply a password, but they could change things in PayPal to use something like Google Authenticator to use a 6-digit pin, or perhaps a separate purchase-only password that cannot log into the account.

It would be great to be able to use the same API to accept credit card and PayPal payments. I currently use Braintree for CC payments but I have to have a completely separate workflow for PayPal payments.

<comment><USER58> Have you heard of Venmo Touch? It allows payments with one click/tap so long as you're "cookied" with a Venmo token.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> We were in the middle of migrating from PayPal to Braintree for a marketplace solution. Anyone have documentation or comments on Stripe vs. Balancedpayments.com vs. Braintree for marketplaces?

<comment><USER44> Hi, I'm one of Balanced's co-founders. You might find this Quora post helpful [1]. Each company you mentioned chimes in about their relative strengths. From the Balanced side, here's why I think we stand out:

Balanced has been doing nothing but marketplace payments since early 2011, and have a history of coming out with the functionality most useful to marketplaces (and crowdfunders) 6-12 months before anyone else:

\- Next-day payouts (same-day for WF)

\- Stand-alone ACH payouts

\- White-label merchant onboarding

\- Dynamic soft-descriptor control

We've got a lot more coming out soon, and as an open company, you'll have a voice in exactly what we build.

That said, I'm not sure what your specific needs are, but shoot me an email at email@example.com and we can figure it out. Thanks!

[1] [http://www.quora.com/With-the-release-of-Braintree- Marketpla...](http://www.quora.com/With-the-release-of-Braintree-Marketplaces- is-there-any-actual-difference-between-Braintree-Stripe-WePay-and-Balanced)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Time to look for a new payment provider. Braintree stood out with their amazing service and support. Paypal stand out for their complete lack of competent service and support.

</comment><comment><USER63> Boo! Paypal sucks and is a terrible company. I only use it when I'm forced to because I do not have access to international credit cards here in South America (where I live).

Too bad.

<comment><USER64> I feel the pain!

I'm building a iPad POS and finally forget about provide credit card payments for my latin-america customers (except using paypal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> A lot of haters.

They had a successful exit, and for a good chunk of cash. This is a big win for the Braintree team. It's always good when people can cash out their shares.

</comment><comment><USER66> Did they want Venmo for it's ability to make payments online, or to kill competition that lets people give/receive payments "for free".

</comment><comment><USER67> EBay recognized there are two types of people who pay online, those that like PayPal and those that don't. Now they can serve both.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's a pity all these "better-than-Paypal" companies only serve US/Canada/sometimes Europe. Paypal owns the whole rest of the world! Maybe they can now help internationalize Braintree instead of imposing their badness onto it. Also sad that you can't sell hair extensions with Braintree :?(

<comment><USER44> Click the "Select your country" button at the bottom of Braintree's site. It looks like they're available in US, CAN, AUS, and 40+ countries in Europe, but yes, PayPal owns the rest of the world, could help Braintree expand faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Rather than bickering about how this is bad for the market, why don't you folks write to the DOJ or your congressmen and voice your opposition?

The DOJ rightfully stopped the AT&T / T-Mobile merger in its tracks, who is to say that they wouldn't do something similar in this case?

<comment><USER19> Because there are _hundreds_ of options for credit card processing in the US, as opposed to a handful of cell providers for some regions. There's no risk of creating a monopoly or significantly reducing competition here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Just cashed out all my money on Venmo.

</comment><comment><USER71> I hope Paypal handles this better than PayflowPro, which is a seriously neglected product acquired from Verisign . No support on the weekends, even if your account is having technical issues that disrupt customer payments.

</comment><comment><USER72> While I like to see more competition in the marketplace, I think this is a smart move for Paypal and also a big milestone for a Chicago startup exit. Congratulations are in order to the Braintree team.

</comment><comment><USER73> Wasn't Braintree owned by Wells Fargo, the worst bank ever? Yet Braintree itself was still awesome during that time. Let's hope that awesomeness continues under Paypal.

<comment><USER44> No on the footer of Braintree's site it states: > Braintree is a registered ISO/MSP of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

This means Braintree is using WF as a banking service provider, but is not owned by them.

<comment><USER73> Cool thanks for clarifying

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I wonder how much Paypal has badgered Stripe for an acquisition.

<comment><USER75> Braintree is more developed as a business

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> We've just signed up with braintree the other day trying to flee PayPal (somehow i thought the deal won't go through). Let's hope for the best :)

</comment><comment><USER77> Sight, will there ever be a PayPal alternative?

<comment><USER78> I've suggested Stripe, but I know they have some geolocation restrictions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Congrats to Braintree! My only concern is this is reducing competition in a market that desperately needs more competition.

</comment><comment><USER80> WOW! Didn't see that one coming.

</comment><comment><USER81> Damn I just read about Braintree in Choose Yourself...now its being acquired for 800 Million...

</comment><comment><USER82> Let's hope Paypal adopts more of Braintree's practices than vice-versa.

</comment><comment><USER83> Wow, if Braintree is worth $800M.. what must Stripe be worth?

<comment><USER84> Around 500M.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Now it runs so smoothly..)

Btw, I think YC already peaked, isn't it?)

</comment><comment><USER86> That's too bad.

</comment><comment><USER87> I guess that's what Paypal used my "rolling reserve" for.

</comment><comment><USER88> Who gives a shit as long as Stripe is still around.

</comment><comment><USER89> Imagine how upset they'll be when they thought they were buying Braintree, but got some guy called Brian's tree.

<comment><USER41> It appears Mr Brian Tree is actually an actor - [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0871672/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0871672/)</comment></comment>


Facebook wins right to police "face-" trademark prefix - <AUTHOR> http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91198355&pty=OPP&eno=64 <comment><AUTHOR> By way of explanation...

I filed a number of trademark applications around Think's FACECASH registered trademark just in case Think ended up expanding into other fields. One of them was FACEMAIL. Facebook filed an opposition despite our "settlement" agreement.

Facebook argued that it was confusing. I argued that the market is full of confusion: for example, Apple owns FACETIME, a software product that overlaps completely with Facebook's market. At the hearing, I also pointed out two more "confusing" eight-letter same-four-letter-prefix marks that everyone knows: STAR TREK and STAR WARS. Facebook paid a consultant $120,000 to create a survey that ignored the state of the market and asked people what company they thought made a product called FACEMAIL. Only 36.2% chose Facebook, Inc.

Throughout the multi-year process, Facebook's lawyers refused to respond to typical phone calls and e-mails. I filed a motion for sanctions, which was granted in part here. They also redacted just about everything that suggested I existed, so I filed a motion to counter that, which was also granted in part.

In the end, the Board concluded that the two marks were likely to confuse consumers--completely ignoring the state of the market, and the fact that the increase in digital video technology especially leads to more uses of faces in computing--and argued that because FACEBOOK is famous, and because FACE is an important part of FACEBOOK, Facebook can stop the registration of any FACE- mark that could be argued to be related to anything Facebook does.

I also pointed out that Facebook always uses the same shade of blue and the same font to emphasize its design mark, and that FACEMAIL would not be used in the same manner, so it would not be confusing. One of the judges on the panel countered that I "might" do that in the future, though. So suddenly we were discussing (in a civil context) pre-crime: whether I should be restrained broadly from doing something narrow I specifically planned not to do.

Facebook's internal counsel admitted at the hearing that their standard naming scheme is "FACEBOOK X" where X is some feature, but then made it try to sound like Facebook, Inc. has some features with the FACE- prefix, which it does not. In fact, she was referring to one app on the effectively-defunct Facebook Platform, which is not made by Facebook, Inc.

Thankfully the Board completely ignored Facebook's even-more-draconian argument that FACEMAIL would cause "trademark dilution," a new phenomenon invented by Congress at the behest of enormous corporations. The law is so insane (especially since it was amended) that the Board tries to ignore it out of existence, rarely ruling upon dilution issues.

I pointed out (in writing, in the record, with a printout from harvard.edu and by waving the paper version I had from 2003 at them) that Harvard and other universities have used FACEBOOK for decades, making it a generic term that offers zero protection in the view of the appellate courts. To that, the Board said, "applicant's argument that 'The Facebook' is the name of an electronic directory of Harvard University students is not supported by any testimony or evidence."

Right.

<comment><USER2> I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook.

<comment><USER3> So did a third of other random people surveyed. You would not be in the majority apparently, and after seeing a logo or web page you would hopefully be able to figure out it is not created by Facebook.

<comment><USER2> It doesn't matter whether it's a majority. A third of people is a large proportion.

<comment><USER4> So what's your point? Does this mean Facebook has some right to the 'face-' prefix? I strongly disagree.

Might be worth looking over the history between Apple Corps and Apple Computer [1]. Who should have had the trademark there?

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wonder how this affects Apple's _face_ time?

<comment><USER6> I wonder how Apple got around the problems with their name being the same as the record label. I somewhere heard that they got the permission to use it if they promise not to enter the music business. ... which they did with the iPod.

<comment><USER7> I'm unsure if you legitimately don't know or are being sarcastic, but if it's the former, Wikipedia has a decent write-up.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Having just gone through my own trademark hoopla, I'm convinced that trademark examiners might as well be throwing darts at a dartboard. The decisions are so arbitrary that there ends up being essentially no established precedent for a lot of critical questions -- "acquired distinctiveness" "descriptive" etc. ultimately mean "how deep are your pockets" and "how many times are you willing to appeal."

</comment><comment><USER9> Don't have me for this, but it seems that "Facemail" is actually a little confusing for consumers. It isn't all that surprising.

I doubt if you tried to register Facezombies or Faceballs that they would have a complaint, but considering that Facebook DOES have email, and they ARE a technology company...

<comment><USER10> Facebook has an email address, but I wouldn't call it email. Isn't it all just in-app messages? Can you send email from facebook?

<comment><USER11> Not RFC2821/RFC2822 email, but it is a form of email as far as the public are concerned. The term "email" doesn't necessarily have to mean Internet email that is compatible with other Internet email systems, even if you might wish it to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Human beings only have so much time before all common names, names for things in general, are used up and trademarked. A brick wall in "naming stuff" WILL be hit sooner than later.

<comment><USER13> Psh. That's what Unicode is for.

<comment><USER12> And GUIDS. I should name my next game 6ef8f4a6-9f9d-468b-b44b-f2dbd38c068d

<comment><USER14> My game uses the same 6ef8f4a6 prefix. Please stop using this ASAP. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So if some skater makes a site of skaters faceplanting, a phrase that's been around forever, Facebook is going to come down on them.

This is why we cannot have nice things.

<comment><USER16> Facepalm

<comment><USER17> lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Facebook wins right to police "face-" trademark prefix" is a misleading headline.

<comment><USER19> Care to explain?

<comment><USER20> They won because the products (messaging) are identical, the customers (people over 13) are the same, the distribution channels (the Internet) are the same, and because Facebook has a huge recognition in the social media sector (matched in the survey only by Twitter) and many many users (despite the fact that people can sign up for more than one account).

Facebook aren't asking to police all uses of Face*, they asked to stop a specific trademark for a single product.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, just all uses of FACE- and -BOOK on the internet.

[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Facebook,%20Inc](http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Facebook,%20Inc).

<comment><USER20> But you lost because the product was identical (messaging) in the same area (social networking).

All your link shows is a trademark holder protecting their trademark. Some of those will win, some will lose.

It sucks that the legal system requires trademark holders to do that. But it's not Facebook's fault.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Facepalm

<comment><USER22> (tm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I genuinely don't know what you were expecting.

You propose to create an identical product (messaging) distributed through identical channels (the Internet) to a similar audience as the existing Facebook sub-product. You propose to call that product Facemail, even though the existing competitor Facebook is very big and very well known.

Despite what some people here are saying, and counter to the title, quoting from the link:

> _In this regard, we note that opposer is not, as applicant argues, claiming > the exclusive right to use the word "Face" or for that matter the word > "Book"; rather, opposer claims the exclusive right to use the mark FACEBOOK > in connection with social networking services, including email and instant > messaging services._

</comment><comment><USER23> facefucking is now trademarked by facebook?

<comment><USER24> I assume you're being facetious (tm).

<comment><USER23> its quite the facet to my personality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There go my ideas: FaceStarter, FaceBnB, FaceBox, Face37Signals.

But still a go on SnapFace.

</comment><comment><USER26> And now corporations try to steal common words from people, even the word "Face", it will be interesting to see how hackers groups will react to this.

</comment><comment><USER27> Wait till they trademark their blue colour like these [http://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are- trademarked-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are- trademarked-2012-9?op=1) ...

<comment><USER28> In all fairness, when you mentioned corporate colors, I immediately thought of 3 of the companies on that list (Home Depot, John Deere, and UPS). And I can also see how using Texas and Burnt Orange together could be an issue. Caterpillar is also fairly distinctive, and I don't think it's unreasonable to for them to attempt to limit competitors' production of yellow construction equipment.

<comment><USER29> But caterpillar and john deere compete in the same market and have a similar shade of yellow...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Next up, they'll go after anything with 'book' in the name.

<comment><USER31> They don't already?

<comment><USER32> No, that's Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Thank goodness they aren't going after the -face suffix or the IT Crowd would be in trouble with friend-face.

</comment><comment><USER34> Does Facebook even have any products or features with the "face-" prefix?

<comment><AUTHOR> Excluding Facebook, no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Could you imagine if they also won the right to "Insta-" as well?

</comment><comment><USER36> That's similar to Zynga trademarking "with friends", right?

<comment><USER37> Yes, there is -- which is why I can empathize with Aaron on this one. It feels a lot like being bullied when a company makes the dilution argument.

There was a brief dispute we had with Zynga who wanted us to change the name of CupidWithFriends ([http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/17/with-friends-joke-goes- here...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/17/with-friends-joke-goes-here/)). That went away, but they are legally required to try and enforce the trademark or they lose the right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> :facepalm:

</comment><comment><USER39> Try renaming it gfacemail and hiring 50 Cent as a partner.

</comment><comment><USER40> wow... next you will be able to trademark letters

<comment><USER29> Like iPhone and iPad? Didn't Apple try to enforce the "i" trademark. How did that end up?</comment></comment>


Bitcoin Storms Back from Dip Below $10,000 in White-Knuckle Ride - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-17/bitcoin-steadies-from-26-slump-as-traders-brave-volatility <comment><USER2> Half the reason to have some BTC is all the excitement. I think, in the end, it'll be the biggest dividend I get from having a little.</comment>


The Fallacy That Is Cryptocurrency - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/the-fallacy-that-is-cryptocurrency-ya3u36q3 <comment><USER2> Wow, this is one of the most confused articles about cryptocurrencies that I have ever read. He runs off the rails almost from the very beginning:

"currencies are systems of value exchange"

No, a currency is a _physical_ token issued by an institution that is a proxy for money, usually bank notes and coins. Money is the system of exchange. The dollars in your bank account are money, but they aren't currency. The dollars in your wallet are both. Old Zimbabwean dollars are currency but not money.

It just goes downhill from there.

<comment><USER3> Currencies are systems of value exchange. It is the reason why the term is derived from the word "current" as in a river's current because if you follow the exchange of money over the domain of a given money, eg. the US Dollar, you see its "current" or flow as units of money are traded between customers, retailers, banks and exchanges. A currency is defined by the domain of its value in relation to other currency and its exchange. Money is a "mostly" static value, this dollar is worth this much bread. Currency is an algebra of the domain of money measured over the economy of that money's exchanges including the changes in inflation in relation to the money value of a dollar in relation to bread.

<comment><USER2> > Currencies are systems of value exchange.

No. That's _money_. Not all currencies are money. Zimbabwean dollars, for example, are a currency but they are not money. "Worthless currency" is not an oxymoron, but "worthless money" is. Money has value _by definition_. Currency doesn't.

> It is the reason why the term is derived from the word "current"

The etymology of a word has very little to do with its current meaning. "Calculate" is derived from the latin word for "stone", but that doesn't mean that calculating has anything to do with stones. (It did at one time, but not any more.)

> Currency is an algebra of the domain of money measured over the economy of > that money's exchanges including the changes in inflation in relation to the > money value of a dollar in relation to bread.

That might be a useful definition, but it's not the one used by economists. "Currency" is a proper subset of "money", which also comprises bank money [1], cash-equivalent securities [2] and commodities [3], all of which are money and none of which are currencies.

\---

[1] [https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/bank%20money](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/bank%20money)

[2] [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cashequivalents.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cashequivalents.asp)

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

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency)

A currency (from Middle English: curraunt, "in circulation", from Latin: currens, -entis), in the most specific sense is money in any form when in use or circulation as a medium of exchange, especially circulating banknotes and coins.[1][2] A more general definition is that a currency is a system of money (monetary units) in common use, especially for people in a nation.[3] Under this definition, U.S. dollars (US$), pounds sterling (£), Australian dollars (A$), European euros (€), Russian rubles (₽) and Indian rupees (₹) are examples of currencies. These various currencies are recognized as stores of value and are traded between nations in foreign exchange markets, which determine the relative values of the different currencies.[4] Currencies in this sense are defined by governments, and each type has limited boundaries of acceptance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A guy who advocates blockchain solutions yet dismisses cryptocurrency surely misunderstands both.

Also whatever main "fallacy" (to use author's word) is at work in both of these is ultimately rooted in confused and ambiguous notions of decentralization.

It's really not the tech that's the problem, it's the assumptions and premises it is derived from, which is why every year blockchain tech spirals into greater and more layered complications in the hopeless pursuit of resolving this impossible conflict; very much a modern day geocentrism-epicycles disciplinary failure mode.

</comment><comment><USER5> I used to be a believer in cryptocurrency, and I still it think it has practical applications, but not as currency. When my credit card got skimmed and the thief started to make unauthorized transactions, I was immediately informed of this, called my bank and eventually got my money back. This is the moment where I realized if I have my all my money in crypto, when it gets stolen or otherwise, I will never get it back.

<comment><USER6> You are advocating for crypto insurance. With regard to banks, if a thief withdraws cash from your ATM card, that money is gone. The bank has lost it. An outside insurer (or, if a large enough bank, self insurance) pays out the bank the amount they lost. Same is true if a thief is able to do a wire. ACH transfers may be a bit easier because typically the receiving bank won't allow withdrawals before the sending bank's chargeback period, but if they do, then their insurance will compensate for the loss.

I agree that crypto doesn't have a solid financial system backing it and that is necessary to be a replacement for the current one.

I'm not a huge crypto-believer, but I do think your criticism here is ultimately not really a criticism of crypto itself, but the financial system around it. Plenty of real-world currency suffers from the same lack of solid financial system. For example, I imagine you would be hard-pressed to find the same guarantees from banks dealing with venezuelan bolivars.

That being said, I think the best use case for crypto is still not one where every single person runs their own wallet. Rather, most people would use depository institutions who could run settlement on the blockchain. The main contribution and innovation is removal of red tape that is typically incurred when one wants to become a depository institution (mainly obtuse technical interfaces, slow clearing houses, etc).

<comment><USER7> I think you are focusing on the specifics of that complaint and not the general reasoning behind it. It is a problem if cryptocurrencies need a mature financial system built around them to be usable when one of the primary selling points that people were hyping about cryptocurrencies was the ability to circumvent the current financial system.

<comment><USER8> > one of the primary selling points that people were hyping about > cryptocurrencies was the ability to circumvent the current financial system

Perhaps you primarily heard relatively uninformed people. "circumvent the current financial system" would probably be called some out of touch with reality woo-woo by many.

Many would instead say decentralization is the primary selling point.

Specifically, the inability of a small group to affect monetary policy, particularly the inflation rate, or to prevent access to the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My concern with fiat money and the benefits that cryptocurrency provides align very well. My concern with fiat currency is that it is entirely possible that tomorrow we will wake up to discover that the digital systems banks use to trace and account for money, systems we know are antiquated and maintained and expanded with the least effort and expense physically possible, are meaningless. The discovery of a persistent system of exploitation which has made the balance numbers held by all banks into nonsense is entirely possible. If it is discovered that large economic players or criminals have EVER manipulated the values recorded as an 'account balance' to represent instead pure fiction - game over. I would expect this observation to be announced first by a nation foreign to the US, followed by that nation no longer accepting digital transfers of any kind in US dollar denominations, as their basis for value, solely trust in the digital accounting systems of US banks, evaporated overnight.

There is no possible way for a bank to 'prove' that the billion-dollar balance of a Walmart account represents anything of value. They can show that their systems reflect it, but it ends there. They can not prove that, say, $500 million of that balance is invented 'funny money' that represents absolutely nothing. Cryptocurrencies can not have this happen, as they manage their reliance on trust. I can prove a bitcoin is legitimate mathematically, and I need ask nothing of the other party for them to be able to verify it themselves. I can not prove a dollar displayed as part of my account balance at a bank is legitimate. And, as far as I understand matters, neither can anyone else. I must ask the other party to trust my bank, or trust the FDIC, or trust the US governments computer systems, or something along those lines.

The ideal situation, of course, would be a government-backed cryptocurrency with the government guaranteeing that the cryptocurrency would be honored as legal tender. But the political clout of banks makes such a thing very difficult. It would place banks in a position of actually earning their profits through the lending and borrowing of money, rather than actually profiting from garnering nearly every single monetary transaction which occurs (solely those which are conducted purely in cash exempted) in the economy in an act of cryptotaxation (the crypto prefix here meaning 'hidden', not related to cryptography).</comment>


Tech companies: open allocation is your only real option. - <AUTHOR> http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/tech-companies-open-allocation-is-your-only-real-option/

<comment><USER2> I really enjoyed reading this (fairly long) essay.

Valve has a company culture I admire and having a name for a similar structure (open allocation) helps when speaking about intentions.

I particularly enjoyed the portion of the essay that dealt with dividers vs subtractors. It's fairly evident that everyone starts as a subtractor, and should not be fired _just_ because they take longer to get acclimated. Dividers, on the other hand, are a kind of person that not only take down companies, but also take down relationships and friends in their personal lives.

I've personally spent much of my life identifying "divider" behavior in myself and eliminating it so I can commonly identify these types of people. I wonder, however, if there is a third category which would be a subtractor that doesn't wish to improve. This could potentially be classified as a low-level of divider, but takes longer to identify for me personally. I also wonder if these types could have their course altered with the right persuasion early enough.

Ex: Someone who makes concrete plans and bails increasingly over time with originally convincing reasons. These originally convincing reasons are visibly full of (not necessarily malicious) ulterior motives once you are familiar with them. The "early intervention" in this situation would have the goal of making the person more reliable by somehow solving their ulterior concerns.

My belief is this organizational structure is a driving force for my startup.</comment>


Healthy Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-javascript-collection/healthy-open-source-967fa8be7951#.g8bttlvmj <comment><USER2> Shame that this has gotten so few hits. It very nicely outlines the issues many bigger projects are having which they attribute to the tooling (for example GitHubs issues) and try to solve them by making the barrier of entry much much higher.</comment>


Used ThinkPad Buyer's Guide - <AUTHOR> http://ktgee.net/post/49423737148/thinkpad-guide#intel <comment><USER2> I lost all trust and respect for Lenovo after the Superfish debacle. I'm a PC user and wouldn't buy one of their machines on principle. But I wouldn't have said that 6 months ago. Lenovo's user-serviceable and utilitarian design are pretty awesome, and their keyboards are among the best.

Lenovo's batteries really suck. They lose life a __lot __quicker than Apple 's batteries and are very expensive to replace, especially since the primary and optibay batteries tend to die around the same time. At least they're user replaceable.

I'm a fan of Dell's laptops lately. Many newer Dell laptops have good Linux support. Oddly, I think Dell Alienware laptops are great as portable workstation laptops because they're powerful and can stay cool, but YMMV.

<comment><USER3> I lost all respect for them when I tried using the trackpad on their newer laptops. After a year of use it still took me multiple attempts to right-click on something. My brother just disabled his and learned to use the nipple. I can't imagine how an established company could make an essential part of a laptop that unusable.

<comment><USER4> Basically everyone wants to mimic Apple superficially. Apparently Lenovo thinks people are buying W540s because they look like MacBooks[1]. It wasn't enough to ship the X1 all weirded out, they had to go fuck up the rest of the line, too.

Lenovo even had a blogpost where they claimed "most users adapt" in a short amount of time. Not that there was any benefit, just that they needed to modernize the design and it wasn't that harmful. Idiots.

The X201t is like the pinnacle of their design. 16:10 screen (important if you use Windows, especially inside a RDP app - 1366x786 just doesn't have enough vertical pixels).

The X201 also had a FULL keyboard. They used every cm of the laptop to fit all the keys in. The newer X series 12", they remove keys, and _added blank space around the keyboard_. Here they are trynna cram stuff in, and they literally throw away 2-3 keys worth of space.

Lenovo is just beyond incompetent in designing things at this point. I don't know about the sales side, but since everyone else in this space is just as bad, it probably doesn't harm them. But if Dell ever wakes up and says "oh, hey, maybe we should make real laptops", they'd steal away ThinkPad's marketshare pretty quickly.

Oh and just to insult us on top of all these bad changes, they ship utterly crap panels with some of the laptops. I bought a T440p last year, and I absolutely hate it. It has a viewing angle of 0 - there's no point at which you can view it and get anything remotely decent.

1: I've tried MacBooks... the ergonomics are terrible, as is the heat. Beautiful displays though.

<comment><USER5> I've posted this on another thread, but it looks like Dell _is_ trying to make real laptops. The newest XPS ultrabooks have received rave reviews, and some of them even ship with Linux preinstalled [1]. That said, my personal laptop is a Lenovo T440s, because IMHO Lenovo still wins on upgradeability. I was able to buy a base model, and in short order had the RAM upgraded to 12GB (the max this model supports) and swapped out the hard drive with a SSD from Amazon. I'm not sure how feasible that is with any of the other laptops being discussed here.

[http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-linux/pd](http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-linux/pd)

<comment><USER4> I just bought an X250 after searching around for an alternative. The XPS 13 looked pretty good and I was about to buy it ... but no physical nipplepoint buttons. Maybe next time I'll be willing to risk it. (Yeah, the X250 looks like it has plenty of downgrades from the X201, but it's better than a T440p, and at least it's a known quantity whereas Dell has an even worse rep...)

<comment><USER6> I'm typing this on an X230, with 16GiB RAM. I busted the screen recently and considered an X250... it's such a shame that "ultrabook" means "one DIMM slot" these days, i.e. they max out at 8GiB RAM - same as I was using in '2009 on my old X61s!

Luckily replacement screen parts are quite affordable these days. And before anyone complains, I do use all this memory, currently dom0 has 4GB free.

<comment><USER4> Good news! There are 16GB SODIMMs from "I'M Intelligent Memory". You'll have to look around to figure out what model exactly, but people have put them in new X series and they work.

<comment><USER6> Really? Last I checked there was no BIOS support to recognize them and Intel was only giving support for embedded CPUs. Ta, I'll have a look

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a nice guide!

Used Thinkpads have been very, very good to me over the years. For most of the last decade I bought used Thinkpad T42's for $100-$200 (see the empirical depreciation curve here [1]), beat them up for a year or two, then swapped the hard drive into a fresh machine when I finally and inevitably killed the old one. No downtime, no waiting for repairs, no tears shed over the death of a fancy laptop.

If you're on a budget, or in situations where repair downtime is unacceptable (eg travelling and working internationally) it looks from this guide like a master + spare from the T4xx-T5xx series is your ticket.

[1] [http://alangrow.com/projects/laptop- prices/#T42](http://alangrow.com/projects/laptop-prices/#T42)

<comment><USER8> I follow a similar philosophy. At the moment, I have two near-identical factory-refurbished x220's, each of which I've upgraded with an IPS screen, 16 GB RAM, and an SSD. One stays at home, and I use the other at the client site.

Even with the upgrades, they still cost me little enough that I wouldn't mind too much if one died, and I've always got at least one spare and ready to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're interested in running a fully libre system, any GM45 thinkpad (x200, t400) can be made to run libreboot by following some very thorough guides. If you're willing to go even older than gm45, the T60 and X60 can be made to run libreboot without even opening them up.

In the past few months I built myself an x200 with a brand new 9 cell battery, 128gb SSD, new keyboard, and 8gb ram for less than $200.

Knowing that you're running a fully free system is priceless.

<comment><USER10> What does it mean to run a "libre system"? Why would I want to do it? What are the benefits (other than cost) and what are the down-sides?

<comment><USER11> A "libre" system is a truly free system which the FSF and Richard Stallman endorses:

[https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html](https://stallman.org/stallman- computing.html)

<comment><USER12> Then the answer is "no" because there has not yet been a system made that RMS will not nitpick in some way or another. The microcontroller that runs the LED on the back of the screen will not come with source code and so forth.

<comment><USER11> Actually Richard Stallman's view is a little more nuanced. From [http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/14/05/05/2012218/richar...](http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/14/05/05/2012218/richard- stallman-answers-your-questions) :

      The case of the toaster is very clear: we can't tell,
      except by taking it apart, whether it has a processor and
      software or a special-purpose chip. Since that we can't
      tell the difference, it makes no difference: therefore, a
      program that will never be changed is equivalent to a
      circuit. I don't care whether a toaster or microwave oven
      contains software.

In your example, unless the microcontroller which controls the LED can be upgraded, then for all intents and purposes, RMS considers it a circuit which cannot be modified.

<comment><USER13> So it would be OK to use GPL3 software in an embedded device whose programmability is deliberately and permanently disabled at the factory?

Where does a device's toaster-nature stop and its TiVo-nature begin?

<comment><USER14> One need to look at it from the perspective of property ownership rather than inherent ability of the device. If someone has bought a device, at that point they should be in control of the property. If the manufacturer can exert control which you don't have, then they are de facto owners of the device after sale.

Its the difference between me selling you a computer you own and control, and giving you a user account while retaining root control for myself. The first is a sale and transfer of ownership, and the other is me renting out cloud access. From a perspective of rights, liberty, autonomy, control, and privacy, a toaster and a TiVo is two completely different kind of devices. One is your property which you control, and the other is someones else device which you have bought permission to use.

Last, let me clarify with an example. Let say I rent you a coffee machine on indefinite period of time, on the condition that you pay me $1 per cup. Simple concept, common practices in many offices, and it is easy to understand who the property owner of the device. Now lets change the setup by actually selling the device to you, but where DRM restricts the device so only my coffee is permitted, which just happens to add an extra cost of 1$ per cup compared to other brands. Has anything actually changed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thinkpads do not break, they accumulate. At any time I have 3 on the house, use them as media centers, donate them to mom, etc.

Currently on a W540. Not very happy, but after some configuration is passable, cool and fast. Quality should be on par with others, maybe better.

<comment><USER16> I killed a Thinkpad by dripping some water on it, just a couple drops of condensation from the outside of a glass of water. F1 key stopped working, the trackpoint mouse buttons started clicking constantly so I had to rip them off. The A key needs to be hit hard to work. The wifi constantly drops now. The only thing that happened was dripping some water on it.

Granted, it still works, just not well. However I have a pre-iPad Lenovo IdeaPad S10-3t that has seen pretty constant use as my daily driver Xubuntu laptop for almost five years now. I've probably put thousands of running hours on it and it still works like a (slow and ancient netbook) dream.

They're tough, but certainly not completely indestructible. I thought they were until the water incident.

<comment><USER17> You may have gotten water into the circuitry of the keyboard, but that's its own replacable unit and has a tray (with the elsewhere-mentioned water holes) to protect the interior of the laptop. Particularly for intermediate models it may be worth picking up a replacement keyboard and dropping it in - not so sure if it's an old T60 or the like.

<comment><USER16> Yeah I'm comparing the cost of replacing the keyboard and the wifi card versus just donating it and getting a new laptop that doesn't have the Nvidia Optimus and some other features I'm not fond of (and a less power-intensive processor).

The keyboard and the wifi card together would only be like $60 though, which is really nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Lenovo crippled their best form factor, the T4x0, by giving the most terrible panel they could find. Even looking dead on at the thing, the colors wash out and shift. Why couldn't they have used the 13" MacBook Air panel?

Getting the 1600x900 screen gives you a usable resolution but the panel is still terrible. Dim, headache inducing.... Other than that those machines are great. Light, small (if not really that thin), lots of slots and bays, huge used market, spare parts galore, lots of battery options, incredible keyboard and the track point, great Linux compatibility.... The only other bad aspect is the touchpad is mediocre.

<comment><USER19> I recently got T440p with 1920x1080 screen and I quite like it (at least, compared to my T430s with 1600x900 screen).

I'm inclined to believe that colors look dim because it's a matte panel- don't Mac's come with glossy panels only?

<comment><USER18> The T440 has a greatly improved screen. Too late to edit my original post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's sad no manufacturer steps in and fills in the relatively big niche ThinkPads used to occupy:

* Utilitarian but beautiful designs: [http://www.geocities.jp/kenjin_keyboard/butterfly_p07.jpg](http://www.geocities.jp/kenjin_keyboard/butterfly_p07.jpg)

* Great input devices (mouse and keyboard)

* High density square screens

* Upgradeable Linux/BSD friendly hardware

With the advent of great, cheap ARM processors and Coreboot getting ported to ARM, the barries of entry should be a bit lower. Frankly, while Apple tends to produce great hardware, they are far too optimised for consumers vs developers. E.g., brittle aluminium + glass vs Thinkpad's magnesium + carbon fiber.

<comment><USER21> They also seem to have killed off the awesome Thinkpad X-tablets :(

I wish it was also a bit less plasticky; something like Macbook Air + Nub + Old Thinkpad keyboard + Black Rubberized body + WACOM would be a dream come true. Hardware upgradeability on top of that would be epic.

<comment><USER17> No nub, but aren't some of the high end Yoga convertibles WACOM?

<comment><USER22> The Thinkpad Yoga 12 has a Wacom model. I highly recommend it as a drawing tablet, with the caveat that I sent mine back because it wasn't getting enough use rather than I didn't like it. (I use an X200 Tablet instead, because for my use case I couldn't rationalize $1300.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've tried various ThinkPads, but I keep coming back to macs. Linux on ThinkPads (or any laptop) is hit-and-miss. Sometimes, things work perfectly. Sometimes, they don't. I really don't like spending time messing with drivers or config files to get my wifi, bluetooth, hibernate, power saving, etc working. I don't want to carefully research hardware to ensure it's supported. I just want to use my computer, and I'm willing to throw money at the problem instead of time.

And over the past decade, Apple's hardware has gotten really good. Their trackpads have always been nice, but the new force touch version is the indisputable best. Current Apple laptops contain many clever design decisions that most of us don't explicitly notice, but together make the machine feel first-rate.

This is unlike my ThinkPad x140e, which has idiotic design galore. The microphone is placed in the palm rest, making it nearly useless. Typing makes speech inaudible. The keyboard lacks an LED for caps lock, yet there are annoying always-on LEDs in in the palm rest and lid. Instead of gradually ramping fan speeds up and down, it switches between discrete levels, causing unnecessary distraction. And while it's one of Lenovo's smallest laptops, it's comically huge and heavy compared to my MacBook.[1]

Obviously, these two machines are apples and oranges. They target different users and price ranges. It is unfair to compare them. Still, it's frustrating to see so many bone-headed design choices in the ThinkPad. Just a little more thought and testing could have made it a much better machine. Sadly, this is true even for Lenovo's most expensive models. The X1 Carbon comes with useless stickers on the palm rest, and peeling them off leaves a residue that requires solvents to remove. These annoyances may be small, but they add-up to give an impression of tackiness.

1\. [http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/pics/DSC_0460.jpg](http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/pics/DSC_0460.jpg)

<comment><USER24> You simply never experiences a _real_ ThinkPad - meaning the ThinkPad T4xx/X2xx/W4xx business notebook series that originated from the IBM ThinkPad T40/T60 series.

Your older notebook is just a low budget consumer device with the ThinkPad brand name attached. Sad, but true, Lenovo recently transformed also their business notebook series to low quality consumer style form factors. The last good devices are the T420/X220 series.

<comment><USER23> I've also used the X1 Carbon and the X230. Both had many small issues (and a few big ones) that made them feel like alpha-quality prototypes. Even simple things like trackpad gestures and scrolling were borderline-unusable. Instead of scrolling proportionally to my finger movement, their trackpads just triggered a "scroll mouse wheel" event, moving up/down by 3 lines. Options like smooth scrolling did nothing but add an animation in the 3 line movement. It's ridiculous. An iBook from 2005 has better trackpad scrolling.

I'm surprised by the "no true ThinkPad" responses. How am I supposed to know which ThinkPads are _real_ ones? Apparently the X220 is, but not the X230? The only differences seem to be some keyboard tweaks, the trackpad, and newer CPUs.

<comment><USER25> They went downhill way before that, and just kept going downhill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I got a T400, shoved 8 GB of RAM in there and a 128 GB SSD. Cost me Under $250 including upgrades. The thing is built like a tank, and while the CPU is a tiny bit old it holds up well on Windows 8, and really the only "problem" with that machine is the lack of dedicated GPU (even for non-games).

I will say, all used laptops have badly aged batteries. I get about three half to four hours from a 9(!) cell battery on the T400. That's bad by most metrics but good for the age of this thing.

PS - The matte display and keyboard feel makes it all worth while.

</comment><comment><USER27> I bought 4 Thinkpads and broke 2:

\- X60s that I sat on. 1024x768 really sucks. ~$70

\- X61 still running strong on ubuntu, 32G ssd too small for anything else. 1024x768. ~$75

\- X200s that I loved. 1440x900. Windows and Crunchbang Linux. Rare but routine video/display issues & blue screens. :( 128G SSD went into the T61p. ~$220

\- T61p too heavy to pick up. 1920x1200. With 8GB and an SSD, it's not slow at all. Display hinge has half an inch of play. Still running windows. ~$250

I won't buy another Thinkpad. I would buy a Dell Precision M4800 (to replace the T61p) and I still like 11" MacBooks (to replace the x200s). Needless to say old Thinkpad batteries are shot, though 1440x900 and 1920x1200 look(ed) great.

<comment><USER28> I recommend strongly against buying a Dell, specifically the M4800.

I ordered two for my business recently. I chose the Intel AC 7260 network adapter, which turns out to have all kinds of problems connecting reliably to 802.11n networks (the vast majority). On my laptop specifically, the motherboard and/or video card had major problems resulting in failure to shut down, an endless cycle of video adapter driver crashes and re-initializations resulting in system lockup, problems waking up from sleep, etc. I returned mine for a replacement, only to find the keyboard was absolutely horrendous-- keys would double-press (bounce) almost every other key when typing fast and with moderate to heavy pressure. Upgrading the BIOS did not help as it apparently did with other Dell models.

Also, Dell refuses to refund my money on the now _two_ defective laptops because I'm outside of the 30 day refund window. They wouldn't make an exception. I told them I was never purchasing a Dell again. I can (and did) buy a 2014 MacBook Pro with better specs for the same price and now I'm running Windows in Boot Camp (for .NET development) with flawless performance. Combined with a 3-year Apple Care agreement, I never have to worry about being nickeled-and-dimed over way-too-short refund periods.

In short, avoid Dell. They are shipping substandard hardware and are even getting things that _should_ be commoditized to perfection (the keyboard) wrong.

<comment><USER27> Thank you for sharing, I will definitely factor that in. It's harder to find a solid upgradeable workstation than I thought.

<comment><USER28> This has been my life's torment over the past several weeks. There really didn't seem to be a reasonably-priced option that "just worked" except the MacBook Pro. Combined with Apple Care, it means I won't have to go through what I just went through again. And just to be clear, I vastly prefer Windows 8.1 over OS X. My primary tasks are .NET and iOS development, so this isn't a biased decision. I /wanted/ to find a PC manufacturer that made great laptops, but I read too many horror stories for all the top models, and experienced some of my own with the M4800.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I bought a used X220 not too long ago and I am very satisfied with it (using it with Linux Mint at the moment). The keyboard is excellent and much better than most laptops out there. Almost everything can be replaced in this laptop (I changed the LCD screen for an IPS one, I added a lot more RAM that it had in the first place, the battery is removable) and it runs very fast overall for most uses (except gaming for obvious reasons). It's quite light and portable as well, and it had enough extensions ports to be useful (not like a Mac).

Compared to what you get nowadays for about the same specs (or worse) but a more expensive price tag, I think it's a very good deal.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've been religiously buying & accumulating all T-series (T500, T510, T520..). They are good machines & well built but I wouldn't call them maintenance free. Often I've had to replace parts that required medium to high skill. Also the older siblings get very hot and are only fit to be used with an external keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER31> Having used three generations of ThinkPads at work over the past five years (T60, T410, T440), I've been pleasantly surprised (with the notable exception of the trackpad on the T440 - dear god, what a terrible experience) with the build quality and reliability of each of them.

I recently snagged a used T420 on eBay for ~ $180. After selling the memory and screen that came with it and adding _more_ memory, a higher resolution screen and a SSD I had lying around, I've now got a fairly beefy box that runs Hyper-V like a champ and can chew through video encodes for ~$250. Oh, did I mention it runs for 5 hours on the 6-cell battery it came with?

Certainly doesn't hurt that you can't go more than 100 yards in my town (near Washington, DC) without running in to a closet stuffed full of them.

For a reliable workhorse, hard to go wrong with a used T410-430.

</comment><comment><USER24> I loved IBM ThinkPad and early Lenovo ThinkPad for their high build quality and their robustness.

But the T430 and later models got worse and worse. The also changed the traditional good keyboard with trackpoint to a cheap slim keyboard you can find in every other notebook.

I would buy a new T4xx notebook if the focus again on high quality business notebooks and not lower quality fashionable stylish notebooks.

</comment><comment><USER32> Thinkpads for life! Typing out this comment on a T420 right now, and a couple of weeks ago I bought an IBM-era vintage A20M from eBay to tinker around with. Couldn't imagine not having a trackpoint on my laptop.

</comment><comment><USER33> Love the ThinkPads that have the 7-row keyboard and are devoid of trackpads (TrackPoint only), such as the X200. Those and the unibody MBP are the yin & yang of desirable laptops as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER12> I think the X201 was the last one you could have ordered without a trackpad at all, and I believe it was also among the last ones you could order with the tricolor IBM logo instead of the lenovo brand. I have one here that hasn't booted in a while because I usually use my X220, but I think the X201s is a rather handsome machine.

For all other models you can disable the trackpad in the BIOS, rendering it harmless.

<comment><USER15> The last one with the IBM logo was the X60.

<comment><USER12> -Series I guess? I have an X61T right here that's IBM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Pro tip: if you mostly use your laptop in plugged in mode, set your charging thresholds to 40-50% and your battery will be usable for many years.

<comment><USER30> Great feature but probably limited to T-series only.

<comment><USER35> Actually, the feature is present on a lot of Lenovos (even non-thinkpads). My anecdotal experience it that it works quite well.

However it's only accessible from their energy management tray program on Windows, so if you do a clean Linux install right away, you won't even know about it. You need to try the kernel module pointed out in the sibling comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Looks like FreeBSD runs relatively well on many ThinkPad models: [https://wiki.freebsd.org/Laptops](https://wiki.freebsd.org/Laptops)

</comment><comment><USER37> Really great to read through this. I'm a first-time Thinkpad owner and purchased an X230T [0]. I immediately installed Ubuntu 14.10 and moved all development into virtual machines and things have been fairly smooth. Owning a less svelte machine really doesn't affect me, but the bumps in the road running Ubuntu can get tiresome. Random setting changes after "security" updates e.g. enabling slow keys under accessibility (confusing!). Taking three hours to finally configure a printer and even then, the prints look like they were run through an antique Instagram filter. All in all, hanging out in Firefox and Terminal all day is mostly solid though.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NJ7OAXE/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NJ7OAXE/)

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure that's Ubuntu's fault :)

<comment><USER37> Totally true -- I reread the comment just now and it definitely feels OT in retrospect. The moral of the story? I like my Thinkpad :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think it should note that the X200s (and X200 or X201s?) can be found in 1440x900.

<comment><USER39> That particular screen has horrible viewing angles though, move your head a little bit and the colors shift.

<comment><USER40> x200s have an IPS screen, I think. It's the x201 with the crappy screen (which I'm writing this on...). You can switch out for a nicer panel if you're willing to put the effort in, but if you're looking to buy, may as well look for other models.

<comment><USER4> There's no other model that surpasses an X201 though :(. I'd pay a lot of money to get an X201 with a Broadwell chip and a 1920x1200 screen. That's all I ask.

<comment><USER41> I have an X61T with the SVGA+ AFFS-IPS screen (1400x1050). The colors are the best I've ever seen on a screen, and at 12 inches the PPI is the same as my smartphone. Laypeople are genuinely impressed by it and will comment. The "retina" displays on Apple tablets are better, but people aren't used to seeing that kind of quality on a 2007-era laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wish there was someone who figured out how to use the old 7 (8 if you count cursor keys) row keyboard with the newer thinkpads. I can't adjust to another layout than the one with the 6 keys pos1/end/inesrt/delete/pgup/pgdown in the upper right corner.

</comment><comment><USER43> The default Realtek wifi card in t440/t440s (maybe also some other models) does not yet have a stable Linux driver, wifi keeps dropping. (The most recent driver from github is a bit better, it only drops a couple of times per hour, the default driver in Ubuntu 14.10 drops in like 5-10 minutes.)

[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1239578](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1239578)

An Intel card is only about $20 off ebay, but you need to open the laptop in order to replace it.

<comment><USER17> If you're replacing WiFi cards in ThinkPads, check into which cards are supported by the unit - there's a whitelist that varies by each model. I learned the hard way trying to get someone with one of the cheaper models onto 802.11a with a replacement card - the new card was used in other models, but the laptops he had only shipped with one type of card and a correspondingly short whitelist.

You can find hacked firmwares to remove the whitelist functionality, but that depends on your willingness to run hacked firmware.

<comment><USER44> > whitelist

Jesus that should be made illegal on laptops. MSI did that with the wireless card. (Won't buy a product from them again) There is no reason that I shouldn't be able to switch out what's in the mini-pci slot.

<comment><USER17> Debatable but understandable. They whitelist cards that they tested and certified the laptops with, which may actually be significant / required for some devices. The problem device for me was a ThinkPad Edge something, I believe the lists for the better systems are significantly larger.

Still annoying though.

<comment><USER44> If they don't support the 3rd party card you put in there: Who cares? I'm not going to expect them to support the wireless functionality if I subsitute out the wireless card. What do they need to whitelist cards for?

<comment><USER17> Compliance, particularly the section and additional info for Electromagnetic Compatibility Compliance [http://www.lenovo.com/lenovo/us/en/compliance.html](http://www.lenovo.com/lenovo/us/en/compliance.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I do my hobby programming daily on a ~10 year old T42 that I got for free. It's blazing fast for my purposes, and with a 4:3 screen, a real keyboard and a nipple mouse it's a pleasure to use.

<comment><USER46> I have a t60 I play around on and the 4:3 is awesome, but man those displays are such painfully low quality compared to an IPS screen.

<comment><USER47> The screen contrast is what finally convinced me to switch from a T61 to an X230, even though it was giving up 1.5 inches of screen height. I can't wait for this shortscreen fad to be over.

Still, build quality wise, it feels like I haven't seen the end of the T61 (when this thing inevitably falls apart).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Somewhat tangential: any recommendations for an Arch Linux install? My old IdeaPad V570 is wearing down and I'm thinking of replacing it in the near future. Either used or new.

<comment><USER49> I use the x230 and all the hardware works right out of the box. Pretty much the only manual setup i did was for laptop power management and a xsessionrc to disable the touchpad since I always use the red dot.

<comment><USER50> I'm running arch on my x230. Make sure you don't get a x230 with Realtek. If you do, quickly replace it with a Intel card[1].

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008V7AAJU/ref=oh_aui_detai...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008V7AAJU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I bought this from Microcenter tonight, and installed Ubuntu 15.04. Works perfectly straight away. Love it. So deal. Much adequate.

[http://www.microcenter.com/product/438199/X551MAV- EB01-B_156...](http://www.microcenter.com/product/438199/X551MAV- EB01-B_156_Laptop_Computer_-_Black)

</comment><comment><USER52> I've still got my x61s. I don't use it a whole lot, but I'm continually impressed how well it still works (running ubuntu 14.04 now). It's nice to keep around when traveling on vacation when I don't want to lug around my macbook pro, and, should it break or be stolen, I wouldn't worry about it so much.

</comment><comment><USER53> Ooh, I always see this link being posted on 4chan's ThinkPad general. Great resource

</comment><comment><USER54> Used ThinkPads were more compelling when they were the only laptops with IPS displays.

<comment><USER12> That was a looong time ago, like T40p long time ago. Then they went through a period of offering AFFS displays that were kinda weird -- good measurable specs but made my eyes hurt for some reason. Then a period of claiming that nobody was willing to make IPS panels at an economical price which Apple proceeded to prove to be a lie.

<comment><USER55> > Then a period of claiming that nobody was willing to make IPS panels at an > economical price which Apple proceeded to prove to be a lie.

Here's Lenovo's blog post about that from 2007:

[http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/ips- displays](http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/ips-displays)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Lucky enough to have a late model nVidia T61, running perfectly since the day I bought it. It's had a few upgrades since then, more RAM and an SSD but it's still an amazing laptop.

</comment><comment><USER57> Wow, this is some of the best nerd shit I've seen in a while!

</comment><comment><USER58> i still miss the butterfly keyboard that my 701 had. :-(

</comment><comment><USER59> Good to see 4chan slowly filter into hacker news</comment>


The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) - <AUTHOR> https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~weise/unix-haters.html <comment><USER2> > Unix has its own collection of myths, as well as a network of dealers > pushing them. Perhaps you've seen them before: 1\. It's standard. 2\. It's > fast and efficient. 3\. It's the right OS for all purposes. 4\. It's small, > simple, and elegant. 5\. Shellscripts and pipelines are great way to > structure complex problems and systems. 6\. It's documented online. 14 Unix > 7\. It's documented. 8\. It's written in a high-level language. 9\. X and > Motif make Unix as user-friendly and simple as the Macintosh. 10\. Processes > are cheap. 11\. It invented: • the hierarchical file system • electronic > mail • networking and the Internet protocols • remote file access • > security/passwords/file protection • finger • uniform treatment of I/O > devices. 12\. It has a productive programming environment. 13\. It's a > modern operating system. 14\. It's what people are asking for. 15\. The > source code: • is available • is understandable • you buy from your > manufacturer actually matches what you are running.</comment>


Please, call a spade a spade - <AUTHOR> http://benwerd.com/blog/2012/02/24/please-call-a-spade-a-spade/

<comment><USER2> Given that Microsoft still has a boatload of money, market share, and deep- profit products, you have to really give them props for realizing that doesn't really mean that much to the future. Their product lineup has always been confusing, they've been pimping that awful "Windows Live" brand for years, and their branding has been a mess. Worse yet, for a long time their products were not up to standards.

You can love Microsoft products or hat em but it's hard to argue that they aren't taking on all of these issues head first. Xbox is probably the premier home entertainment product on the market, Windows Phone is actually really good now, and much of the problems with Windows from horrible security to poor performance have really been improved.

No one should underestimate how hard it is to admit your company kind of sucks, especially when you are still raking in billions. They deserve a lot of credit.

<comment><USER3> Yes - Microsoft are improving, and props to the people in the company who have done this...

... but it sure took them long enough. Where did all those profits actually go? not much into innovation...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm kind of sad that everyone here seems to think overcomplicated names like "Windows Live Messenger" and "Microsoft Office Word" have been around forever, and we're now finally seeing Microsoft come to their senses.

As I understand it, Microsoft was the _originator_ of simple product names. Remember Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft SQL, Microsoft Mail? It all started to go crazy around the time the monopoly controls kicked in. Personally, I think the crazy-long names were created so that in case the government decided to split them up, the names would be the suggested guidelines. ie. "Microsoft Office xxx" is one company, "Windows xxx" is another company. Oh, "Windows xxx" is too big? Well then how about "Windows Live xxx" and "Windows not-Live yyy"? And so on.

Now that the DoJ has finally gotten off their back, they have not-so- shockingly started to go back to a sensible naming scheme.

</comment><comment><USER5> This strikes me as terrible advice for startups.

"Microsoft" is an extremely well known brand name. Standing behind that name rather than diluting it with 10 other sub-brands makes a lot of sense.

But if Instagram called itself "Camera" or "Camera Filter" or "Social Camera" or something exceedingly simple, it would not likely have caught the same traction. The name Instragram has now come to mean something unique. The same way the word "Microsoft" is now loaded with all sorts of connotations.

I agree that forcing users into a new vocabulary doesn't make much sense, but startups need to differentiate themselves on branding. Throwing in a word like "tweet" to compliment "twitter" makes a lot of sense.

<comment><USER6> I think you're missing the point.

Choosing ONE brand name and making it stick = good. Choosing seven words where one would do = bad.

For instance, I just found myself browsing through a list of new Microsoft products. I found a mouse there called the "Microsoft Wireless Mobile Mouse 3500 Limited Edition".

That's just hilarious. Anyone can see that that's hilarious, and not effective branding.

<comment><USER7> My first laugh-out-loud experience with this was the Samsung Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch. That's exactly how the TV adverts introduced it. I couldn't keep up.

<comment><USER8> Samsung really has a knack for branding, I especially like their Nexus line.

There's the Nexus One, the Nexus S, the Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy Nexus S, the Galaxy S, the Galaxy S Plus and the Galaxy S2.

Give or take a few...

<comment><USER9> The Nexus One is an HTC phone, because the Nexus line of phones are a _Google_ brand, which switches manufacturer (and follow on from the G1).

The Galaxy line is Samsung's brand. Obviously, the two brands have crossed over a couple of times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't know.

I really like being able to Google for a product's name and get mostly- relevant results.

<comment><USER11> Now Windows users can suffer along with Mac users.

"What email software do you use?"

"Mail."

"Yes, but which one?"

<comment><USER12> This is why "Mail" is namespaced by "Apple" or "Microsoft" or some other such thing. That is, you don't say "Docs", you say "Google Docs".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is refreshing to see this from Microsoft, but the comparison is inevitably going to be made with Apple.

And that's not a bad thing.

Mail, Contacts, Messages, iTunes, iPhoto, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, etc. Yeah, there's a little bit of branding in there but the "spade is a spade" argument still stands.

Microsoft is making the right call here.

</comment><comment><USER6> I very much agree with most of this post. Now, choosing names which are much less annoying than their old, tired, 1980s-esque names will not make their crappy products magically transform into good products.

But it's a start. Good choices beget good choices.

</comment><comment><USER14> The essence of trade mark law is that similar products should have different names, so that consumers can distinguish between them. Calling a photo gallery application "Photos" is great until the next trader wants to build a photo gallery application.

<comment><USER15> You buy Windows. They're not re-branding Windows "OS". Once you have Windows the features in the OS don't have to keep competing for your attention as furiously.

<comment><USER11> I think you've gotten to the real point. Apps like Mail, Photos, etc. are not standalone products; they're just features of Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used to unknowingly use the phrase communicated in the headline of this post until someone told me it originates from the era of black slavery and thus has a racial connotation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Stephen Downes emailed me personally about that. I'm mortified. I've changed the title and have left a note, and am in the process of editing the text.

The phrase predates the racist connotation, but nonetheless, I'm more than uncomfortable with the association.

<comment><USER17> Mortification is a bit of a hyper-correction. Let's not all freak out about a situation in which 1) no racism was intended; and 2) most people probably aren't even aware of the incorrect, racist meaning (you weren't and I wasn't, either).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Quite a fleshless piece, but surprisingly easy to pick at.

> Authentically digital interfaces.

The linked aside that was meant to qualify this blander than twilight statement really doesn't qualify anything. The linked article has plenty of quite tasteful screenshots of things that bear no resemblance to the gaudy morris dance that is the metro interface. And the brief and unsatisfying technicalities only serve to highlight the confusion and uncertainty over where Microsoft wants it's developers to be investing.

What does "authentically digital" suppose to mean anyway?

> Simplified Windows 8 branding

Well this is not really a simple problem. I think pretty much 90% of the online world assumed after a while the window's logo was a flag. The wavy pixelated contrails, the "flag" screensaver, the flag-like symbols across it's products for years. To claim that it was not a meant to be a flag is understandable and perhaps quite correct, but to then make the logo look more like a flag than ever before just screams mixed metaphors. I understand the Shetland Islands are both delighted and horrified.

And the colour? Mine eyes doth protest.

I think Microsoft have been making great strides to address the stagnation that was prevalent for so long in much of their product range, but their marketing & pr is letting them down. I would love to see the billing for that design: "It's not a flag, make it look like it's not a flag", "how about this flag design?", "OK, looks cool, can you make the blue a little brighter? My kids love bright colours".

<comment><USER19> On your first point - they are doing away with the skeuomorphism that some of their UI had.

(I totally agree with the rest of your critique.)</comment></comment>