Microsoft's Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/microsofts-hardware-round-2-surface-2-and-surface-pro-2/ <comment><USER2> As a Surface Pro owner [1], I like:

* Surface 2 loses the low-density screen. I enjoy that low-density has been deprecated.

* The names are right. Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2. No "Surface with Windows RT 8.1" nonsense.

* Haswell, yes please. Longer battery life may assuage some popular criticism.

* Backlit type cover. I hope this is compatible with my Surface Pro.

* Two-position kick stand. I will be envious of this.

* Surface 2 is smaller than Surface RT.

* More memory in the Pro 2.

* Docking station. Depending on the price of that and whether it's compatible with my Surface Pro, I may pick one up. However, I'd prefer to have an inductive charging plate as I have with my Nokia phone. I love the idea of just dropping wireless devices on a plate with no cables, no alignment, no fuss.

I am disappointed by:

* I personally would have preferred a Surface 2 Pro that leveraged Haswell to reduce the form factor to roughly the same as the original Surface RT. But I've never actually drained my Pro's battery, so I'd take lighter-weight versus increased battery lifespan. I'm usually near an AC outlet when I am out and about.

* I would have liked a purely x86 lineup. Bay Trail Atom (or Haswell i3) on the low-end, Haswell i5 on the high-end.

* Windows RT needs help. Remove its artificial limitations.

Overall, I am fairly satisfied. I may want to replace my wife's netbook with a 2 Pro.

[1] [http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft](http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft)

<comment><USER3> > I hope this is compatible with my Surface Pro

Everything's compatible with the SP. Only the original Surface is missing the extra contacts on bottom for some of the new hardware.

Myself, I'll be picking up the Power Cover when that shows up (I'm expecting 2014), but not replacing the tablet. 8ish hours of battery life is plenty for me.

I'll save the big money for a real laptop when the rest of the PC makers finally put some Haswell-based stuff on store shelves this holiday season. That it's taken them over a year since the MBA is pathetic.

The only thing that keeps me from using SP2 as a desktop replacement is the GPU. I still like to do some casual gaming every once in a while, and Intel's integrated graphics are too far behind nVidia/ATI's discrete offerings in other ultrabooks.

<comment><USER4> Any word on why it's taking manufacturers so long to get Haswell-based devices out?

<comment><USER5> Just yesterday, I was talking to my friend who works at Intel (on audio for Haswell tablets). He mentioned that Haswell isn't stable enough yet. I didn't get into the details though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear Microsoft: Out of ARM and x86, choose one. Just choose one. For the love of god, choose ONE.

Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? It is inconceivable, and for good reason.

MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!

<comment><USER7> Why does Apple get a pass on this? They have just taken the alternative approach of fracturing their OS and hardware. It's natural because of where they started (iPod -> iPhone -> iPad), so this isn't a criticism.

As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple (even if MS is having difficulties reconciling the tablet vs. desktop experience). MS has touch on the desktop. When is Apple going to have touch on Mac Books?

I know SJ said vertical touch screens don't work. They will continue to say so until they add touch. Undoubtedly, they'll do it well, and it will be well integrated with the OS. But they'll continue to say it doesn't work...until it does. Similar to the movement to flat with nary a mention of Metro.

So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware), whereas MS has the challenge of dealing with the Metro/Desktop schism and the x86/ARM dichotomy. Same coin, different sides.

<comment><USER8> > _Why does Apple get a pass on this?_

Here's why: Last November when the iPad Mini and the iPad 4 launched, Apple sold 3 million iPads over the weekend. Surface has sold about 1.7 million devices total since it launched. [http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface- sales-2013/](http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/)

It's hard to argue with success.

> _As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple_

The numbers seem to disagree with you. The reason Apple doesn't put touch on their Macbooks is cause no one wants it.

<comment><USER7> That's a false argument. These are separate points of discussion. You're arguing that they're right because they were first to market in a new space and have achieved significant momentum. Momentum is just that. They've been riding on it for a while. The last significant innovation was iPad, which was just an evolution of the one real innovation: iPhone. That's only going to carry them so far. Android is eating their market share while Apple is extracting what they can from this momentum and iterating on a theme.

I think Apple's products are great. Their ID is fantastic. Their developer ecosystem leaves much to be desired. The fact that I no longer buy their products due to their closed nature (and, by extension, their philosophy for the future: closed, controlled, and owned) does not take away from my admiration of the company from a product and engineering perspective.

<comment><USER9> Actually. Apple was really late to the market with the iPad. Microsoft had been doing tablets for 8 years before Apple came along ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC)).

Apple was the first to bring down the price, make it holdable (in your hand), give it a battery that you don't need to worry about. Give it apps that were only designed for touch.

Android is iterating as much as Apple is. They will probably keep iterating until some big hardware breakthrough, maybe when someone releases a ARM86 (compatible ARM and x86 processor)? One major breakthrough of the original iphone was smooth finger tracking made available by the new capitative touch screen.

<comment><USER10> I'll just leave this little nugget here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton)

Before, they were called PDAs and they've existed since the late 80s. Apple wasn't late, they were simply waiting for the technology arrive to do it right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very nice. Pretty much everything I read was a net positive for the product, the only quibble might be the price but of all the things you can change in the future that is easiest to change :-).

I was intrigued by the music keyboard, not because I think the Surface is the instrument of the future, but because I think there is a market for a device which can easily customize its input experience like that. I have thought for a while that future test equipment from Tektronix or Agilent might look like that but with a scope control panel and a dock for attaching probes.

Like the 2 position kickstand, the one we got at work to do testing on that was annoying. I bet Surface 3 touts an infinitely adjustable one :-).

I think the ARM/x86 messaging is pretty spot on as well, Microsoft is playing the "its just windows" card pretty hard and dropping the RT moniker was smart too. Most consumers could care less about instruction set architecture. And what happens when Apple makes an Air with the A7 ? Will Apple have the 2 x 2 matrix (iOS/MacOS)(ARM/x86)? and Microsoft the 1 x 2 matrix (Windows)(ARM/x86) ? I'd think the latter long term is easier to message and less confusing for customers. If they go all Ubuntu like and create a Win 8.1 phone experience then there product / os vector is 1x3 (Windows)(phone/tablet/laptop).

That said, for me it reinforces the notion that this is the year of the Linux desktop. I recently had the experience of using a USB serial cable that worked under Linux but not under Windows 7. That was one of the signs for me that perhaps Windows was ceding the development workstation business (or at least not paying attention to it). That should be good news for folks like System76.

</comment><comment><USER12> There is a simple change Microsoft need to make to the Surface RT to make it viable.

Fix app compatibility.

Start by removing the artificial restriction on desktop apps. Currently desktop apps are restricted to those signed by Microsoft. If they were to remove this restriction there's a whole load of apps that could be recompiled to target ARM and work on the RT desktop. Companies and open source devs would be far more willing to spend a small amount of time porting existing code bases to ARM than re-writing whole apps for 'Metro style'.

On top of that, Microsoft already have a platform compatibility layer in .Net. And they clearly already have a ARM version of the .Net runtime as you can build Metro apps targeting .Net. It seems absolutely crazy that they don't make use of this already existing compatibility layer that could allow _all_ existing .Net apps to run on RT desktop _without change_. This would make the surface RT a far more interesting proposition for companies looking to deploy their internal homegrown enterprise apps to windows tablets.

This change would re-position the RT from it's current state as a underwhelming curiosity who's main competitor is IPads and Android tablets which have a wider range of apps (and are significantly cheaper in the case of some Android brands) to a true low-mid end laptop alternative with decent app support at a similar price point. The Surface pro stays as it is as a high end laptop alternative.

<comment><USER13> > Start by removing the artificial restriction on desktop apps.

I would say the desktop is the biggest _problem_ with Surface RT. It's clear they wanted an iPad, but ended up tacking on the desktop because Windows 8 couldn't operate in Metro-only mode (some settings, etc not available) and Office wasn't ready.

Fix that. Drop the desktop so there is no more confusion on the RT. You want the desktop? You want the pro. You want simple, reliable, easy to use? You want the RT. You had the vision, you knew what you were going for, complete it. I think the market might reward you. Either way at least you don't have the desktop sitting around reminding your users they bought a 'fake' computer.

I'll also say that making the RT tablet a different color is a serious plus. The fact that Microsoft was selling two totally different tablets aimed at different markets with different price points using the same name, marketing, and look was crazy. If customers can't tell which product is which, how you do expect them to choose?

<comment><USER14> The name is also terrible. Pro vs RT makes it sound like one is picking a trim level of car. It makes it seem like they're both the same with minor differences on the surface. But they're not. They're quite different.

Call one the Work, and one the Play. The Work gets the desktop, full Windows 8, full Office, Visual Studio, etc., the Play gets Metro and enough support to not be completely useless but also enough to create a separate market segment.

Bundle them both with keyboards. Give the "real" keyboard (the Surface Type Cover) to the Work, because people with this tablet will be the ones writing Office documents. Give the cardboardy Touch Cover to those that buy the Play because they just need it when the touch screen becomes a little too annoying to bang out that email to your family while on vacation.

Differentiated products for markets that should now be able to self select with less confusion.

<comment><USER15> Play vs. Work probably isn't the right dividing line between the two devices. The RT is more than just work, hence the 'Pro' moniker does fit well with that device. The problem with just calling it Surface 2 is that people won't get the difference.

We used to complain about Microsoft's multiple versions of Windows with "Home", "Media Centre", "Professional", but strangely, now we seem to be asking to go back to that realm.

Does Surface 2 Lite work? Essentially, that is what it is, it doesn't have all the features of the Pro, and it's lighter.

<comment><USER13> Home/pro would have worked well. It would be nice to have a different name for the ARM stuff though, to avoid confusion.

<comment><USER16> "Home" is not so great for a mobile device...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As it happens I bought a second hand Surface Pro from ebay and it arrived today. Moving to it from a laptop thats a couple of years old, the Surface Pro is absolutely blowing me away. Faster than my old laptop, also acts as a tablet, using desktop applications via touch actually works, the pen is brilliant. The 128gb will be fine for me, because I've got used to living within about 120Gb.

<comment><USER18> 128GB minus whatever OS overhead there is... I know it's a nitpick, but definitely something to keep in mind.

<comment><USER19> It's relatively significant for a nitpick, "The 128 GB version has approximately 85 GB free hard disk space." per [http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-gb/support/storage- files...](http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-gb/support/storage-files-and- folders/surface-disk-space-faq)

That's probably a combination of OS and the doublespeak/marketing definition of gigabyte though.

<comment><USER20> Just like the Macbook Air with it's 128GB SSD has a bunch of it taken up OS X when you get the device? I look at the surface pro as microsoft's macbook air equivalent.

<comment> steve-howard I'd say the Ultrabook family is Microsoft's macbook air equivalent. I'm a big fan of the Samsung Series 9, and I don't think I could go back to a bulkier form factor for my next machine.

Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, not in anything related.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The docking station looks fantastic. We've finally reached the day when we can plug in the tablet when we get home and instantly transform it into a full- blown desktop PC!

Too bad the 512GB/8GB model will probably cost an arm and a leg, making it more economical for most people to simply buy two computers. But once the price comes down a bit, I can see this becoming a true drop-in replacement for the majority of Windows desktops and laptops out there.

<comment><USER22> The numbers still don't seem to add up though. For the same price you could get a (much) cheaper/lighter ARM tablet that gets much better battery life _and_ a better desktop. I'm not sure what the point of convergence is here unless you have some specific need to run a legacy win32 app on a tablet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> There are some problems with comparing a Windows Surface Pro tablet to an iPad. The availability of programs is such that you're not going to use the iPad for content creation, and you're probably not going to use the Surface for gaming. The Surface is not a pick-up-and-go sort of device.

It's a laptop with a mutli-touch display.

I'm building a program right now for Windows 8, on Dell hardware[1]. I've gotten quite used to the OS by now, and as long as you have a touch display, it doesn't really deserve the criticism I've read. I remember hearing the same thing about Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows 7.

The thing that I like the most about using Windows 8 is that all of my software just, like, works. A little bit of that is luck: if I had written any programs that had heavy use of keyboard shortcuts, it wouldn't work without a blutooth keyboard. If I had written any programs that expected the screen to never resize, that too would break. But those are pretty bad programming habits to begin with. My programs don't look _great_ , but that is a temporary problem.

And I can program for it with the same tools that I'm using for Windows 7 (hell, I can program _on_ it). I don't have to wait for someone to make a something-to-something-else translator to use my favorite language to write programs like I do on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to make a decent text editor on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to write decent source control software for iOS or Android. I have it all, already. I can do whatever I want.

Hell, if I want to install Linux on the thing, I could. Of course, it's probably not going to play nicely with the touch screen, but that is a different issue. The Surface Pro is just a PC.

[1] The Dell hardware isn't great, but it has a regular, ol', USB port on it, which makes it amazing. I've played with the Surface Pro at a Staples and found it to be better than this Dell device in every way.

<comment><USER13> It's quite clear that the Surface (formerly RT) was designed to compete with the iPad, and the Surface Pro (formerly just Surface) was designed to be a hybrid/laptop replacement.

Unfortunately, Microsoft managed to make both products look nearly identical and use the same name for both. The little I heard about the Surface was from people who bought an RT thinking it was a normal Windows computer and returned it.

I'm glad they're working to clear up the confusion with better naming and a slightly different look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The Surface Pro 2 could make for a really interesting developer machine. Plug it into external keyboard/monitor when you're at your desk, then just pick it up and take it on the road when you want to. I'm tempted, but part of me can't shake the idea that I'd be replacing my laptop with a tablet, even know I know that's not quite true.

Also: Windows. I used to use it, but I've been working in OS X exclusively for a few years now, and going back to the Windows Command Prompt might kill me.

<comment><USER25> powershell ... seriously, it's really good. And Cygwin if you really want that unix shell experience :)

<comment><USER24> I don't doubt that Powershell is good, but it's _different_. I've grown to appreciate being able to use all the same commands on my dev box as I do on my servers, and while Cygwin covers the basics, it doesn't do it all.

<comment><USER26> With newer versions of Windows, Microsoft has attempted to bring powershell on par with the linux terminal. Supposedly, every admin function possible in the OS is now capable of being performed in Powershell.

The only downside is that some if the commands are uneccessarily verbose in comparison.

<comment><USER27> Their push into headless Window Server deployment has certainly driven Microsoft to shore up PowerShell. Recently they're taking on declarative server configurations (ie: puppet) with their own brand of it -- Desired State Configuration.

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/privatecloud/archive/2013/08/30/i...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/privatecloud/archive/2013/08/30/introducing- powershell-desired-state-configuration-dsc.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Surface Pro with 512gb of space and 8gb ram, if I decide to move country again next year I'm replacing my desktop with a Surface.

<comment><USER29> I'm a college student studying engineering. I can say that replacing my laptop with my Surface Pro has been amazing. I'm virtually 100% paperless, with all my notes being taken with OneNote (seriously amazing!) and textbooks saved as PDFs. It's also awesome that the Pro has enough power for me to do real dev work on it. So make the switch! You won't be disappointed!

<comment><USER30> I'm a student also, but I've been using the iPad for this. I don't take any notes on the iPad itself because the courses I need to take notes on are mathematical, so I simply write on paper and then when I come back home I scan it and append the scans to an evergrowing PDF file that is synced to my iPad.

I'm looking for a replacement for my iPad 2, but I can't settle on anything because all the non-iPad tablets have a widescreen, which I believe is poor choice when it comes to reading PDF textbooks.

Right now I read my PDF textbooks in landscape mode, and I use GoodReader to crop the margins, and everything looks fabulous. I'm worried that if I move to a widescreen tablet, I will end up with less vertical space and wasted horizontal space ("black bars" due to incompatible aspect ratios of the page and the screen).

How's your experience when it comes to reading these kind of textbooks? Any chance you could provide screenshots of how these textbooks look like when you read them in landscape mode?

<comment><USER31> FYI with OneNote and a digitizer stylus as the Surface Pro comes with you can just write your notes on the screen. OneNote will recognize the handwriting and allow you to search through it etc.

Sorry if you already know that, from the way your comment is phrased it looks like you don't so I thought I'd throw it out.

<comment><USER30> I don't think it'd be particularly efficient. I need to be able to write proofs (which include lots of math symbols) and draw diagrams very quickly. I've seen people do it with digitizers, but the results ends up being rather poor. Pen & paper still looks best.

<comment><USER32> Is there a usable handwriting recognizer which can deal with heavy math notation?

<comment><USER33> I came across MyScript yesterday, and have been very impressed. It's an SDK which can recognize handwritten math (among other things). It has correctly recognized everything I've thrown at it so far, even though I'm using a mouse so my writing's pretty crappy.

I'm seriously considering trying to build something with the API. I'm not sure what; I just want to play with the cool technology. Perhaps an app which gives you an algebra question, then uses math recognition to interpret your working. It could then see that you made a mistake on step three (for example).

Perhaps I've just late to the party, but I'm still astounded that this is possible.

You can check out a demo here: [http://webdemo.visionobjects.com/home.html#equation](http://webdemo.visionobjects.com/home.html#equation)

<comment><USER32> Wow! This is seriously impressive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Better performance might help this sell, but the second I saw the "Surface Music Kit," I got excited.

As a DJ, I need to carry around an expensive laptop to perform. The iPad does not have any impressive apps to DJ (at least not professionally), so I'd be VERY interested if they focused on the niche music market here. Surface 2 + Kinect/Leap + superb DJing app + Spotify-esque music supply = very happy musicians.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is going to spend the time to develop a quality DJing app.

<comment><USER35> There are plenty of quality DJing apps for PC - this seems like it would be more than adequate for Serrato/Traktor/etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why, oh why is there no version with 3G/LTE? That is by far the biggest bummer, imho. For people that are on the road a lot that makes such a difference, and pretty much all other tablets offer that option, so it seems really lame to not have that. Also, if I spent $1800 for a Surface Pro in the best configuration, I really would expect it to have the same connectivity as a iPad mini... Other than that, this seems like the perfect device (the Pro version).

<comment><USER37> Because a small fraction of people buy it, and a smaller fraction of purchasers turn it on.

I've bought (and given away) four iPads with Verizon LTE. Exactly 0 people activated it.

This is old data, but in line with newer data I've seen WRT iPad activation rates: [http://tabletquest.com/2011/02/disappointing-apple- ipad-3g-a...](http://tabletquest.com/2011/02/disappointing-apple- ipad-3g-activation-numbers/)

<comment><USER36> Well, sure, for a consumer device that I use on my couch in the evenings, I certainly don't need LTE. But the Pro seems pretty geared towards business, right? For business travelers this makes a huge, huge difference, though. And it seems to me that the high end Pro version is probably exclusively targeted at business users, at its price.

<comment><USER37> I would have bought LTE with my surface pro, had it been offered. My iPad's LTE is so flaky I don't trust it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Most of the issues that I had with Surface Pro seems to have been resolved by this update:

\- Gets pretty hot - new haswell processors seem to be doing better \- Short battery life of 5 hrs - 75% improvement brings it to around 8-9 hrs, which is a typical work day and that's a great improvement

Overall Surface Pro hardware has always been top class, and I think this version might be the one to buy.

</comment><comment><USER39> Microsoft should never have released Windows RT. The one reason, and the one biggest reason that people use Windows is backwards compatibility... By breaking that, they essentially undermined their own monopoly power, and now everyone is developing to be platform-agnostic.

And let's face it - no one has actually liked MS products in a decade, they've simply put up with them. Now that people aren't forced to use MS products, they don't. It doesn't matter whether or not the Surface 2 is any good, MS killed the only thing going for them...

<comment><USER40> "And let's face it - no one has actually liked MS products in a decade, they've simply put up with them."

Windows 7 was widely praised, Xbox 360 is the winning console, Kinect was revolutionary and widely praised, and of course MS Office is still the premier office suite (I would argue that people "put up with" the alternatives).

<comment><USER39> And yet Apple is the platform making gains (with OSX), especially in people's homes - and has been for the better part of a decade. I don't know when you last walked through a University, but Macbooks make up the majority of laptops students are using. What people 'want' isn't a Windows PC (as their sales are showing - especially in higher price points).

You're right about the consoles (except the kinect, I don't know a single person who owns it) however, but the console crowd are a fickle bunch, and the way things are shaping up, the PS4 could be the winner this time round...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Was it the device itself that caused such poor sales? I assumed all along it was a marketing/image problem which remains unsolved. Has relentlessness by a company ever overcome this issue in the past?

<comment><USER42> Surface marketing was everywhere. I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that.

The devices were definitely to blame. Surface RT squandered Microsoft's ace in the whole in this space: Office + Outlook + Windows network integration. Not only did Office RT not ship in Metro form, but the product that shipped initially was a buggy pre-release. It was disastrous execution. Besides that, Surface RT sold for an iPad/Nexus 10 price without comparable specs (Tegra 3 and low-resolution screen).

<comment><USER18> > I don't think it was particularly bad marketing at that.

I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT). They really were two very different devices for different uses. Trying to call them both Surface tablets was a mis-step in my opinion because of their very different use-cases: one is a desktop replacement, the other is a tablet. To me, that's a marketing problem, not an engineering problem.

<comment><USER43> >I think Microsoft marketing was definitely to blame for their failure to properly distinguish the two (Surface Pro vs. Surface RT).

And here we are observing them do it all over again. Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. Just by the name you still could figure they are the same machine and maybe the pro is a little bit faster or has a bigger flash drive etc. Just as you figure with the different Windows editions. "Ultimate", "Professional" "Home" etc.

People who get the Surface 2 will still be very surprised to see that that they cannot do anything with it seeing as not one "exe" they already have will work on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Big thing missing from the line-up: WinRT HDMI-stick.

A Windows-powered answer to the MK808/Ouya/VitaStation and similar products, bundled with a nice wireless keyboard/mouse remote gizmo - something like this: [http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/itemdetails/57Y6678/460/4C2830F...](http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/itemdetails/57Y6678/460/4C2830F486C64CF7A8A1E619AB6729AA)

WinRT's consistent support for keyboard/mouse sets it apart from touch- oriented Android. Wireless handheld keyboard/mouse is hard to get right, but touchscreen without touching is harder. WinRT could be great on TVs.

But MS would worry about cannibalizing their XBox sales.

<comment><USER45> I tried using Windows 8 with a TV and it's almost there but not quite – if they fix a few things it would be perfect:

\- At 720p you cannot run Windows Store apps (needs to be 768 minimum)

\- At 1080p much of the UI is too small. You can increase the font size but that's not always enough.

\- Surprisingly, while keyboard navigation is great, it doesn't seem to support the Xbox 360 controller at all for navigating through the UI.

<comment><USER46> Actually if you are thinking of connecting your PC to your TV then Windows 7 is still the best bet. It's a well kept secret but a quiet PC connected to TV beats any other media solution out there hands down.

<comment><USER44> Yes, but that's an expensive option compared to ARM-based devices. I mean, you can get a pretty good Android-based ARM device with a spiffy remote for like $80. You'll be spending 5X that much for a decent X86+Windows solution.

That's why WinRT opens up a new market for them. A WinRT device for light gaming, photos, video-chat, etc. for your TV would be nifty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Surface RT owner here (freebie). LOVE the interface. Love the hardware (nice solid feel and excellent touch recognition). Wish kickstand would have 2 positions.. It's slower than a pro but I can deal with that. Crappy cameras, but not a show stopper.

My main beef why I can't recommend it is compatibility. If that was addressed, the number of apps would skyrocket and I'd be a huge fan.

You would think since MSFT is late to this market, putting in a low-medium cost, highly functional tablet to reverse the trend to apple and google would allow them to catch up quickly. The pro price is currently on par to an Ipad. Hopefully CEO #3 will do that.

</comment><comment><USER48> Who's the guying posing in the photo's? He looks miserable.

<comment><USER49> His name is Panos Panay and he's VP of Surface.

I agree he isn't very photogenic but if you actually watch him present....it's a whole different story. You can probably find his part of the Surface 1 announcement on youtube and I'm sure the one today will be put up later.

<comment><USER50> I came away from today's presentation thinking that he was an unusually bad presenter. IMHO he failed to explain why the Surface Pro 2 was better at the things he was claiming it was better at, didn't give concrete details on basic specifications (saying "25% better battery life" is useless unless you know what his supposed base is), and made too many lame jokes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Still no keyboard that can be used without a table. Most people spend less than $700 on a laptop. Not many people are going to spend more than that on a device that was intentionally rendered less capable so Microsoft could sell gimicky keyboard covers. Microsoft knows how to make nice hardware. All they need to do is create a true hybrid device that sets the example for the industry.

<comment><USER51> On-screen keyboard for "not on a table" scenarios. Compromise? Yes. But acceptable compromise? Probably; how many people do "productive" input- oriented work that isn't on a table?

<comment><USER26> I write essays for my classes and even code a little bit pretty much everywhere. In the car, lying in bed, on the sofa. The funny thing is, I did most of this on an iPad with a Clamcase Pro.

If someone didn't want to do productive input-oriented work, why would they need a tablet with a Haswell processor?

<comment><USER20> Couldn't you get something like the clamcase pro then for the surface? This type of cover is for people who want something as minimal as an ipad smart cover.

<comment><USER26> No one has made one yet, because the Surface wasn't popular enough to make it profitable.

Microsoft proved with the first generation that they have the chops required to make hardware that's just as nice as Apple's. Everyone praised the Surface's hardware, they just didn't like the battery life of the Ivy Bridge version nor Windows RT. Unfortunately, the inability of the Surface to be used as a laptop makes it a secondary device for most people. A $900 secondary device is going to be way too expensive for most people, who as I already said, pay less than $700 for their primary devices.

1st party devices are almost universally better than third-party devices. For example, while I loved my Clamcase Pro, I bet it wouldn't have died after less than a year if it had been made by Apple. That's why I was hoping that Microsoft would see the potential in making a proper keyboard for the Surface 2.

The closest thing we have right now is the Lenovo Helix. It's a nice device, but it was launched with Ivy Bridge right around the time Haswell was released, and it costs a fortune when compared to the surface or a Macbook Air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Why is there a photo of an external monitor with 3840x2160 and nothing is mentioned about it? Is it because it's just a hypothetical display that could be connected via the Mini DisplayPort, had it existed?

<comment><USER53> I was really hoping they'd announce that _they_ are releasing such a display, to go along with the new Surfaces. I'd have bought one, along with a Surface Pro 2 and a docking station.

<comment><USER52> That's what I assumed was happening when I first saw that photo, hence my disappointment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> > _Another cover that 's totally out of left field is the "Surface Music Kit," > a Touch Cover with a mixing deck instead of a keyboard. All the new Touch > Covers are pressure sensitive, so for the Music kit, the harder you hit the > Touch Cover, the louder the sound plays._

I'm not a music person but pressure-sensitive controls seems like the next frontier for touch devices (that, and Kinect-type cam interfaces)...I was going to say, "the iPad will likely fall behind here"...but it looks like third-party vendors are adding pressure-capability via Bluetooth: [http://www.tuaw.com/2013/08/20/wacom-unveils-pressure- sensit...](http://www.tuaw.com/2013/08/20/wacom-unveils-pressure-sensitive- intuos-creative-stylus-for-ipad/)

</comment><comment><USER55> Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Windows Surface RT v1.

I've given MS plenty of chances. I think it's time I moved on.

</comment><comment><USER35> I like the Pro, but the non-Pro Surface doesn't strike me as any more competitive than last year's model. It's heavier than it's main competitor with lower resolution and orders of magnitude fewer apps. And it does nothing to address the wave of great mini tablets. Maybe I'm alone here, but I don't want to hold anything heavier than a pound for more than a few minutes.

Also, with iOS 7 rolling out, MS is going to have a lot harder time playing the "fresh new interface" card.

<comment><USER56> Given that iOS 7 is a copy of what MS and Google were already offering on their systems, why not?

<comment><USER35> Because there are already more people using iOS 7 every hour of their day than ever actually used Metro or any single variant of Android. Who was first is pretty irrelevant to average Joe/Jane picking their next phone.

<comment><USER56> Only in US, in the rest of the world it is a different story.

<comment><USER35> Metro isn't popular in any country that you could call a leading indicator of OS success, and there is no consistent Android UI to speak of anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> How much of the battery life on a tablet is RAM? I moved down from 8GB to 4 when I switched from a big laptop to surface, and the only performance difference I noticed was substantially improved hibernate times.

I'd hate to get a bunch of battery life back from Haswell just to burn it all on RAM I don't even want to get the 512GB model.

</comment><comment><USER58> I like keeping the price of RT down, and giving a middle option between it and Pro.

I'm interested in Haswell reviews, including the power/heat levels.

I just can't justify $900 when I could get an Ultrabook with more power for a little more. I guess that is just the price you pay for form factor.

<comment><USER59> A coworker's wife has a Surface Pro, and the heat it generates is her #1 complaint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm surprised they didn't stress Windows 8.1 more. I have an original Surface RT ("O.G.") and it was essentially unused in my house until I got Windows 8.1 on it...changed everything. It's a much more usable OS.

</comment><comment><USER61> I think the problem with the last surface was price: $900 for a mediocre windows laptop with a touch screen or $300 for a mediocre windows laptop without a touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER62> Those prices are... delusional.

<comment><USER51> Why? Did you even look at the specs? They are far in advance of the capabilities of an iPad. It's a full blown "PC as a Tablet". Even having a DisplayPort output and single USB port on a tablet device immediately makes it worth $200 more than any iPad.

<comment><USER62> Because you can get a much more powerful laptop for much less, if you need a "real PC". If you need a tablet, you can get one for far less too. Heck, you can get a great laptop + a great tablet for less!

This is a delusional move from a company that's so far behind in this area that it's no longer funny.

<comment><USER63> That is not a good comparison. That is like asking someone, why do they need a smart phone when they can get a regular phone + a netbook for half the price. Believe it or not there is a niche market for Tablet+PC forms. It was one of the main reason and the best decision I made when purchasing the Surface Pro. For travelling, I no longer need to carry my Laptop + Tablet. I just take the Surface Pro (It is setup to use my dev environments exactly as on the PC) and when I get back, I sync the changes to the laptop. Not only can I get real work done on the plane but can also switch to tablet mode and play some useless games when tired. However, that is my experience but your mileage may vary.

<comment><USER62> If this is aimed at a niche market, I suppose it makes more sense. I was just under the impression that Microsoft has hopes of remaining a major player in the computer business; if it's content with marginalizing itself into a niche, so be it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Microsoft sticking to Tegra is an interesting choice. I'm not saying it's bad, but still interesting given the current dynamics of the mobile market.

Now that they have Nokia, I predict that Microsoft will attempt to acquire NVIDIA in order to mimic Apple's and Samsung's vertical strategies. Not sure Jen-Hsun or the board would agree though.

</comment><comment><USER65> It looks better than the original Surface, and seems to address the main issues. The better battery will be a huge advantage. Not a fan of the thinner keyboard though, the travel isn't too great anyway with the S Pro 1. Also, who the fuck cares about back-lighting?

<comment><USER66> some people do.. I can touch type, but sometimes when I need to press some key other than the alphabet I have to search for it.. back lit keyboards are very helpful when I'm trying to use my computer in the night without any lights.

but I do hope there is a hotkey(function key) to turn off the back light when I'm watching a movie or something.

<comment><USER3> The new keyboard covers have a proximity sensor. The backlight is only on when your hands are near it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Can one get Debian, SUSE, or CentOS running on either of these yet?

<comment><USER63> Cross-posting from one of my comments above: I know you can on the Surface Pro 1. So I don't see why you won't be able to on the Surface Pro 2. Its an x86 machine as per their own requirement, bios have to be unlocked and the ability to disable secure boot must be present.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Does the Surface cut it as a machine for developers?

<comment><USER46> the touch cover is not that great but the type cover is awesome for typing. Looks like the second version of it is backlit as well so it does make for a great dev PC

<comment><USER63> I totally agree with you. The touch cover is useless. I haven't got a chance to try the type cover yet, but I assume it to much tolerable than the touch cover. The only complaint, it doesn't come in colors :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This seems like a good alternative to the new Wacom Cintiq Companion ($2000) geared towards digital artists.

</comment><comment><USER69> No LTE means no enterprise clients like me.

</comment><comment><USER70> Fail 2 and Fail Pro 2

<comment><USER71> Yeah, yet Microsoft still believes in that failure. They dont get that nobody want their Microsoft stuffs, they should stick to software. Nobody trust Microsoft anymore. Especially businnesses after X license audits ... I'm glad people understand how dangerous this company really is. They definetly lost the cellphone/tablet battle.</comment></comment>


Desktop Linux: Free is too expensive  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/desktop-linux/print

<comment><USER2> Linux distributions (and GNU, and BSDs) don't have to "win" the desktop. They already have, with one important qualification: you have to care.

Mind you, if you are looking for one-size-fits-all, Windows fits the bill perfectly. All the choices have been made. But if you value customization, Linux and BSDs are your only choices.

(I mean, for Pete's sake, you can boot a room full of machines from a KNOPPIX terminal server, running out of a virtual machine, and then migrate that running VM to a system you just booted FROM it... And shut down the original! We're not in Kansas anymore!)

Linux is certainly less appealing as a dogfood, despite concerted efforts, in part because people can't take the brands they paid money for, along with them. That's why "free is not cheap enough" for many people and efforts to make Linux "sexy" can only go so far without this.

Commercial games are the epitomy of this and Linux doesn't get big commercial games. (Maybe that's because Linux users are mostly zealots who haven't bought a game in over a decade, because they are against DRM, etc... But that's a tangent.)

I'm not sure winning the dogfood market is even a worthwhile goal.

There is actually a LOT of duplication of effort happening right now with so many distributions trying make the Linux desktop "sexier," simpler, and more like Windows. Maybe it's just me, but that feels like the wrong solution. When I need Windows for "legacy" reasons (to run that proprietary accounting software, because that's what my accountant accepts), I just fire up KVM or Wine.

I don't think the Linux (BSD, etc) camp needs to take competing with Windows so seriously. They've already won. There is simply nothing better, if you care about code. You don't have to know everything, but you have to -- ehem -- RTFM. Non-coders simply aren't the primary audience. I know there are some who would disagree.

If you run a shop that doesn't allow the user the option of installing Windows software, or can standardize on document formats, Linux distributions (etc) are an easy choice today. That's how dogfood works. People eat what's in front of them.

Trying to sell Linux on the desktop without also being a fascist in this way, will only cause people to compare things to Windows. It's a recipe for complaints, in which case you might as well just feed them what they're really asking for.

That said, I agree with the author's point about rolling upgrades. If, for example, I'm working within a single package management framework (like APT or RPM, etc) exclusively, I should be able to upgrade, down-grade, side-grade, and any other grade imaginable. Reinstalls could and should be rare.

Ubuntu is 70 to 80% Debian packages, so why can't I "upgrade" (or downgrade) from Debian to Ubuntu, or from Mint to Debian (or any other package system to any other)?

I very much wish distribution projects 1) held onto a stronger sense of individuality while also 2) cooperating more to allow this level of interoperability. Simultaneous specialization and integration are not mutually exclusive: it's what modular software design is all about.

</comment><comment><USER3> I found the comment from Jonathan Corbet of LWN (<https://lwn.net/Articles/489689/>) particularly telling: 'The article is a little muddled, complaining about the "we know best" attitude while saying that Linux lacks the integration seen in iOS or Android, but it's worth a look.'

That does seem like a common double standard that people hold Linux to: on the one hand people complain when it lacks coherent vision and whole-system thinking, and on the other hand people complain when it _has_ coherent vision and whole-system thinking.

<comment><USER4> I think "has a coherent vision and whole-system thinking" is not even close to a fair description of what the author characterizes as a "'we know best' attitude." Having a coherent design does not mean you can't accommodate a wide range of needs, and similarly, lack of flexibility does not indicate a coherent design.

<comment><USER3> Having a coherent design requires making decisions, and sometimes those decisions require ignoring niche preferences. <http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/>

<comment><USER4> Yes, a thoughtful design might ignore some use case or another — so too might a slipshod design. The amount of care put into a design and the degree of freedom it offers are largely orthogonal issues. The point is, a desire for a coherent and intelligent system design is not irreconcilable with a desire for flexibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The style of this article is all wrong. It takes a tremendously long time for the author to get to the point.

There is an irrelevant history lesson of an experience jumping through distros to start with. Then the main argument of the piece is unclear. It begins with (probably justified) moaning about device drivers, but is followed up with a declaration that Linux's problems are caused by recent UI changes. The author then laments that the update cycle is too fast.

Why hasn't someone told this person to stick to long term stable distros, such as RHEL or Ubuntu LTS?

</comment><comment><USER6> > Linux Mint requires users to do a complete re-installation, rather than a > rolling incremental update

Um, and the author's solution to this is installing Windows?

I'm sorry, but at least when Linux Mint needs updates I am free to update when I want. Windows will pop up a nag screen and interrupt your work, even threatening to perform the update if you don't delay it. Anyone who has ever done work on a Windows machine has met this inconvenience. On the other hand, Linux Mint doesn't have it.

Also, his complaint is that it's not rolling release? Uh, neither is windows. Lets see, Windows xp, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, yeah, it's rolling release alright. At least with Linux you don't also need to buy new hardware each time you update the OS.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry, but your post is a little disingenuous. No, Windows doesn't do a rolling release--but, three things that mitigate this:

1) Windows releases are much slower. Most Linux distros have a new-shiny problem: I can't trivially (by which I mean, click a button and emphatically _not_ muck with the command line or PPAs or equivalent user-hatefulness) get the newest OpenOffice or Firefox or Chrome or whatever on an older version of Mint (or Ubuntu--and dist-upgrading Ubuntu is a dicey proposition if you like having a working computer).

2) For the most part (there was some wackiness with architecture changes), Windows will do something much, much closer to the Right Thing on a reinstallation. Your data's where you left it. Your applications are still installed and work. It is not, on Windows, taken for granted that you must pave your machine (yes, I know you can put /home on another partition, that's only part of the problem) in order to upgrade.

3) The idea that you "need to buy new hardware each time you update" Windows is just silly. I have a laptop sitting here. 1GHz Pentium III, 512MB of RAM. I use it for playing old DOS games. It runs Windows 7 a lot more pleasantly than it did XP (which surprised me, but there you go). It may be _way more pleasant_ to use on new hardware, sure--but so is Mint.

And by the way--you can set Windows Update to automatically do it when you shut down, and never nag you. (That this isn't the default is probably, on balance, a bad idea, but the capability is trivially there.)

Put your hackles down, dude. The mud-slinging helps no one.

<comment><USER6> > 2) For the most part (there was some wackiness with architecture changes), > Windows will do something much, much closer to the Right Thing on a > reinstallation. Your data's where you left it. Your applications are still > installed and work. It is not, on Windows, taken for granted that you must > pave your machine (yes, I know you can put /home on another partition, > that's only part of the problem) in order to upgrade.

You must not have installed Linux Mint or Ubuntu lately, because they both do this.

> 1) Windows releases are much slower. Most Linux distros have a new-shiny > problem: I can't trivially (by which I mean, click a button and emphatically > not muck with the command line or PPAs or equivalent user-hatefulness) get > the newest OpenOffice or Firefox or Chrome or whatever on an older version > of Mint (or Ubuntu--and dist-upgrading Ubuntu is a dicey proposition if you > like having a working computer).

Not sure why this is an issue, because "shiny-new" Linux distributions come out of the box with a quality web browser and LibreOffice, and the versions are always recent enough and updateable. That's more than I can say for Windows, which comes with Internet Explorer and no office software by default, unless you count wordpad, which is clearly not what we are talking about.

I understand in an enterprise setting those arguments might not make sense, but in a home-desktop setting, they certainly do.

<comment><USER7> > You must not have installed Linux Mint or Ubuntu lately, because they both > do this.

I've installed both recently, thanks. Neither save your system state on a reinstall--or if they do, it's certainly not the default and isn't made clear when you're doing the install.

The only acceptable thing is to reinstall and _properly_ reconfigure any user- installed packages when they do a pave-and-reinstall, and while that's nontrivial, it's the only way to deal with the "oh, lol, reinstall everything every six months" clusterfuck in which Linux is currently enmeshed.

It seems more likely that nobody will do anything about it and instead we can have even more self-absorbed gnashing about Linux being primed to take over the desktop.

Windows, on the other hand, does this by virtue of _not_ screwing with installed software. Loose coupling, believe it or not, has its advantages.

> Not sure why this is an issue

I think you misunderstand me. In order to _get_ the new and shiny applications, I have to dist-upgrade. Which hilariously and regularly _breaks like fucking mad_. This means that, no, I can't really stay on an LTS release (and most people won't want to), because to keep up to date, I have to either play Russian roulette with dist-upgrade or... _pave the entire thing_. Not the case for Windows, which is what I was saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's very much a matter of resources. Windows will always win because it has the greater market share. Regardless, they still manage to produce a dud every second release; think Windows ME, Vista, Windows 8 (pre-emptive).

My work uses a linux inspired toolchain, complete with emacs setup, however, we use the Microsoft compiler and target the Windows platform specifically because our users demand it.

My home PC is an ArchLinux machine, however, I'm still plagued by the inability to play my videos without tearing on my dual screen monitor setup with hardware acceleration; something that works perfectly well on Windows. I'm sure NVIDIA could provide a suitable solution but there's no money involed so they don't.

Linux will always have it's place in the server world, but as far as end user PC's go; I feel it's days are numbered.

</comment><comment><USER9> The real reason Linux lags windows is application support. Windows 8 seems to have every intention of being a train wreck, but Linux will benefit little because users will not upgrade from Windows 7. Linux is not an alternative as long as users cannot run what they want on Linux.

I only see 4 ways for linux to actually gain on the desktop for the average user. 1) Truly painless cross-platform support for most languages. 2) A huge shift to web-based applications. 3) Microsoft seppukus. 4) Wine magically becomes painless and transparent.

Two is the only alternative that has a reasonable chance of happening.

<comment><USER4> That would make sense if there weren't another non-Windows operating system with about 10 times Linux's marketshare on the desktop. But somehow Apple has managed to get 10% of the market without any of that stuff happening, so I don't see how that can really be the reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> These rants seem to follow a similar pattern. First the author qualifies his experience with Linux by claiming he started in the nineties with some ancient distro. Then he'll lay on the praise of how great Linux was or could of been or whatever. And then they all seem to end with the same nonsense about how Linux can't "win" or "suceed" until it is adopted by the corporate market. As if going corporate is what FOSS were somehow all about. Fine, whatever, go back to Windows then. You probably never left.

</comment><comment><USER11> The window for Desktop Linux has closed. The age of the desktop is ending; smartphones and tablets satisfy the computing needs of many people, and more app markets and low-cost devices will only increase this.

<comment><USER12> The same was said about paper when computers were invading the office space. The desktop will not die, nor will it go away any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> >a proprietary iPad-like interface called Unity Unity is proprietary? Really?

<comment><USER14> "proprietary - Of or relating to an owner or ownership."

Unity is developed by Canonical. Canonical "owns" Unity. It is a frustrating choice of word, considering "proprietary" has a generally more specific meaning within computing. (more closed, trademarked, protected, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Popular linux distros are frustrating." Ok, don't use one of the "user- friendly" distros. Get deb/slack. Problem solved. Also, heaven forbid you compile your own desktop system with the settings you want. Do you have to have the latest? Why not pick the version you liked best and install it? Isn't that the point of linux?

I personally don't care for Ubuntu or any distro that tries really hard to copy apple (or worse, come up with their own "better" way of doing things), so I can't relate. I've always used Slack w/ XFCE and never ever once (save the first two weeks I spent learning it) had a problem.

Linux is a complicated system, and you have to expect to spend some time learning it. If your distro's defaults are not to your liking you can either a) change them or b) install another distro. I understand the desire to bring the Window/OS experience to the casual linux desktop user, but this article seems to pick some distros which the auther has trouble with, and apply them to linux (to be honest though, the article was a bit long-winded and I skimmed some).

<comment><USER15> I hate everyone on HN</comment></comment>


My Custom Payment Implant - <AUTHOR> https://forum.dangerousthings.com/t/my-custom-payment-conversion-experience/7668/ <comment><USER2> This is such a bad idea it's beyond words. Why would you implant something that will 100% be outdated within the span of a few years and and can be done just as easily with a watch, a phone or a plastic card, things you very, very likely carry on you anyway. Even if you don't have a wallet because your minimalistic or whatever and you don't have a watch because you have a phone that shows the time YOU STILL HAVE A FREAKING PHONE FOR THAT.

Don't take this the wrong way i had a magnet implanted in my finger for a while so i am not against body mods but this is just plain stupid.

<comment><USER3> You can use the exact same argument for carrying a small magnet in your pocket. The satire might be going over my head though.

<comment><USER2> No Satire here. The thing about the magnet in the finger is that you can not only feel metals or other magnets but with it beeing implanted near a very sensitive nerves you can feel alternating magnetic fields, for example transformers, electric powerlines etc. Thats something a magnet in my pocket cannot do. That beeing said, my magnet got rejected pretty fast and i chose not to reimplant it after that since i also had problems typing with it.

My argument for a magnet, even though it might lose magnetic power over time, compared to an RFID Chip is that the magnet implanted gives you a new sense that you cannot get without implanting it. Compared to a rfid for paying which can be replaced by a phone/watch/card without losing functionality and magnets aren't going to become obsolete by the whimps of a bank or cc provider.

<comment><USER4> > _with it beeing implanted near a very sensitive nerves you can feel > alternating magnetic fields, for example transformers, electric powerlines > etc._

That sounds like the worst experience ever, it would be like giving yourself touch tinnitus.

<comment><USER2> Oh no it's super harmless. You can only feel it close to a source like when you feel your hand along a wall with an embedded wire running main AC. The only time I was genuinely surprised by it was when i walk past a motor in a train that was starting up but even then it wasn't annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you didn't make it to the very end, he finds out from his bank right after the implant that the PayTag will no longer be supported in 3 years! What an unfortunate turn of events!

<comment><USER6> This is quite expected. If the subdermal installation was so quick, so should be the removal, too.

What is _really_ sad that the card (and so the implant) can be compromised any moment because CC data sometimes get stolen, and banks cancel and replace a card even on mere suspicion that it could have happened. So it could as well be arbitrarily shorter than 3 years.

I understand the cool factor, but, to my mind, it's not not great from the systems-building angle. Usually you want more modularity and easier modification or replacement of any part, not more of a monolith.

<comment><USER7> Looks like this was some sort of proxy card, which is just associated with the actual card, so it shouldn't need to be physically changed if the parent card is compromised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A company run by the same guy as Dangerous Things is Vivokey, who are hoping to have (among other things) payment capabilities supported by Visa/Mastercard on on upcoming implant, the Apex. That should allow them to be updated with new details so they won't expire permanently: [https://www.vivokey.com/apex](https://www.vivokey.com/apex)

I have a beta version that can do crypto operations such as PGP decrypting/signing and generating OTP entirely on the implant.

<comment><USER9> Taking a look, it looks like they want to be an identity provider as well as hocking implants. tbh it's kinda weirding me out. Does the more complicated stuff like bank payment require a vivokey identity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I appreciate the coolness factor, but from a practical perspective I think it would make more sense to go with something that's wearable but more easy to replace, such as a ring or even a piercing.

<comment><USER11> Piercing seems like a really bad idea unless you can guarantee that no malicious actor will find out about it. Those things hurt when they're ripped out.

<comment><USER10> The risk of that happening would seem to be equal to or less than the risk of you getting robbed of your credit card, which also carries a risk of physical damage. Normal high-value piercings such as expensive earrings carry a greater risk of theft as they are much easier to covert to money. A wireless payment device requires a second factor for large withdrawals and can easily be blocked.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I think you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool! How do you confirm the chip isn't going to have any weird reaction under the skin later? And there's minimal risk implanting it in the first place will cause damage?

<comment><USER13> From what I remember, this is handled in the "conversion" process mentioned. Part of that is coating the entire implant in medical grade silicone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _My bank contacted me to tell me that the PayTag will no longer be supported > in 3 years time, So this is obviously disappointing_

I definitely think this is a cool concept, but how do you get passed the planned obsolescence of these implants?

<comment><USER15> To be fair in terms of the cyberpunk future this is one of the problems built into the setting in fiction. Upgrades, firmware versions and planned obsolescence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ah the old mark of the beast. No just no, this is a future I don't want to become part of.

<comment><USER17> you don't have to, there are better alternatives ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Read through most of this and I was thinking this is a pretty weird thing to get implanted. In which world would it be necessary to have a payment implant?

With Coronavirus, it's clear contactless payments are becoming common place. But I'd venture to say we're going to continue moving towards things like online ordering for almost everything imaginable and then picking it up which means rarely would I need to show/use my credit cards.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm sometimes thinking about an implant, but then I realize a ring or bracelet would work better.

A current concept I've been fiddling with is a personal assistant that's always on me.

Yes, a phone, but strapped to my back. Why? Because I can't leave it somewhere or change the volume or ignore it.

It's meant to nag me until I finish the task (verification/confirmation is difficult though).

<comment><USER20> That's a smartwatch. Obviously you need an incentive to wear it continually; that could be exercise (step counting), health tracking (heart rate plus (as of a few months ago) pulse oximetry), etc.

Also you can get contactless payment, and it can even tell the time.

After a few months you get used to wearing a watch continually again.

<comment><USER19> That's an option, but I hate watches. Always have for some reason, even when it was the only portable accessory I had it in my pocket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That looks fun. But in practice, from your video it seems you need to keep the implant extremely close, and hold it near the chip reader for a few secs before it's recognized and accepted. That's a major downside. I use Apple Pay and swing my phone somewhere close near it and it's done within a second.

</comment><comment><USER22> An implanted payment chip seem to be an interesting idea. You could be stranded anywhere in the world with nothing but an underwear and still carrying enough money to get by (assuming the contactless payment protocol used by the implant is accepted everywhere). A wildly unlikely scenario for most people. A more likely scenario is it allows you to pay something when you forgot to bring your wallet and your phone and you have to make the payment now or never. Or maybe you could be in a beach with nothing but a swimsuit and want to buy an ice cream without grabbing your wallet in the locker.

Realistically, I will never do a minor surgical operation just for having an ability to pay without my phone or wallet. My intolerance of needle and pain far outweigh the benefits of having this implant :)

<comment><USER23> > You could be stranded anywhere in the world with nothing but an underwear

I am curious about the life choices of people who see planning for this type of situation a worthwhile investment of their time. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think it's a little crazy. The implanted material over several months your body may not accept it. This should be tested very well. And I don't see a big benefit, since you can pay with your cell phone.

<comment><USER25> We've been implanting electronics in people for a very long time, we have a good understanding of the process now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "I buy, therefore I am"

<comment><USER27> Puts a whole new emphasis on the sum part of cogito ergo sum

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Oh man, I was not able to make it through that needle video... I love the body-mod community, but I don't think I'm fit to serve in their ranks.

<comment><USER29> I kept thinking no, no, No NO NO Make It Stop!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> How permanent is this implant? Can it be easily removed?

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure about removing an implant from the hand like in the article but I've had the similarly sized/shaped Implanon removed and replaced from my arm several times. It's just a small incision, a pair of tweezers to pull it out, and a stitch or two to close it back up. The whole procedure takes less than 15 minutes. They could probably do it in five but I'm kind of squeamish so they go slow. They use local anesthetic so you can't feel the incision but you can still feel the implant coming out and your skin being pulled which grosses me out big time.</comment></comment>


IBM has decided to co-locate its US marketing department - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/924167/ibm-remote-work-pioneer-is-calling-thousands-of-employees-back-to-the-office/ <comment><USER2> _A theory among some employees is that IBM is using co-location as a downsizing effort._

I hope it's not an accurate theory. Downsizing this way means your most self- motivated, productive employees are likely to leave long before those who drive to the office because they feel they have no other choice.

 _Like Best Buy and Yahoo at the points at which they decided to co-locate, IBM is a business that needs to do something new._

Our businesses are shrinking, so let's try something new: make our employees less productive.

Despite the positive spin the writer puts on the plan, to me it seems like the death throes of past-their-prime companies.

And based on what others have said in these comments, the change is mostly affecting marketing employees.

I'd say co-location is a pet tactic of the writer, without any real evidence that remote work is anything but progress.

If a job can be done remotely, it should be done remotely.

<comment><USER3> It's the best way to get a large amount of your workforce to leave voluntarily. No workforce reduction paperwork. No severance packages. Yahoo did it. Nokia did it. In fact, the companies who pull this trick are almost all shrinking and past their prime.

But don't worry, IBM has tens of thousands of strap hangers who've been surviving layoffs for decades.

The bottom line will get brighter. The future of the company will get darker. It's the Jack Welch school of management.

<comment><USER4> Did you read the article though? They are offering 90 days to make the decision, and a month's severance (miserly, imo, but they're offering it). As mentioned in the piece this wouldn't be a very manageable or predictable way to reduce headcount. It's much more likely the motives are exactly what the company said the motives are: they feel like they will be more effective working together. I would likely be one of the employees who said goodbye rather than move, and I don't think this is ultimately a good decision, but neither do I think it's necessary to dig for hidden motives and agendas.

<comment><USER5> A month's severance is a lot cheaper than paying for unemployment benefits.

<comment><USER6> From my understanding, and this will vary from state to state since unemployment insurance is managed and dealt with by states, not the federal government, employees would still possibly be able to collect unemployment after that month of severance runs out if they are unable to get a new job (and are actively looking) and the unemployment claims will still ding IBM. That month of severance offsets their unemployment insurance rate increase(s). IBM is hoping folks can find a job in the next four months so they don't have to pay any out. Additionally, I would assume, part of accepting the severance might require the employee signing papers which state that the end of employment is voluntary and agreed upon possibly invalidating the employees claim to unemployment and thus hurting IBM's insurance rates. Whether that applies or works will depend on numerous factors, particularly the state the employment occurred in.

<comment><USER7> The relevant statute is called the WARN Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification. This requires 60 days notice (or 60 days pay) among other things.

[https://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/WorkerWARN2003.pdf](https://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/WorkerWARN2003.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Disclosure: I'm a developer at IBM, but not speaking in official capacity. The comment here is completely personal.

I went through this article and it seems like a lot of FUD. The line to note is:

> Though not every department at IBM will be asked to colocate, many will.

So yes, some departments have been "asked" to colocate. However, AFAIK nobody is being "forced". My team lead was asked to colocate but decided to stay where they are because of personal reasons (family).

Speaking generally, I've had incredibly flexible hours, more so than at any other place I've worked so far (and I have worked at some of the "hip" places).

Anyways, the headline itself seems truly sensationalist.

<comment><USER9> So IBM employees who refuse the company's formal request to colocate shouldn't be nervous about their status in the medium to long-term future?

<comment><USER10> I agree. I think this is first step to separate out people who are unwilling to relocate. Next they will look at the work they are doing, if deemed non- critical I assume they will be first to go.

<comment><USER8> I mean, isn't that the case with any job? So sure, this might be an extra consideration when the time for layoffs comes around.

My intention was not saying that nothing changed; emphasis on colocation is definitely a real thing. But IBM is not "ending remote work", as the headline says (it should be changed to the actual article title, which is more reasonable). It is most certainly allowed.

<comment><USER10> True, it is with any job. I still think it will be good filter for people who think IBM job is critical for them and family vs family and location is critical than IBM job.

I agree IBM will most likely lose good remote workers but for company of IBM size individual super performers are not critical to their financial well being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> /IBM employee rant begin

To me, the fact that IBM has for years encouraged remote work, been affirmatively OK with people moving hundreds, even thousands of miles from their nearest co-location center to then yanking this policy and forcing employees to decide whether to move in a short amount of time makes this, in my mind, a thinly-veiled downsizing effort.

Imagine; for years, your department in is NY state, but you've been told it's totally cool to move to Colorado and work from home. In fact, IBM exclaims how it's good for the company because it saves space and money! You build your family's life there, then all the sudden - you have a month to decide to relocate to NY state (sell your house, change your kids' school, etc) or quit with a measly package. They won't even allow you to go to the nearby IBM office in Colorado because your group is based in NY state.

I know employment is at-will, and what IBM is doing is perfectly legal. It doesn't mean it doesn't stink.

<comment><USER12> > then all the sudden - you have a month to decide to relocate to NY state

Is that actually happening to you? pm90 below indicated that IBM wasn't doing this.

<comment><USER11> Not me personally, definitely to others I work with - there's been hints of no enforcement until later this year but nothing official.

Edit: And as PM90 said, it does seem to be only some departments. PM90 said the article creates FUD, but I think you could argue IBM is doing that to its employees with this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Peluso, formerly the CEO of fashion startup Gilt, explained the "only one > recipe I know for success." Its ingredients included great people, the right > tools, a mission, analysis of results, and one more thing: "really creative > and inspiring locations."

That must be the same secret recipe that quartered[1] GILT's value in less than 10 years!

[1] Gilt Groupe at one point valued at $1B, sold to HBC for $250M - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilt_Groupe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilt_Groupe)

</comment><comment><USER14> This isn't universal - a good friend of mine works for a team that is getting shipped off to IBM as part of a merger, and told to apply for the new IBM jobs if they want to keep working there. Ignoring the ugliness of that situation for the moment, he specifically asked about this news of remote work ending as it relates to how coding jobs would be impacted, and was told that the jobs he was applying for were intended to remain remote.

All the news I have seen has been about the marketing team, and my story is just one team, so I have no real idea what the big picture is, but it seems to be more nuanced than what we are reading about in the news.

<comment><USER15> Every time I've found myself needing to ask, or had teammates who needed to ask the question "Is my job safe beyond the next month?" the answer has been "no."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Marissa Mayer did the same thing shortly after getting to Yahoo. I think the results there speak for themselves. There's never a case where a move like this will boost morale or attract/keep top talent. IMO moves like this are all about showing dominance and being a "person of action." It's corporate politics showmanship at the expense of results.

<comment><USER17> > I think the results there speak for themselves

151% stock increase? Nearly double market cap?

<comment><USER18> I find the enthusiasm for tearing down Mayer gross, but to be clear: subtract the value of the alibaba stock and all that disappears.

<comment><USER19> Would it be less gross if she were not a woman? When other CEOs make decisions that ruin a company, they get critized too. Steve Balmer was a frequent object of ridicule. Other women execs such as Sandberg aren't treated badly -- the enthusiasm for tearing Mayer down comes from the fact that she was lauded as some kind of exceptional executive when she was really just a lot of high minded talk backed by questionable decisions and a slew of pointless acquisitions at ridiculous prices. She was positioned as some kind of ultra- woman when she was just mediocre at best (within the Yahoo context.) In my mind, Mayer earned every cent of criticism and someone like Sandberg has earned every cent of praise.

<comment><USER18> > Would it be less gross if she were not a woman?

> the enthusiasm for tearing Mayer down comes from the fact that she was > lauded as some kind of exceptional executive

While some of the comments are no doubt rooted in the perspective you mention, there are also plenty of overtly misogynistic comments about her too. I think it's a bit of whitewashing to claim that all the enthusiasm for tearing her down is strictly disconnected from gender. I don't know how you can read the comments that go by on reddit et all and pretend that elephant in the room isn't there.

I think a lot of the criticism of Balmer is specific and factual, but that people also overlook that on raw financials his tenure at MS was successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20>
        "It's time for Act II: WINNING!" read the subject line of Peluos's blog post

Nothing says "high-quality leadership role-model" like Charlie Sheen.

<comment><USER21> Could also be presidential quote. This timeline we are on is really weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am remote, and have been for the last 3.5 yrs. As a software developer I find that the times I am least productive are when I need to work in an office. It is loud and distractions are everywhere. People stop by your desk to chat and ask for things, you inevitably get roped into ping-pong or foosball games, you take way longer lunches because that is what everyone else seems to be doing. The list goes on.

I am always glad to get home from the office so I can focus and get work done in peace. It may not be the case for all roles, but for software development I think (motivated and diligent) remote workers are way more productive, and can provide a much better ROI for their employers.

</comment><comment><USER23> It worked out _ever so well_ for Yahoo when Mayer did it so surely it'll work for IBM who has two orders of magnitude more employees...actually, perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations?

<comment><USER24> > perhaps the end goal is voluntary resignations?

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

<comment><USER25> Why not simply fire those who they don't want to work with anymore? They're clearly used to do that at IBM and it would be much more controlled and cost effective.

<comment><USER3> You have to pay them to leave. You have to endure the publicity of large scale layoffs. This way, you are progressive, agile, and team oriented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> IBM is so weird.

I haven't worked for them, but I work with 2 former IBM Engineers in Austin... both of them say the same weird things.. like, you can't get two monitors (when one asked, he was declined, then his boss pulled an old CRT out of a closet and gave it too him... a 640x480 CRT from what must have been 184 years ago) ... And other weird tales that just seem antithetical to a tech company..

<comment><USER27> IBM isn't a tech company. It's a brand with an impressive marketing department that sells experiences, not products. The rest of it (the stuff you don't see unless you get close enough) is an accumulation of spaghetti acquired in an ad hoc and aimless fashion.

<comment><USER28> At my previous employer, we were evaluating solutions from IBM, TIBCO, and Oracle. The IBM solution was cheaper and met our needs. In the end, our VP nixed them with the statement of "I don't really want to support IBM software." The feeling was unanimous across the team.

<comment><USER29> Yes, IBM still sells IBM/Rational ClearCase which has impressive cost (about $5000 per license) and has about 5% features of Git, also absolutely bozotic UI.

What surprises me, some companies still use it in 2017 and still pay $5000 to buy a product that is inferior in every respect to Mercurial, Git, Subversion.

<comment> T-hawk There exist many companies where one's perceived status as a manager derives from how much budget you command rather than on how effectively you choose tools or deliver solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "the severance payment will be equal to one month's base salary, the standard at IBM."

Worth keeping in mind that this is the new policy as of about a year ago (they changed it before the big waves of layoffs last year).

Before the change you would get a week for every 6 months worked, up to 23 weeks.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have known many people who work in companies like Oracle, IBM etc where there is consulting at client location and then report at designated office. Generally reporting at designated office is very lax and people either are at client site or just stay at home. I wonder if tightening remote work requirement is for these people too.

Lately at traditional IT companies even temporarily non-billable resources are increasingly being scrutinized for their output.

</comment><comment><USER31> Remote work has many benefits, but it's not all upside. Possibly IBM saw the successes they had by co-locating the Watson, Marketing and Health squads compared and decided there was a lot of productivity being lost.

</comment><comment><USER32> When I went to sign up for Watson's API services, I had to allow for third party cookies just to enter my payment information. It was a pain just trying to dig through Chrome to allow this, but I wonder how many of their potential customers just punt on that point alone.

For one of their flagship products, it's been an average experience at best.

</comment><comment><USER33> I use to think that remote work was goal I should be aiming for but after have a few friends did it and I thought more about it I've decided I would hate it. On the surface it sounds great and while I fully support working from home a few times a month I can't support any more than that.

One of my good friends that did it has an interesting take, he said that since he was more introverted he thought he was perfect for remote work when in fact it made him miserable. His dad worked remotely for a large part of his life but was an extrovert. He concluded that contrary to what may seem like common sense introverts do worse in remote work because the office is where they get a majority of their human interaction while extroverts are going to make that happen regardless of if they go into an office every day.

I have no experience with working from home for a long period of time but I know calling into meetings is the worst and that there are a TON of decisions/conversations that you get ZERO input on (most of the time you don't even know they happened) when you are remote. I have never been so happy that I didn't get a remote job I interviewed for a few years ago.

As much as I hate companies giving a perk and then taking it away I can't help but think this is the right move for IBM.

PS: Yes HipChat/Slack/Jira/GitLab/GitHub/etc/etc/etc can help with this but you are fooling yourself if you think that the people in the office are going to record every single interaction/conversation/etc of note. Remote-only teams might be an exception but even then you really do lose the ability to roll over to co-workers chair and have an impromptu conversation.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's easy to forget that IBM is in the share buyback business. They're not a growing technology power. They have Watson, which isn't enough to save them. They can't invest money wisely, so every year they cut headcount and return some money to shareholders. It's the orderly returning of money to shareholders from a company that doesn't need investment anymore.

So why should this company offer perks to compete with Google or a startup? They only need a shrinking subset of lifers to keep the lights on.

If you want to telecommute, find a place that specializes in it.

</comment><comment><USER35> What I find a bit odd is that this is ostensibly about becoming more innovative.

But does anyone really believe that major strategic business and product innovation occurs at the level of the individual contributors and teams who will be affected by this change?

I mean, sure, cool new features happen at that level, but you can't tell me the iPhone would've fallen out of a "water cooler" conversation between a couple of C++ devs on a Wednesday afternoon in the office.

<comment><USER8> > I mean, sure, cool new features happen at that level, but you can't tell me > the iPhone would've fallen out of a "water cooler" conversation between a > couple of C++ devs on a Wednesday afternoon in the office.

I think you are severely discounting the advantages of having people nearby/ in the same office. I'm not against working remotely, but personally do prefer a mix between working in the office and WFH. Its a lot easier to whiteboard designs and explain concepts. Its easy to ask a question and get an answer. There's also the other aspect of building a shared culture and getting to know your coworkers. That promotes a sense of comraderie so that when e.g. someone on the team has to take time off, there is a deadline for a deliverable or there is a service outage, the team works much more quickly and cohesively to solve problems. This also allows a better division of labor and I've seen this lead to many innovations as one person on the team focuses exclusively for a small time on solving a problem.

<comment><USER35> None of which addresses my point.

I'm not talking about innovation in the small, where a dev comes up with a clever new bit of user experience or a snazzy new algorithm. That stuff is nice but it's incremental.

I'm talking strategic innovation, the stuff that makes or breaks big companies like IBM when they're struggling to compete in 2017.

I would never claim there aren't advantages to co-located engineers.

But I struggle to believe that one of those advantages is big picture innovation as implied by the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > In a video message, Peluso, formerly the CEO of fashion startup Gilt, > explained the "only one recipe I know for success." Its ingredients included > great people, the right tools, a mission, analysis of results, and one more > thing: "really creative and inspiring locations."

Why is this news coming from the CMO? Anyone know?

<comment><USER37> I had to read the article multiple times as I thought the same thing. One paragraph mentions that the CMO is only talking about the marketing org, but that the sentiment is repeated elsewhere in the company.

#winning

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> HP did the same thing a couple years ago.

Main reason is downsizing, easiest way to thin the herd. At that size, HR is just a spreadsheet exercise, quality of the individual employees does not factor in.

Of course this will not affect their "remote" workforce in India, this is about the high-pay western markets.

</comment><comment><USER39> For affected IBMers... find a new remote gig!

[https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote- job](https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job)

</comment><comment><USER40> Some thirty years ago I heard a joke from a friend's dad (employee of IBM) that it stands for "I've Been Moved".

So this is just "IBM Classic" showing through the modern varnish.

<comment><USER41> They've come a long way since the 1930s:

[https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/tripping-through- ib...](https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/tripping-through-ibms- astonishingly-insane-1937-corporate-songbook/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> IBM is not ending remote work. They're laying off thousands of North American workers every quarter and sending those jobs remotely to India.

</comment><comment><USER43> IBM is a failed services company. Ive been a subcontractor for 2 projects run by IBM. Both fiascos of mismanagement. The project management at IBM had an incredible churn rate. On the first project, they were kicked off for completely failing to deliver. The second project had them completely marginalized. The sad thing is that it was another "big 4" consulting company that took over, who was only slightly less incompetent. I really have trouble understanding the big 4 consulting model. It mainly seems to consist of the following:

1) plant 2-300% of the consultants on site that are necessary 2) create an enormous amount of power point slides that look impressive but mainly say nothing 3) outsource the real work to India or cheap labor 4) deliver 25% of the requirements in 300% of the time

<comment><USER38> the Big 4 win contracts based on necessary certifications. once it is a 100mil+ project, all kinds of certs come into play, small shops simply can't produce the paperwork.

of course, there is no correlation between certs and actually being able to deliver anything, but that does not matter. no CIO will risk their career by not giving big stuff to a non-Big4 contract.

file under herd mentality, etc.

<comment><USER44> What certs are we talking about? SSL certs? PE certs? Cisco certs?

<comment><USER38> ha, no.

ITIL, ISO 20000, etc etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Today, in the "companies that treat people like things" section we talk about IBM -- a company that routinely fires thousands of people. Today, the enlightened company is planning to relocate or dismiss the rest of their workforce, in the hope to change the company from the inventor and champion of all-that-is-waterfall to "agile".

All with a straight face.

</comment><comment><USER46> This sort of 'cultural' double down is why I left. There's some talented people there - I'm thankful for everything I learned from them - but the culture is too rigid for creative exploration and [most importantly] discovery.

</comment><comment><USER47> If co-location is so great, why are they in six different offices? Call a layoff a layoff. I guess they avoid paying severance if you quit because you live in Idaho.

</comment><comment><USER48> Unrelated: Are there people in the world who prefer spending 8 hours in the office vs 8 hours wherever they want (office OR home OR cafe)?

<comment><USER49> I know someone who took an office gig after 5+ yrs of remote due to lack of the 'office experience'. He's a sane, smart guy, I think he just got tired of being home all the time. That or his kids reached the obnoxious age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This sounds like an attempt to graft a small-company or startup atmosphere onto the dying trunk of a behemoth.

</comment><comment><USER51> maybe there's a new and exciting product that they want to develop that needs everyone's exclusive attention, or it's a business idea that will fail miserably.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm not sure how you attract new people to work for a company with _19_ straight quarters of declining sales. Pinky swear that they will turn around this time?

</comment><comment><USER19> Whatever salary they're paying remoters now isn't going to be enough to live in NY or San Fran without a significant quality of life cut. And basically they get extra "work" out of you for free -- time spent commuting. So 40 hours a week becomes 50 hours a week assuming a 1-hour commute.

Is it me or is this move seemingly initiated by female executives that want to project power in order to compensate for the perception that they are less dedicated to work because of their sex? Given a sample size of two, I would avoid working for anyone named Melissa.</comment>


A critical look at the new Mac Pro - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/06/a-critical-look-at-the-new-mac-pro/

<comment><USER2> The thing looks genuinely ugly with the outer casing off: like computer junk from the late '90s, with a touch of Jawa Quality Spares.

<comment><USER3> Not many computers are pretty inside, and, as far as computers go, this one is not near the top of the ugliness scale.

<comment><USER2> I don't know: if you see any of the "real-world", non-studio-lit/Photoshopped pictures of the internal cylinder it looks pretty groady [http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/mac_pro_...](http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/mac_pro_2013_eyes-on_3-580x386.jpg) . (Ash-grey plastic panelling pockmarked with slots, how I missed you! Good to see you still have those big roundrect corners too.) It's a long way down from the internal fit-and-finish of the last Mac Pro design [http://nonstopmac.com/images/macpro.jpg](http://nonstopmac.com/images/macpro.jpg) . Even the internals of a typical self-build PC can look pretty nice if you take care to braid up cables and so on.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you pronounce code syntax - <AUTHOR>

For instance, I pronounce list item (li) as lee <comment><USER2> Pointer dereference is "at", since that's a reasonable shortening of "asterisk", and also accurate semantically.

Everything else, I think, I just do in (what I'd expect is) the normal or obvious way. There's also alot that I don't bother to subvocalise at all, now that I think about it, like subscripts in math for most people. Array subscripts in programming, would be one such thing, at least for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I asked, because I would keep saying (li) is lee. and my teacher was like what? So I felt little awkward, but believe me i can never pronounce it like ... eel iee. like my teacher did. So I asked everyone just uses 'standard' pronunciation or just 'hacked' like me. For me it's easier to remember.

damn speaking of wordpress (WP) i am a really awkward kid in the class because I always pronounce vp i.e vp super cache.

<comment><USER2> Most people probably have their own private words; it's hard to know what the "standard" pronounciations are if you're just reading text.

Another one I've thought of is that I always say url, not U.R.L. - didn't know you weren't "supposed" to. It's not as stupid-sounding as you might think: I'm not saying "Earl" all the time; it's more like the vowel in "her" than the vowel in "hair". That phonetic merger doesn't exist round here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> char is "cuh-harr" bool is "bowl" int is "aint" string is "strinog"

</comment><comment><USER3> functions: printf - "printuff" putc - "POOTIS" putchar - "POOTISSPENCER" malloc - "MAH LUCK"

</comment><comment><USER3> <h1> is "Harrybo's plums"</comment>