Consumers Don't Want Tablets, They Want iPads - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20110620/consumers-dont-want-tablets-they-want-ipads/ <comment><USER5> Look, that's because non-iPad tablets with a real (touchscreen, tablet-sized) OS didn't exist until 3 months ago. Give Android a year and a half to let the Android Market populate with some great tablet-sized software, and who among us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone market does now?

EDIT: The commenters responding to me made a really good distinction -- phones are near-necessity devices that are subsidized by carriers, whereas right now, tablets are more or less a luxury purchase. I agree that this might have an effect on how things play out.

<comment><USER6> > who among us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone > market does now?

I do.

For one thing, building tablet software is _hard_. I mean, extremely hard work from a UI perspective. It makes stuff for the phone look like a cakewalk (I'll share a blog post sometime). So if Android Market continues sucking ass in terms of rewarding developers versus what they can make on the App Store, you'll get a bunch of turd apps and not much magic because what's the point of all that sweat?

Secondly, Android is inflated by the fact that if you want a cell phone you _will be given an Android device for free_ if you start new service.

There is no magic free Android tablet tree – the economics are completely different. There's the argument that you might see a halo effect from all those phones... but people don't tend to value what's free and the carriers are doing whatever they can to cram these phones with junk anyway.

So, like I said, I do.

<comment><USER5> I know you said you're working on a blog post, but I'd be really interested in if you could elaborate on the challenges inherent to building tablet software -- I build big enterprise-y software that is on Windows Mobile phones and Windows tablets, and I find the tablet part to be much easier in terms of designing a usable interface for the form factor.

Are there particular things you have in mind that are much easier to design for a phone than for a tablet?

<comment><USER6> It's a focus thing, really. I suppose it depends on perspective.

With a phone, right, you have this 3-4ish inch screen to work with. You absolutely have to focus. You've got a _gun to your head_ requiring focus, commanding the basic flow of the application fit tidily within the confines of this small space, this teensy viewport the user has into what they're working on. Now, it's still possible to make crap (definitely) but the kinds of mistakes you're able to make are limited by both space and what the user can realistically accomplish with the limited time and tools inherent to the phone form factor.

Now. You get to tablet land. Holy shit! Look at all this room. I can put things here, and over here, and this place is nice – and then you have this jumbled, unfocussed mess. For me, the tablet gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself. Since the form factor isn't compelling focus and clarity, now you have to do it yourself.

I love the luxury of creative constraints. Tablets just have fewer constraints. A blessing and a curse, to be certain. Lots of great stuff you can only do on a tablet, too.

<comment><USER7> We've been developing for desktop/laptop computers for years now. They also give developer plenty of space to play with. From your comment I conclude that developing for desktop must be the hardest thing ever, not talking about the 27' iMacs.

<comment><USER8> Well, the quality of the "typical website" (aimed at desktop browsers) certainly seems to support that conclusion...

There's certainly a very different mindset you adopt when developing for a phone sized screen, and the constraints require super tight focus on the site goals and processes that is often missing from the planning and requirements stage of less-constrained web development.

Google the "mobile first" movement, and pay particular attention for the writing of Luke Wroblewski - while not fully subscribing to "mobile first" myself, I'm seeing some _strong_ benefits from at least considering it at the very early planning stages of any new web project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me this article boils down to one main point: Apple is a premium brand that's decided to sell its product for a less than premium price.

People almost always prefer the premium brands. It's a rare person who would pick a Honda Civic over a BMW 5 Series if both were the same price. The difference here is Apple's selling the low end iPad for a price companies like Samsung can barely match. You're constantly hearing stories of how Apple has an unbeatable advantage because they're already selling in such bulk.

So that's the problem. Other companies can't undercut Apple on price and lack Apple's brand prestige.

<comment><USER10> It's also Apple's direct and retail sales infrastructure hurting non-iPad prices.

It'd be like Honda trying to sell their cars through a bunch of third-party car dealers like "Bob's Auto Mart" while BMW sold all of theirs through their own BMW-owned dealerships.

<comment><USER11> That analogy doesn't hold up against the dominance of Windows vs Mac.

<comment><USER12> Actually, it kind of does.

Why, ultimately, did Windows initially achieve market dominance? Because it evolved from MS-DOS.

Why did MS-DOS have market dominance? Because it ran on PC compatibles.

Why did PC compatibles have market dominance? Because they were drop-in replacements for the IBM PC.

And why, despite being relatively late to the market, despite having a relatively high price tag and a really ugly grey boxy look, did the IBM PC have market dominance? Because IBM put their product into the hands of their well-established and reputable corporate sales network dedicated to selling IBM hardware, and they sold it all over.

Of course, this argument is incomplete and flawed because I haven't used the words _Lotus 1-2-3_ yet. Unfortunately, the fact that killer apps also sell hardware comes as little relief for Android. The closest thing to a killer app that Android has come up with so far is Flash support. Unfortunately, with mobile Flash it's still not clear who is doing the killing and who is doing the dying.

<comment><USER11> So Windows and MS-DOS which ran on third party "dealer" imitations beat IBM originals sold through an in-house sales network. I don't see how you are refuting my argument.

<comment><USER13> Your argument is a total non sequitur to begin with.

If you were a large business buying computers in the mid 80's you bought them directly from manufacturer (Compaq, Apple, whoever).

If you were a small business you bought your computer(s) from a third party (computer store, Sears, wherever).

The Mac lost because most businesses bought for price and compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bernstein Research surveyed consumers to ask whether they would prefer a 7" screen or a 10" screen? That does not have anything to do with iPad branding. Would you prefer a 70" TV, or a 100" TV? You say 100"? Well, since Sony manufactures the only popular 100" TV, I will infer that you prefer Sony brand TVs.

The second half of the Bernstein release states that "Fifty percent of respondents preferred Apple over all other brands." That is EXACTLY HALF, so feel free to spin it the other way: "Fifty percent of respondents would not choose Apple over another brand."

<comment><USER15> Except consumers aren't choosing between Apple and not-Apple. The second- strongest brand in the survey is Dell, preferred by 12% of respondents. You really think that focussing on Apple, with a brand 4x stronger than its nearest competitor, is just spin?

Here's another quote from the article: "Apple has more than double the brand appeal of BlackBerry, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung combined." Care to spin that another way?

<comment> T-R But for Android consumers, hardware manufacturer is usually a secondary choice. I won't contest that Apple's ahead, but all this survey really points out is that Apple has more control over their branding - consumers have no need to distinguish between Apple, iPad, and iOS. Sure it's not beneficial for manufacturers (in terms of market share) to be competing within a single brand, against a company that controls its brand entirely - that's pretty obvious. It doesn't support a conclusion that "customers want iPads, not Tablets", however, since customers mostly aren't framing their purchasing decisions around hardware manufacturers.

Again, I'm not saying Apple isn't dominating, but it does seem like the question was written with the conclusion already in mind.

<comment><USER16> Well, except that it doesn't matter for average consumers. If you read the article closely, what the consumers want is to get a tablet and use it comfortably. Why should they bother if they want 7" or 10"? Heck, why should they even bother to _think_ about that?

This is different from a TV screen size, you don't have to hold the TV but you definitely need to hold the tablet, too small and you can't get your things done, too big it would be annoying to hold on to it as well. It does prove that Apple had done research and a lot of testing to get the correct size. Once this correct size is being pushed out, I don't see why consumers would want to prefer other sizes.

Note: When I say consumers I refer to average consumers, geeks like options and customizations, but average consumers don't want to be bothered by these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sure, Apple has half the market... Of a market they created and had a headstart on.

Seems to me the others are catching up nicely, especially since most of them are using the same OS series.

I just got an Asus Transformer and it is NICE. Especially now that I found some software to let me remote into my desktop and have the tablet act as a dumb terminal. My tabletpc (which I used mainly as a laptop) sits unused now because the tablet is smaller, lighter, snappier, and produces no heat. I can do all my Android-y games and little apps, as well as access the big stuff from my PC in the other room, all from the couch.

And reading comics on it? Awesome.

I considered an iPad. Seriously considered it. What finally decided it was open source software and creating my own apps. (And I have written 1 so far, but not published... Need to polish it.)

<comment><USER18> So you're really looking for a netbook and you decided (wisely) not to choose the iPad?

The real slam here is that there is any such thing as the "tablet" market. There's an iPad market, the netbook market, smartphone market, and PC market. Trying to make something that addresses all of these poorly is a bad idea.

Windows TabletPCs never really caught on, and as you mention, an ARM-based android "netbook" kills it for the target market.

Android tablets suffer from an app deficiency and still-maturing OS, not to mention, they are addressing the iPad's native market (if they switched gears, took netbooks head-on like the Asus Transformer they would probably have better results).

<comment><USER17> Actually, what I wanted was an extremely lightweight netbook that could run Android apps, but Bluestack hasn't taken off yet. The fact that the keyboard is removeable is a huge bonus because it drops half the weight and size.

There will probably be something in the future that does more of what I want, but this is good enough to get me by for a few years.

As far as I know, the iPad can't do what I want, even if I replace 'android apps' with 'ipad/iphone apps'.

<comment><USER19> Um, Remote Desktop and VNC apps are on the App Store aplenty.

And there are plenty of Keyboard Docks / Bluetooth Keyboards for the iPad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As an Android fan, I'm actually encouraged by this.

Look, when you're buying a tablet, you're buying into an OS/software ecosystem. Yes, people are buying Apple because it's Apple. But they're also buying Apple because of the App Store and because of a proven track record of apps they enjoy and find useful (assuming some previous iPhone/iPod Touch ownership).

But Android doesn't really have the brand thing so much with regard to the individual manufacturers. I have an HTC phone right now, but I don't feel much loyalty to HTC. My next phone might be made by Samsung or Motorola. I don't much care, because I'm loyal to Android, not to the particular manufacturer.

So in that light, the US numbers for next tablet purchase are 50% iOS, 33% Android, 9% RIM, and 8% don't care. And that's not bad, considering that Apple has a good year's head start on Android wrt tablets.

</comment><comment><USER21> To me, this sounds very close to the Idea vs Execution we are all so familiar with here at HN. People who know can't really claim that it's because Apple came first - Windows had tablet devices before. People also can't claim it'd because Apple learned from earlier tablets, because others have come after that aren't as good. It's a result of Apple producing a good tablet.

I have a PlayBook I use for day-to-day in my day job, and it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple. However, it leads to an overall inferior experience for me, that I'm close to giving up on the device. I can't see myself recommending it to anyone, except for the fact that it plays Flash. However, even that issue isn't as big as it was before.

I'm still hoping someone else produces a compelling product to challenge Apple, whether it be Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. It would not be good for all inovations in this product category to only come from one company.

<comment><USER22> > It's a result of Apple producing a good tablet.

Yes, and not just anybody producing a good tablet, but _Apple_ producing a good tablet.

> it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be > different from Apple

It is tough to follow without being labeled a follower. If you do things the same way, you are branded a copycat; if you do things differently, people will say you are trying too hard to appear original even though in reality you are no different from others (this was Apple in the early 2000s -- remember how some people criticized them for trying too hard with fruity-looking iMacs, etc.?) Being different works, but you have to do it consistently as well as strengthen your image with positive real-life outcomes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> There IS one kind of tablet people want besides an iPad, as proved by sales numbers:

The Color Nook

According to various recent reports, Apple has about 10% share in ebook sales, Barnes and Noble 25%, and Kindle over 60%.

Don't know the latest sales figures, but as of March 28, 2011, 3 million Color Nooks were shipped, according to Digitimes:

Barnes & Noble already takes delivery of 3 million Nook Color e-book readers, say sources

Yenting Chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES [Monday 28 March 2011]

Barnes & Noble has taken delivery of close to three million Nook Color e-book readers from its production partner, according to an estimate by sources from the Nook Color supply chain.

With a clear differentiation to Apple's iPads in display size, targeted market and pricing, the Nook Color, priced at US$249, has actually taken up over 50% of the iPad-like market in the North America market, indicated the sources.

Sales of the Nook Color topped one million units in the North America in the fourth quarter of 2010 and reached 600,000-700,000 units a month during the January-February period of 2011, the sources noted.

Barnes & Noble outsources the production of the Nook Color e-book readers to Inventec, noted the sources, adding that Inventec has landed tablet PC orders from Hewlett-Packard (HP).

EDIT: formatting

<comment><USER18> So you're calling the Nook Color a tablet? I'm not sure that's a fair representation of the device... it's cheap, a decent e-reader, and hackable to run at least Froyo (from last I checked).

In comparing the e-reader to the tablet, the Nook does indeed blur the lines, but it's resistive touch and e-ink display combined with hackery to run a full touch OS means it's really in a league all it's own.

Perhaps this is the recipe to success for the upstarts. Ignore the "X market" as that means X is commoditized. Differentiate by seeing the pricing and/or vision gap and dive into it deftly.

A footnote: comparing "shipped" vs. "sold" numbers is a bit facile. Lots of difference there. It'd be nice to see definitive "sold" B&N details, but they're not sharing.

<comment><USER23> Agreed on shipped vs. sold (Though I DID have a conversation 2 months ago with a B&N employee - says they went out of stock a couple times).

Agree also about the recipe for success: Find a niche and optimize for it.

If even Apple doesn't yet know what their tablet is for, how are we supposed to know what their inferior knock-offs are for? But it sure is obvious what a Color Nook is for. It does have an app store but the apps are for the most part related to reading, as you'd expect.

The fact that the Color Nook can be converted into the least expensive half- decent Android tablet is just an interesting aside.

EDIT: typo

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm also interested in seeing how quickly iPads start to penetrate other verticals beyond the traditional consumer market. Education, Health, are two of the commonly cited areas where a lot of growth is expected, but I'll be interested in seeing how quickly they penetrate low-end retail as well.

I was in Santa Barbara this weekend, at "La Tour Wine Merchants" - <USER2> every thing there through an iPad + Square.

One thing important to note - the transaction took under 5 seconds for him to process, + 3-4 for me to sign. Receipt was then automatically filled out with my email address (I'd used square somewhere else) - and, from the time I handed him my credit card to the time I was done was under 10 seconds. It felt a lot faster than normal credit card transactions.

So - every single person who comes into that Wine Merchant is going to have the iPad marketed as hyper efficient (and low cost transaction fee) credit card processing platform to boot.

Not to say that the Droid Tablet's won't get square soon (if they don't already) - but the solution is certainly going to be well regressed on the iPad more quickly.

Popularity sometimes results in a network-effect of quality improvements resulting in further popularity - I think that's what we're going to see with the iPad.

</comment><comment><USER25> The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android phones vrs the iPhone. Android has since moved to match the iPhone for market share. The same will probably happen for tablets. It'll just take a few years. I think the android tablets aren't very good right now, but I felt the same way about the android phones when they first came out.

<comment><USER26> > _The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android > phones vrs the iPhone._

The difference is that the iPad doesn't have the same constraints (namely available only on AT&T) that the iPhone had. Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up with the volume) from the start?

Anecdote: everyone I know who has an Android phone really wanted an iPhone but didn't want to leave Verizon. Now that the iPhone is on Verizon, most of those folks intend to switch to an iPhone once their contract is up.

(FTR I don't own an iPhone, iPad or an Android device)

<comment><USER27> > Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was > available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up > with the volume) from the start?

That's in the US, what about the rest?

Yes, this is an honest question.

<comment><USER26> Good question, what are the Android/iPhone market numbers outside the U.S.? I suspect that Android might have a lead in undeveloped countries since there are lower cost models available. I'd love to see the data.

<comment><USER28> According to some numbers I can find for Sweden (which probably doesn't classify as an undeveloped country), Android caught up with iPhone during Q1 of this year (1), and is currently growing faster than iPhone.

(1)[http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/android-ifatt-iphone-i- sverige-1...](http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/android-ifatt-iphone-i- sverige-1.469834.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> To those people making the argument that IPad will be unbeatable because there is no carrier lockin unlike the IPhone. Here are some stats:

In Germany, the IPhone is available at the 3 major carriers, O2, Vodaphone & TMobile.

Marketshare for Android in Germany is 35.5% versus 24.4 for iOS.

</comment><comment><USER30> I would argue that the headline isn't necessarily true. The Asus Transformer just came out, and they can't get them to store shelves fast enough. It took me a month to get one, and I almost missed my chance(again). The Transformer is really the first non-iPad tablet to get it right, IMO. It's fast, stable, the screen is beautiful, and everything works. The Xoom had a shot, but too many features were not working when the tablet was shipped. Now that they are working, it's kind of too late, since Motorola has already put a bad taste in consumers' mouths. The other side is effective marketing. Apple is the first tech company to put together appealing commercials that make people(non-geek) want their products, without really knowing why they want them. The iPad is decent (I own one of those as well), but it doesn't really offer much more than a well-made Android tablet. Apple has done well in making their product look cool.

</comment><comment><USER31> The Android tablet market is still in its early life, and the problem is the initial manufacturers screwed up on pricing, but overspeccing the tablets, and then charging more than $500, without even a Wi-Fi only version.

But I think people will be surprised that Android tablets will take off in the second wave of Android tablets, when the Tegra 3 chip shows up in them, and Amazon takes the market by storm, too. That should push iPad's market to under 50% by the time iPad 3 is released. And that will be just the beginning.

And I know there have been stories how competitors can't build a tablet for a low price, but that has been already disproven by Asus, which has pretty much identical specs with iPad, yet it's $100 cheaper.

The Amazon quad core Tegra 3 tablet is rumored to be priced at $450.

<comment><USER32> I agree that the pricing of the Xoom was a huge mistake but I still wonder whether Android will enjoy as much success with tablets. Asus cut their shipment of tablets for the year by 60% even though it was cheaper than the iPad. Amazon at this point would be the most serious competitor to Apple.

If no OS has been able to make a serious dent in iPad market share by next year then the iPad will go the way of the iPod dominance. You can't give Apple three years with no competitve threat to the iPad.

<comment><USER31> That was Acer, not Asus. It's ok, it happens a lot.

Asus actually _increased_ their production for their Transformer tablet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The iPad competitors seem to be shoved out into the light a bit early. I came across a an Android tablet on demo in a department store the other day. Hey, nice, let's see how it works. Hmm, the camera app came up with a black screen - nothing to see, no interface. OK restart, try a game - oops this game needs to download more data to start and no internet connection existed. Ok, browser - same thing, no surprise there. Sliding over into the next page of apps to find something, anything, that worked the slide animation starts to stutter. So for the same price as an iPad, I could get this? Why the rush to release when it's this unfinished? You're only going to be digging yourself out of a negative initial impression like this.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is interesting. I'd argue that while vaguely true, this is somewhat irrelevant. If you look at the "rival brands" you'll see that most of them produce Android tablets. So while the hardware guys will all have a very difficult time "dominating" the tablet market, together they all build basically the same ecosystem together, with Apple in a different world. Since the Samsung tablets run the same OS and applications as the HTC and Motorola tablets, I think the more informative information about consumers desires would be a graph of OS mindshare: do you want an Apple OS or a Google OS?

<comment><USER35> Upon HP's release, the top three brands known to consumers in the US in the tablet market will not be running Android. Samsung is the best known of the Android unless Sony decides to show up.

<comment><USER36> Curious, what are the top 3 brands?

Apple, HP, and ? Amazon?

<comment><USER15> Blackberry

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think that, at this point in time, the question's moot-- much like iOS vs. non-iOS phones, the market is based almost entirely on the availability of 3rd-party applications for a piece of software. I'd _like_ to have an Android tablet. However, for the time being, I _have_ a 1st-gen iPad because that's where all of the applications are. Maybe in a year or two the market will have shifted somewhat, but without the 3rd-party base to back it up, non-Apple tablets have a distinctly uphill battle.

</comment><comment><USER38> The iPad didn't validate the market for tablets, it validated the market for iPads.

And if over 50% of people prefer a 10" tablet to a 7" one, why in the world would Samsung, RIM and others think they could sell one at a smaller size? Did they do any market research at all?

<comment><USER39> Well... if that means 40% (or whatever the number is) of people would prefer a 7" to a 10" one... that's still a ridiculous amount of people. I think that -is- market research.

<comment><USER36> Exactly. If the iPad is cleaning up the 10" market and you know that even 15% strongly prefer 7", and there is no iPad in that market, it would make sense to do a 7" version and clean up the 7" market.

<comment><USER38> The problem is you're not attacking the market of people who prefer 7" tablets, you're attacking the market of people who prefer a 7" tablet SO MUCH they're willing to _not_ get an iPad because of it. Who are these people? Probably geeks. Regardless, it's a much smaller slice of the overall pie.

<comment><USER40> > Who are these people?

People embarrassed to pull out a huge 10" screen to read in a train.

<comment><USER38> But will instead pull out a magazine or book that's larger? I don't see the logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Interesting how defensive people are getting in the comments. I think the headline says it all- tablets have been around for over a decade and never caught on. In fact they still haven't caught on, just the iPad has caught on.

</comment><comment><USER42> _Apple is succeeding in the category because it reinvented it._

Prior to iPad, how many consumers had spent a moment of time considering what a tablet computer would be like? How many had a chance to hold one and interact with it at a local store? Most people use iPad as a reference point because it was their first experience with a tablet. It was first and it worked. People want iPads because, for now at least, it's the definitive product for the category.

</comment><comment><USER43> I just bought a capacitive screen multi touch android tablet for less than $200 from dealextreme for some prototype work I'm doing. There's no reason to assume that the iPad will continue to be comparatively cheaper a year or two out.

When everyone has the production ironed out, android tablets will drop, and apple will keep selling iPads for a premium price.

I love apple, but the tablet will never spread effectively if it costs $500 or more.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't want an iPad. I want an Android tablet (waiting for a good one). And I know there are a lot of Android users who think the same way.

<comment><USER44> I agree, there just hasn't been a killer Android tablet yet. I was suprised at how laggy the Moto Xoom was. I've had hopes for Playbook but even that killer hardware has flopped on the software front.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> i can summarize this pretty easily. competitors that see the argument like "apple is giving 1GB RAM for 500$, i'll give 2GB RAM for 500$!" are really missing the whole point. when you buy an apple phone / mp3 player / tablet / computer you're probably well aware that with the same price you can get a more powerful/feature rich device elsewhere, but you decide, instead, to invest in a brand you trust because has given you other reliable, innovative products that you already own and you know the new device will integrate seamlessly with whatever you already have, or you're buying "the iPhone", not a generic smartphone, the iPad, not a table, an iPod, not a mp3 player, so there's really no choice because apple is the only one doing it.

</comment><comment><USER46> The article defines "the tablet market" narrowly and ignores important competition for the iPad in terms of sales (if not mindshare). The iPad competes with devices such as the Kindle which have significant adoption and handle the killer slate app - reading very well at very competitive price points. This class of competitor also often provides better performance in important areas, e.g. battery life.

I also suspect that if people were asked their preference regarding wide screen format vs. 4:3 the iPad would not fare quite so well as it does in questions regarding screen size.

</comment><comment><USER47> I haven't seen a tablet yet that is as good for less than an apple. They all seem to be a mix of worse and/or more expensive (or with ridiculous multi-year carrier lockins). Until this happens, this is a non-issue. If consumers are snubbing cheaper better products to have fruit on the front, that's a story, but until then, shrug.

The tablet market just doesn't have its IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad yet.

</comment><comment><USER48> I want a tablet that has Wacom and stylus along with capacitive touch screen. Heck, throw in Windows 7 and I'll be happy. (W7 has great handwriting recognition.) W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic notebook if the tablet was thin and had decent battery life. I like to write instead of touch typing on a screen.

<comment><USER18> > W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic notebook if > the tablet was thin and had decent battery life. Hasn't this existed for > years (TabletPC) running Windows (well except the thin and decent battery > life part)? Why haven't you gotten one already?

<comment><USER48> i DO have one. I am now waiting for another version that's thinner and has better life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A lot of people I know (non-tech) have no idea that Android tablets exist. They only know of the IPad.

<comment><USER49> And of many/most non-techies who do know about other tablets they think "tablet == iPad" like "paper tissue == Kleenex" and "photocopy == Xerox".

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> It's about who is first in the consumer's heads. iPad is like Coca-Cola.

</comment><comment><USER51> Not surprising really. Apple got the iPad "right" from the get go and tweaked that success on the iPad2. The other tablets struggled right out of the gate and continue to do so.

</comment><comment><USER52> I've been saying this from the start. Normal people just don't need tablets. What can you do on it? Music - Have an ipod or other music device Movie - <USER3> a big tv Movie in bedroom - Have a big tv in bedroom Internet? - <USER4> smartphone/netbook/laptop Games? - Xbox/PS3/smartphone.

At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, there's just no use case for tablets.

</comment><comment><USER53> I don't think consumers WANT tablets or iPads. They have been told that's what they WANT by marketing.

WANT is a disease in this society. NEED is the great leveller.

The following is from experience dealing with hundreds of people:

They NEED a cheap, flexible computer that just works, doesn't poke you in the eye, doesn't try to upsell everything to you every 5 mins (like apps and virus scanners), lasts a good number of years without spectacular failures, doesn't pick up diseases like a cheap whore and doesn't set fire to your house.

</comment><comment><USER54> bullshit</comment>


What Makes Malcolm Gladwell Fascinating - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131007120010-69244073-what-makes-malcolm-gladwell-fascinating?trk=NUS_UNIU_PEOPLE_FOLLOW-megaphone-fllw

<comment><USER2> > In 1971, a sociologist named Murray Davis published a groundbreaking paper > that opened with these two lines:

> "It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his > theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not > because his theories are true, but because they are interesting."

The above aphorism only applies to sociology theorists, not scientific ones. It aptly exposes the central problem with sociology -- an indifference to science and evidence.

Malcolm Gladwell is certainly interesting. But 100 years from now, when Gladwell's name had been completely forgotten, people will still remember Einstein, Hawking and Higgs.

<comment><USER3> This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise.

Incidentally, Gladwell popularises psychology, sociology and other human action theories, adding in his own hypotheses (untested, but plausible) for good measure. He ought to differentiate more between his hypotheses and the things he gleans from others, but his work at least raises awareness in the wider public that there is a lot of useful work done in studying humans. It's useful journalism, if taken as such.

Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology, which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. As in many academic arenas, there are good, mediocre and bad practitioners. Only the most naive of epistemologists assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it requires mathematical assistance.

<comment><USER2> > This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology.

No, it's a comment about an article written by a sociologist, commenting favorably about another sociologist. Neither of them are straw men. Both of them are typical sociologists.

> Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims > siciology expertise.

The article I quoted from wasn't written by Gladwell, it was written by a sociologist.

> Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology ...

I didn't. The author of the inked article might have, and that's why I commented as I did.

> which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods.

Yes, but not remotely scientific.

[http://xkcd.com/435/](http://xkcd.com/435/)

<comment><USER3> Again with the patently absurd assertions. The author Adam Grant is a professor of Management. Gladwell is a Journalist. Now, I see that your use of the pullout quotation (from an old philosophy of sociology paper) is what you decided to base all your comments on. That is not entirely clear from the rant. OK, so what's wrong with an insight that, given a universe of true papers, we ape-humans don't realise that we ascribe greatness to the 'interesting' theorists, regardless of other merit.

Human frailty of attention exists in all fields, and this does not negate a field because of it. This human ape-weakness happens in physical sciences too: sexy theories (relativity, quantum physics) or outgoing professors (Feynman) receive a lot more public plaudits than the more boring but equally useful work, say on planetary physics, pulsars, telescope or accelerator design, new materials. Sociology is barely 100 years old, and it takes time to iron out the _cultural_ problems in any community of practice. Physical sciences have had centuries. And still they make mistakes: see the peer review issue right now, a hot topic about the publication Science. This a critique of how science is judged, but I don't see people negating the validity of the fields just because there are a lot of bad humans out there in those very fields.

Sociology lives only on evidence. It is not science, because it deals with the mostly stupid human apes' behaviours and activities; humans who do things like make gross generalisations, and cannot see where they are hugely biased, due to emotions such as pride and unwarranted arrogance.

Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. Would you copmlain at chemistry for not using partical accelerators, or biologists for sitting in trees observing birds? If you complain about sociologists using sophisticated but different tools from science, then you are doing the same thing.

And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. It's the perspective of the most reductionist, old-fashioned blinkered Sheldon Cooper from that TV show. Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah.

So, think carefully about your own frailties and biases before you decide that you are "pure".

<comment><USER2> > Again with the patently absurd assertions.

If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence.

> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons.

That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. [https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd](https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd) yields over 30,000 hits.

> Sociology lives only on evidence.

Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field.

The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.

> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because > of the subject matter.

There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.

> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is > meaningless except by nee-naah.

You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity.

Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.

<comment><USER3> I love science. I sometimes practise science too, and my education in it is greater than most. Science is useful due to its empirical leanings and attempts to create ordered thought from this. I think you misunderstand my arguments, in that I appreciate and engage in activities which are scientific, and artistic, and aimed at human understanding, and understand that we need different methods depending on what we're trying to discover. And that not all methods are science. You appear OTOH just to wish to say "this is my hammer which I am going to use for everything."

So:

>If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence.

Then why are you arguing with bald assertions and no facts, if that is all you care about? why aren't you being scientific about your claims here? You are hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid.

>> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. >That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. [https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd](https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd) yields over 30,000 hits.

You are saying that popularity = truth? Seriously? Especially given the skewed population which "likes" that particular one? Ah, you really are a sophist. That's really poor argumentation, poor thought and you really ought to understand this.

>> Sociology lives only on evidence. >Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.

Mead is not all sociologists. She's an outlier anthrolologist, for starters, and nothing like, say Thorstein Veblen. I could equally say "Science is fraudulent" because scientists used to believe in Phlogiston. Absurd. You love the Straw Man!

>> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. >There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.

Oh dear. There is only one scientific method, you say? You really have no clue. Start with Popper, and then Kuhn's response, and google from there. And see the arguments between experimental and theorietical physicists while you're at it, for fun. And then talk to some of the better professors in the different departments at you local university and see how much more sophisticated than you are at epistemology.

Even if there is only one 'scientific method' (please define that, ha!) it remains that that statistical scientific method is not the only way to understand the world.

>> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity. >Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.

To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not equal saying that all ideas are relative. That's a false binary, and again an appalling straw man.

Get reading in the philosophy of science. You manifestly feel the need for certainty where actually there are interesting questions to be asked. None of my arguments are postmodern. Nor do I claim that sociology is the same as science. All I claim, quite plausibly given the evidence of the past 50-100 years, is that sociology is useful, it has empirically-verifiable methods, and that it does not need to be physical science to be useful.

Here's a useful way to see the world: [http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the- Park](http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park)

<comment><USER2> > Get reading in the philosophy of science.

Wait, what? You think sociology is science. That means it's you who seeds to find out science's philosophical underpinnings. Science is noteworthy more for what it excludes than for what it includes. The reasons for that are worth learning.

> To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not > equal saying that all ideas are relative.

Yes, and I never said or implied it. This is (or was) a discussion of science, not a comparison of science with other ways of apprehending reality.

> ... and again an appalling straw man.

Yes -- your straw man. You've long since stopped paying attention to my views, happily replacing them with your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also: [http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look- int...](http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-into-the- life-work-of-america's-most-successful-propagandist/)</comment>


Alternatives to GoDaddy - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/7521009923/5-alternatives-to-godaddy

<comment><USER5> When migrating our company's 15 domains away from GoDaddy I evaluated around a dozen registrars. Our criteria may be different from yours. With millions of subdomains and tens of millions of user-generated pages, we needed a registar that would absolutely honor our rights as domain owners. This was our top priority. Our lowest priority was cost, though there was a reasonable upper bound on what we'd pay per year. Features are somewhere in the middle -- we didn't want or need lots of extras.

Our priorities were:

      1. rights as domain owners
      2. registar stability
      3. control panel usability
      4. extra features (DNS, etc.)
      5. cost

The winner was Gandi. Their combination of common-sense, customer-friendly terms and European privacy laws made the choice easy.

Read your registrar's terms. See if you still want to save that $6 a year.

<comment><USER6> And they keep your whois info private. [http://www.gandibar.net/post/2008/07/08/Gandi-helps-guard- yo...](http://www.gandibar.net/post/2008/07/08/Gandi-helps-guard-your-privacy)

<comment><USER7> Except for your name. And their private whois is only available to individuals, not company accounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have 63 domains and 5 SSL certs with GoDaddy. While they're definitely not a favorite company, I don't hate them so much that I'm willing to go to the trouble of transferring everything.

If you _really_ can't handle their upselling or bad UX, then just use their mobile site (<http://godaddymobile.com>) or iPad app.

If you have issues with Parsons or their way of doing business, fine–I get that. Otherwise, meh ... just buy your domains and get to work.

<comment><USER9> You clearly have missed a lot when it comes to GoDaddy. You've made the same mistakes that many have made repeatedly. Everytime it's the same, "we thought we were fine, just hosting some domains", right before they have downtime because their hosting was suspended or DNS info dropped at a whim that GoDaddy acted upon with little short-term recourse.

It's not hard to transfer, that's just laziness.

<comment><USER10> Right, it's the PayPal Law. You'll use PayPal fine for 8 years, and then one day they'll totally fuck you over in ways that you can't imagine. Same with GoDaddy. You'll use them fine forever, and then they'll totally fuck you over.

This is from a GoDaddy customer of at least 4 years, and I've never been fucked over by them, but I've seen it happen a lot.

<comment><USER11> Is there any proof that this won't happen with the alternatives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A year or so ago I regretfully moved _to_ GoDaddy because they were one of the only registrars I could find that supported IPv6 glue records (i.e. you run your own nameservers with IPv6 connectivity, so a lookup of example.com also returns an IPv6 address for ns1.example.com)

Many of the smaller players just go through OpenSRS which at least recently only could add IPv6 glue with manual intervention. Maybe they've (finally) fixed that by now.

I would like to get back off GoDaddy someday soon, but I've been worried that my IPv6 glue will break. Does anybody know a registrar with solid IPv6 experience?

</comment><comment><USER13> We've started building a new domain management service at <http://iWantMyName.com> and we're bootstrapped, profitable and proud as 37signals would say... ;)

Here is some more background information from a co-founder perspective:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2448717>

<comment><USER14> I've been using this for a while, the site is beautiful, simple and fast, it's like the anti-godaddy in the best possible way. the online support is also some of the best I've experienced. really great job guys.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for such kind words!

Since we're on HN, I thought I'd also share the tech behind iWantMyName.

It's a catalyst app powered by a RabbitMQ based backend flavored with a lot of CouchDB and sugar coated with some Redis: <http://lnz.me/K6MP>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Through our work on Domainr (<http://domai.nr/> \-- a domain availability search engine) I've gotten to know folks at:

      - iWantMyName (Timo already posted in this thread)
      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>
      - <USER4>

...and I'd personally recommend all of them, for having solid services, ethical business practices, and good design (for iWMN and DNSimple). I've also heard good things about Namecheap and Gandi from a few friends.

<comment><USER16> Just wanted to say I love Domainr. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just out of curiosity, I whoised some domains and

        google , yahoo & facebook are something called markmonitor
        microsoft is using melbourneit
        oracle is using tucows
        ycombinator is using easyDNS

interesting

<comment><USER18> What I don't understand is that Google, being an accredited ICANN registrar [1], is not its own registrar, just like Go Daddy or Name.com.

[1] <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html>

<comment><USER19> Google and Microsoft both are registrars.

The answer to your question is likely that MarkMonitor specializes in corporate domain management, and the services they probably offer make it worthwhile to not do everything in-house even at these major tech companies. I can only guess at what might be involved, but I mean hey, there must be a reason, right?

It's not just tech companies (Apple and Microsoft included) that have them listed as registrars, it's companies from my bank (Chase) to my ISP (Time Warner) too. The portfolio, so to speak, of MarkMonitor and their clients says a lot. Especially in the face of cheap .com renewals with Go Daddy :p

<comment><USER18> You're right, MarkMonitor's portfolio is truly impressive, so there must be something to it. I just thought that precisely those top tech companies (maybe not banks) would appreciate having the additional security layer that arguably comes from being your own registrar, and do so effortlessly.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps. Then again, with an agreement between the companies involved and whatever mostly-unknown-to-us services they provide, the additional security layer you speak of could be meaningless. I doubt most of the legal teams of said corporations would be okay with this arrangement if it was potentially insecure. And of course there is no such thing as "effortlessly", someone somewhere has to be around to manage the _huge_ domain name portfolios these corporations have.

I really wish MarkMonitor's website wasn't basically a bunch of marketing mumbo jumbo about all the services they provide. It'd be interesting to find out what they are being paid to do (even in brief) for all these major companies. For all we know they could just be a glorified godaddy for corporations that buy and hold a lot of domain names as far as their domain registry service is concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> what about nearlyfreespeach.net ? I'm surprise no one has mentioned them. I've been quite happy with them and they're seemingly on the pretty aggressive side of nice pricing and digital rights.

<comment><USER21> My _one_ criticism of NFS is that there's no way to save a credit card on file. Certainly makes those "inspiration struck, better go register the domain" purchases much more of a have-to-pull-out-the-wallet ordeal... but maybe making random domains more annoying to buy is actually a good thing.

<comment><USER22> That is because they use a prepaid model instead of charging you after the registration. Just keep a couple bucks in your account and you can register domains even when you don't have a credit card handy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Namecheap is an awesome registrar.

For hosting, try JustHost.com. Excellent customer service.

<comment><USER24> I just went with Namecheap. I'm moving all my domains all of GoCrappy. GoDaddy is not only a mess to use, but it also costs a lot more.

<comment><USER23> and their bombardment of emails.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm now gradually migrating all domains off GoDaddy (just waiting for them to expire), so this list comes in quite handy.

I'm moving to <https://www.dynadot.com/>, but no one has mentioned it here. Prices are ok, UI is simple. DNS management is simple too, so probably will not suit everyone. No upselling. So far I'm liking them, but bear in mind, I'm only few months with them.

Just wondering if anyone has any experience with DynaDot and how they compare to others on the list (especially Gandi, as it looked quite interesting)?

<comment><USER26> I've used them a few years now and have been really happy. Not feature-rich but they cover the basics and have reasonable prices with no upsell pressure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Dreamhost can be used for purely name registration and DNS. <http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Domain_Registration>

</comment><comment><USER28> 1&1 might be better than GoDaddy, but not by much. Avoid them if possible.

<comment><USER29> I've heard rough things about their hosting but their domain mgmt has been painless. Really enjoy private domain registration for free.

<comment><USER30> I had issues with their domain management & DNS settings. Godaddy's was actually better.

<comment><AUTHOR> if you had issues with dns check out dnsimple.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> We use Dnsimple. It's not Cheap, but if you have a bunch of domains it's incredibly helpful and just gets out of the way and works. For some reason propogation of changes is always seems faster too.

For all our super cool (.io) domains, we use iwantmyname. No frills, fantastic support and simple UI.

</comment><comment><USER32> I use several registrars for various reasons but so far NameCheap have been my favorite. They're on the list but wanted to give them a thumbs up here. No nonsense from them and their free "WHOIS guard" is a nice touch.

<comment><USER33> NameCheap's great. They're pretty quick and cheap. They also offered a free PositiveSSL cert with new domain registrations & transfers for awhile too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I switched from Godaddy to Moniker a little while back---quick, easy to use, and price-competitive. They're outside the US (in Canada), too.

<comment><USER35> Moniker is in Florida and their parent co. has offices in NY, Portland and Germany.

<comment><USER36> tucows used to be Canadian, IIRC (Toronto?). Rebranded or sold the domain business to Hover; not sure about them.

Hover seems to have a decent reputation, and are fairly price competitive. Not as cheap as e.g. Namecheap, but close.

With all the seizure BS and whatnot, I'm thinking of moving some things really off-shore. Maybe Switzerland? Or I recently read that the Bahamas are good at telling various law enforcement agencies to f-off. Not sure I believe it, though.

(I'm not actually running anything gray, let alone black. I'd move partly on principle, and partly because things only look to get worse.

For me, it would be more a matter of free speech. Perhaps also free and anonymous speech (at least, anonymous to most private and commercial interests).

P.S. freejack, I just noticed one of your other comments. You're with Tucows? Are you still (really) Canadian? Are Canadian registrars holding their own against Washington (and, these days, Ottawa, I guess)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Honestly, as a freelancer, if you want to keep your domains and email on GD, that is fine with me. Their shared hosting is so inexcusably slow and difficult to manage,it makes me wonder why there hasn't been a class action lawsuit against them. Hyperbole, I know, but they suck at hosting! IF a potential client has space up there, the first thing I do is have them move it.

</comment><comment><USER38> For a simple registrar that supports DNSSEC I've been quite happy with <https://www.gkg.net/>. Their prices are reasonable and their site is quick and functional, though it's navigation is a bit clumsy. I can't comment on their hosting (including DNS) as I've not used it.

</comment><comment><USER39> NameCheap for SSL certs, dd24 for domains (<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/?language=en>)

Edit: scrub that: gandi are the same price for SSL certs, and have a better interface for domains. Switched!

</comment><comment><USER40> I've been happy with Dotster for my domain registration and some DNS management and have been slowly moving domains over from GD to them. Anyone else have input on Dotster?

</comment><comment><USER41> I am transferring my domains from GoDaddy to Dynadot (<http://www.dynadot.com>), so far I have no complains.

</comment><comment><USER42> More discussion at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=150561>

</comment><comment><USER43> Namespro.ca is good, especially for Canadians. I transferred all my domains there from GoDaddy after the elephant killing.

</comment><comment><USER44> Godaddy offers Rupee transactions that no one else does. Enough feature for me to stick and not bother transferring.

</comment><comment><USER45> thanks for the alternatives. i hate the filthy up-selling from godaddy. have you tried hover.com? they are Canadian.

<comment><USER46> I'm sure this is common practice, but I don't like that Tucows (Hover) is squating 200k premium domains and auctioning expiring domains. I have too much disdain for cyber squatters to respect Hover as a registrar.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucows#Domain_Portfolio>

<comment><USER35> We don't run any auctions and the bulk of our portfolio was acquired on the open market as part of corporate acquisitions (i.e. we bought businesses that owned their own large portfolios). Cybersquatter? I'd love to know how you are defining that term. Usually reserved for scumbags that sit on other peoples trademarks, I can assure you that Tucows is _not_ cybersquatting. If you mean have registered a domain name you want before you thought of it, then... well, tough. We're actually _using_ the vast majority of the names we own as part of our premium email business, etc. These aren't just parking pages etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'll settle for 1 alternatives to XYZ Registrar if it handles transfers in a sane/simple way.

</comment><comment><USER48> i use godaddy,namecheap, and internerbs. IMHO, internetbs have best DNS management

</comment><comment><USER49> I was looking for this post or one just like it a few months ago but I didn't find one.

I went with Gandi.fr instead and I'm so very much happier than with Godaddy and its awful peers. Unfortunately I have to pay in euros. But it was worth it.

</comment><comment><USER50> No dynadot? Is there something I should know?

<comment><USER51> That a random article on the Internet can't cover all registrars? :)

Dynadot is IMHO the best registrar ever.

This speaks volumes:

Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG Created On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC Last Updated On:24-May-2011 23:27:29 UTC Expiration Date:04-Oct-2018 05:54:19 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> just what I was looking for after all the horrible stories I heard on here.

<comment><USER45> bro, it's a game and godaddy's winning.

<comment><USER53> Well if it's a "game", Godaddy's committing too many "violations" for our tastes. Time to root for some other team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 1&1 is on the same playing field as GoDaddy.

<comment><USER54> Their admin interface is significantly worse and they lack many of the options found on other registrars like Namecheap or Gandi. They don't even offer DDNS or TXT records.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This post is only reviewing domain registration, not hosting.

<comment><USER55> Wait people actually use GoDaddy for hosting?

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah it was an early few, and they can't seem to unregister :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> For registering a new domain I would recommend google apps, because of all the google apps integration to your domain. And if you are looking for server hosting I would recommend linode.

<comment><USER35> Google Apps is godaddy and Enom.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Updated to include suggestions from discussion!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your SSH keys? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I have mine stored in 1Password, I then copy them over to ~/.ssh on my encrypted laptop. It's not ideal but it works (for now).

</comment><comment><USER3> Sadly, I just copy them around using my local NAS.</comment>


Curlbash: locally save and checksum/review before curl|bash-ing - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/silentbicycle/curlbash <comment><USER2> Still a very dumb idea. You don't do network I/O in file handling or GUI code, so why thoughtlessly cram together downloading things, compiling them, and copying artifacts to places?

If you really think your users are _that dumb_ and can't run three commands, your software will probably be too difficult for them to use anyway.</comment>


Ask HN: Replace trial with a schedule a call form instead? - <AUTHOR>

so I decided that self service type of customers are really bad for my product and that the high touch clients who I can have a phone chat with and demo them the product has worked the best for me.
Currently I have a 30-day trial (w/o CC number) setup but for high touch clients this is almost unnecessary since I usually close them on the first phone call after demoing the product and demonstrating value.
The people that won't talk to me on the phone, usually ask for a huge discount, request ridiculous things so I am thinking of getting rid of the trial altogether as they appear to be the wrong market fit.
What can I replace the free trial with?
I am thinking of creating a form that will ask their phone number. In overwhelming amount of cases, someone who doesn't provide a phone number usually isn't very serious about buying or is not the right target. However, I am aware that some people might not want to input their phone number.
I am also thinking of doing an overhaul of the landing page. Currently it is sort of like a 'here is the software, here are the features, you connect the dots'. Of course when they speak on the phone, they realize the value but I have nagging feeling that my landing page isn't giving a value perception.
What do you guys think, is this a good approach to take? I'm just cautious because I see lot of SaaS out there seems self serviced (mine is data mining from video files). <comment><USER2> Beware that if you make it difficult to buy your product, people may just pass over your product for one that is easier to buy.

At least don't hide your price behind a phone number as that is terribly annoying.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't have the price hidden or hide the demo video. However, I usually find that I am having more success when I'm following up on the phone and giving them a demonstration and helping them use the tool, so I'm trying to find ways to facilitate this.

<comment><USER3> First, you will find following up on the phone almost always increases conversions so that wouldn't be alarming to me. But just because that helps convert more I wouldn't say your self service model can't be successful.

When I hear the comment though that you have to help them use the service to be successful it screams to me either you have a fair to poor UI design/experience, the leads are unqualified or you are pushing to the wrong segment.

Don't get me wrong there are SaaS products that require some assistance, usually though those are tailored at the enterprise level and the fees reflect the account management aspects and user support. Maybe this is your product hence your idea for the change.

My point about the leads being unqualified or the wrong market segment is basically you are getting the wrong clients. For example, me signing up for a video editing service would be foolish and require a ton of support because it isn't something I do, so even terminology would be basically foreign to me. But someone else would get it immediately if that is what they do. Hence qualifying your clients and market is critical to success.

<comment><AUTHOR> >When I hear the comment though that you have to help them use the service to be successful it screams to me either you have a fair to poor UI design/experience, the leads are unqualified or you are pushing to the wrong segment.

You make a very good point here. I think it's a combination of those things you mentioned.

UI will be an ongoing effort but it's almost always the case that a customer misses a step or ends up mixing incompatible components. I am seeing patterns but more than often, a potential customer always reaches out for help or responds positively for help. My immediate thinking to improve the UI here would be to display some warning when they are missing a crucial step or error messages when they are trying to do something that won't work. Right now I have no such error feedback in place.

However, even if someone has used the UI successfully they will not purchase or be willing to because it's out of their price range.

So I'm trying to tie everything in together, it's a bit of a mess and I am trying to figure it all out.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like you are moving the right direction, so maybe you just have to do the extra phone work for a short while (something that won't scale) until you can resolve the other issues. The good part about doing it (and a completely valid reason) is you will learn a lot about your clients and who best to target and how to make things work so you don't waste time working on things that won't matter.

Good luck!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: doodlec.am inserts monsters into your photos - <AUTHOR> http://doodlec.am/?1.0.4_200

<comment><USER2> Lots of crashing upon photo capture on my vintage droid. I have the sdk, so give me a yell if I can help debug.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh no! Thanks for the help. If you just press the Report button I'll get a stack trace and that should be enough for me to solve it. The app does lots of processing in bitmaps and uses a fair bit of memory. It's possible I'll have to do some optimization in memory management to fix the issues.

Thanks for the heads up!

</comment></comment><comment> excuse-me Wow - where can I invest a billion $ in this new paradigm changing application of super-mobile-interweb-cyber-3g-croudsourced-ninja-technology

<comment><AUTHOR> You bring a good point to the table. DoodleCam is a joke app, meant for entertainment and without much ability to provide real value to a community.

However, I have built it in attempt to find popularity so that my _real_ apps are able to gain more traction. I also build an open source barometer network called pressureNET that collects atmospheric readings from some Android phones. I have millions of barometer readings and I gain about 17,000 every day right now. I'm hoping to use the data to find new methods of short-term, local weather prediction, but the network is currently too small.

I've found that as DoodleCam rises in popularity, pressureNET gains too. It's a good method.

See [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbus.barometernetwork) for the app.

<comment><USER3> I was coming here to say the same thing (well same intent) as the original commenter and found your reply useful. It _does_ seem like a fun joke app, and your smart for using that to your advantage. Good job!</comment></comment></comment>


Hypercard reimagined – an iOS app maker and private app store - <AUTHOR> http://pencilcase.io/ <comment><USER2> This looks interesting to me, but doesn't Apple hate apps that are too much like the App Store? The Private App Store description seems like it would make it a target for the ban hammer.

<comment><USER3> One of the PencilCase devs here, thanks for your question.

We've already been using AppDrop with clients and it's been great for them to distribute apps to their own users.

All price levels get access to AppDrop Community which lets you easily share your creations with a link. The Corporate and Founding Partner levels will also get their very own, configurable custom-branded PencilCase AppDrop store.

<comment><USER2> That makes a little more sense. I'm very interested in this project. I might actually jump on board after I see it in action for a few months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's clearly a lot of power to do a lot of neat stuff, plus some really brilliant features for businesses trying to create their own apps (like importing graphics from PowerPoint).

But I'm most curious to see how it will support building little CRUD apps that so many businesses could use to smooth their workflows. How will the data validation and forms stuff work? I see they mention key-value sync—can you get the data out for analysis in other products?

Regardless, I'm thrilled. I wish more software was available to let people solve their own problems with computers, rather than looking for an app-for- that.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is an HyperCard inspired tool that is very similar and works on Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and is able to deploy to all those platforms plus Android and iOS.

Its a wonderful tool and very easy to learn. It is also GPL.

[http://livecode.com](http://livecode.com)

<comment><USER6> The only license I see on the LiveCode site is at [http://livecode.com/LiveCode-EULA/](http://livecode.com/LiveCode-EULA/) and that specifically mentions that it's not GPL-compatible.

<comment><USER7> > h) For the avoidance of doubt, this [Commercial] Licensed Edition does not > include access to the LiveCode engine source code found in the Community > Edition. This Licensed Edition is not compatible with the terms of the GPL > and such software may not be incorporated or utilized with this Licensed > Edition.

So they've dual-licensed it. The Community Edition source on Github is all GPL with this exception: [https://github.com/runrev/livecode/commit/51e3958082d9edd645...](https://github.com/runrev/livecode/commit/51e3958082d9edd6454c31fdb08c20bed6f65e80#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a great evolution of the open source SpriteBuilder. Kudos to the developers for putting something together that really looks usable by the average Joe - like Hypercard. On the other hand, I doubt many average Joes still know the reference to Hypercard.

<comment><USER9> Don't disagree re the average Joe, but as a semi-technical Joe without the chops to really code this is exciting. I'd like to see more non-game demos to better appreciate the scope, but SalesForce integration screams small and medium business use-cases.

<comment><USER10> The allegory to HyperCard is interesting as HyperCard had its own programming language, HyperTalk.

Same with Macromedia Director, which also had Lingo (which was similar to HyperTalk). I never considered those apps as "no programming required" but more like "less programming required"

<comment><USER11> I agree with you. As someone who started 'programming' with Lingo it was easy to build some great products with minimal knowledge. That I then taught myself to program, using Perl initially, is an aside but I would not have done it without using Lingo first

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> unless this is programmable in javascript, how is it allowed by apple?

and if it is javascript, then it's missing a key feature of hypercard that made it accessible, hypertalk.

here's another hypercard inspired app: [http://infinitecanvassuite.com/](http://infinitecanvassuite.com/)

<comment><USER3> Hi there, I'm one of the PencilCase devs that worked on the JS engine. The easiest way to get started with PencilCase is using events and actions in the GUI, no programming required. If you want more control you can program in JavaScript as well with access to all of the objects on your cards, web requests, etc. You get the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER13> That helps. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This looks great. I think highlighting a bit more of the actual app side (rather than creating games) would be beneficial. Lots of features in the video for games, but nothing about tableviews etc.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the GREAT feedback!

Here is what we cooked up this morning in the hotel, table views for demo today. All classic CocoaTouch controls will be in the first release.

[http://vine.co/v/MOx5Xd7vMIJ](http://vine.co/v/MOx5Xd7vMIJ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As someone how doesn't know what hypercard is, I have a hard time understanding what this is. Maybe a couple of concrete use case at the top of the webpage would be helpful?

<comment><USER17> As someone who does know what Hypercard is, I'd like to see the same thing, and also, a glimpse at what the code looks like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hypercard was what I first started developing on back when I was young. Great to see it come to life again.

Javascript instead of Hypertalk though... ;)

<comment><USER19> Me too! (Well I started first in basic, but HyperCard was where I did my real first programming)

I made so many crazy games in HyperCard. I had no idea what I was doing either; I had countless hidden fields that I used to store data, serialized with my own custom format.

I loved it though. So much fun!

<comment><USER18> My biggest 'magic' moment in hypercard was this technique called one-card animation that I copied out of some book. It was basically a script to direct the lasso tool to select an area on the screen, then slowly drag it across the screen. Having it work seemed magical in that I had told the computer what to do and it listened. Been hooked on making software ever since!

<comment><USER19> Your magic moment reminded me of my first one (although a much less exciting one than yours!)

I was 7 years old and reading my first BASIC programming book... I read how to use a PRINT statement, and ran into my parents room exclaiming how I could print something to the screen!

I have been hooked ever since.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, this looks like the beginning of something big!

If half of these features are solid, you guys will do really well.

</comment><comment><USER21> What is appdrop? Sorry but the website is really all over the place.

<comment><USER22> It's a "private app store" (their words)—a catalog of published apps developed in PencilCase. A named feature within the app, insofar as I understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Looks great but many items are not described in full, and the comparison table is not clear on the differences/advantages between the two.

</comment><comment><USER24> Is there something like this for kids? Been teaching my kids to program and I cant find one easy enough to use (ages 5-9) outside of PPT (yes, I consider slide transitions programming). Scratch is ok but its not fun enough for them or maybe too advanced.

<comment><USER25> What would you expect a 9 yo to accomplish regarding programming? What do you teach them? (it's just a question,not a criticism,before you downvote in mass)

<comment><USER26> From what I've heard of HyperCard and learning programming languages, children definitely could create a small game, short animation or interactive story. At nine years old, it would probably be rudimentary, but they could learn the basics. Without meaning to be rude, this question's like asking "What would you expect a nine year old to accomplish regarding writing and drawing?"

If you don't like that analogy, consider how children often learn the basics of woodworking or sewing through small projects that might not be useful or even be completed. Programming could work the same way.

<comment><USER25>
       >"What would you expect a
       >nine year old to accomplish
       >regarding writing and drawing?

I'm no teacher, i dont have kids and dont remember myself being one. My question is about the content of the teaching.What does the the parent teach them, and how he does it,nothing more . I'm not sure what your point is.

<comment><USER26> Programming tools like Logo and HyperCard give children a chance to be creative, like writing and drawing do.

Beyond self-expression, children could learn the basics of

* interaction design ("'Click here' doesn't explain what a button does"),

* debugging ("It's okay to be wrong at first. I can just keep fixing it until it works")

* and geometry ("I can make a shape look more like a circle if I give it more sides").

EDIT: Here's a neat example of HyperCard's power: [http://www.loper- os.org/?p=568](http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568). It's a bit complicated for a child, but it gives you a sense of HyperCard's potential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So can PencilCase apps be deployed as standalone iOS apps? Or only in AppDrop?

</comment><comment><USER28> Cool! Will look forward to seeing it when it comes out...

</comment><comment><USER29> Looks awesome, can't wait to try it out</comment>


Ask HN: Should I work at a startup or obtain an MEng? - <AUTHOR> I am a Electronic Engineering student in my third year and I may have the opportunity to work on embedded software at a start-up after graduation. Currently, I am enrolled on a 4-year MEng programme, but I can choose to graduate with a BEng.
The MEng modules provided by the university focus heavily on IC design, but I enjoy programming more and I already have some relevant software experience.
Career-wise, would it be better to graduate early and get some work experience, or finish my MEng and work afterwards? <comment><USER2> If you like programming more just go for it and be happy. It is very likely you will be much more successful at the thing you enjoy and software is definitely not a bad place to be in with a lot of opportunities and possible roads.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your input, it is true that I am much more passionate about software. Hopefully this will reflect in my abilities.</comment></comment>


BMW fixes lock security flaw - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31093065

<comment><USER2> This is a real problem. Someone took two laptops from the Mercedes of a colleague recently. They just hacked into the car, no physical damage. According to the garage this is a known problem and not much was done about it.

On the one hand, I trust old fashioned locks more. On the other hand, breaking into a car is easy anyhow (just smash a window). At least, there's no physical damage done to the car in this way (which often exceeds the costs of the lost goods). So perhaps it's not so bad. Just never leave valuables in your car.

<comment><USER3> 3D printing will make old locks obsolete.

<comment><USER4> I lost my apartment keys and picked my way into my apartment for about 7 months. I don't see 3D printing having a lot to do with that.

Even if I had a printer I'd need some fancy scanning equipment to figure out how to make the key.

<comment><USER5> Random tangent: I recently had two copies of a key made, and noticed that the guy at the duplicating machine was able to remove the original after "scanning" it to make the first copy. Seems obvious in retrospect, but I hadn't realized that nowadays those machines had memory like photocopiers, instead of just being purely mechanical.

With that in mind, seems like it should be possible for someone to scan a key, save the pattern, and be able to use it later on to cut new keys on-demand. Does a service like this exist?

<comment><USER6> Yes it is, and you can even do it from just a photo. [https://keysduplicated.com/](https://keysduplicated.com/)

Although it doesn't really matter if you are talking about common household locks - they are trivial to open with a bump key or lockpick anyway.

<comment><USER7> Depends on where you live. Here in Sweden it is common with doors with locks which are both impossible to bump and hard to pick. Our insurance companies require them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if they are using key pinning and have mitigated SSLStrip and other SSL attacks. Also, they say that it wasn't vulnerable to attacks on braking and steering. If firmware updates are possible over the air, you could theoretically capture and disassemble one and modify it to suit your purposes.

The device the software runs on most likely sits on the CAN bus with everything else and could be used to feed false data in that could at least confuse other systems on the car. Similar attacks have been done before in experiments. Local (USB drive) system updates look to be cryptographically signed, but who knows about the OTA ones, and even then the key might be extractable.

</comment><comment><USER9> There have been active exploitation of this bug, basically they have been stealing BMW key less with some kind of hacking tool / laptop like the real version of the movie gone in 60 seconds

<comment><USER10> There was also this one[1] from a couple of years ago (that you may be referring to?) where with a inexpensive kit, a thief could intercept the drivers key fob transmissions to open the car, and then a ODB programmer to pair the car with a key blank.

[1] [https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/18/bmw-stolen- hacki...](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/18/bmw-stolen-hacking-kit/)

<comment><USER11> I have heard that the cars without real ignition keys (in other words, those rfid fobs without a mechanical ignition lock) that it could be possible to authorize a new key by communicating on the OBD2 connector. You do not need access to a working key if this is true, but it is my impression based on some things that I have heard that the private part of some asymmetrical cryptographic material must be known. Whether it varies from car to car, I'm not sure. (This system is called CAS by BMW)

However, in the cars with real ignition locks, the immobilizer is not as easy to defeat as the "nakedsecurity" piece implies.

Since 1994 or so (with the introduction of the EWS2 system) the ignition key contains an RFID tag with a permanent shared secret and a password which is updated every time the key is used. It has always been possible to get close to such a key and read it, then write the information into a new key. Since the password is updated when the key is turned to the 'run' position, as soon as either of the "identical" keys are used, the other will stop working.

To authorize a new key on the EWS2 or EWS3 systems using the diagnosis connector, the new key must contain a shared secret already known by the EWS brain. The factory programmed ten such secrets into each EWS brain during manufacture, and four keys were delivered with the new car when it was sold. When a new key is requested through the parts department, that key is delivered with one of the known shared secrets. Then it can be authorized with a diagnosis request.

To change the shared secret information in the EWS brain to arbitrary information, or to discover the shared secrets known by the EWS brain, it must be removed from the car, physically opened and bootloaded. (It's one of the 68hc11 processors, and there are test points on the board for the mode select pins, manipulating these can place the hc11 in a mode to run a bootloader delivered over the serial line.)

(One difference between the EWS2 and EWS3 systems is that the EWS2 brain sent another, static shared secret to the engine control to signal permission to start - a simple 32 bit word. In EWS3, this communication involves some cryptography.)

It is possible that the database of shared secrets became available when the "Heartbleed" flaw became known. I have heard that their VPN was attacked. If this material were stolen, probably the bitting information required to cut a mechanical key were stolen along with it.

The keyless entry remote of these BMWs is more like the ones used in every car, even though it is part of the same ignition key with RFID tag for immobilizer: the key has a seed and does some transformation every time a remote button is pressed.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. You can do this using the BMW manufacturer software (which is comically not hard to find), at least for the E9* series of BMW's. Not sure about the newer F3* series, but I wouldn't be surprised.

<comment><USER11> I think they really did not count on tools like NFS to find their way into the de facto 'public domain.' However when CAS was designed, they knew (or should have known) that somehow all the manufacturing-side tools were getting out. Also some of the regional technical people who support the dealers carry them around on their laptops. A couple of beers can earn you a lot of secrets sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I shouldn't be amazed by this in 2015, but a car that updates its software over the air IS just amazing. I wonder if it can update while driving. Or be on the receiving end of a DDOS attack.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's a shame that BMW isn't committed to fixing the key-reprogramming method of theft that affects many of their older cars. The previous "fix" that they issued only prevented the windows being wound down from they key, not the actual reprogramming.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19562487](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19562487)

</comment><comment><USER14> So, this update enables the use of HTTPS - but since it's delivered OTA, does that mean patches (including this one) were previously delivered over just HTTP, i.e. an unauthenticated, unencrypted channel?

</comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone know if this is a widespread problem across the industry? Does it affect VWs / Audis too?

<comment><USER13> Yes it affects many higher end cars but BMW's have suffered for a long time. Their excuse for a "fix" prevents the windows from being wound down by the key.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19562487](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19562487)

<comment><USER15> That's a pity. That is useful in some circumstances. I once accidentally did that somehow and came out the next morning to find my windows down and completely soaked inside thanks to the torrential rain all night long. Took a while to dry the Golf out....... amazingly nobody had pinched anything from inside it (rubbish CDs I expect).

I am still convinced to this day that it was my cat that pushed the button.</comment></comment></comment>


Hundreds of people prosecuted for practicing "interior design" without a license. - <AUTHOR> http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/08/designing-monop.html <comment><USER2> Not saying I agree, but here's a letter to the Economist defending interior design licensing ([http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...](http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10097589)):

SIR – Lexington seems to have confused interior design with interior decoration. The interior-design profession is regulated because the designers provide services that carry substantial risk of harm if performed by unqualified people. They design spaces in a manner that can, among other things, reduce the likelihood of the spread of germs and disease in hospitals; increase productivity in commercial offices; and encourage learning in schools. Most important, they understand buildings from the users' perspective.

Interior designers are required to know about building codes, mechanical and electrical systems, fire suppression methods and sustainability measures. The "state-mandated test" that Lexington referred to was developed by our organisation and examines a designer's competence in these areas: it does not cover "fabulous taste".

Jeffrey Kenney, Executive director, National Council for Interior Design Qualification, Washington, DC

<comment><USER3> I wonder if Alabama and Nevada (states with licensing laws) have better spaces than the other states. I'd guess no.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is prime evidence for the need of separation of state and education ( or state and credentialing). Any profession can lobby the state to increase the barriers of entry to that profession. Buying the service becomes more expensive and young people must spend far more time in school. A small gain to the current practitioners of the profession ends up being a huge cost to society as a whole.

<comment><USER4> State and economy is general.

<comment><USER5> Economic transactions with strangers (beyond simple cash-and-carry interactions) require trust, and most people look to the state as the guarantor-of-trust of last resort. Which is why states have been involved with the economy ever since Sumeria.

"Separation of state and economy" is about as likely as "separation of medicine and chemistry".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a ridiculous argument. There are so many industries that have the potential to affect health and safety with no regulation. All common sense must now be regulated, for you own safety. Those without enough common sense will be excluded from anything.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've kept the faith for so long. But I'm having a bad week. So someone please, please tell me that HN isn't turning into Reddit and that this completely irrelevant submission is just a bad dream, like the _Star Wars_ prequels.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if this is a reaction to my comment that better credentialing and education was needed in the programming industry. It is needed, from the standpoint that lots of shoddy work gets done. I don't think there's a reason why this couldn't be done by the private sector, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not so sure about the harm part, livefreeanddesign.org (the site for unlicensed designers) is giving me Post-Traumatic Stress due to its 1990's web design.

<comment><USER10> _g_ you're right, I wouldn't turn to them for advice on design or architecture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some egregious certifications that are required in other states cover hair- dressers and florists. I remember reading about someone that wanted to open up an African hair braiding salon but was denied because she hadn't completed a year-long certification course on hair-dressing that had nothing to do with the African braiding style.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yeah. Read _The Machinery of Freedom_ by David Friedman for more on that sort of law.

<comment><USER11> That's a great book. I wish they had it online. It can't sell many copies.

I contacted David Friedman about that. He says that the publisher holds the copyright, not him. I actually think they would sell more copies if people were able to link to it online.</comment></comment>


I suggest the "Y" logo on Hacker News be lowered to half staff for a day - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/hLyR3.png?1

<comment><USER2> I want to point out the black banner that's riding above the navigation bar...

</comment><comment><USER3> Would that make it a "T", a "t", or a "y"?</comment>


MySQL on Mesos: today's database meets tomorrow's datacenter - <AUTHOR> https://mesosphere.com/blog/2015/04/17/mysql-on-mesos-todays-database-meets-tomorrows-datacenter/

<comment><USER2> Can anybody shed some light on why they're still using MySQL instead of MariaDB? MariaDB is supposed to be "ensuring drop-in replacement capability" with MySQL[1].

From what I gathered, the main reason people would want to move over to MariaDB is a concern over the Oracle licensing of MySQL, which prompted some of the original MySQL developers to create the MariaDB community fork.

I'm asking this question more from a greenfield perspective rather than as a continuation/expansion of an existing MySQL deployment.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MariaDB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MariaDB)</comment>


Beyond Scala 2.8 - A Roadmap - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/7285?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> Parallel collections are the most interesting development for 2.9. In a nutshell the idea is that collection operations like map, filter, etc can execute in parallel in a way that is transparent to the program.

Check out the presentation from Scala Days 2010: <http://days2010.scala- lang.org/node/138/140>

</comment><comment><USER3> It is interesting that he does not mention any plans to fix the several egregious type soundness holes in Scala's type system.

<comment><USER4> That would go under bug fixes. But you could help us by filing tickets on trak. The general issue (type volatility) is well known, but you have discovered a loophole which wasn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm coming to really like the new collections library. It took a little getting used to but now that I'm finding the idiomatic uses it's very nice to work with.

</comment><comment><USER6> If only they would build a plugin that worked. I don't even care between eclipse, intellij, or netbeans -- just _one_ that _works_. As it is, I can't sell scala when their plugin regularly hard locks eclipse for multiple minutes at a time, generates spurious compiler errors, etc. And our project isn't that big -- 2000 kloc java, 8.3k java files. We're a _perfect_ place for scala given our extant code base, but until the tools work, it's not happening :(

<comment><USER7> They are a group of academic people, funded by tax payers money that is supposed to be spent on research only. They cant just do what the market wants, because they have a benchmark, which is the number of published papers - not the rate of adoption of their product.

<comment><USER8> That seems a little unfair. Martin Odersky has been pretty clear that he doesn't want Scala to be 'just' an academic language. In his address at Scala Days he talks about this, and about how they are investigating making Scala independent of EPFL, with possible funding from industry. Also, not all the development of Scala is done at EPFL; for example Paul Phillips (one of the key contributors to the compiler) doesn't work there (and isn't an academic so doesn't need to be concerned with publishing papers).

On another note, I don't believe that plugins for IDEs should necessarily be contributed by the 'core' Scala team. It makes more sense to me that people closer to the IDE in question are in a better position to write effective plugins. The Intellij plugin was written internally by Intellij and is perfectly usable in my opinion. Interestingly they've made the choice of not using the Scala compiler for syntax highlighting/error marking etc. which (again) in my opinion is a better choice than tieing this into the compiler.</comment></comment></comment>