DavidBishop

Kudos for the title if nothing else.

That is exactly how you run a business. Business isn't just about products. You need people to buy them. If your brand is tarnished because people don't like you, it doesn't matter how good your products are. If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long.

Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.

Bluetooth, the Internet, Smartphones, Twitter, Facebook.

All were technologies that had to incubate quite some time, some for a decade or more, before they were widely usable.

It concerns me when a tech writer looks at something and says "it will never be useful within 6 months" when there is a ton of infrastructure involved.

It's not about the immediate payoff, it's about the future.

True, but I think the sentiment is correct at least in selling food. It's hard to get rich selling spinach, but it's easy to get rich selling Sugar-Frosted Excitement Pops - now made with whole grain-like substances!

Awesome. The guy was a decent human being, but more than likely made 20, 30, 100 times back his purchase in goodwill. Brilliant.

People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.

It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out. Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out.

Eat healthy food: the right meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lots of water. Don't eat crap. Exercise.

It really isn't rocket science, but when we make one food group "bad" and the other one "good" just so we have another excuse to eat junk, we lose.

Very true. It sounds like the author is doing some hardcore stuff that he needs a bit more brute force. For the majority of us, OS X may be exactly what we need.

Kudos to the author on his depth of hardcore computing, but there are a million ways to use computers, hack, and code and the majority of them don't need that level of l337ism.

Agreed. Nothing more be said.

I guess it's something to complain about. It might be best for some to remember: Hacker News is not work. Reading is a supplement to work. If the Jokes bug you, maybe you can take the day off and get something done.

Furthermore, if it was work, if you can't take 1 day away from it to have a little fun, you are going to going to beat the rest of us into a pine box.

Life isn't about what you get - it's about enjoying what you get.

A Kia is a Kia (Sportage). You get a modest car for a modest price. But in fairness, the paint, interior, controls were in great shape on the day it died after 10 years. No complaints.

All accurate. I'm with you. I'm simply saying the iPad comparison is not real, just a vehicle to get eyeballs.

Just regular maintenance. I loved the car. I just wanted something that went from A to B and it did it until it's dying day.

Move Over BMW, My Kia Cost $12,000.

I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.

If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.

From the article: "Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."

It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.

Move Over BMW, My Kia Cost $12,000.

I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.

If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.

From the article: "Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."

It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.

Honestly, it was a brilliant move by both Microsoft and Nokia. Microsoft dropped to 3% of the global market share for smartphones and Nokia's 2/3 market share dominance was nearly cut in half http://blog.cedowin.com/2011/01/mobile-future-taking-market-.... Additionally, Android overtook the #1 sales spot in Q4 globally, (depending on who you get your numbers from).

Nokia could have gone with Android, but why? There are already Android phones. Why be another number? The key to success is not to do what everyone else is doing but to do something different and find your niche. Microsoft touts itself as the "business" solution. This partnership of high quality hardware and business-minded software will set Nokia/Microsoft apart.

If the argument is "they are obsolete because they don't do native mobile", that is a poor argument to make. Where is the data to support it? It's simply a theory wrapped up as a conclusion.

The more important question is, "are they positioned well for the future?" That is really what matters. Don't focus on a particular type of technology as the end-all-be-all of development.

Maybe to avoid the lawsuits they will call it Project That Must Not Be Named.