Nathan Waters › Comments

"Link: http://fastflip.googlelabs.com/" - Nathan Waters

"Fucking hell, Apple again killing innovation on the mobile platform." - Nathan Waters

"Different battle, read above." - Nathan Waters

"I think the iPod is actually in a differently realm in this battle. MP3 players really don't have much to distinguish them (especially in terms of software). With the smartphone market, I think the touch-screen phone has basically reached maturity with the hardware. There will be some advances in hardware, but ultimately now it comes down to who offers and adapts best with the software platform. Apple I think is not forecasting that all phones apps are essentially going to be online-based (and not coded in a phone-specific language). Apple uses C, Android uses Java. Which is more suited to web-based programming? ... in the next 3 years there is really no reason why you should have to download a Facebook app for your specific phone. You should simple go to m.facebook.com and utilise all the features of the app, but directly on the website. Apple will own the market for the next few years, but de-centralised systems always win." - Nathan Waters

"Android is like Windows here. iPhone is the Mac. I mean already the Android has overtaken Windows Mobile, so the fact that it's open source doesn't mean it's like Linux in this battle. Android is freely available for any mobile manufacturer to use and multiple manufacturers have opted to use the platform, and each will market their own phones to specific markets. Meanwhile the iPhone is one single hardware with one single platform, with one single marketing method/market." - Nathan Waters

"Except the fact that the iPhone is repeating the Mac vs PC saga of years past. Android will be the clear winner within the next 2-3 years... if you look at the stats actually, the Android with only one manufacturer has already been growing at 40% per month and stolen market share from both Apple and Blackberry. If Apple really opened-up its market and allowed its iPhone OS on multiple phones... then maybe they'd have a chance... but they will never do that because Apple is not about innovation, they're about market domination and lock-downs. They failed with the Mac, they've set themselves up to fail again. This is already a battle of software over hardware, and Apple is focusing on the latter. Android FTW. Just wish there were more apps on this bad boy HTC Magic (or T1 in the states)" - Nathan Waters

"Would be brilliant to see a bunch of these actually monitoring and herding schools of fish... protect them, grow them up, provide statistics to fishermen... then when the fish are ready for eating, the robots could herd them toward the nearest fishing crew." - Nathan Waters

"heh, it doesn't work in Australia. We have regulations that 99% or similar of the country need to have the same access as the cities... so billions are "wasted" getting high-speeds out into the country (Australia is MASSIVE), while the whole country suffers with slow speeds." - Nathan Waters

"Let me guess... cloud computing you can only access and utlise on an Apple product. Oh yay!" - Nathan Waters

"I have an idea: GET AN ANDROID! ... Apple is doing the same thing they did with the Mac, lock-down everything. Android is (open-source) Windows in this battle... you know the rest," - Nathan Waters

"AUSTRALIAN'S DO NOT DRINK FOSTERS... it's a corporate ploy to get Americans to buy "Aussie beer"" - Nathan Waters

"If Apple needs Jobs to survive, that's just sad. Although I will say they should sack the executives of the iPhone department... they're going to lose by the end of next year. The iPhone vs Android battle has so many uncanny parallels with the early days of Mac vs PC (you know, where Microsoft realised there was more value/money in the software, while Apple wanted to keep everything proprietary...) Apple loves proprietary... which has worked well for the iPod which was a hardware battle, but now the smart/Net phones today are all about a software battle, and Android has the right model to take advantage of this." - Nathan Waters

"This is really old news. Buried." - Nathan Waters

"A mate of mine was happy he got "PureAwesome" (well, nearly): http://digg.com/comedy..." - Nathan Waters

"It's good and all that Google has started to use some of the semantic web standards, but they're still fucking things up with this feature release: http://iandavis.com/blog... ... "At first this announcement seemed like a big deal – Google supporting the web of data in a big way, a real push into the world of open structured data. However, a closer look reveals that Google have basically missed the point of RDFa. The RDFa support is limited to the properties and classes defined on a hastily thrown together site called data-vocabulary.org. There you will find classes for Person and Organization and properties for names and addresses, completely ignoring the millions of pieces of data using well established terms from FOAF and the like. That means everyone has to rewrite all their data to use Google’s schema if they want to be featured on Google’s search engine. Its like saying you have to write your pages using Google’s own version of html where all the tags have..." - Nathan Waters

"Flying cars aren't an information technology, and as such they don't/didn't follow an exponentially accelerating progress." - Nathan Waters

"I guess you don't quite understand the law of accelerating returns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... ..." - Nathan Waters

"Let the gaming begin. Hmm, more Diggs equals cheaper advertising. Digg you guys have not thought this through at all. I also love how the blogosphere is enjoying the glistening Digg juice... this is not an innovative or remotely interesting development. Reddit has been doing this for years now. But Digg's system will inevitably fail with gaming and the site will become flooded with irrelevant embedded ads." - Nathan Waters

"Fail: http://www.bing.com/search... ..." - Nathan Waters

"Wow, removed from the front-page. Um, ghey Digg, very ghey." - Nathan Waters

"Why not focus efforts on creating this storage in an internal HDD... throw a massive server farm array of them into a building... and run some fat fibre out into the Internet world. Access it all on-the-fly over the Net. Physical, local storage is stupid. This is what consumer cloud computing is supposed to be about." - Nathan Waters

"Why don't "old news" websites link to the websites and instances they're talking about online? ... the whole point of the Web 1.0-2.0 is that everything is interlinked. If you're talking about a website BBC, then add a link to it! (granted the website is in Mexican I think)." - Nathan Waters

"HA-HA YOUR MEDIUM IS DYING." - Nathan Waters

"Copying Reddit and StumbleUpon the best decision Digg has made in a while... yeah probably." - Nathan Waters

"Yet another feature Reddit has had for a few years." - Nathan Waters

"I don't get how an URL shortening service can be worth this frickin much. You can find a dozen free scripts online that do the exact same thing. And apart from the brand-recognition of the name being plastered all over Twitter... I don't see any value in it, nor any business model capable of earning the $2mil + wanted investor returns. I guess there are still some investing in web 2.0 (even though this is a 1.0 app) ideas with zero business model. Ridiculous." - Nathan Waters

"They would need to know our exact location... so no." - Nathan Waters

"... because they wore condoms" - Nathan Waters

"And where does all the money come from? ... the Federal Reserve at interest! Yay. Let's further crash the economy and then suggest a one-world government and one-world financial system be the answer." - Nathan Waters

"All we need to do is end religion and progress toward the technological singularity." - Nathan Waters