Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Elmer elmer I'm on my very last life.
  • C9 page load time problems - is it just me ?

    Charles said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    Thanks for your candor. Rants are fine on C9. Smiley Your frustration is justified. I can assure you that performance, reliabilty and usability of C9 WILL get better because the dev team is focused on these problems - Rev9 is real...
    C

    With all due respect... MS have many partners out there with very good products that C9 could be leveraging for this, rather than spending literally years developing in-house alternatives that never perform.

     

    Case in point: http://www.sitefinity.com/ 

     

    Here is a certified gold partner (Telerik) with an ASP.NET CMS package which includes forums, news, silverlight support... and seems to have it all performing well. Download a trial and see what you can do with it.

     

    Telerik is not alone, and there are plenty of others to consider and compare.

  • Kin reviewed.

    figuerres said:
    kitron said:
    *snip*

    what sucks is the time money and talent they wasted on letting two teams both work on a "phone"

    if i had been asked i would have said - build one not two!

    given the time it takes and the work that has to go into this stuff it makes me wonder if the WIndows 7 phone could have been finished say 12 months sooner if they had done that?

    or at worst kept a mistake form hitting the public and spend the time getting one device really really down / polished and right.

    Yes, but then MS are not alone in releasing some duds.

     

    Nokia's CEO (Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo) was recently quoted as saying they recognise they are geting their butt kicked at the moment, and that they have released some clangers. He says that Nokia is changing its approach in order to address this issue, and will be releasing fewer but more competitive products in future.

  • IE: Below 60%

    turrican said:
    elmer said:
    *snip*

    Maybe, but that is up to the site owner to decide. Not you, me or anyone else. A website owner is a private entity.

     

    EDIT : So basically if a site owner decides to use ads as the main income, it's his choice and his website. Just because someone disagrees with the business model, doesn't give the someone right to leech off and use the site owner's bandwidth without paying ( blocking ads ). If you dislike a business model, don't visit the business. If you dislike a product, you don't walk into the store and toss the product out of the store and produce direct losses for the owner.

    So basically if a site owner decides to use ads as the main income, it's his choice and his website. Just because someone disagrees with the business model, doesn't give the someone right to leech off and use the site owner's bandwidth without paying ( blocking ads ).

     

    No, sorry, but I can’t agree with that.

     

    Whether it’s commercial, government, charity, or personal... the bottom line to a website is the same... return on investment.

     

    Exactly what the ‘return’ is, will vary depending on the type of site and the purpose it serves (e.g. in the case of a personal blog, it might just be that it makes you feel good to have it) but there always needs to be a return to justify the investment.

     

    If blockable ads are a critical component of that return/investment equation, then the site has no future, because the reality of the environment is that they can’t be relied on to produce income. You only need to look at on-line news sites to see this hard lesson being learnt by some very big players.

     

    A prudent and astute owner will be well aware of that, and will only consider income from blockable ads, to be above and beyond that required for the site’s existence.

     

    The arguments of ‘leeching’ and of not having a right to visit a site if you are not contributing via ads, are not valid... as it’s not the visitor’s problem to make the owner’s business model work.

     

    It’s the site owner’s problem to ensure that the overall ‘return’ is sufficient to offset the ‘expense’ of non-contributing visitors.

     

    In simplistic terms, bandwidth expense is part of the ‘cost of doing business’, and how you offset and/or justify that is up to you, but don’t be relying on blockable ads to do it for you, if you want to survive.

     

    A crude (and perhaps not very good) analogy to this in the retail shop world, is ‘loss leader’ concept... where you have products on sale that actually cost you money. As the retailer, you know that a good proportion of people will only come into your shop to buy those products and they will cost you money... but you don’t chase them out of the shop with a broom, or refuse to sell to them, because you also know that there will be enough people who will be attracted by that promotion and who will buy other products (or who you can ‘sell up’) on which there are sufficient profits, to more than offset those losses.

  • IE: Below 60%

    turrican said:
    elmer said:
    *snip*

    Maybe, but that is up to the site owner to decide. Not you, me or anyone else. A website owner is a private entity.

     

    EDIT : So basically if a site owner decides to use ads as the main income, it's his choice and his website. Just because someone disagrees with the business model, doesn't give the someone right to leech off and use the site owner's bandwidth without paying ( blocking ads ). If you dislike a business model, don't visit the business. If you dislike a product, you don't walk into the store and toss the product out of the store and produce direct losses for the owner.

    Sure, no argument there... everyone makes their own choices for their own reasons, but still... a website owner needs to be aware of the realities of the environment they operate in, and factor those into their decision.

     

    Love ’em or hate ‘em, the ad-blocker is a fact of life, so the reality for the owner is that they simply can't rely on ads to justify the existence of their site, because that income stream can never be guaranteed, and could totally disappear overnight.

     

    How they otherwise justify the existence of their site is up to them, but if ads are the make/break for a site, then it’s already doomed to failure.

  • IE: Below 60%

    If a website owner builds their site with ads critical to their funding model, then they are effectively saying that the content itself is not valuable enough - either in its own right or in its marketing benefit.

     

    Income from ads should be seen as a way to supplement income, and should be seen as expendable, not factored into the required return for the site.

  • IE9 Preview 2 is out

    JoshRoss said:

    Who wants a full browser anyways? I just want something that I can use on occasion and complain when it crashes or renders something in an undesirable way. If people were suddenly unable to grumble about their browser, message boards would start filling-up with other nonsense, like poop jokes.

     

    -Josh

    Who wants a full browser anyways?

     

    Exactly... Browsing is Sooooooo 1990’s

     

    I just want to run synthetic benchmarks and blog about how cool I am and how stupid all you noobs are.

  • Ellen's iPhone Commercial

    Ellen should have known better...

     

    Decree #2458-12.9: It's never funny to make jokes about Apple products.

     

    It's only funny when Apple makes jokes about PCs... officially sanctioned: iLaugh

     

  • Frustration to Ease of Fix Ratio

    My first weapon of choice is always the same... Re-write and expand the comments.

     

    Stepping through the source and writing more extensive comments, usually resulting in me finding a WTF? line (or two) at some point... where I either don't understand what the hell I wrote and need to review it, or it's just plain stupid code that needs to be fixed.

  • Visual Studio 2010 Pricing

    Pricing where I live:

     

    http://www.microsoft.com/australia/visualstudio/products

     

    Product Features    Professional   Premium       Ultimate          Test Professional   
    ----------------           ------------        -------            --------              -----------------
    Buy from:             2,084 AUD    9,530 AUD    20,775 AUD    3,769 AUD 
    Renew from:         1,391 AUD    4,010 AUD    6,649 AUD      1,565 AUD

     

    I guess it must be *REALLY* good, and that the Australian version must be better than the USA version, as it's nearly twice the USA price, even though the FX rate is about 92c

     

    Anyway... there is no way I'll be buying any form of MSDN subscription... as it's all now *WAY* out of my budget.

  • Steve Jobs on Flash

    Rumours are that Jobs might have to explain Apple's position on this (and other things) to the DOJ and/or FTC

     

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO