Google Trends - Top 5 UK searches on European Union
- What does it mean to leave the EU?
- What is the EU?
- Which countries are in the EU?
- What will happen now we've left the EU?
- How many countries are in the EU?
Loading user information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading user information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
I was actually referring more to extension devs, rather than website devs.
Users just expect that websites should be browser-agnostic (as far as its possible) should allow any browser to do it's most basic of tasks. A site that does not support all browsers will lose visitors, rather than force them to change browsers.
Users choose one browser over another based on extensions and add-ons, as much as it's core features, analogous to the way availability of apps impacts on whether or not a mobile platform is popular, and extensions remain an issue with Opera, despite being an excellent browser.
Opera scores pretty much the same as chrome (520 vs 521 on my PC) but gets almost no support, so I'm not sure that html5test scores mean much.
Is this an editor issue? (I only read C9 on my WM10 device, and it works - albeit desktop layout)
C9 is running TinyMCE editor v4.1.10 (2015-05-05) and according to the changelog, there have been updates since then to fix Edge and WM10 issues. Perhaps C9 needs to update it.
it's a brave new world. years back, i remember being concerned that even the people who simply VIEWED my profile was shown to me... that is unless the user coughed up $$ to make that little detail private. who's to say that a higher level service tier ($$) could un-anonymize those profile views... and not only on profile views but also job posting views?
for all we know, this could already be a buy in option for marketing / hr recruiters.
If such an option already existed, you know that it would already have leaked to the interweb.
Having spent $26B on this thing, MS would be crazy to throw it away with some bone-head action like selling private data - it would not only endanger their Linked-In investment, but their entire Cloud-First business plan.
Listening to Mary Jo and Paul Thurrott trying to figure it out on the latest Windows Weekly, the only thing even remotely made some sense was its possible integration into Dynamics CRM & ERP solutions, with private/on-prem databases that can extend to the public database.
Being able to use it to help better target sales, or to resource/deploy skillsets in the enterprise, would be a feature that would perhaps give MS an advantage others (e.g. SalesForce) couldn't match.
Whether or not it's $26B worth of feature (or whatever that comes down to after tax savings) is another matter, but at least there is *some* product advantage argument there.
All-Cash from Linked-In's perspective, All-Debt from Microsoft's.
According to Bloomberg, MS are borrowing to make this purchase because (as Bloomberg speculates) they will save about $9B in US taxes.