Fair enough. But this specific movie is not an example of something that brings in new subscribers. There's nothing niche about it and nothing that targets a specific group of people or especially hobbyists or enthusiasts.

This is just a straight up bad movie, considering the amount of money that went into it.

For example, if Dune or LOTR were flop movies, I would agree with you and say that it still made sense for Netflix to finance those movies because those are cult classics and people will join Netflix just to see them. Or many of your vintage classic movies. Or Clint Eastwood Westerns. There are people who are super passionate about those genres and niches and even fans of those specific movies.

You mean, a window?

Seriously, just stop spreading BS. Intel cannot be remotely compared to AOL, and even your fear-mongering of "stock options getting stolen" is largely BS. For the record, Intel switched from stock options a long time ago to RSUs or restricted stock units. Intel has been in existence for decades and has made steady profits for shareholders for decades. Intel's employees have become literal millionaires - and thousands of them. You're comparing this to some BS based on some cherry picked anecdotal data or some skewed comparison with startups.

Intel is not a startup. It has been rock solid for literally decades - spanning the career lifetime of many many employees. People have literally joined Intel fresh out of college and have retired out of Intel and have seen massive wealth creation from stock options they received. Not the paranoid BS you are writing.

Show me ONE example in Intel's 55+ years of history where Intel's lawyers have screwed Intel's employees out of stock options? Otherwise you're just farting in the wind.

To be a supercar, it needs to cost at least $500k, be handmade with carbon fiber, and have at least 500hp? Am I doing it right?

Never thought the day would come when slashdot becomes reddit, and reddit becomes slashdot.

(just poking fun at ourselves, don't take offense)

A "price point" is a specific price that you target as a manufacturer. $79.99 for example. Or $19.99. These price points are psychological, in the sense that people tend to buy more of your products if they happen to be in these "price points".

It is quite common for manufacturers to target these price points. They will then work backwards and figure out what features they need to skip, what engineering tradeoffs they need to make, so that they can hit these price points.

You must be from Australia.

Nobody's forcing you to use the Intel compiler though. Use the other well established standard compilers.

I have to say that webOS is an absolute delight to use. Simple, snappy, very easy to use on a TV along with a remote. The optional cursor with the remote working as an "air mouse" is a fairly unconventional notion but actually works quite well too. In fact, i would say that the webOS interfaces found on LG TVs is one of the best user interfaces I have used in a long time. And a very fresh approach to user design. If Liron was the one who conceptualized and designed and implemented this user interface, then more power to him!

Everybody loves a doomsday scenario and articles that are apocalyptic. Heck, politicians routinely use this strategy to win elections.

The reality is unsexy and mundane middle-ground. The Indian IT industry is not going to disappear overnight, nor is the US industry is not going collapse overnight because of China and India. Also, everyone loves the stereotype stories of Indian offshoring horror stories but again, the answer is a lot more complicated.

The unfortunate reality is that a lot of the headcount that was offshored and outsourced has to do with work that is relatively lower skilled, and involved repetitive activites and "following processes". It therefore mattered little if the work was done in one country or another, except offshoring the work to some countries also meant significant cost savings and headcount reduction.

However, that is not all to it. Work that is off-shored is often a complex package of business processes, software tools, infrastructure, support etc. While a lot of the work is indeed process based, a critical part of it also requires very high levels of solution and software architecture skills, deep business process knowledge, deep domain knowledge etc. Indian companies did not merely win projects because they could tout "low cost" competitive advantages, but also because they could staff enough people with the deep levels of expertise and experience required to make these projects a success. It is a numbers game. If there are hundreds of thousands of mediocre or even sub-standard workers, there are also tens of thousands of employees who are top notch and highly skilled.

And these are exactly the nuances that get lost when the pitchforks come out about the poor quality of offshoring. Projects and contracts of a certain scale require certain headcount numbers and contracting companies to prove that they can handle work at this scale. This kind of capability and reputation is very hard earned and often takes decades. It doesn't just disappear overnight. For large consulting companies, this reputation and scale capability is their identity, their "moat".

And if you're going to get into racial or ethnic stereotypes, then it is to be noted that the same Indians who are frustratingly incompetent in offshored contracts are also the ones that are thought leaders and actual leaders in a lot of the flagship high-tech companies and software companies. So like i said, it is a numbers game.

Try Google Fi which uses VOIP but is integrated with your phone and you get a phone number just like a conventional phone. They still charge you $20 a month for voice and $10 for 1GB but you do get the benefits of VOIP such as national/international roaming for free, very low priced international calling rates etc.

But yes, this is all made possible because Jio has its own backhaul network that is entirely IP packet based. This is what telecoms will become in the future. ISPs.

Why would it be reverse anything? It would just be outsourcing.

The real question is - do you have VOIP integrated with your cellphone and your phone number? To my knowledge, every single cellphone service provider charges separately for voice, and this is always a mandatory charge. Even Google Fi which uses VOIP for voice calls charges $20 a month for voice, and then $10 a month for every 1GB used (which rolls over).

Nobody offers a cellphone with a phone number where you are only charged for data usage and for nothing else. At least to my knowledge. As such, what Jio is doing in India is what all wireless telecom companies will be doing in the future. Especially since the entire backhaul is IP based anyway. They will all become ISPs.

I was looking for a Squeezebox replacement since my device died and they stopped making it. I really didn't want to build out a dedicated PC or Raspberry solution just for audio, so was making do with Roku for audio (it acutally has a surprisingly large number of audio streaming services - it even covers my local FM radio channels).

Tried the first Chromecast - and it was largely a "meh" experience. Video was grainy and choppy and audio sounded quite substandard. For example the same youtube audio or internet audio would sound much better when streamed from the Roku channel than when casted from Chromecast.

Took another gamble at the new Chromecast Audio - and it is a phenomenal device. It actually plays as well as my Squeezebox. For $35, you get really high quality audio, and it has digital out so you can connect it to a DAC, or optionally use its inbuilt DAC which is not bad at all. Some people are even using it to drive moderately hard to drive headphones. It also supports high res audio up to 24/96. The really neat thing is that if you cast Spotify or Pandora from your phone to the CCA device, it will stream directly from Spotify after the initial handshake and will not stream through your phone. All in all, I can't imagine how they pulled off this quality of audio output and features for $35.

$10 a month is indeed expensive when compared to Ooma. Ooma is free - all you have to do is pay for the device, which admittedly is $100. But it works well, and I have been using it for over a year without any complaints or issues. And international call rates are very reasonable too - about 6-8 cents a minute. And while $100 is a bit high, the device itself is quite sleek and well implemented. It has voicemail and recording facility, and is really easy to use and setup (took me all of 2 minutes to setup).

I do pay tax for the landline service (everyone has to) but it only amounts to about 3-4 bucks a month. I would imagine that one would have to pay the same rate or possibly higher for the Google landline service.

But yes, Vonage (which I replaced with Ooma) is indeed overpriced and not at all worth the money.