Andrew Tauskey

This should be common sense for any IT project, but in reality in a lot of cases it isn’t. Often times people overlook the details and just put something together so it works. This seems to happen especially with government projects. Look at the ObamaCare website. The massively expensive web development project was only spec’d out for ONLY 50,000 concurrent users. When 10x that tried to access the system, it crashed. It crashed because of someone overlooking what should be a common sense detail.

I agree, it is interesting to see that despite Apple’s setbacks, their “die-hard” fan base has generated immediate sales success for the Apple Watch. I also wrote a post on the surprising level of sales; especially considering how the Apple Watch will not replace mobile devices for many popular uses. It will be interesting to see if Apple can sustain success with this product.

I also found this article very interesting. Our group had a lot of trouble trying to quantify finances and funding options as well. You see this a lot in real life as well. A lot of times, people look for funding right away because it is a major sacrifice to put in the time and the initial risk that is required to first fund an app. At this point in the game, I think we have a pretty good execution plan. We spent a lot of time researching to find action plans that we can compare to. It is interesting to think about, but I think we are confident that we are similar enough to comparables to be confident in our application to obtain funds.

I agree, it is often very difficult to quantify the finances behind our application ideas.I thought the article did a great job of providing the reader with relative information, sources, and idea for generating funding. Considering my groups project, I feel that through research and speaking with some computer developers, we’ve generated a good idea of what the relative finances will look like.

Really good post Jada! This is pretty relevant to all of us. I think we use some of these terms because we know everyone will understand them. They hold meaning to most, and we say them instead of finding more specific words that might be a better fit for what your saying. But jargon develops for a reason – they are general terms that have many applications in language. But I do think we should avoid them when it makes sense to.

Jada, I looked through the list and I am also guilty of using some of these terms. I think some of them are pretty well understood so there isn’t an issue with them, but others are definitely ridiculous. I agree that using jargon is sometimes risky when making a pitch because you run the risk of having the person on the other end not understanding you fully. Their understanding is crucial in a pitch, so sticking to plain English is definitely a good strategy.

Zach, I really liked this article. I never knew the extent to which Chromecast could transform a device with a screen and HDMI port into a computer. I thought it was just for streaming content. As I read your comments, I started to think of how computing as we know it has changed. Assuming Chromecast has little to no space for memory and its’ computing power is much smaller than a laptop or desktop, it seems as though it is serving a different need and, therefore, a different customer base. Obviously the line has already been drawn with tablets and other mobile devices where performance needed is different than that of someone using a laptop, but it is interesting to think people can bring their “computers” with them anywhere all over again.

When I first read this post, it sounded as if this device was fairly similar to Google Chromecast and I did not understand the differences. After reading further, I found that the Chromebit is packaged with 16GB of solid state storage memory and 2GB of RAM. With this being said, I think these devices can be a major hit in businesses such as restaurants, gyms, dealerships, etc. I think that businesses could use these devices to stream movies and entertain the customer while they are waiting for service, or can use the device to advertise business products and services. While I would definitely buy this product, I don’t think this will be the end for laptops and tablets. Laptops and tablets are much more powerful and offer more room for information storage at this point in time. Also while its small size definitely makes it easier to carry around, it also makes the Chromebit easier to lose. While I do not think that laptop/tablet sales will be affected at this point, it will be interesting to see the affect Chromebit has on sales as it evolves.

Devices like Chromebit are definitely the future of computing. Thanks to Moore’a Law, I’d expect us to far surpass the Chromebit’s capabilities in no time. I feel that Google is likely the best candidate that we have to bring such technology to the general public. I held off on buying a Chromecast for a while, but after finally grabbing one Google has convinced me that their products not only offer superior streaming services, but also an unparalleled ability to synchronize all of their systems at the user level.

The only reason I don’t see such a technology replacing laptops is due to display limitations. Sure, you can fit a computer on a thumb drive that’s great, but if I have to carry around a 10″ monitor to plug it into, it’s now just a cumbersome item and I may has well have gotten a tablet. I think this technology is likely to take over home computing within the next decade or so, but until a solution for the display issue is discovered laptop and smartphone manufacturers are still running the show.

I think these mobile computing devices will be a hit but it won’t replace devices such as laptops, tablets or a desktop mainly because the limitation of what it can actually do. These types of devices, i believe will be most popular for people who what to turn their living room into a entertainment hub for media consumption, this would give them a cheap way to stream content, browse the web on their tv and do other basic task, but it will never be a productive device like tradition laptops and desktops.

While I believe this is a make shopping much more convenient, I think there are several problems with the new Amazon Dash. First, I would not want to put the Dash on every surface throughout my household. Additionally, my roommates and I each buy different brands for products depending on a variety of things such as price and quality. Integrating the dash in our household would be difficult because of this. Furthermore, an article I read confirmed that most grocery shopping in the US is done for occasion shopping, with only 25% done for re-stocking items.The article further states that in countries such as Australia, people actually enjoy shopping twice a week and embrace the time out of the house. Lastly, I fear that the Dash could eventually be used to target consumers with ads and predict when they will need a specific item.

At the risk of sounding extraordinarily lazy, I happened to see the launch of this item on Amazon before I read all the articles about it and I signed up to be a beta participant immediately. As a busy full time student/full time employee, I’m all about time efficiency. But moreso, as a student of technology, even if I only use this product just to replenish my mac n cheese once a month, I just want to see how (well) it works.

Regardless of my interests, I feel as though the public will come to see a benefit in such a service over time. Shopping in that fashion for commodities is sort of the direction the world is heading, and Amazon may as well pioneer the industry. In the immediate future, grocery stores aren’t going anywhere. But long-term, this technology has the potential to displace grocery stores, particularly local chains that may not have the means of adapting to this technology.

While I’d like to believe that cable companies could currently compete with internet protocol television, I do not think Generation Y is interested in being overwhelmed with channels that they do not watch. While many people assume that Millennials fear committing to a subscription based pay, Forbes reported that nearly 31% from non-TV households in this group simply cited a lack of interest in cable tv. While cable tv needs to lower prices and create channel packages to compete with internet protocol tv, I think it is more important that cable adds innovative features to its service. An example I have in mind is the ability to record programs and share the recording with others through the cable provider. In doing so, people can comment on specific scenes throughout the recording and write their perspective of what is taking place. This information can be shared in groups and will act like a cable television book club. While I’m definitely not saying cable tv should adapt this idea, I do think they need to create an innovative feature that will capture the attention of Generation Y.

Even though there has been significant shift in people choosing internet over TV. I would not completely right off cable companies yet. But it would definitely take a series of innovative ideas that would interest audiences, but as mentioned in the article other than Dish Network there is no real competition for Apple. Cable company’s must learn from Dish and try to retain customers. For example majority of Dish Network revenue comes from international viewers families from India, UAE, China, Italy heavily use Dish Network. They invest a great deal in offering specific packages to the customers, for example I come form an Indian family, and despite having majority of internet enabled devices such as Play Station, Google chrome, Smart TVs, we still use Dish Network to watch Indian News, Sports and other shows. Dish stays current with all the sports event regardless of profits. The recent Cricket World Cup held in the Australia was offered with HD quality at just 99 $ , the price was cheaper than the value it provided. This strategy not only helped Dish retain its old customers, but also receive new business. Other cable companies must not only invest in developing new technology, but also offers relevant package according to customer demographics.

As an avid Android user, I find this article very interesting because I don’t fully understand the attraction to Apple products. I never really thought about why people are attracted to Apple products, but after reading this, I think the author is onto something. Everything the author says makes sense, and Apple definitely does a great job of mastering this structure. Its hard for me to tell if this model of attraction will change in the future; the only way I can see it changing, is if an Apple product fails functionally which will turn customers to a competing product. Personally, as a consumer, I always shop for technology with a lot of thought and research. However, I know a lot of people just go with the trend and on an emotional basis, so I think there will always be consumers that shop like that.

This article is very interesting and Apple products always attract the customers toward them. Yes, I think model of attraction changing in the future because apple always tried to bring something new in their products. I would say it depend how consumer think, are they go with product or with brand. It also depend on the consumers, some the consumers go with technology and some go with technology. However, by reading this article I can say apple has secure future and apple products always stay in great demand in the market.

I think smart home technology could be a nightmare or simply a reality. As technology becomes more advanced, so do the security issues that arise. When I think of having a smart home today, it scares me a lot more than it appeals to me. While there are the benefits of never having to drive back home to make sure I turned the oven or the coffee maker off, there are also numerous downsides like someone hacking into my home system or even something as drastic as locking me in my own home. Then again as the technology advances there is a big possibility that most of these concerns won’t exist and if they do the benefits of having a smart house might outweigh the costs of not having one. The internet of things is a tough subject because it covers such a wide array of technologies, especially those that are so close to us like security in our homes. While I like to think that I will never be lazy enough to even want a smart house, its quite possible that by the time we are all adults it will simply become a norm. As of now I would prefer to lock my own doors, drive my own car, and buy products from a store instead of making them myself, but maybe in the next decade it will simply be more practicable and affordable to have technology do those things for you.

In this technology world where technology changed day by day. However, Technology can be boon or bane for the consumer if it provide us all kind of facilities which has drawbacks too. This is the time to use the technology but with consciousness. Otherwise, time will definitely come when home technology make our lives nightmare.

I don’t think smart home technology and having all our gadgets be connected would be bad thing. The security aspect of of it is overblown in my opinion. If your home doors and windows are remotely control, sure, someone might hack it and break in. however its also very easy for someone break your windows and lock pick your doors to break in right now yet we don’t seem too concern with it. I would love to live in a smart home, where everything can be control using a phone, this would make daily task much more convenience and I can check the status of everything in the house from one place.