本文目录：
- 1、怎么判断html 是在移动端应用（app）,还是移动端浏览器中打开的
- 2、什么样的失败，算得上是＂成功的失败”。
- 3、有关暴雪
- 4、索爱手机 懂的朋友进来帮帮忙啊！！！！！
怎么判断html 是在移动端应用（app）,还是移动端浏览器中打开的
判断html 是在移动端应用（app）,还是移动端浏览器中打开可以通过查看 UA来实现。
UA是SIP协议中的一个逻辑实体,SIP是一个信令协议,代理的含义为代替用户处理信令协议,简单说就是替用户收发信令信息。
UA简单是指用户的手机信息。通过UA，可以知道用户的手机类型，是小米的，还是索爱的。
Header 里面有 UA，可以根据 UA 来判断。
约定App中的网页的UA都加入了某一标识，例如，从微信中打开的网页的UA都会含有Wechat/1.0.1之类的信息。
app 中打开可以在 Header 里面加入一些字段，这样就可以在页面中判断，有这些字段就是在 app 里面打开的，没有就不是。
如果是app扫描打开，扫描传入的是网址，最后打开的还是在浏览器打开，跟app是没有关联的，所以还是通过浏览器打开的。
什么样的失败，算得上是＂成功的失败”。
来自喜马拉雅五分钟精英课程。
什么样的失败，算得上是＂成功的失败”。There was a moment in recent business advice historywhen everyone went crazy about failure. Fail bigger！ Failharder！ crowed entrepreneurial evangelists. There is even a＂Fail Camp＂ where would-be innovators can become morecomfortable with failure
失败，似乎是近年来商界备受关注的话题。很多创业界的布道者高喊着:摔得越惨越好！摔得越厉害越好！甚至还有人专门成立了一个＂失败训练营＂，在那里，未来的创新者可以亲自去感受失败，这样当他们日后真正面对失败时，他们就会更加轻松自如了。In every trend， there＇s a grain of truth: innovation cannothappen without an appetite for failure， and a commitmentto learning from it. That＇s the key takeaway from Netfix＇sTodd Yellin＇s lesson on ＂successful failure.＂
不管这件事本身合理与否，其中多少会蕴藏一点真理:如果人们不愿意面对失败，没有从失败中学习的决心，那创新将会变得遥不可及。
今天，托德耶林就将和我们一起讨论，什么样的失败，才算是＂成功＂的失败。
Course【课程】
If youre going to innovate you have to have a tolerance， ahighrisk tolerance and you also have to have a reallystrong appreciation that failure can be a good thing， inother words as long as youre learning something from thatfailure.
与此同时，你还要具备一种强烈的觉悟，那就是失败可以是一件好事；
换句话说，只要你能够在失败中有所收获，那么失败本身就不值一提了。
Assess your stumbles评估你的马失前蹄So good failure is something where you tried something forlogical reasons， it made sense why you tried it； it was areasonable hypothesis. And then when you put it out there，you were very clear what was the measurement forsuccess and failure. And if it failed， you did your best tounderstand why it failed and then you looked back and youlearned and got smarter about it. A bad example of failurecan be multi-fold. It could be， you tried something but youreally don＇t have a compelling reason this is what we＇retrying， this is why and this is what we thinks going tohappen based on what we＇re trying.
当你出于某种符合逻辑的原因去进行尝试，你觉得促使你去这样做的原因是合理的，你是出于一个合理的假设才去这样做的，当你这样去做的时候，你非常清楚，评判成功和失败的标准是什么。
这个时候，如果你失败了，你可以尽可能地去搞明白它失败的原因，当你回顾这一切的时候，你能从中有所收获，并且加深了对整件事的理解。这就是好的失败。而坏的失败则可能有多重的原因。
它可能是，你尝试去做了某件事，可是当别人问你正在做什么，你为什么要这么做，以及你预期会产生怎样的结果时，你却无法给出令人信服的理由。
If its not compelling in the way that it misses someinternal logic， and then it fails， you really have no excuseBecause it didn＇t make sense what you wore presenting oryou didn＇t present it in a clear and logical way. That＇s one.Another kind of failure that＇s not the good kind of failure iswhen you failed， you learn why you failed and then you tryagain the same thing because maybe out of somestubbornness or I＇ve got to be right， there＇s got to besomething wrong here. So if you keep on making the samemistake over again and you don＇t learn from your past，that＇s a bad kind of failure too. But， I couldn＇t -I hate to saysomething so obvious， but if you＇re not falling on your faceonce in a while， maybe even pretty often， then you＇re not aninnovative culture.
如果你做这件事本身就缺乏一个有内在逻辑的理由，然后你失败了，那你真的找不到任何借口，因为你的思路本身就说不通，或者你没法清晰而有条理地说明为什么要这样做。
这就属于一种坏的失败。
还有一种坏的失败，就是当你失败以后，你明明清楚失败的原因，但是出于某种固执的想法，你还是去尝试相同的事情，又或许，你心想＂我一定是对的，这里头一定有什么问题＂，你还是会重蹈覆辙。
所以，如果你继续犯着同样的错误，却无法从之前的经历中吸取教训，这也是一种坏的失败。
但是，你不能忍受时不时地遭遇失败，甚至是经常遭遇失败，那你就无法创造一种创新的精神和文化。虽然我不想说的这么直白，但是事实就是这样。There are times when we have fallen as a company. Thereare times that we have stumbled， we have fallen down andthen we＇ve gotten up and we＇ve made things better. Youwant to lean so far forward that sometimes you＇re going tofall on your face. But it＇s important when you do fall onyour face you get up； you brush yourself off； you learn whyyou fell on your face； you try not to make the same mistakeagain and you try to improve the experience. An example iswhen we launched into Latin America. We didn＇t really - wewere new to the global scene. We didn＇t really understanowhat it would take to be successful in countries， in non-English-speaking countries outside of the U.S. and CanadaSo we launched in Latin America and we really don＇tunderstand how to make that work at first. And at first， weplanted， a firm face plant in Brazil and Mexico and so forth.We didn＇t have consistent language assets. We weren＇tsure of subtitling or dubbing would work. We weren＇t sureexactly what kind of content would play in Latin America.So we stumbled out of the gate. But the exciting thing isafter we fell on our face we got up， we brushed our self offwe learned about how to make a better experience. Welearned on the language front； put out everything withsubtitles and dubbing because different people enjoydifferent ways to watch it across Brazil， across Mexico，across Colombia and all of Latin America. So that wassuper important.
就拿网飞公司来说，作为公司，我们也曾多次马失前蹄。我们也曾经历过很多跌跌撞撞，很多次栽了跟头之后，又站起来 ，然后才能做得更好。
举个例子，当我们公司开始进军拉丁美洲时，我们那会儿在国际舞台上还是个新手，根本不知道如何才能在美国和加拿大以外的非英语国家取得成功。所以一开始，我们不知道该做些什么才好。我们在巴西、墨西哥都遇到了麻烦，之后在其他拉美国家的情况也好不到哪去。
当时，我们甚至没有统一的语言配置。我们既不确定使用字幕或配音是否可行，也不清楚针对拉美市场应该播什么类型的内容。可以说，这就好比我们还没进门就狠狠摔了一跤。但是令人兴奋的是，当我们摔倒之后，我们立刻站了起来，掸去身上的尘土，并学会了如何针对性地做出优化改进。
我们在语言功能上学到了很多，我们为所有的内容都加上了字幕和配音。因为在巴西，墨西哥，哥伦比亚和整个拉丁美洲地区，不同地方的人会享受不同的观看方式，所以字幕和配音都非常重要。Come up with good payment methods that work acrossthese countries. We didnt really get that， then we learnedthat over time. So it first started out being someplacewhere we did stumble out of the gate and we werentsuccessful and then we became very successful over time.另外，我们还想出了一些适用于这些国家的支付方式。一开始我们并没有意识到该怎么做，我们是在不断失败的过程中才逐渐学到这些的。所以，一开始我们确实在门外摔得很惨，离成功也远得很；然而，随着时间的推移，我们还是能够重新站起来，并且实现巨大的成就。Temper failure with Minimum Viable Products （MVPs）
在失败和最小化可行产品之间进行平衡When we guide the design and then the ultimatedevelopment of any part of the Netfix experience， there arecertain questions that we have to ask ourselves.
Likebecause were very testcentric and were trying thingstheres a really careful line you have to draw betweenwhats the minimum viable product， you dont want to overinvest in something that might not work. And weve donethat. Weve made that mistake many times where youre sopassionate about something and you want to make it sogood because you want your test to succeed that youoverly invest in it. And if it doesnt succeed， you wasted alot of time on an idea that really doesn＇t swim. But， on theother side， if you create something thats so much of aminimum viable product， emphasis on too minimum， thenits not viable and you really get a false negative becausemaybe it was a good idea and if you just would have put alittle more polish on it， and you really never know theanswer to that. So you＇re threading a needle， you don＇twant to over-invest， you don＇t want to under-invest. So verymuch we＇re talking to the product managers， the designers，the engineers， were always debating about where that lineis
当我们在指导设计和开发网飞产品的每一个环节时 ，我们必须要问自己一些问题，那就是什么是我们的MVP？也就是什么是我们的最小化可行产品。
因为在网飞，我们始终把测试放在非常核心的地位，通过测试不断进行尝试。所以我们必须要划出一条非常谨慎的界限，来界定我们的最小化可行产品是什么。
因为你肯定也不希望在那些很可能失败的产品上做过度的投资。我们曾经犯过很多次这样的错误。当你对某件事情充满热情的时候，你就会一心想要把它做好。你希望你的测试能够大获成功，所以你就会在这件事上投入过量的资源。假如最终你失败了，你就会浪费很多时间在一个不可行的想法上。
但是，从另一方面来讲，假如你做的产品几乎是就是一个最低限度可行的产品，而你过分强调了最低限度这个属性，那么，这很可能就会导致测试结果的失败。你会认为这个产品行不通。
但事实上，如果你愿意再打磨一下，那么很有可能，这个产品就是一个很好的想法。所以在这种情况下，究竟是你设计的MVP的问题，还是你的想法的问题，你永远不可能知道答案了。总而言之，在进行大胆尝试的时候，你既不能过度投资，也不能投资不足，就好像是穿一根针一样，你要划分清楚两者之间的界限。
那么这条界限的位置在哪里呢？
我们总是要与产品经理，设计师，工程师们不断交流、激烈争辩，才能确定它真正合理的位置。
【总结】
在这节课里，我们和托德耶伦一起，进行了一次关于＂成功的失败＂的案例研究。你可以把它运用到生活中大大小小的失败经验里。
Assess your stumbles总结来说，我们要对自己经历的的失败进行评估，分析这些尝试是否合理；Good FailureTried for logical reasons/ reasonable hypothesisClearly defined metrics for measuring success orfailureResulted in new learnings
一，你是因为符合逻辑的原因，或者基于合理的假设而进行尝试的
二，你可以通过清晰的标准来衡量成功与失败
三，你能够从中学到新的东西 Bad FailureTried for no compelling reasonAlready deemed a failure， but tried again anyway
而坏的失败则是:
一、你之所以要去尝试的理由毫无说服力
二、已经经历过失败，但仍然用同样的方式重复尝试Face fall frequentlyIts OK to lean so far forward that you fail. Learn fromeach failure， brush yourself off， and try something new.
Temper failure with Minimum Viable Products （MVPs）Only invest enough to yield viable test results. Avoid thetemptation to over-invest in passion products.Under-investing in a product can yield a false-negative.
最后，在尝试的过程中，我们还要学会合理地投入。
我们可以设计最小化可行产品只要能获得可行的测试结果就可以，避免因冲动而对产品进行过度投资。
另一方面，假如对最小化可行产品的投资不足，也会导致失败的测试结果，这个结果也会影响你对这个产品的正确判断。
有关暴雪
首先去暴雪官网看它对公司的介绍
然后去英文版维基百科查暴雪公司(blizzard entertainment)
以下是一篇比较专业的研究暴雪成功案例的文章
BusinessWeek recently published a new article exploring the success of Blizzard Entertainment. The article examines the company's successful Craft franchises, it's efforts to keep in touch with gamers' wants, and its willingness to discard games before release if they aren't "fun enough."
Indeed, the 250-person outfit has become one the games industry's leading innovators, creating games that players crave and profitable new businesses that rival executives envy. "[They're] essentially design geniuses, making games easy enough for casual players and deep enough to attract and hook hard-core players," says Jeff Green, editor-in-chief of online gaming magazine 1Up.com. "Simple to learn, difficult to master is the holy grail of game design," he adds. "Blizzard does this every single time."
As Wilson suggests, Blizzard's purpose is simple: to make fun games. Sounds easy enough, but the task is complicated by the nature of modern video games, which can require development budgets rivaling those of blockbuster Hollywood releases or major corporate product rollouts. As the games industry has emerged as a serious business, Blizzard's hallmark has been its effective and persistent effort to remain in touch with players.
It's also learned to feed on criticism. Betas of future expansions to World of Warcraft include reporting software that allows players to offer instant feedback from within the game. Employees endlessly play and replay games both on and off the clock, constantly looking to make improvements. At lunch, "strike teams" play concentrated sessions of games in development to provide feedback. "You know a game is ready when management has to send e-mails out after lunch begging people to get back to work," jokes Wilson. Some designers even plan vacations to coincide with major release dates in order to play alongside regular consumers.
Why does Blizzard succeed where others don't?" asks Jay Wilson, a lead game designer with a shock of spiked hair and a wry disposition. "It isn't a magic trick. We work at it, and if a product isn't good enough, we cancel it."
Blizzard Entertainment, of course, is the Irvine (Calif.)-based maker of the world's most popular and profitable online game, World of Warcraft (WoW), which boasts nearly 11 million monthly subscribers around the globe. The company is also at the heart of the recent $18.9 billion merger with Activision, primarily a maker of console titles such as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. Born in early July, the newly combined entity, Activision Blizzard (ATVI), is now the industry's biggest player, with projected annual revenues of nearly $4.5 billion.
But Activision is acquiring much more than World of Warcraft. Blizzard is behind a string of best-selling, industry-shaping PC games including the StarCraft and Diablo series, which have sold nearly 10 million and 20 million copies, respectively. The new company is also tapping into a corporate culture that champions creativity, both productive and experimental, inspiring enduring devotion from paying players.
Company Changed Hands Several Times
Blizzard began life in 1991, founded by UCLA graduates Allen Adham, Frank Pearce, and Michael Morhaime, currently the firm's CEO, as a group of coders-for-hire toiling on other companies' games. The 1994 release of Warcraft vaulted the company toward becoming one of the most admired and profitable game makers in the world. (That year, the company was purchased for $10 million by distributor Davidson Associates and changed hands a number of times before finally coming under the control of Vivendi Universal (VIV.PA) in 1998.) Like Disney's (DIS) Pixar animation studio or electronics impresario Apple (AAPL), Blizzard has stayed ahead of competitors.
Indeed, the 250-person outfit has become one the games industry's leading innovators, creating games that players crave and profitable new businesses that rival executives envy. "[They're] essentially design geniuses, making games easy enough for casual players and deep enough to attract and hook hard-core players," says Jeff Green, editor-in-chief of online gaming magazine 1Up.com. "Simple to learn, difficult to master is the holy grail of game design," he adds. "Blizzard does this every single time."
As Wilson suggests, Blizzard's purpose is simple: to make fun games. Sounds easy enough, but the task is complicated by the nature of modern video games, which can require development budgets rivaling those of blockbuster Hollywood releases or major corporate product rollouts. As the games industry has emerged as a serious business, Blizzard's hallmark has been its effective and persistent effort to remain in touch with players.
Learning from Criticism
It's also learned to feed on criticism. Betas of future expansions to World of Warcraft include reporting software that allows players to offer instant feedback from within the game. Employees endlessly play and replay games both on and off the clock, constantly looking to make improvements. At lunch, "strike teams" play concentrated sessions of games in development to provide feedback. "You know a game is ready when management has to send e-mails out after lunch begging people to get back to work," jokes Wilson
Some designers even plan vacations to coincide with major release dates in order to play alongside regular consumers.
And the company has boldly canned numerous products, even nearly finished games it deemed "not fun enough." An adventure spinoff based on the Warcraft franchise was ditched in 1998 despite widespread press coverage and high consumer anticipation. Blizzard executives make a habit of listing the many games that never made it out the door, including a long-delayed StarCraft-themed game for consoles that was first announced in 2002 but put on hold indefinitely in 2006 as the company grappled with the difficulties of the different platform. New games, meanwhile, are announced with ship dates of "when it's done."
These days, Blizzard presides over an ever-expanding universe composed of not only blockbuster games but also action figures, novels, manga, board games, pen-and-paper role-playing games, apparel, and conferences. In South Korea, where competitive video gaming is a televised sport, Blizzard's decade-old game StarCraft inspires such fervent loyalty that tournaments still draw some 700,000 spectators a year, nurturing a niche industry worth $40 million annually. Legendary Pictures, the studio behind blockbuster comic book adaptations like Batman Begins and 300, is currently working on a big-budget, live-action film based on WoW slated for 2009.
Bringing Together Two Well-Oiled Machines
Unlike other mergers, aimed at bolstering sagging businesses or nabbing market share, analysts widely deem Activision Blizzard to be the rare union of two well-oiled machines. Steve Bailey, an analyst with London market research firm Screen Digest, notes that Activision's console expertise could help Blizzard make the jump to the dedicated game systems produced by Microsoft (MSFT), Nintendo (7974.T), and Sony (SNE). According to Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles, the deal should insulate Activision from the more seasonal console market, which peaks in a parental buying frenzy at Christmas. Instead, some of WoW's profits—as much as $600 million annually—can be put toward new products.
But for all the ink spilled over the Activision-Blizzard mega-merger and the attention paid to World of Warcraft—the game has been used in Toyota (TM) truck ads and parodied by South Park—the company's biggest releases could lie ahead. Executives have committed to releasing one new WoW expansion pack every year to keep the title competitive and to keep players paying the $15 a month subscription fee. Last year, it announced StarCraft II, a sequel to the firm's science-fiction strategy game. And, in June, the company showed the first footage of Diablo III, another highly anticipated sequel in development since 2005.
Some fans howled at Diablo III's public unveiling, complaining that the art direction too closely resembled that of World of Warcraft. The flap, to which designers quickly responded with an open letter explaining their choices, is evidence that Blizzard could yet stumble. Now, the game maker must deliver on its widening roster of games while making inroads into new genres and markets—all without abandoning the methods that, to date, have made it a darling with players and executives alike.
索爱手机 懂的朋友进来帮帮忙啊！！！！！
什么都不用说，W995比较实在！我朋友用995
也用过595，我用过w760，音质都不错，不过我朋友说还是995比较好，外观也好看！我们都在淘宝买，只有水货，行货也是很贵的！
【netfrontvps】的内容来源于互联网，如引用不当，请联系我们修改。
网友留言：