Slashdot Mirror

So Samsung has been making mobile phones for a while. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G. Here's a graphic that kind of says it all: http://allthingsd.com/files/20... I saw one of the first Android prototypes too. It was a half screen and half keyboard affair that was clearly meant to be a Blackberry killer. Nobody took Apple seriously as a phone manufacturer, they all figured Apple would bring out some kind of glorified iPod with a keypad. When the iPhone hit the market everybody went back to the drawing board and the next thing you know they're all, by some cosmic coincidence, selling phones that look like more or less exactly like the iPhone. But of course none of them copied what Apple was doing ... perish the thought.

No they weren't... If you cant tell the difference between a Samsung Galaxy and Iphone, that really says a lot about how daft you are. Here's a non-photoshoped picture for reference. Its a different size, colour and has the word "Samsung" prominently displayed in large letters.

I cant imagine how many Android phones you walk off with now IOS has changed into Android.

Apple sued Samsung for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone in the creation of its own line of smartphones

Samsung was making smartphones back in 2001, when Apple was trying to figure out how to copy Creative's MP3 player. Apple may have complained about Samsung copying the iPhone for a later line of smartphones, but Samsung was one of the early pioneers in the smartphone space, well before Apple even thought about getting into the space.

So Samsung has been making mobile phones for a while. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G. Here's a graphic that kind of says it all: http://allthingsd.com/files/20... I saw one of the first Android prototypes too. It was a half screen and half keyboard affair that was clearly meant to be a Blackberry killer. Nobody took Apple seriously as a phone manufacturer, they all figured Apple would bring out some kind of glorified iPod with a keypad. When the iPhone hit the market everybody went back to the drawing board and the next thing you know they're all, by some cosmic coincidence, selling phones that look like more or less exactly like the iPhone. But of course none of them copied what Apple was doing ... perish the thought.

That's my reaction, also.

The article is poorly edited: "Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million...". The numbers should be reversed. When the editing is that sloppy, can we depend on other information being accurate?

Also, the article does not tell the full story. For example: "Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November."

During that 3 years, Mozilla was dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft paid Yahoo to use Microsoft's Bing search. Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox browser use "Yahoo Search", which was actually Microsoft Bing search.

A repost of part of a previous comment:

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged in several ways, apparently deliberately. For example, file saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Mozilla Foundation said it will no longer improve the Thunderbird email client. Is that because Microsoft wants more customers for Microsoft products like Outlook? Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?

One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!

Mozilla Foundation could be far better at communicating with users. Basically, however, Mozilla Foundation does what big corporations want, apparently. Now that Google is paying Microsoft huge amounts again, will the Firefox browser continue to improve in some ways, but continue to be degraded in others, as in losing important add-ons?

A long time ago, I tried the Google Chrome browser. It installed 3 system services. Google had more control over my computer than me as a limited user!!

In my view, the 3 years of Microsoft paying Mozilla Foundation were 3 years of destructiveness in numerous ways.

Should a United Nations agency demand that browsers not be abusive? That is a world-class goal.

One AC comment about Microsoft: Microsoft's a blight, stuffing ballots, poisoning standardization processes, bribing decision makers, spying on users and using their market power to sell inferior products. Your typical big-corp sociopathic behaviour.

One of the many, many stories about poor management

We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?

One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

It'd be nice if TFS explained why I should give a shit; I'm not going to bother with TFA if the poster couldn't be bothered to say who Walt Mossberg is.

It's a bit sad that people on a tech-site don't know who Walt Mossberg is, but I suppose that is probably why you posted AC.

Perhaps that isn't something that interests the pure techie, but reviews of mainstream tech gear and trends in mainstream publications (like the WSJ) really used to make or break companies. For example, one thing contributing to millions of folks plunkog down hard money for the first iPhone would be a positive review about it in a WSJ publication. The mainstreaming of the computer and handheld revolution basically moved the tech industry from the obscure backroom machine to the common household product and in his position, he probably got a front row seat.

Marissa Mayer strikes again, lol what a tech visionary huh?

For those struggling to make sense of the above comment

Good question: How does Mozilla Foundation spend $300,000,000 each year?

I understand that Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. That means Microsoft gets more money from advertisers when Firefox users do a search.

Firefox is now, apparently, mostly controlled by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

The browser situation is very, very ugly.

Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number. Even the badly managed Mozilla Foundation puts the Firefox version number into the file name. (But the file names for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Firefox are the same.)

An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services. Google has more control over computers than limited rights users. Is Google paid by the U.S. government to include software to control computers?

I would like Slashdot stories about:

1) The fact that most people aren't technically involved enough to know that their Firefox browser search was hijacked by Microsoft, or how to change back to Google search.

2) Bad and sneaky management. One of the many examples: Microsoft will make more money if it arranges that people are discouraged from using the Firefox browser. Another example: Why was this pastebin script removed?

3) Counteracting abuse. We need stories about web sites like this:

Remove spyware in Windows 10.

Disabling Windows 10 Tracking.

Destroy Windows Spying - Windows spying removal tool.

4) How do download a Windows 10 ISO file: Windows 10 Tech Bench Upgrade Program.

Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number. Even the badly managed Mozilla Foundation puts the Firefox version number into the file name. (But the file names for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Firefox are the same.)

An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services. Google has more control over computers than limited rights users. Is Google paid by the U.S. government to include software to control computers?

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

Is Pale Moon fixed? I don't see any mention of that.

We switched to Pale Moon and are now not having problems with the instability of Firefox when there are many windows and tabs open. Since Pale Moon is based on Firefox, most of the Firefox add-ons work.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

A few of the many, many articles about abuse by Microsoft:

Microsoft has no plans to tell us what's in Windows patches. Each update is a black box, and it's going to stay that way.

Leaks show that Microsoft writes release notes, so why can't it publish them? The lack of documentation of Windows' updates is a baffling move on Microsoft's part.

Microsoft's Software is Malware. Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user.

How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again?

NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered

Microsoft Gave the NSA Direct Backdoor Access to Outlook, Skype

Microsoft [lack of] Privacy Statement

Here's how to Block Windows 10 "Spying"

Really think of Carrier IQ, think of its ability to capture everything you do from key presses to app usage to files, to log everything. That is still present on every handset

Except iPhones for the last ~4 years.

http://allthingsd.com/20111201...

Until then, practice safe browsing, use ad block......even if you like to support websites by looking at their ads, it's not worth the risk right now.

Good advice, but I think the flaw (if you can call it that) in the proposal will be convincing people to stop using ad blockers when (ha!) it's safe to do so after they've seenthe difference an ad-free Internet makes to the experience and got used to it. Still, that's going to be a problem for the advertising companies and content providers to solve, and since the longer they wait before fixing the problem with malvertising the harder it will be to fix the effects of that foot dragging it's a classic case of reaping what you sow, so screw 'em. If they want to try and destroy their entire industry, I certainly don't have a problem with that.

Is Microsoft intentionally destroying Firefox? Microsoft pays to have Bing search be the default search engine in newer versions of Firefox. That viciously destructive dishonesty is causing people who don't know how to re-configure Firefox to abandon Firefox. Version changes should NOT cause configuration changes.

Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Firefox should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

"remember back when Google used to be behind Firefox?"

Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

"Police said the investigation is in its early stages, but that the pipe may have been vandalized by thieves looking to steal metal."

Naw, it was a botched NSA tapping operation gone wrong link

Actually, it is not. "Their" USB VID/PID can legally be used by anybody, it just means that the USB logo may not be used. AFAIK (and just checked on some FT232 I have), there is no USB logo on these chips.

Oh really? Not according to this FAQ:

Because a USB VID is specific to a particular organization, derivatives shouldn’t use the VID and PID of the original hardware.

Regardless of the fact that it may be legal for others to do so, it's unethical and clearly misrepresentation. It's like when Palm tried to use the USB VID of Apple so iTunes would think the Palm Pre was an iPhone - great for Pre users until that causes crashes or data corruption for users and Apple could be held liable.

Rightly so, Palm was slapped down for their "reuse" of Apple's VID.

Yahoo treats their employees like garbage. To wit, Yahoo uses "stacked ratings" which results in backstabbing and good employees getting fired.

When Yahoo's employees are spending all their time making sure someone else gets fired when the next employee reviews are made, instead of actually being able to do their job, it comes as no surprise that basic crap like updating security on servers falls by the wayside.

The only report I was able to find with real numbers estimated kindle sales at 20.5 million:

http://allthingsd.com/20131212...

The reason your example works out like that is the channels have equal costs, which is unrealistic.

Let's say channel 1 costs $80/subscriber and channel 2 costs $20. So the total is still $100 with 2 subscribers.

Now they unbundle. A, which likes channel 1, now pays $160/month. B pays only $40/month.

My example is taking advantage of the difference between popularity (50% each) and cost (80% vs 20%). Perhaps in real life, the channel which costs $20 would only get 20% of the subscribers, in which case they'd still have to pay $100. However, I suspect in real life there are many channels that have broad appeal and lower than average costs. For instance there are many channels more popular than ESPN that cost a lot less. For instance, according to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn... last month TNT, USA, TBS, History Channel, and Fox News were more popular than ESPN. But according to http://allthingsd.com/20100308... the costs are:
ESPN - $4.08
TNT - $0.99
Fox News - $0.58
USA - $0.55
TBS - $0.49
History - $0.22

HGTV, which is right after ESPN in April ratings, costs only $0.14.

So what would probably happen in the unbundled case is that enough people would subscribe to these channels that costs would approximately double. (I'm guessing this since I read that about 60% of the country watches ESPN, and these channels are about as popular). I would definitely pay $0.44/month for the History Channel because I like some of their shows (Pawn Stars, American Restoration, Vikings). At $1/month I might even pick up Fox News, and USA. I'm not sure about TNT and TBS. I would definitely not get ESPN.

Where the consumer gets screwed with a la carte pricing is the fixed costs of the cable company, into which I'm also categorizing current profit level (since cable companies aren't going to move to a la carte if it means less overall profit, regardless of margin).

Let's say today I pay $100/month for cable TV, of which $25 is fixed costs, $25 is profit, and $50 is content. The new model would be $25 for fixed costs, $25 for profit, and then whatever channels I want. So my minimum monthly bill is still $50 even for a single channel, which is ridiculous. Maybe I end up with 20 channels for $20/month, so my total bill is $70. I'm saving money, but only 30% for giving up 95% of the channels. And it would be sad because while I didn't pick up TNT, I would miss their showing of the Christmas Story or whatever in December. There would be a bunch of those lost opportunities, just to save $30. And the old system is no longer available to me, because buying all the channels would now cost $150 instead of $100.

But who knows, perhaps the cheap channels would be cheap enough that lots of people would subscribe even though they don't watch. When you're talking about channels costing $0.20/month or less, it's like "why not" except for channels you really, really don't have any interest in.

Not correct. There is both a secondary offering from Facebook and a sale by Zuck and some of the other Facebook officers.

http://allthingsd.com/20131219/facebook-and-mark-zuckerberg-sell-and-so-does-wall-street/

> I wonder what the other shareholders in FB feel about the issue of 18 million shares of stock without renumeration as it will water down their EPS and stock value

Facebook stock is down 4% today. However on the year it has more than doubled. Most investors would be happy I think. Short term traders (who are not investors) not so much.

The TorrentFreak "article" you referenced is just quoting the BoingBoing article, so that's the same source. And NEITHER of them actually asked Amazon about it, they just took the word of a user, who took the word of a random customer care person. It's amazing how many people seem to think customer care (usually low paid outsourced phone support people working from a script) somehow are "what a company tells the customer" like it's somehow the official and unerring policy statement of a $100B business.

The Guardian, on the other hand, actually asked Amazon. So did AllThingsD and Ars Technica who both confirmed it was a mistake (and according to AllThingsD has already been fixed).

That's the difference between journalism and blogging. Some journalists actually do some research instead of reposting 2nd hand rumors without confirmation. Sort of like your post vs. mine, in fact ;)

Um, if you want define "mistake" as "making lots of money", then yeah, they made a "mistake". If you look at usage stats though what you see is a very different picture. For instance, iPhones still dominate in mobile web usage, as well as app usage etc.

No it doesn't. Those stats are for iOS (iPhone + iPad) vs Android phones and tablets. And it's only for wifi traffic. On web traffic over cellular networks, Android devices generate slightly more traffic than iOS devices. Basically your link cherry-picked the one chart favorable to iOS.

If you limit the comparison to just iPhone vs Android phones, Android generates more web traffic. And before you pull out the NetMarketShare data showing iPhone still leading: (1) NetMarketShare gets data from only a few tens of thousands of sites, while StatCounter gets its data from millions of sites. And (2) NetMarketShare's figures are normalized to unique visitors per month. i.e. Someone who visits a site once in a month counts as much as someone who uses the site every day. StatCounter counts web hits, so is measuring actual web usage rather than counting number of users. In other words, more iPhone users browse the web on their phone than Android users, but they don't do much browsing. The hardcore phone browser users are on Android and they generate more web traffic than the larger number of iPhone users who use the browser..

Basically the only lead Apple still has is the iPad in the tablet market, and it's rapidly losing that too. Their share of quarterly tablet sales dropped from a commanding 60% in 2012 to 33% in 2Q2013, and now 29% in 3Q2013. Those are quarterly sales, so iPads probably still comprise the majority of tablets in use, which match with your initial stats showing iOS dominating in wifi-based web traffic.

"The only facts are that Apple can read iMessages, and that this was always well known and obvious."

Well, except that they can't, and never did.

http://allthingsd.com/20131018/apple-no-we-cant-read-your-imessages/

Now I'm sure you will choose not to believe this, but think for a minute ... just how much trouble do you think Apple would be in if they are lying about this and get caught at it? Not even a stupid company would take such a chance, and Apple ain't stupid.

I'm sorry, but part of your comment is just plain wrong. Firstly, Apple is not collecting your fingerprint, only something similar to a hash of the fingerprint's characteristics. Secondly, it isn't shared with anyone. Thirdly, the explicitly state in this article that your actual fingerprint can not be reverse engineered from the data the store on the phone.

In addition to this, the NYPD's stated reason for pushing the iPhone 5s is that it makes iPhone theft a thing of the past, which it clearly, demonstrably does. The link you posted saying NYPD is after the fingerprints is clearly, demonstrably false. Now, I'm sure you can find folks that say something different, but I can also show you pictures of Obama shaking hands with space aliens - you can find anything you like, but it doesn't make it true.

Finally, Apple (and Google) outright deny sharing data with the NSA.

You can continue to believe that they are sharing if you like, but stating that they have admitted they are sharing is incorrect.

Oh, in this case, here's a web link with a study and citations. :)

http://allthingsd.com/20130426/androids-leaky-bucket-loyalty-gives-apple-the-edge-over-time/

> The web is no longer an open medium designed to be usable by anyone with any browser.

I don't understand how this changes anything. Aren't there already plug-ins and even HTML5/Javascript/CSS features that are browser or platform specific? If this gets adopted, will there be more or less content available in-browser? Most media services want to maximize their addressable user base, not minimize it, so interoperability is in their interest.

As far as this being a corner case, maybe you have not seen the recent numbers on internet traffic (yes I know internet != web, but this is what people are doing). See: http://allthingsd.com/20130514/netflix-still-eats-a-third-of-the-web-every-night-amazon-hbo-and-hulu-trail-behind/

I think this is a reasonable application of the 80/20 rule: as media consumption becomes the 80%, browsers want to continue playing a central role, and that will be made easier by this.

Replying to myself, but just to prove the theory .... even huge companies are going this route.

http://www.citeworld.com/social/21940/salesforce-chatter-communities-hp
http://allthingsd.com/20130319/seven-questions-for-the-man-shaking-up-hps-operations-john-hinshaw/

http://allthingsd.com/20130824/beyond-monkey-boy-its-a-steve-ballmer-quote-tacular/

On iPods (2006): "No, I do not [have an iPod]. Nor do my children. My children - in many dimensions theyâ(TM)re as poorly behaved as many other children, but at least on this dimension I've got my kids brainwashed - you don't use Google and you don't use an iPod"

On Android (2011): "You don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone. I think you do to use an Android phone ... It is hard for me to be excited about the Android phones"

On the iPhone (2007): "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item"

On Linux (2001): "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"

On the iPhone once again (2007): "$500, fully subsidized, with a plan! That is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers, because it doesn't have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine"

And, a vid, for all to enjoy ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

NZ banned software patents the same way they're banned in Europe i.e Not really.

Meantime we see patent lawsuits going to places like UK and Germany because they give judgements and injunctions even faster than rocket dockets like East Texas. See Motorola vs. Microsoft on H.264 patents on Windows 7 for example, or Apple vs. Samsung/HTC etc.

If those are not software patents then what are?

http://allthingsd.com/20120502/german-court-backs-motorolas-injunction-against-microsoft/

You said it yourself, the phone came out 5 years ago. The latest software that runs on it is the version that came out nearly 3 years ago (4.2.1, released November 2010). You're delirious if you think that's worth anything as trade-in.

...and was sold until September 2012, and struggled with Apples latest software. Customers measure from time of purchase as does all consumer law. http://allthingsd.com/20120913/iphone-3gs-takes-a-dirt-nap/?mod=atdtweet. It sounds like customers who bought older...but still sold iphones have no resale value, and short support cycles.

The Department of Homeland Security and FBI.

The Tesla is a hot commodity, for now.

I bet the same has been said about numerous luxury car manufacturers, and the latest numbers say he's outselling them. Those other manufacturers have managed to stick around for a while, what makes you think Tesla's on the way out?

I can't help but feel that you've been a bit out of touch with the market, since you've got facts wrong on both sides.

First off, a correction in favor of Android and Samsung:

There's a great deal of hardware competition in Android phones, which means no one manufacturer does the kind of volume Apple does

Contrary to your statement, Samsung's volume is FAR greater than Apple's, though it's also split up over a greater number of models. As of April, they ship almost 2x as much, in fact. I do seem to recall seeing that the latest iPhone remains the most popular smartphone with the major carriers in the U.S., but if we're considering all smartphones sold, rather than just what's the single most popular model, and look at it on a global scale, Samsung is well ahead of Apple in terms of volume sold.

And then, an answer to your rhetorical question that seems to be contrary to what you expected:

Are they [Apple] making the vast majority of money?

Last quarter (i.e. launch quarter for Samsung's flagship Galaxy S4) Apple only managed to bring in a paltry 57% of the profits in the global smartphone industry, with Samsung taking 43% (well, technically, LG came in at a hair under 1% if you look into the numbers carefully, but they got rounded out in most of the articles on the subject). Every other smartphone player is either break-even or losing money. The reason I call it "paltry" is because it's actually down from their high the previous year when they managed to capture 74% of the profits, leaving Samsung with 23%, HTC with 1%, and the rest at break-even or a loss. So, yes, to say the least, they are making the vast majority of money, though it's certainly not as vast as it was last year, since the gap has shrunk from 51% to 14%, mostly because Samsung has been doing very well and Apple has cut their profit margins by putting out devices with higher production costs (the iPhone 5 is notorious for being difficult to manufacture due to issues such as its micron-level tolerances during manufacturing and assembly).

Anyway, there's definitely an argument to be made that the cheaper Android phones are winning massive amounts of market share, but it's like the old joke about the shop owners who are losing money on every sale but plan to make up for it on volume. The only winners in this are the ones selling the "high-spec" phones. The rest are trying to buy their way into third place and are paying for it out the nose.

I am not going to reply to this thread any longer as it is detrimental to my health. btw mossberg provided evidence to back up my argument in a recent review: http://allthingsd.com/20130618/power-testing-can-two-new-laptops-really-last-all-day/?mod=atd_reviewbox

Apple, Google, and Facebook have all denied involvement in this. While this does not entirely preclude their involvement, these three companies, much like the government, tend to keep their mouths shut when they're caught with their pants down. Their denial, therefore, should carry at least some weight.

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD.

http://allthingsd.com/20130604/samsung-wins-import-ban-against-older-iphones-ipads/

I can't imagine them saying it without at least some irony in their voice. Seriously though, Apple has all but confirmed that they're violating patents for various reasons (e.g. FRAND terms were not offered) and has always been rather blasé about much of this stuff, while Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple (before Apple, a number of their designs ripped off Blackberry and others), sometimes doing so rather shamelessly yet denying it entirely.

And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway, since sixty days will get us darn close to the post-back-to-school time when Apple typically announces new versions of their devices anyway, including the heavily rumored low-cost iPhone that will be replacing the iPhone 4 (quick note: this injunction only applies to the iPhone 4 model used by AT&T, apparently, since the iPhone 4 had different chipsets for GSM and CDMA in all but one of the models (the late-released white iPhone 4)), and a new version of the iPad and iPad mini, which will be obviating the need to keep the iPad 2 in the lineup.

So, kudos to Samsung for winning a victory where one was deserved, but in the end, it's all just more of the same.

Yeah, it is. PC sales have been flat to negative since the iPad came out.

http://allthingsd.com/20130304/another-annual-decline-for-pc-sales/

I googled: galaxy s4 teardown
And I found this:
http://allthingsd.com/20130508/samsung-galaxy-s4-costs-237-to-build-teardown-analysis-shows/

Another example of why you should Google things before you post.

Note all this discussion of "revenue" rather than "profits"...

Because that is the right metric, because it shows growth, which is kind of what you want in a acquisition, In reality a company already serving web content should absorb all the costs, your right they could buy bonds...or lottery cards with the money, but they seem to be sensibly buying a company where they already have in house expertise, is aligned with their business model, is growing (in a market that is growing)...and has the potential for exponential growth.

In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/03/google-inc-goog-youtube/ [valuewalk.com] $45.7 Billion Ironically in the context of this article Google outbid Yahoo. In terms of numbers http://allthingsd.com/20100319/the-numbers-behind-the-worlds-fastest-growing-web-site-youtubes-finances-revealed/ [allthingsd.com] youtube revenue for the year before the sale to Google was $15,057 (whole making losses of hundreds of thousands each month)

There are problems but those are nothing to do with the figures...acquisitions often take time to merge successfully if at all. The fact that there is incredible competition from known established large companies (Youtube;Netflix Amazon etc)...with others controlling the ecosystems (Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft), and more.

I wish people would stop looking at financial figures in isolation..its just stupid.

The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).

Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.

This acquisition is massive folly!

I am sick of this back of a fag packet figure being banged around. In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/03/google-inc-goog-youtube/ $45.7 Billion Ironically in the context of this article Google outbid Yahoo. In terms of numbers http://allthingsd.com/20100319/the-numbers-behind-the-worlds-fastest-growing-web-site-youtubes-finances-revealed/ youtube revenue for the year before the sale to Google was $15,057 (whole making losses of hundreds of thousands each month)

I have no idea whether this is a good deal. But these figures are not of relevance.

Stop cutting a pasting from other sites and think for yourself (registering would be a good start too)

Except that wasn't the case here.

http://allthingsd.com/video/?video_id=60C4F9FA-9AD5-4D04-8BB6-015AEBB1C052

1. So they can sell the right to install an app on a phone that a consumer can't get rid of. 2. So they can set up "app stores" that collect a significant cut of whatever the user wants to buy. 3. So they can prevent third parties from creating and selling alternative services to their own products that are cheaper and/or better.

While I fully agree that those 3 items are not in the best interest of the customer, I can say that they also aren't "that bad". What you're forgetting is the fact that the average American would rather have ads or extra apps on their phones than pay more money. If you doubt that, let's look at the Kindle. According to Bezos, “No one really buys the non-special offers version,” So if Amazon gives people the choice and very few people pay the extra money to avoid the ads, why so angry at the carriers for forcing the choice on people?

I see this comment all the time: "Microsoft has the money and revenue streams to play the long game, to make bold bets, to stick it out. Early days yet."

Well, yes, Microsoft has a lot of money offshore and a lot of money coming in. But they don't have infinite money. The offshore money isn't "real" until they bring it home to spend and take a 40% haircut on it. They're sinking two billion a year into Bing and the rest of OSD, a billion into Nokia, billions in marketing to get their mobile business off the ground and pretend W8 is going super, and tens of billions in share buybacks and dividends to prop up their stock price, tens of billions a year in failed acquisitions. In the wise words of Bill Gates: "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money." It is not an inexhaustible spigot. They can "fail" every so often but once in a while they have to "win". They ain't been winning new money for a long time now.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to derail your conversation. But when I see this so idly said it makes me sad that so much money is being burned in a hopeless cause when I know what an able, competent, intelligent and compassionate man could do with it.

Bill, you're smoking crack and you've missed the boat again.

From the article http://allthingsd.com/20091005/while-fanboys-breathlessly-await-steve-jobs-apple-itab-they-should-probably-thank-bill-gates-too/ "Way back in the fall of 2001, when BoomTown was but a less-aged version of myself, I attended a keynote speech at the now-defunct Comdex show in Las Vegas, where Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates continued to bang the drum for one of his long-running obsessions: The tablet computer.

“The tablet takes cutting-edge PC technology and makes it available whenever you want it, which is why I’m already using a tablet as my everyday computer,” Gates said at the time to the audience gathered at the MGM Grand Garden Arena. “It’s a PC that is virtually without limits and within five years I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America.”"

Ironically Bill Gates say the future...he built the damn boat, ironically in the context of this article he just hitched it up to windows;intel...and in context of this article Office.

Well the only lead that matters to people seeking a profit, is the willingness of people to spend money.

Android users don't spend money

http://www.eweek.com/cloud/apple-app-store-revenue-dwarfs-android-app-store-sales-report/

Or even surf the web as often as iOS users:

http://allthingsd.com/20130403/safari-still-winning-the-mobile-browser-war/

sure walled gardens have their pros and cons.. but the Play store would also SUCK if they let developers pay for placement

http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-appgratis-out-of-the-store-for-being-too-pushy/
"In other words, app-discovery platforms built on paid recommendations aren’t going to fly with Apple."

"app discovery" is different than "app PR" how exactly?
some PR firms are into sketchy shit: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1946230/gaming-the-app-store

The article you linked states that though Apple had the lion's share of revenue from priced applications, Google Play Store had more total downloads, paid and free, than downloads from Apple, Microsoft, and RIM stores combined. (Conspicuous by its absence from the article is Amazon, but that's beside my point.)

Let me take a guess as to why Google wins downloads while Apple wins revenue. Apple never launched the iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad in a given country without support for iTunes payment. Google, on the other hand, chose to allow sales of devices with Android Market (now Play) in some countries to which it hadn't yet launched Checkout (now Wallet). To reach customers in those countries, developers had to make their applications available without charge and recoup their expenses through advertising. This set up an expectation among Android users that applications would have an ad-supported version.

Or another guess is that Android users are cheap....

http://allthingsd.com/20110527/android-users-like-apps-but-dont-like-paying-for-them/

http://gigaom.com/2012/11/26/why-are-android-users-less-engaged-than-ios-users/

Didn't Rovio claim to earn more from advertisements in ad-supported versions of Angry Birds than from sale of priced versions?

Rovio:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/angry-birds-exec-calls-android-too-complex-iphone-no-1-125769

Why? Apple has "gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots."

Android, too, is growing, he said, "But it's also growing complexity at the same time."

"While there are many devices and carriers that use Android, "device fragmentation (is) not the issue," Vesterbacka said, "but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem. So many different shops, so many different models. The carriers messing with the experience again. Open but not really open, a very Google-centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesnâ(TM)t work on Android.""

It also doesn't say how much Yahoo paid. They probably offered the teenager some Funyons and an official Marissa Mayer signed poster.

Somewhere along the lines of $30 million. Seriously. http://allthingsd.com/20130325/yahoo-acquires-hipster-mobile-news-reader-summly-like-we-said-it-might/

That's funny. I've been using Evernote since 2005.

That can definitely be true. Even so, there are still a number of folks here who are good about listening to reason on both sides, which is one of the reasons I like Slashdot and its community still. Facts are still facts, after all, and even though I'm an Apple fanboy, I do my best to avoid being a rabid one that responds without thinking critically (cue the tired joke about all Apple fans being brainless sheep), and likewise, there are a number of folks on the other side who are perfectly reasonable.

Just as I can readily acknowledge and agree that Apple has a number of faults and has done a lot of bad things (e.g. engage in frivolous lawsuits, pursue patents far too aggressively, blatantly rip-off competitors (including one-man shops with great ideas, such as what they did with Sherlock, Dashboard, and their Notification Center), etc.), I'd hope that most Samsung fans would be willing to do the same for their company of choice (e.g. understand that the company is involved in some extremely shady business dealings, such as passing millions of dollars worth of cash under the table to South Korean politicians, political candidates, and court officials; using their government and corporate ties to enforce censorship against journalists trying to bring light to their activities; engaging in large-scale nepotism; having their chairman's house raided for tax evasion and financial wrongdoing related to the slush funds; and then later having their chairmen's sentence and prison time pardoned by the government so that he could help with their bid for the Olympics, not to mention some of the funnier things they've done). And I'd hope that folks on both sides could acknowledge the areas that the companies share as problems, such as working conditions at their factories, which have been steadily improving, but which still have a way to go.

"Data-driven" decisions don't help if you weren't doing it right in the first place.

Where Yahoo seems to have failed is in execution, [management consultant Kate] Lister says.

“If they have no idea what their remote workers are doing, they’re obviously not managing by results. Perhaps it’s a function of their rapid growth. Perhaps they failed to teach their managers how to manage,” she argues. “The execution failed, not the concept.”

And was this really a strategic move? Recruiter Steven Levy thinks it was more of an “executive temper tantrum” than an informed decision.

"Call us Marissa - we can help"