Slashdot Mirror

Correct. The big design concerns (and eventual failure points) in pumps, and even fans, are bearings and rotating seals. But there are already implantable heart pumps which rely on the principles of active magnetic levitation to remove the need for contact bearings. See this article for an example.

--
Coder? Want to learn electronics? Microcontroller kits.

Microsoft had a stand-out first quarter.

Each of the company's five business divisions showed double-digit revenue growth.

That was particularly important in the Client Div., the group where Microsoft counts Windows sales. There, revenue jumped 25%, to $4.1 billion, an astonishing gain for a mature market Microsoft Results Turn Heads

Retail sales of Office 2007 have been breathtaking, numbers so big that they are difficult to grasp:

Through end of November, U.S. retail PC software sales are up 10.3 percent year over year as measured in dollar volume...By comparison, Office sales are up 50.7 percent, by the same measure and in the same time frame.

"Here's the really interesting statistic," said...NPD's director of Software Industry Analysis. "Over two-thirds of the dollar volume growth in the U.S. retail PC software market in 2007 can be attributed to Microsoft Office. In other words, the ratio of Office dollar growth to total PC software growth is 67 percent."

The "magnitude of Office sales relative to the rest of the PC software market" is phenomenal, "It's the massively huge tail wagging the dog. If the senior execs at Best Buy, Office Depot, etc. don't buy Jeff Raikes [president of Microsoft's Business division] a beer the next time he's in town, something is seriously wrong." The Year of Office 2007

Microsoft hasn't forgotten the Mac. From the same story:

For Black Friday, Microsoft offered a surprising deal: for about 56 bucks, after rebates, Office 2004 Student and Teacher Edition and the forthcoming Office 2008 Special Media Edition. The new, top-of-the-line Mac Office version would otherwise sell for about $500.

As measured in dollars, U.S. retail Black Friday sales of Mac Office were up 215.8 percent.

Nah, Toyota don't need their innovation. They already own Daihatsu, one of the leading makers of kei class mini cars in Japan. They're limited to 660cc, three cylinders 64 hp, and limited length and width, and they're very popular because of lower tax rates (and crowded cities). Base prices are usually around 1,000,000 Yen.

Suzuki is actually the leading seller, and they have one of the cheapest, the Kei A for 760,000 Yen. So just over $7,000 for a mini car made in Japan with a 55hp engine. TFA says Maruti Suzuki sells a competing 800 mini car in India for $4,800. It looks like a rebadged Suzuki Alto made in India. Some of that difference comes from production costs and some from cheaper equipment like a 800cc, 37 hp engine. It'll still take some serious corner cutting to get that down to $2,500, but it could be done especially if you're starting from a clean sheet and disregarding Japanese safety and emissions standards.

• 33 HP 660 cc gas engine. Also a 700 cc diesel option. (4)
• 80 mph top speed (4)
• single windshield wiper blade as a "cost-saving measure"(2)
• Four doors (4)
• 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) per liter. Call it 60 mpg using company supplied numbers(3)
• Picture here maybe with an scanned in article about it listing engine options

Problem is, the numbers don't add up. Given the decision to set up shop in high-rent districts in Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, and Jobs's hometown of Palo Alto, Calif., the leases for Apple's stores could cost $1.2 million a year each, says David A. Goldstein, president of researcher Channel Marketing Corp. Since PC retailing gross margins are normally 10% or less, Apple would have to sell $12 million a year per store to pay for the space. Gateway does about $8 million annually at each of its Country Stores. Then there's the cost of construction, hiring experienced staff. "I give them two years before they're turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake," says Goldstein.

who agree to a salary of $1 (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P143257.asp/) to serve as CEO with the rest of their compensation being based on the performance of the company's stock?

Yeah, any company who'd hire a CEO like that is just going to go from bad (1996 http://www.businessweek.com/1996/07/b346257.htm/) to worse (2007 http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/AppleProfitSoars.aspx/.

Can't go on faith alone but his background is impressive. You have to question things to educate yourself about changes that can effect people.

investing.businessweek.com

Do some research on the past 3 years with Delta and it does show somewhat a positive revue of his involvement with that company. Like I said, I'm impressed.

I've always had a positive view of Red Hat. They were consistent when it came to how they handled their updates. All in all Red Hat has done a lot for the community and they have been extremely consistent. They can be slow at times but IMHO they are the most consistent, fastest and stable Linux distro out there. They even stood firm with their convictions when the deal between MS and Novell went down. All around these guys have done more for Linux than any distro out there. It sounds like flamebait, especially here on /. but it's what I believe, take it or leave it.

In his book, 'The Innovator's Dilemma' http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/christensen.htm , Clayton Christensen points out that disruptive technologies often/usually are invented by large entrenched companies. They can't take advantage of the technology because their business practices prevent it. It makes sense that an employee, familiar with the work, would start a company that could take advantage of the new technology.

Viewed in this light, the old entrenched companies are the dog in the manger. They can't take advantage of the technology they invented, because they can't make enough money on it to cover their overhead, but they sure don't want anyone else to develop it. Non-compete contracts are one way to make sure that doesn't happen.

Take for instance BBC: It is a public funded news organisation and is the exact opposite of FOX. So BBC has no incentive to like corporate-sponsored candidates and they can actually be true reporters.

Right.

Got any more like that? Ah, yes you do!

Take France: They always hate monopolies, hate corporatocracy, hate anything US-mass made. So for them to rule against Apple is understandable.

That must be why their economy is going like gangbusters, providing gobs of opportunity for young people.

EU is mostly pro-consumer and is not awed by corporate money power primarily because EU member presidents and parliments are funded by taxes and public funds, and not by corporates directly.

Right.

I know this is slashdot. But Soviet-style bureaucracy (soon to be more) and economic despair are rather a high price to pay for unlocked phones.

Being some random griefer who sends flying phallic objects across the Metaverse doesn't make you an expert in anything except flying genitals. So let's step through your insolent propaganda point by point.

1. "...they're [sex and money] the only reasons anyone uses it [Second Life], despite claims to the contrary by media-whorish Linden Labs."
   Perhaps you're not aware of the number of corporate entities using Second Life, not even for direct profit, but simply as a platform to deliver product information, such as Sun Microsystems, or the educational institutions using it as part of a prototype distance learning initiative, such as Bowling Green State University. Maybe you're not aware of the high-profile full-time businesses in Second Life, or the many, many articles reputable business publications have written noting the unique opportunities that exist in SL. There's much more than just sex and money. As in real life, there is entertainment, education, experimentation and economy. You know little about these because you spend all your time making the experience inconvenient for others.
2. "A bank called "Ginko" that recently went insolvent sent shockwaves through the economy lately."
   This was no surprise to anyone not stupid.
3. "As the Linden (the currency of Second Life) is not based on anything, Linden Labs simply dumps currency into the market whenever they feel like it."
   A quick look through the SL Economy metrics and blogs shows you're full of it. There is an actual regulation to the currency in SL, you're just ignorant of it.
4. [Your last statements]
   Again, your ignorance shines through. Do you do any investing in the real world? Do you know what happens when you invest 100k in prime real estate in California and an earthquake devastates it? Unless you took out insurance of some kind with an organization who certainly makes more than they will ever put out (on a sidenote, there are investement insurers in SL), you are SOL. Linden is careful to use the terminology "unit of trade" for the Linden dollar, because the Metaverse is not a seperate governmental body, has no legal jurisdiction in the real world, and wants to avoid the IRS putting their grubby mitts any further in. If you are foolish enough to make an unwise investment in SL, then, just as in real life, you learn that a fool and his money are soon parted.

In conclusion, please know what the hell you're talking about before you respond. And stop griefing the Metaverse, it's obnoxious.

In the article, Cringely claims he has predicted for weeks that Apple may bid for spectrum.

Ok, did he predict it before business week did? http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc20070910_014733.htm

Nice of him to try to come off as a genius when basically he lifts other people's predictions or states the obvious and then acts like he's nostradamus.

He's ANNOYING.

Ah but you'ld only have an ordinary hammer. The professional military will always have the advantage because their hammer's cost 600 buck's

You should all be so lucky.

The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook.

The thing that articles like this neglect to mention is that kids lie on their profiles and chats. Here's an article from "Business Week" about "Marketing to Teens Online". One of the reasons they give for kids lying is "Kids also lie on the Web to avoid creepy predators. One parent told me her 13-year-old son's MySpace profile says he's 26 and married with two kids. Teens, sometimes with parental encouragement, will give this type of false information because they don't want to be bothered by adults looking to chat it up with children."

Here.

*cough*Bullshit*cough*Bullshit*

Walmart average wage is $9.68/hr. Costco's average is $16.

Walmart: only 38% of nonsupervisory staff has health care. Walmart dumps its employee health care on the state health care system.
Costco: 85% of employee's are covered. Costco offers part-time employees partial coverage. There is even a test program to offer a health care plan to self employed customers.

On a per store basis Costco does double that of Walmart
"Wal-Mart operates 5,332 stores with annual sales of $288 billion, or $54 million per store. Costco has 452 stores with annual sales of $48 billion, or $106 million per store."

Costco's turnover is about 1/3 of Walmarts.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005107_6620.htm

The Costco Mission Statement
1)Obey the law.
2)Take care of our members.
3)Take care of our employees.
4)Respect our vendors.
5)Reward our shareholders.

Walmart does not even have a official mission statement

(disclaimer: I work for Costco)

Sure Google has a lot of ad revenue but its got competition by the "anti-Google" doubleclick.net

So, you haven't heard that Google acquired doubleclick?

I hate ads and most people (who know a thing about technology) use ad-block or have custom CSS to block ads

I haven't heard of custom CSS blocking ads, then again I use a Hosts file to block ads, along with any other website I want to block.

I just posted this to the Byte Of The Apple blog at BusinessWeek.com in response. - AAH

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2007/11/apple_adobe_umm.html

Apple has $15.4 billion in cash, and as of today's closing price Adobe is worth nearly twice that at $27.5 billion. An Apple takeover would have to include a fair premium on top of that, which would make such a deal worth more than $30 billion easy.

The only way Apple could do it would be to issue stock, which would dilute its value, or take on debt. (Imagine a really big credit card.) And? Apple's stock on such a huge deal would be, um, Applesauce. Investors would flee. They usually do when big acquisitions are announced because they inject uncertainty, and investor hate uncertainty, and let's face it, Apple's on a very solid growth footing right now.

Here's the other problem: Platform Mix. As recently as 2005, the most recent year that Adobe broke the figure out, 75% of its revenue came from the Windows platform, and I'd venture to guess that that figure is about the same if slightly lower now. Watts is suggesting that an Apple-controlled Adobe would be able to encourage Windows users to switch favoring the Mac version of Adobe products, "while letting Windows versions trail behind."

Imagine buying a very expensive car, say a Jaguar, and then taking out its engine and replacing it with an inferior one. Not only have you made your car crappy to drive for yourself, but you've reduced its value substantially. Buying Adobe (which now owns Macromedia remember) and then hobbling the part of the business that brings in two-thirds to three-quarters of its revenue is a very bad business idea, and terrible way to squander Apple's hard-earned cash stockpile.

Sorry Brandon. Good idea? No.

Apple should buy Sony. Apple should buy Sun. Apple should buy SGI. Apple should buy Alias Research. Apple should buy Nintendo. Apple should buy AMD. Apple should buy PortalPlayer. Apple should buy Pixo. Apple should buy Palm. Apple should buy into the 700 MHz spectrum. Apple should buy Pixar. Apple should buy Disney. Apple should buy Universal. Apple should buy TiVo. Apple should buy YouTube.

Apple has bought 2 years of flash memory, 50 more acres of land in Cupertino, Next, Coverflow, CUPS, Emagic, Nothing Real, Soundjam MP, plus goodness knows what else (feel free to add to this list.)

But Apple buying Adobe?

That'd scare the heck out of a lot of folks. Apple has bought numerous products & smaller companies for code, patents, or teams before but Adobe (+ the former Macromedia) is a peer on the software side. That'd alienate the huge Windows userbase as well as freak out the many Adobe partners.

And to gain what?

Adobe already sells massively to Apple's customers. Sure their apps may lag, but Adobe has a huge set of codebases that has gone through 68000 -> PPC --> MacOS X --> x86, so if getting things up to speed & certified on each new iteration of MacOS X takes a bit that's not unreasonable.

To Mac-ify the apps? Again, why? Sure Apple is famous for doing really good (if not perfect) UIs but Adobe has some serious credibility too. Indeed it's been pretty clear that Apple & Adobe competing directly in some areas has improved both offerings.

Sorry, but I'm guessing Apple has enough on it's plate now. They'd just be complicating an already good, already mutually profitable situation for little reason or much greater profit.

Indeed look at the list above of companies & products folks think Apple should have bought, and in retrospect consider if they really would have been good investments...

Here's a couple of other people musing on the subject. It's hard to prove, of course, but it does seem spooky how every trip abroad to announce a big donation is followed by meetings on the subject of Windows contracts. As I said - no one actually states there's a connection (would you?).

Business Week

The Hindu Newspaper

I mean, does it REALLY matter what O/S is on the computer that the reaches these people?

Of course it does. Software is the first breakthrough in resource creation since farming. New and valuable things can be created and then copies made for almost no cost (for the copies). The new economy that this could create would free the poor of their long running reliance on the rich for plant and capital. That is not something Gates and his multi-billionare club want to see, since it this they who reap the reward of that reliance.

It matters a lot.

TWW

The basic idea behind a patent is to allow the patent holder "shelter time" to develop, market, sell, and profit from their new inventions.

If the patent holding company is late to the market, the product they could make will be severly nutered as the standard moves on and teh upgrades are patented by others. They may claim Wi-Fi Patents, but trying to use it to get into WiMax could be problematic as much of the progress is done by others.
"Having developed the WiMax standard, Intel seems to have stolen a march on rivals like Fujitsu."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_17/b3930072_mz011.htm
"As early as Apr. 18, the company will start turning out a new generation of chips that it hopes will turn WiMax into the Next Big Thing in the wireless"

Guess who holds the patents on these new generation chips and the developed standards. Other than litigation for the small base idea, there is little left of the original design. WEP on 802.11b has been advanced by 802.11a, g, n, Radius, WPA, WiMax, etc.

The original patent may be of limited litigation value in the current generation of wireless networking. The phrase "Intel seems to have stolen a march on rivals like Fujitsu." could be a problem for Intel. Time will tell. Maybe they will get a cross patent deal out of it so they can manufacture WiMax adapters using Intel chips.

I'm sorry, I must have messed up my citation and sources. I mean besides the wikipedia article there's only this:

The Wii Really Is an Updated GameCube
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/11/the_wii_really.html

And this:

Wii "hardware is basically a GC," says Miyamoto
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/wii-hardware-is-basically-a-gc-says-miyamoto/

Yeah, I must be mistaken.

Reality comes in different flavors.

You might want to take a look at Microsoft's Q1 returns:

Microsoft's client unit, which includes the Vista operating system released to consumers in January, posted $4.1 billion (Euro 2.8 billion) in revenue for the quarter. That's a 24 percent increase from the same period a year earlier.

Demand for Vista was especially encouraging in "emerging markets" such as Russia and China, Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell said during a conference call with analysts. In addition, demand for premium, and more expensive versions of Vista was better than expected. Microsoft shares hit six-year high on earnings report

Each of the company's five business divisions showed double-digit revenue growth. That was particularly important in the Client Div., the group where Microsoft counts Windows sales. There, revenue jumped 25%, to $4.1 billion, an astonishing gain for a mature market. Microsoft estimates that PC sales grew 14% to 16% in the quarter. The larger revenue gains came as consumers went for the pricier, premium version of Windows Vista. Microsoft Results Turn Heads

Someone out there - or 88 million someones - bought a copy of Vista, 28 million of them in the last two months. This brought $4.14 billion in revenue in the quarter, making the Vista doom mongers look a tad silly. Sales of high-end Vista SKUs were the most popular.

Office 2K7 sales were up 20 percent to $4.11 billion, while Halo 3 and the Xbox 360 generated a profit of $165 million in the quarter with 1.8 million Xbox 360 consoles sold. Vista helps Microsoft's quarterly profits rise 23 per cent

Any wonder that the author of the Article Vivek Wadhwa has authored multiple papers on offshoring and outsourcing.

He wrote a similar rant in bweek about 2 years ago.

Any wonder that the author of the Article Vivek Wadhwa has authored multiple papers on offshoring and outsourcing.

He wrote a similar rant in bweek about 2 years ago.

1) Music/movies (we outsell the rest of the World in these combined).

Other places like Bollywood are coming on strong.

2) Advanced weapons sales

You've got me there. However more weapons aren't needed.

3) Software of any sort

Software could be, and is, done all over the world. Take Microsoft, MS has opened campuses in both China and India. "Business Week" has an article on where US companies are send jobs to including programming jobs, Major Players in Outsourcing . Ubuntu has African roots.

4) Basic research and devt. (not readily marketable AND given for free to the rest of the world. We are the absolute leader in "pure" research investment, though starting to slow down for obvious reasons).

5) Applied research, design, and devt. (sattelites, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, you name it)

This is true now, but with both China and India graduating millions of engineering and other high tech majors, for how long will it last?

6) Agriculture (including the GM foods that EU farmers are scared of).

Go back to my post, where I said "other than food".

7) Exporting Democracy!

Yea, right. NOT!!! The US only ever exports democracy when it serves the administration's or businesses' objectives. The US has repeatedly supported coups against democratically elected governments, assassinations of leaders, and has even supported the invasion of one democratic nation by dictators of another, twice. In 1975 President Ford and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported Indonesia's Suharto's invasion of East Timor. After the invasion some 200,000 East Timorese were killed, that's 1/3 of the population of East Timor. In the 1980s President Reagan and his VP Bush Sr supported Saddam Hussein's attack and invasion of Iran. Even as Saddam was using all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iran as well as people in Iraq. Targeted were the Kurds and Marsh Arabs among others. It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwait, an emirate not a democracy, when the US's support of Saddam came to an end.

Back to agriculture. I ask what need there is for GMO food? There is no need for it is the answer.

I have a feeling you would have said the same thing last year when they were offered 2 Billion. Also, Google already has an advertising deal with MySpace so Microsoft is probably just trying not to let Google take up everything good on the web.

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair statement. Airline costs have also been increasing quite a bit due to the cost of oil

Moreover, if someone like Ron Paul gets any sort of influence on all this technosocialism, there is still hope that commercial space will make the whole thing moot with lunar materials exponentiating manufacturing and human presence in orbital solar power satellite habitats as Jeff Bezos discussed in his Valedictorian speech during his senior year at Miami High School.

I can't imagine where the got that idea.

... this is still a bad move for Roger Ailes & Co.

Some people can throw too much emphasis on Carly's involvement with the "Investi-Gate" scandal (where she authorized the investigations to pinpoint who was leaking privileged information to the outside). She may have authorized the investigations, but in a bit of turnabout, she herself became a subject of her own boardroom's paranoia; the actual (mis)handling of the investigation fell largely to Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, who was indicted as a result. (At best, she ended up being a scapegoat.)

From a leadership perspective, I compare Ms. Fiorina with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter: untried, uninspiring, and unimaginative. Her guidance of HP during Investi-Gate at the corporate political level can be compared with Carter's decision-making during the Iran hostage crisis at the government political level. She essentially authorized the board to "do something," and then failed to keep control of the situation and take decisive action when necessary.

Fox News is based on fast-paced, hard-hitting, "damn-the-torpedoes"-style reporting, where journalists try to wrap a riveting story around a collection of often incomplete or unverified facts (and so are most other 24/7 news channels).

Given her otherwise okay but hardly noteworthy performance in leading HP, I'm not sure she's the one for the job...

Here! The technology can still help, but it doesn't make up for stockers and floor employees who can identify problems before they occur. POS and tracking reports will never help make up for an employee who knows how important it is to keep these items in stock. Then again, when your employees are saying "I don't care; If Wal-Mart doesn't care for me, why should I care?" you might have bigger problems than keeping tabs on your stock turnover.

Q: You're clearly the leader of the Linux movement, but what does that mean? How do you lead? Are you a benevolent dictator, as some have called you?
A: To be honest, the fact that people trust you gives you a lot of power over people. Having another person's trust is more powerful than all other management techniques put together. I have no legal or explicit power. I only have the power of having people's trust -- but that's a lot of power.

I am a dictator, but it's the right kind of dictatorship. I can't really do anything that screws people over. The benevolence is built in. I can't be nasty. If my baser instincts took hold, they wouldn't trust me, and they wouldn't work with me anymore. I'm not so much a leader, I'm more of a shepherd. Now all the kernel developers will read that and say, "He's comparing us to sheep." It's more like herding cats.

I will give your advice back to you: Remember to fact check. The management of the new company called "AT&T" is very different from the more trustworthy company that was AT&T. That's the point. Should Apple have partnered with that new company? I think not.

Why do I think that? Apple will get criticism for everything bad the new "AT&T" does. For example, see the August 23, 2007 article AT&T Ditches 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Ad Campaign, which was apparently fraudulent. This article notes that AT&T's new slogan, "more bars in more places", seems to be exactly the same claim, in different language: AT&T Drops 'Fewest Dropped Calls' Claim.

To understand the new management, consider the history. For $16 Billion SBC got AT&T's VOIP customers, and the AT&T name. Quote from the Business Week: "It isn't clear whether or not AT&T CEO David Dorman, who will earn about $20 million from the sale of AT&T, will stick around."

So, a manager who presided over the failure of his company made $30 million (not $20 million) from selling the company to other managers who are reputed to be just as inept.

The Wikipedia article says, "Dorman's management finesse can be ascertained by tracking the value of AT&T stock during his tenure." Dorman became president in 2000, Wikipedia says. The stock performance tanked beginning just before that, and continued down until the AT&T name was sold to SBC.

It looks from the stock quotes that AT&T is doing well now, but apparently that is only because the AT&T name was pasted on a new company. (It's like unscrewing the radiator cap and driving a different car underneath. That's not real car repair.)

That's Apples new partner. Does that seem like a partner that will enhance a reputation?

Selling units as fast as they can make them is a failure? So far, they seem to have exceeded even their own projections...

According to whom??? They aren't selling units as fast as they can make them AC. I can go pick one up right now if I wanted a pretty paperweight. There are no back orders, they were in negotiations to cut production in half within a month of the debut, at two months they dropped the price by 33%, and they didn't hit a million units until 74 days after release on Sept 10th. Since 270,000 of those units were last quarter sales, they'll be lucky to hit a million units this quarter. By comparison, Nokia, in their most recent quarter, sold 1.5 Million units of their new and much more expensive N95 smartphones.

In the case of movies, for instance, studios have kept wholesale prices for digital downloads high in order to protect DVD sales.

"Digital music can produce a higher profit margin for the rights holders," says JupiterResearch (JUPM ) analyst David Card, "but for Amazon there may not be any higher margin than what they get for the CD."

It could be argued that alternatives (some being less "harmful" to consumer) would actually be better at maximizing profits, than using lock-ins.

it could be argued that you are not the ceo of apple and nor do you have to answer to shareholders.

It could be that the CEO of Apple was quoted in Businessweek magazine saying almost exactly the same thing GP just said:

Q: How did Apple recapture its innovative spark?
A: I used to be the youngest guy in every meeting I was in, and now I'm usually the oldest. And the older I get, the more I'm convinced that motives make so much difference. HP's primary goal was to make great products. And our primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs -- not to be the biggest or the richest.

We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit -- both to make some money but also so we can keep making those great products. For a time, those goals got flipped at Apple, and that subtle change made all the difference. When I got back, we had to make it a product company again.

... and put your heads in the sand. As a true Apple fan, I don't hesitate to point out when they F' it up big time.

I don't think they were actually "banking" on it.

You don't think? You must not have read much about it then. To anyone who has, they were clearly banking on it. A month into it they were renegotiating contracts attempting to cut production in half. A month after that, they dropped the price 33%. The "revolutionary new product" has been a dud.

Let's not forget that they are only just now starting to release the product in Europe. They haven't released it in Asia yet.

No shit!?! Maybe they could sell more phones if they could somehow sell their iPhones directly to customers instead of pairing it with service plans from various vendors. Maybe if the iPhone were somehow unbound from that relationship, unlocked if you will... Man!!! Confused one, that is an AWESOME idea!!! You should tell Apple about that!

...

Friday's close of 144.15 is just off AAPL's all time high. AAPL crashed hard on their last high profile failure. I'm not expecting a repeat performance, but it isn't going to be pretty. We'll see who's flamebait in another month, won't we?

since it's not about the customer, it all about John Malone - http://www.businessweek.com/1998/39/b3597046.htm FToA - As for the TV viewer, says Davis, Malone couldn't care less: Better service and more channels meant higher costs, and if he spent more on existing subscribers, he would have to slow his march to build America's largest cable empire. ''The trick,'' Davis writes, ''was to never give the public what it wanted.'' ----------- Luke, I am your father, and these are not the channels you're looking for.

If you will recall Wipro, Tata, InfoSys, InfoTech, Tech Mahindra, Satyam, Mphasis, Panti, and i-Flex have all been nailed for precisely this.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/conten t/jun2007/db20070626_139605.htm

"Moreover, you seem to think this is automatically bad. As a generally benign tax-paying and extremely low crime population"

You seem to be making a great deal of assumptions there that one might think betrays are certain corollary bias.

It's funny because beta hackware isn't a real solution. You're not going to convince many people to risk voiding their warranty and bricking their $600 (Or $400) phone just so they can run MAME or a terminal emulator. Technical competence is another barrier here. What happened to the "It just works" philosophy? Apple's "Web 2.0" solution to third party apps was a slap in the face to developers. If Apple had sold the phone unlocked and open to third parties, not only would they have made a mint selling it worldwide already, but they really would have the potential for a revolutionary product. As it is, there's nothing revolutionary about it. I knew this thing would be another cube from the first announcement of "no third party apps." As predicted, it's a cube. No takers. Completely underwhelming. Road apple.

Think about an iPhone with games, real apps like Photoshop and Office, printer drivers, and more! Take a picture and print it directly to the printer on your wireless network. It's like a Mac mini that fits in your pocket and goes everywhere you go. Get an iPod dock, hook it to your HDTV, break out your Apple Bluetooth keyboard and Mouse, and bam! It would be the digital hub in your pocket. That would be awesome. *THAT* would be revolutionary. Imagine the marketshare numbers when millions of phones started counting in the Mac OS column. It could've been a fucking coup. 20 years of Windows hegemony turned on it's head!!!

Unfortunately, -that- is just a pipe dream, because there are no real third party apps without hacks. Unfortunately, there's no financial incentive for folks like Epson, HP, Adobe, Microsoft, Bungie and zillions of other Mac developers to write iPhone apps, because ... who are they going to sell it to? A handful of amateur hackers who are willing to potentially brick their iPhone just to install apps? Unfortunately, Apple has changed focus from products to profits. Locking the phone to specific service providers in return for a share of the subscription fees is an obvious money grab. It's a real shift from the philosophy that has made Apple successful for the last ten years...

Q: How did Apple recapture its innovative spark?
A: I used to be the youngest guy in every meeting I was in, and now I'm usually the oldest. And the older I get, the more I'm convinced that motives make so much difference. HP's primary goal was to make great products. And our primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs -- not to be the biggest or the richest.

We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit -- both to make some money but also so we can keep making those great products. For a time, those goals got flipped at Apple, and that subtle change made all the difference. When I got back, we had to make it a product company again.

Well... they didn't grab my money with their iPhone scheme and I've been a hardcore Mac-only user/developer for 10 years. I don't buy Apple products because they're pretty. I buy Apple because it's *usually* awesome bleeding edge gear. The iPhone is just a pretty toy designed to fleece consumers. Thanks, but no thanks Apple. I'll stick with a real smartphone like my Nokia N95 for now.

I didn't see anything definitive either but did find this related item:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/02/open_sourc e/source/7.htm

I also would not doubt that Microsoft's contract with BMW requires they not publish anything negative or otherwise regarding their Windows based iDrive systems. Microsoft sucks as a technology company but is number one in legal and marketing contracts, publications, and PR.

LoB

A Wal*Mart in Quebec unionized. One of the unions demands was more hours for the employers. Another union demand was more employees. So the union feels it should drive the company's business model? The store was closed shortly after with Wal*Mart citing economic reasons that were occurring before the unionization issue came up. I can easily understand guaranteeing more hours. But, guaranteeing more hours along with oh you must increase your workforce by 10%? http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07 /b3971115.htm

Now, assuming 1 PC per Japanese citizen (sure, not all have one, but some have more than one), that is over 100 million PCs.

The school system in japan just moved to linux as a test bed for further linux deployment.

Your redmond/japan trade recovery program is about to receive a "slight" bump in the road.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8141249791.html

As for china the estimates are 90% of software is pirated, and secondly OSS is gaining
massive ground there:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/ar chives/2006/01/a_big_step_for.html

Noticing a few more Asian's and Indian's engineers at your work place ?

Hear of any companies that had their idea appear overseas and be reproduced
and resold for much less, essentially ignoring all copyright/patents?

World Trade is great if everyone honors the system of who invented it owns it,
but that may not happen for some time.

In the cult of cash, morality takes a back seat to the bottom line.

I have said many times, in the long run, it is bad for accounting to
be the primary consideration for engineering decisions.

This applies for long term economic stability too, funny enough.

Overseas labor has no OSHA, has no FDA, just ask ppl with dead pets
from tainted chinese pet food, or ppl that used the tainted tooth paste.

On a price point your no going to beat them unless you build robots
here to do the labor for less than any other country can do it,
and the sad fact is china or asia will end up making the robots for us.

Any way you stack it the US is in a economic tailspin of its own design.

The race for the bottom has begun.

"BluRay, please meet betamax."

I wouldn't call blu-ray the new betamax just yet, with Blockbuster already announcing they're carrying only blu-ray titles primarily due to PS3 sales.

But you have a point. Sony doesn't have a great history of making formats that eventually become the standard. Minidisc? DAT? UMD movies? If I was Sony I'd practically give away Blu-ray players just to get them out there, then in a year or two once it becomes a standard re-coop their costs in license fees. Microsoft has been doing this for years with the Xbox and Xbox360 but it was necessary to make them a major player in the console wars and at times Xbox has had the most sales.

Absolutely... obviously the Wall Street Journal was just a stepping stone before moving on Fark for Rupert Murdock.

MurdocH is this guy. MurdocK is this guy.

It's okay; I get confused by that, too.

I'm not sitting around listening to drm music on a Zune and playing XBox games while using the latest version of Office on Vista. Geez.

Let me sum it up:

"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy. Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time."

- Sun Tzu

I think it's clear that you must understand your enemy to effectively compete against them. My position on Microsoft has been clear for years. Here is one recent example:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2007/tc20070525_325967.htm

I know that we could spend the next 100 posts here talking about how much Microsoft sucks, but I suggest alternatively that we spend time talking about how we can leverage our strengths to beat them.

Jim

I wonder what happened in between this article http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2007/tc20070525_325967.htm and today's comment.

Can you say "Big chunk of Microsoft change in Zemlins pocket"? I can.http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content /may2007/tc20070525_325967.htm

You are absolutely right. It's interesting to compare what the French and Americans spend on their healthcare systems. In the US we are spending 16% of our GNP and have 46 million people without any form of insurance (and of those who do have insurance, a lot of it is worthless when it really counts).

In France, however, they are spending 10% of GNP on a system which covers everyone and routinely outperforms what we have in the US.

More FUD to watch out for is the crap about lines and impossible waiting times. I've spent a total of two years in France, including two months in the hospital with a pretty nasty pneumonia. The staff was always courteous and competent. This is at the same time my compatriots were all bashing surrender monkeys and feeling clever.