Slashdot Mirror

So upgrade the clients to version 8. Problem solved.

It worked so well for windows, didn't it?

Facebook,Twitter and Flickr seem to disagree with you.

I never am able to get a straight answer - if you put out a popular indie game, for example, and you decided to make it free and ad supported, for example, let's say you get 100k people to download it, and 10k people are playing it regularly what kind of money do you make? $100/month, $1000/month, $10k/month? anybody know?

I googled and posted this above, meant to post it to you. From GigaOM, 10/4/2012:

Most app developers make less than $500 a month (chart) By Rani Molla - Oct. 4, 2012

We know that not every app is Angry Birds and not every app developer is Rovio. But just how tough are things for the workaday app developer? In a recent GigaOM Pro study (subscription required) of app developers, more than half of the respondents say they make less than $500 a month from their paid apps (see chart below). Perhaps not surprisingly, app development isn’t a full-time job for most of them. Some 75% of 352 respondents either hold another job or do app development only as a portion of their main job. (The picture is even grimmer for developers of advertising-dependent apps — a third of those developers make less than $100 a month in ad revenue, according to the study.)

On the high (and much more rare) end of the spectrum, about 5 percent of app developers in the survey make over $20,000 a month. These developers tend to be part of big app firms. (see chart at linked page)

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/04/most-app-developers-make-less-than-500-a-month-chart/

So, I'm curious. What sort of revenue can you expect from adds from a user?

From Gigacom, Oct 4, 2012:

We know that not every app is Angry Birds and not every app developer is Rovio. But just how tough are things for the workaday app developer? In a recent GigaOM Pro study (subscription required) of app developers, more than half of the respondents say they make less than $500 a month from their paid apps (see chart below). Perhaps not surprisingly, app development isn’t a full-time job for most of them. Some 75% of 352 respondents either hold another job or do app development only as a portion of their main job. (The picture is even grimmer for developers of advertising-dependent apps — a third of those developers make less than $100 a month in ad revenue, according to the study.)

On the high (and much more rare) end of the spectrum, about 5 percent of app developers in the survey make over $20,000 a month. These developers tend to be part of big app firms." (see linked page for chart) http://gigaom.com/2012/10/04/most-app-developers-make-less-than-500-a-month-chart/

Several years ago I read that IBM set up a team on researching Metal Air Battery ... lemme search the link ... ah, found it

http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_project.php?id=3203

The project started around 2009

Unfortunately there is no news on the Metal Air Battery project from IBM

If you have any info regarding the latest development(s), would you kindly share with us here?

Thanks !!

A link to another startup that is researching Metal Air battery --- http://gigaom.com/2013/03/01/fluidic-shows-a-peek-of-its-metal-air-batteries-for-off-and-on-the-grid/

According to this, there's 680 million logins per day.
I couldn't find an official Facebook word on it, and the latest estimates are from last August, but they say a magnitude lower, 180k. I highly doubt that within 7 months there would be a 10 fold increase in server numbers.

So going by these numbers, there's 680.000k/180k = 3778 user/server/day. For a web server, this is pretty good number, as I can imagine, serving 3778 users is a sort of continuous thing, unlike many other websites. Notifications are polled pretty frequently, and as you scroll requests are made constantly to the servers.

I don't like Facebook, and I think this is a waste of energy and space for storing cat videos and sex-quizzes but the numbers in this case do add up.

This is what Seattle is doing. They already laid tons of fiber backbone through the city. They're now contracting out to GigaOM for the last mile and service.
http://gigaom.com/2012/12/13/seattle-is-the-latest-city-to-go-around-isps-to-get-a-gigabit-network/

And now, GirlinTraining Eats an Apple Fanboy, Except For The Core Of Course ...

Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.

I accused them of adhering to their mission statement, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course.

Considering that the developers only get paid when their balance reaches a certain threshold or a certain amount of time has elapsed, yeah, practically zero.

It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.

One of these things is not like the other. Can you spot it?

As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own.

Actually, I don't. But I do know them better than you apparently do. The app store alone brings in six billion a year. Go look it up, I'll wait. The data center, equipment, land, everything, cost 1/6th of that. New. From scratch. Obviously, day to day costs would be lower. A lot lower. You may remember another company that has a very large data center: It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny. So margins for Apple here are huge. Massively huge. Triple digit huge. And with a six billion dollar market, we're talking holy-fuck I just won the lottery huge payout. Which of course, I know, and Apple knows, but you apparently, did not know. I ascribe this to the fact that you only read about technology on forum websites like slashdot, instead of busying yourself with inventing them, as I do. And possibly having not taken macroeconomics yet.

My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens../

Back pedal any harder and you may solve the energy crisis. No, you said fraud is a serious crime and implied that any alleged impropriety that Apple could be accused of was likely false, because said fraud is rare. I responded with common-knowledge news events that stamped this with a giant "Bullshit" in 9 foot tall lettering.

Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling.

Well, if your math skills didn't suck so hard they were in danger of creating an event horizon from which no clue can escape, you'd realize that $100 from a developer that's making less than $3,000 in the majority of the cases means Apple's cut from this alone is over 3%. That "Apple only takes 30%" is white-washed Grade A marketing bullshit. It takes more. In fact, when you add it all up, they take about as much as the recording industries do from their artists. Which, big surprise, since it's the same business model, but just has a trendy hipster icon plastered across the front.

- the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store.

Your definition of success would be "made more than nothing." My definition of success is somewhat more mature, and reasonable: Makes enough to live on. When you get out of mom's basement, I suspect your definition of success will be less based on the brand of toys you own and more on your ability to get food into your mouth.

What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.

We weren't discussing

[gigaom.com]

Another article from the same site in September of last year states that iOS used to produce five times the revenue of Android, but the gap is shrinking. Even if iOS still draws 40 to 50 percent more revenue per user, acquisition costs per user tend to run lower on Android.

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 would seem that scientific publishing in the current model is on the way out. Let's look at some of the problems.

Tenure and status are influenced [highly] on publication. Thus, there is an incentive to publish trivial results, to publish results using shaky statistical reasoning, and to publish erroneous and fraudulent results. (Example)

Because of the emphasis on "quantity" instead of "quality", few results are independently verified. (Example)

Journals demand that scientists turn over the rights of publication in order to get published. The journals, in turn, charge outrageous fees to view the work - so high, that most of the work is inaccessible to the general public. (Example)

The fees are growing so large that smaller universities can no longer afford journal subscriptions. (Example)

The journals do not pay for peer review, or editing, or (in the modern age) even printing and binding. So far as anyone can tell, they are rent-seekers; they provide no services of note to the scientists, their readers, or the community in general. (Example)

It is entirely possible to masquerade as a scientific journal. In fact, journal quality is a spectrum that contains completely bogus, slightly spurious, mostly useful, and high quality. Being published by a notable company such as Elsevier is no guarantee of quality. (Example)

There is enormous monetary value in published papers which validate the particular positions or opinions. (Example)

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure people can find other problems with the current system. Sadly, I can't think of any way to fix the current system. It has so many inherent problems that we should probably transition to a different model, but I don't know what should be.

It'll be interesting, that's for sure. It looks like they are basically running a two year interest-free loan on the phone, so still not a bad deal at all. I suspect most users are going to opt for a payment plan on their phone, and from a quick perusal it looks like the most expensive phone is $20/mo. According to this they'll unconditionally unlock a t-mobile phone as soon as it has been paid off.

I think the biggest challenge is going to be getting people out of the "contract up, time for a new phone" mindset... I mean, sure it can still work with t-mobile (just get a new phone loan one the current one is up), but the main selling point is saving money when the phone is paid off.

In any case, I give them a thumbs up - as long as they don't drop my year-old low minute/high data plan on me :P

Amazon gets about 1 billion in revenue from their web services division. That is 1.67% of their total revenue. It's such an insignificant part of their business that they group it together in the "OTHER" category on their income statement.

So is Amazon a bookseller. Damn right they are. And in order to sell books over the internet, they have some servers (duh), which they are happy to rent out to gain an extra 1.67% increase in revenue. To sell 60 billion of goods over the internet, they have _A LOT_ of servers, and a lot of tech knowledge in-house. But don't deceive yourself. At the end of the day, they are a RETAILER.. which is where 98.33% of their business is.

This story from Gigaom is a little more tempered than the article on Businessinsider. It quotes the Paypal director, saying they will continue to use VMware - if you read right through to the end of it.

http://gigaom.com/2013/03/25/mirantis-open-sources-its-openstack-cloud-management-tools/

This, in any case, is not a "tipping-point" indicator.

With or without Mirantis or Fuel, Openstack is a tool kit for building your own CloudOS. Unless you can make a business based on the internal IP generated, there's no win here for most enterprise shops.

Amazon did this sucessfully - getting value from reselling access to raw infrastructure, based on development created for internal needs.

Yahoo failed at this, after more than a decade optimising their own OS layer for internet scale-out. They would have been better served to eliminate their OS engineering unit, buying common OTS Linux/Windows.

PayPal are somewhere between these poles. Having been on their own linux-based, scale-out physical architecture for more than a decade, they are well-positioned to derive value from Openstack. If you were Williams-Sonoma or Chevron? They do not want or need to become an OS developer/integrator.

This article has an interview with an early creator of Google Reader. I found it to be really informative. In discussing what it takes from Google to make reader work, it says:

Wetherell said that it took a lot to make Google Reader work.

For instance, it was Google Crawler that gave the system ability to make lightning-fast connections and bring up recommendations. It is one of the main reasons it cannot be open sourced. The systems are too intertwined with Google’s search and other infrastructure to be sold as well.

I think that explains why Google Reader won't be sold (or open sourced).

> And is being offered below the cost of providing the service (subsidised) - that is not a sustainable business model for a for-profit company.

Actually, Google fiber is profitable. The other companies just suck.

Google's 1 GB fiber connectivity is somewhere between $70 and $80 per month.

And is being offered below the cost of providing the service (subsidised) - that is not a sustainable business model for a for-profit company.

That's not true; Google Fiber is profitable by itself. Which makes you think about how much money TWC is making, doesn't it? Or, as that article puts it:

And hopefully regulators and average consumers will look at what Google is doing and ask themselves, “Why are the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world complaining about how much it costs to serve up broadband when Google can deliver 100 times the traditional ISP’s top speeds for the same or a lower price.”

Nasuni scores $20M to build out storage sales effort

Nasuni, which helps distributed companies manage their cloud storage securely, has $20 million in a new funding round — led by a mystery investor — to help it pay for new features and expand sales and marketing, said CEO Andres Rodriguez.

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/30/nasuni-scores-20m-to-build-out-storage-sales-effort/

Another difference is, with a gas car, $42. With an all electric, free.

Who's your electric supplier? Mine keeps charging money.

Sorry - thought you had read the article.
http://gigaom.com/2012/09/24/tesla-unveils-free-solar-powered-car-charging-stations-for-model-s-owners/

At the rate battery technology is improving it won't be that long. This article says:

" ... the energy density of batteries goes up 15 percent every 18 months; the cost per kilowatt hour goes down 15 percent every 18 months; the life cycles of the batteries (how many times it can charge and recharge) goes up 15 percent every 18 months; and the cost per lifecycle-mile does down 50 percent every 18 months. “

As far as charging time and range anxiety goes I think once electric cars reach some critical mass they will start making them with standard battery packs that you can get changed in 5 or 10 minutes at a "filling" station, a similar experience to a gas station. You would exchange your depleted batteries for fully charged ones and be on your way without any more range anxiety than you have with current vehicles.

Someone's probably going to pipe up with "I don't want to exchange my nearly new batteries for some crap batteries from some station!" My answer to that is don't start the cars with brand new batteries but ones from the filling station inventory in the first place. That way they can handle bringing in new batteries and retiring old ones as needed.

There's an important difference. One that's open to you is likely in-house-reinventing-the-wheel type thing (which I'm not necessarily opposed to), but will likely give you the most options if you've installed locally. After all, you'll be giving yourself those options.

The Open to Everyone Else is likely built by someone else, maybe lot of other people, and if the Rackspace controversy is any hint, you're still at the mercy of the developers and their sponsors. You're still faced with the same problem: Eucalyptus isn't controlled by me, therefore I'm still at their mercy should they decide to switch ethical gears.

Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.

Oh, the horror! you act like this is some awful thing.

And, no, Safeway and Target don't do that particular thing, but they have their own rules that they apply to the products they'll sell.

Does Target ban the sale of blueray players that include support for netflix/hulu/amazon (allowing the user to purchase video content from other stores)? Apple does the equivalent.

No, they don't. They allow apps that support third-party services. What rock have you been living under?

It's called "commerce" and you go where the money is. On mobile, the money is on iOS

Don't be stupid. For all but a few vendors, iOS is NOT the place for app developers interested in earning real money. Do some reading.

Hahahaha! You're cherry picking and grasping at straws. iOS is by far the most lucrative platform. You can make money on platforms, and if you can get a niche, you can make more on one platform than the average of another. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say iOS doesn't have, by far, the largest, most financially viable of all the mobile ecosystems.

The truth is that people go where they *think* the money is -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That won't last forever. Apple won't be able to get away with their abusive practices for much longer.

Your ilk have been saying that for half a decade now, in the face of reality to the contrary. Sure, it may not last forever, but you should at least have e decency to accept the present and the past half-decade, instead of twisting reality to fit your prejudices.

Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.

Does Target ban the sale of blueray players that include support for netflix/hulu/amazon (allowing the user to purchase video content from other stores)? Apple does the equivalent.

It's called "commerce" and you go where the money is. On mobile, the money is on iOS

Don't be stupid. For all but a few vendors, iOS is NOT the place for app developers interested in earning real money. Do some reading.

The truth is that people go where they *think* the money is -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That won't last forever. Apple won't be able to get away with their abusive practices for much longer.

Yep, I was about to post the same. As long as you have Exchange 2007 or above it would seem.

http://gigaom.com/2010/02/04/how-to-remotely-wipe-an-iphone-using-exchange/

But with the BB 10, somehow it sounds like they can protect the personal data, too, even from IT personnel like myself and my colleagues. This I am happy about... I don't want to delete someone's only copy of their family photos right after they got canned. I mean seriously that is just wrong. Luckily my company is not that evil, so I have never had to do such. Yet. The BB 10 protects you, if you buy it at least.

I don't care if it's onerous. And I don't really care why TWC decided not to peer with Netflix. None of that should affect how Netflix interacts with me as a customer. All I should have to care about is "is my pipe wide enough to receive the stream". If it is, Netflix should send me the stream. If not, Netflix should not send me the stream. The rest of it is none of my concern.

Netflix is the one changing the game, here. They are really the first B2C entity telling customers that they will treat them differently based on the topological structure of the internet between the customer and the business. That's really unprecedented.

What if Apple said "we're not going to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us" or "we're going to charge an extra _% to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us". People would go BALLISTIC. So why is it OK for Netflix to do that?

Would you rather have them turn it on and charge everyone more, probably loosing customers in the process? Maybe they should just charge TWC customers? As much as you don't like their decision, it is not some arbitrary position. Netflix is barely holding on. Their net income went from 226 million in 2011 to 17 million in 2012 in the face of skyrocketing content licensing costs. Compare that to TWC with a net income of 1.7 billion for 2012. Netflix could turn on Super HD for everyone, but they would have to raise prices and would end up loosing customers. Or, they could just charge extra to people on ISPs who won't or can't peer with them. Which would be better? Or would you rather have Netflix just go out of business? No business, not even an Internet based business, has a moral obligation to provide a service at a loss.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX&fstype=ii&ei=9KAGUcDzGPCy0QGc7QE
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWC&fstype=ii&ei=caAGUejWObGh0AGoRw

Treating customers differently based on Internet geography is not unprecedented. I'd bet that it happens a lot but just isn't publicized. Comcast already started doing this. First, Comcast had their spat with Level 3 where they wanted L3 to pay Comcast for delivering data that Comcast subscribers were downloading. Then Comcast followed up by exempting their in-house video streaming service from the data caps. According to surveys, 64% of US broadband customers are under a data cap. Time Warner Cable is not currently under a cap, but that is because the customer base went into open revolt when they tried it in Texas. Netflix is not changing the game, it is responding to conditions on the field.

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/11/29/level-3-vs-comcast-more-than-a-peering-spat/
http://techland.time.com/2012/04/16/netflix-ceo-takes-swing-at-comcast-xfinity-over-net-neutrality/
http://gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/

Oh, and the reason Apple could not get away with a similar scheme is because Apple is the 2nd most valuable company in the world. Size makes a difference, and Netflix really is not a very big company.

"Google Health has been discontinued"

2012 was the Year of the Cloud Going Away. Several major service vendors bailed completely. GoDaddy dropped their cloud service last October, Dell discontinued their Quest Cloud Automation Platform and Harris dropped theirs last February.

On the consumer side, where the contracts are heavily biased towards the vendor, it's worse. Apple dropped MobileMe, and Google dropped a long list of products. Windows Live Mesh shuts down February 13, 2013.

When cloud services die, they tend to die fast. A business which relied on a "cloud" service can be in big trouble. The best case is a frantic effort to get the data off and move to some alternative. Worst case is the data gets lost.

I'm willing to bet very, very many internets that Apple hasn't authorized any Mac OS running from this device. Not. Gonna. Happen.

1. They don't necessarily have to authorize it. Someone could just make something like gotomypc 2. They may in fact be developing a cloud based version of the Mac OS http://gigaom.com/2011/01/05/imaging-a-cloud-based-future-for-mac-os-x/ Though, they may or may not want to make it easy for people to access it via devices like this.

By your logic, no one can ever estimate the cost of anything. You can't tell me $500,000 is too much for a Toyota unless you've run the company.

It cost Coursera $15,000 - 30,000 to design a MOOC (one time cost). That's less than a dollar per student (for a single schedule, and they have them on a loop!) for most of the classes. Everyone here has IT experience enough to know that the bandwidth and server resources is also inconsequential per student.

Or, do you think Coursera is eating $2B in expenses over and over, with their more than 2M students digging into the free courses? Coursera is a for-profit company, by the way started with only $16M in capital.

Newsflash: Coursera announces their future business model... http://gigaom.com/2013/01/08/with-verified-certificates-coursera-offers-model-for-making-money-from-web-classes/... is to charge $30 to $100 for courses. Now... that including a profit.... am I the stupid uninformed one for guessing their cost are no more than $20?

Some guy here linked to this survey

The only real lesson I got from there is "don't quit your day job". 34% of Apple dev's and 44% of Android devs make less than $500 per app per month, and 95% make $2-3k per app per month on average (and, if general distribution didn't change much since 2011, the profits distribution is reeeeeeeal skewed towards the top) with $22-27k to make it, so if you're lucky you'll break even in 7-8 months.

I don't know about you, but even $500 extra per month is not "nothing". And if you're the typical iOS developer, that is doing this in their "spare time", there is not really a concept of "breaking even", unless you "pay yourself" for sitting around watching TV, playing games, etc.

So, although most iOS devs. won't be able to "quit their day job", I wonder how many would argue that it hasn't contributed significantly to their personal "bottom line"?

Some guy here linked to this survey

The only real lesson I got from there is "don't quit your day job". 34% of Apple dev's and 44% of Android devs make less than $500 per app per month, and 95% make $2-3k per app per month on average (and, if general distribution didn't change much since 2011, the profits distribution is reeeeeeeal skewed towards the top) with $22-27k to make it, so if you're lucky you'll break even in 7-8 months.

I don't know about you, but even $500 extra per month is not "nothing". And if you're the typical iOS developer, that is doing this in their "spare time", there is not really a concept of "breaking even", unless you "pay yourself" for sitting around watching TV, playing games, etc.

So, although most iOS devs. won't be able to "quit their day job", I wonder how many would argue that it hasn't contributed significantly to their personal "bottom line"?

Some guy here linked to this survey

The only real lesson I got from there is "don't quit your day job". 34% of Apple dev's and 44% of Android devs make less than $500 per app per month, and 95% make $2-3k per app per month on average (and, if general distribution didn't change much since 2011, the profits distribution is reeeeeeeal skewed towards the top) with $22-27k to make it, so if you're lucky you'll break even in 7-8 months.

Some guy here linked to this survey

The only real lesson I got from there is "don't quit your day job". 34% of Apple dev's and 44% of Android devs make less than $500 per app per month, and 95% make $2-3k per app per month on average (and, if general distribution didn't change much since 2011, the profits distribution is reeeeeeeal skewed towards the top) with $22-27k to make it, so if you're lucky you'll break even in 7-8 months.

It's about 6-months old, but here you go:

Breakdown of VisionMobile study

Not talking about market share, usage share. iOS users generate more web traffic via google search than Android users do

http://www.zdnet.com/ios-users-generate-twice-as-much-web-traffic-as-android-users-7000008292/

http://news.yahoo.com/ios-users-generate-double-traffic-android-users-215354607.html

http://gigaom.com/mobile/why-are-android-users-less-engaged-than-ios-users/

Those are from this month. The pattern has remained consistant

I was taking a more general application of "what's the point?" The first connection to what would become the Internet was made between UCLA and SRI in Menlo Park, CA after all. That was a big deal for them, but a bigger deal for us. What the point of that was is rather subjective.

100PB seems like a lot of data today - 3,000 times the 3TB storage available in a standard PC. But I am so old I wear an onion on my belt, as was the fashion in my day. 1/3000th of that 3TB is 1GB. I can remember when to have 1GB of storage in your PC was an undreamt of wealth of storage richness: a bottomless well that might never be filled. Hell, I can remember a day when 3TB of digital info storage was more storage than there was - everywhere on Earth. In fact in my early days there was talk of a terabyte being the sum of human knowledge (silly, I know). It's reasonable to expect that when that much more time has passed again, 100PB will not be a big deal either.

So now we carry around a 1TB 2.5" USB drive in our shirt pocket like it's no big deal. And when guys like this do things like this we talk about what it means to them - and that's fine. But there is a larger story, like there was a larger story at UCLA - and that is "what does this mean to the rest of us?"

Now 339Gbps isn't such a big deal. NEC wizards have already passed 101 Tbps - 300 times as much over a single fiber, though not to this distance. That's enough bandwidth to pass your 100PB in 20 minutes, over a single strand of glass fiber.

The LA Metro area is about 15 million people, or 3 million homes. To deliver 1Gbps to a reasonable half of 3 million homes and mesh it out for global distribution is going to require a lot of these links. The aggregate demand would probably be under 1% of peak potential of 3,000 Tbps or about 30Tbps. 100 times the bandwidth of this link. Using CDNs(*) - particularly for YouTube, CableTV, the usual porn suspects and BitTorrent you could diminish the need for wider bandwidth considerably but you still need a wide pipe to the outside world. And all the Internet servers in the world would need to be updated to support the crushing demand with higher performance, SSD storage and the like. And that's great for the economy, and it's just LA.

These innovations are neat, but they're neater still when they come home to all of us.

TL;DR: Get off my lawn.

/(*) Define CDN: A CDN, or Content Delivery Network is a facility for moving high bandwidth, high demand or high transaction content closer to a nexus of consumers. An example would be Netflix, which delivers streaming video content to 21 million subscribers, comprising by some estimates a full third of Internet traffic. Netflix provides for free to Internet providers BackBlaze boxes that move Netflix content closer to the end user, reducing backbone usage. Similar boxes are provided by advertising networks and other content providers.

Working link:
BlackBerry apps earn the most money. Get over it.

Also, it's REALLY a stretch to call the 10k developer commitment "paying people to develop" apps for BB10.

Given that BlackBerry apps earn the most money, it's not a tough decision for developers to make.

But how about when RIM stops paying people to develop for BB10? Will it still be worth doing? And will that link still go to a 404 page?

It should. It's an excellent platform, well ahead of the rest.

Given that BlackBerry apps earn the most money, it's not a tough decision for developers to make. As we all know, Android development sucks. Developers are already jumping on BB10 at an impressive pace. The app gap will close.

The market is going to look very different this time next year.

Seems they measure differently though:

http://gigaom.com/cloud/whose-data-centers-are-more-efficient-facebooks-or-googles/

So first I dont' have a source, then my source sucks, now I'm willfully ignorant because I'm ignoring an AC post on slashdot?

Okay then.

The facts are in, however, though you'll fail to acknowledge them. iOS just isn't where the money is:

If you don't want to face facts, there's nothing I can say or do to convince you. Oh, I could make an anonymous post on slashdot -- you seem to thing they're VERY credible!

I skimmed the source articles and I'm confused as to the premise of this discussion that it makes any sense to move from Samsung to Intel for ARM fabrication. Intel may have some foundry business but I would think if Apple were looking at an alternate foundry they would be considering options like TSMC or UMC, not Intel. Although doing some Googling to check my facts on this comment since I've been out of the semiconductor world for a long time does reveal that apparently Apple did consider TSMC. But that still leaves plenty of third party foundries.

For certain values of "sanity"

Getting in trouble for a twitter joke and having to appeal to higher court to overturn it doesn't really sound as "sane" to me, for example.

http://gigaom.com/video/second-presidential-debate-live-stream/

The summary claims "[Google] has promised a native version of Google Maps for iOS by the end of the year", but Google has made no such promise.

Recently, at AllThingsD, all Eric Schmidt said was "I don’t want to preannounce products, but I can tell you that were we to do that, Apple would have to approve it."
http://gigaom.com/apple/schmidt-apple-has-to-approve-google-maps-app-for-ios-if-we-build-it/

My guess is they are developing it, but they haven't promised it yet.

Or that they don't plan to develop it, and want to pretend Apple is blocking them.

The summary claims "[Google] has promised a native version of Google Maps for iOS by the end of the year", but Google has made no such promise.

Recently, at AllThingsD, all Eric Schmidt said was "I don’t want to preannounce products, but I can tell you that were we to do that, Apple would have to approve it."
http://gigaom.com/apple/schmidt-apple-has-to-approve-google-maps-app-for-ios-if-we-build-it/

My guess is they are developing it, but they haven't promised it yet.

Google Fiber uses a PON network.

You can thank Google for pushing for Open Access rules during bidding for the spectrum:

"(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks." [bold mine]

Verizon recently got smacked down according to these rules and had to permit tethering without a fee.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/behold-apples-massive-solar-farm-from-the-sky-photos/

Hard drives need to be sealed to be immersed, as mentioned at http://gigaom.com/cloud/intel-immerses-its-servers-in-oil-and-they-like-it/ .

I'm having a hard time figuring out how they could expect people to want or trust their cloud services.
The concept seems to go against instinct.

http://gigaom.com/2009/10/10/when-cloud-fails-t-mobile-microsoft-lose-sidekick-customer-data/

http://www.webmonkey.com/2008/04/microsoft_kills_playsforsure__screws_over_loyal_customers/