Slashdot Mirror

Slashdot refuses to report a story.

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market. Apple’s profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google’s entire revenue ($10.6 billion).

Who cares? Well, in January 2011, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. All year, Android fans cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the smartphone industry, that the lack of centralized control was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning".

So what happened when the opposite occurred and Apple reversed Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refused to publish the story. All the sudden, it wasn't considered newsworthy despite the publication of the other story a year earlier.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose initial userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Marketshare is still highly fetishized around here. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux, or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it caters to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

Moderators, this is off-topic. Slashdot refuses to report a story.

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Who cares? Well, in January 2011, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. All year, Android fans cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the smartphone industry, that the lack of centralized control was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning".

So what happened when the opposite occurred and Apple reversed Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refused to publish the story. All the sudden, it wasn't considered newsworthy despite the publication of the other story a year earlier.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose initial userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Marketshare is still highly fetishized around here. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it caters to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

Slashdot refuses to report a story.

According to Reuters, Apple surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. 150 Android smartphones couldn't beat the iPhone 4S, and with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Who cares? Well, when 2011 started, Slashdot triumphantly reported that Android surpassed iOS in marketshare. In fact, Android fans on Slashdot constantly cited Android's marketshare as proof that it was taking over the industry, that openness was superior to the "walled garden", and that Android was "winning". Marketshare is still fetishized around here and considered a sign of victory.

So, what happens when the opposite happens and Apple erases Android's marketshare lead by the end of the year? Despite multiple submissions from several users, and news coverage ranging from Arstechnica to CNN, Slashdot refuses to publish the story.

This is a Linux advocacy site whose early userbase was driven by hatred of Windows marketshare. Anything negative about the marketshare of Linux or platforms based on Linux, gets killed. Slashdot is intentionally not providing you full tech news coverage because it wants to cater to a specific demographic of emotionally-invested users who are more likely to generate repeat page views.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep...talk about bias.

It's official--iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

Remember that Slashdot triumphantly posted in January 2011 about Android surpassing iOS in marketshare. A year later when the opposite happens? Not a peep. Talk about bias.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

Funny that you mention the f word, after the expected RETURN of Apples marketshare lead has been comented as a "complete erase". Note: Apples marketshare accoring to the quoted market researchers is 44.9 versus googles 44.8. Wow. Beaten into the ground eh? And then.. 10.6 isnt Googles entire revenue. It s their profit. http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html With all that said. Even if Apple had a marketshare of 70 or 80 percent or more on smartphones (NOT:all mobile phones): thats totally not a reason to buy their product. It would be a reason to worry bout market domination though. But besides that, for many people there are other more valid reason to decide for another phone.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. Finally, with 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

The links GP provides don't really support GP's proposition (certainly I was surprised at his claims since they differed from the other reports I'd seen). For one thing, this talks ONLY about Q4 sales, not market share per GP's claim. Of course sales is a leader of market share, and if you can be dominant in sales, market share follows eventually. However, owning one quarter's worth of dominance can't exactly be called a pattern, particularly when there's a demonstrated strong pattern of customers holding out for the new product launch that happened for iOS in this quarter.

Apple certainly had a good quarter, and made up some of the gap between themselves and Android, but still 51% of Q4 new smartphone sales belonged to Android (compared to 37% for iOS). This is according to GP's own link. Another of GP's links has iOS at 43% of the new sales compared to Android's 47% of new sales, but still Android is outselling iOS by that report; just not by as wide of a margin. The only report to actually support GP's claim of the three provided by GP has a difference in sales of 0.1% - far, far less than any margin of error could have been, so at best it could be claimed by this report that it can't be shown that iOS is still losing market share to Android; no claim that one or the other is dominant could be made from such a narrow margin.

It still has jack squat to do with an interesting hardware/software hack between a phone, a projector, and a Kinect. A little more responsive, and something like this would make a fantastic presentation platform.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S. With 37 million iPhones sold last quarter, Apple is the largest smartphone marker, and their profits exceed Google’s entire revenue, $13 billion to $10.6 billion. With 15 million iPads sold last quarter, the tablet market is now larger than the entire desktop PC market.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

In what world does a platform need to control dominant (or complete) market share to be a success? Oh, that's right, in the pathetic little walled garden world of the iphone dweeb. Clearly, if the iPlatform sells more devices that makes it the "winner" of life and all of the "losers" can pack it up, right? I will take my fragmented, constantly charging iphone knock off with pleasure if it means I can avoid thinking like you, EVEN IF the last software update ever made for it is '2.7.3'.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple completely erased Android's marketshare lead, confirming earlier reports by both Nielsen and NPD. Over 150 Android smartphones couldn't outcompete the iPhone 4S.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android. Reuters reports that Apple now has more marketshare than Android, confirming earlier reports by both Neilsen and NPD.

The clock is ticking, Fandroids.

and now both NPD and Nielsen are saying that iOS has erased the market share lead that Android had.

Oh are you talking about this submission from bonch?

bonch writes
  "A Nielsen report states that the launch of the iPhone 4S helped Apple close the marketshare gap with Android, raising them to 44.5% compared to Android's 46.3% in December, coinciding with an earlier study by the NPD group. Apple sold 35 million iPhones last quarter, with the iPhone 4S making up 57% of those sales. RIM continued its decline but still outsold Windows Phone 7, which came in at a measly 1.6%."
  Link to Original Source

Come on bonch, we know it's you, there's no need to post anonymously.

The link in the summary says one thing from google. Here's a thought from someone who isn't from google saying something about google

http://gigaom.com/video/google-tv-ces/

The last paragraph reads

While it’s clear that the CE industry needs to do something to fight fragmentation between the dozen or so smart TV platforms, it seems unlikely that Google TV will be its savior in the near future. Google might have more partners than it did a year ago, but they’re hardly adopting the platform en masse. Unless something drastic happens, don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

Very poor of slashdot to drink the Koolaid like this.

Manufacturers competing on their "view of innovation"--which apparently means junkware like TouchWiz--is precisely what is fragmenting the platform. Schmidt seems to believe that by reframing it with a feel-good word like innovation, he can successfully claim that it's somehow the opposite of fragmentation. The differentiation and and in-fighting between manufacturers and devices is the fragmentation. Nothing he stated refutes the claim that the platform is fragmented; he's just describing the fragmentation in a different way.

NPD now says that iOS has officially closed the gap with Android in U.S. marketshare since the release of the iPhone 4S, so these issues are having a real effect on the platform. According to NPD's report, 150 Android handsets can't beat three old iPhone models. What's happening here is that Android phones catered to techies and budget buyers, but with the iPhone 3GS now free on contract, Apple now has budget buyers covered--and there are way more of them than there are techies.

Agree 1000%. Wish I had mod points. He's saying "Its not fragmented, its just a bunch of different systems, and custom UIs and different hardware, and different OS versions, and an inconsistent upgrade path." Uhm.... OK Eric.

Manufacturers competing on their "view of innovation"--which apparently means junkware like TouchWiz--is precisely what is fragmenting the platform. Schmidt seems to believe that by reframing it with a feel-good word like innovation, he can successfully claim that it's somehow the opposite of fragmentation. The differentiation and and in-fighting between manufacturers and devices is the fragmentation. Nothing he stated refutes the claim that the platform is fragmented; he's just describing the fragmentation in a different way.

NPD now says that iOS has officially closed the gap with Android in U.S. marketshare since the release of the iPhone 4S, so these issues are having a real effect on the platform. According to NPD's report, 150 Android handsets can't beat three old iPhone models. What's happening here is that Android phones catered to techies and budget buyers, but with the iPhone 3GS now free on contract, Apple now has budget buyers covered--and there are way more of them than there are techies.

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly.

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Why the hell would anyone want to use any other search engine to start with i mean the rest of them are just plain old crap i have played with the bulk of the rest of them and thanks but no thanks pile of Poohhhh to put it very politely
   

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Gasp, not ad revenue! Did you expect their revenue to come from people paying for search results? Please try to grasp this: Every company that solely works in the Internet space is an Ad company. That's how money is made on the internet, if you think this makes something evil then you probably should be unplugging your computer from your 56k modem right about now. I mean Slashdot (the site you apparently abhor but can't stop posting on) relies on web advertizing, and OH SHIT most of it is in the form of Google Ads to boot!

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly.

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Citations please. Most of my fellow gamers (our clan has 450 members) are males in their late 30's to mid 60's, with about 15% female in their late 20's to late 40's.The average gamer is 37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture The average social game is a woman in her early 40's. http://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman/

When did Google begin renting movies ?

A while ago.

Actually it looks like they've plugged both of those dangers. Password now required for each purchase, including in-app. No 15 minute window.

http://gigaom.com/2011/03/10/apple-now-requires-password-entry-for-every-in-app-purchase/

Literally 97% of Google's revenue comes from web advertising. They're not a search company; the search engine is just one of many mechanisms for displaying ads.

You're not alone. Moving a million units a week and directing them at their app store can't hurt. :)

http://gigaom.com/2011/12/05/the-kindle-fire-the-next-big-haven-for-developers/

I just went straight to Apple. http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q411datasum.pdf

For App Store revenue I would expect that revenue would be their intake rather than including the portion that goes to developers. If this is an incorrect understanding of their data, then my analysis would be off, but such information does not appear to be easily available. The problem I've seen with looking for numbers outside of apple, is that in many cases people will group multiple lines of business related to hardware sales (sometimes included iPhone software for example in iPhone revenue). Also, again, what you are linking are pure revenue numbers, not profit numbers.

After digging some more however, it may appear that they are listing revenue of total sales on the store rather than just the portion that is due them, though it is hard to tell for sure. From http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/the-apple-app-store-economy/ the 2010 numbers were about 3 billion a year or 750 million in revenue per quarter from just iPhone apps. From http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/06/itunes-sells-6-billion-songs-and-other-fun-stats-from-the-philnote/ it appears that they sell about two billion songs a year or 500 million a quarter. Throw in some videos and it does start looking like perhaps you are correct that the revenue reporting is done as a store rather than a service provider. (Apple takes the money and then pays the vendor instead of taking payment on behalf of the vendor and taking their cut out of it as revenue, which is what I was expecting for a setup like that.) As a comparison, Visa doesn't list revenue equal to all the transactions that occur on their network, but rather the fee they collect for processing the transactions, which was the reason I believed this to be the case without digging further in to it.

That all said, while it significantly weakens one argument towards my initial claim that they would never give up the lock in, they still do not have a corporate history of breaking from lock in. Also, 10% revenue which would still map fairly close to 10% profit (looking just at the iPod and iPad and associated media side of things since Desktop sales wouldn't really be impacted as they aren't currently locked to iTunes) is still not something to scoff at giving up. It makes it more possible that a business motivator would come up to unlock, but still seems like it would be a significant cost. Honestly, their better bet at that point might be to open up iTunes music and video to Android which I think would be a more likely move for Apple if it started going that way.

It seems to me like Microsoft isn't exactly losing anything by bowing out.

It's not so much CES that's on the way out as Microsoft that's on the way out as far as a consumers are concerned. Microsoft didn't decide to "bow out", in fact CES decided to not invite them to do the keynote for 2013. After all it's been a long time since they were amongst the most influential consumer technology companies.

http://parislemon.com/post/14590185649/fuck-me-no-fuck-you
http://gigaom.com/2011/12/21/mystery-who-killed-the-microsoft-ces-keynote/

It might be tempting to draw a parellel, however it's a false one.

Apple decided to stop being a part of the MacWorld convention. Both Keynote and Stand.

Microsoft on the other hand were not invited to do another Keynote for 2013, and withdrew their plans to have a stand in response. to that.

Apple jumped, Microsoft were pushed.

http://parislemon.com/post/14590185649/fuck-me-no-fuck-you
http://gigaom.com/2011/12/21/mystery-who-killed-the-microsoft-ces-keynote/

Om Malik commenting on the state of Nokia in Finland.

I co-incidentally happen to be in Helsinki, a few miles away from Nokiaâ(TM)s global headquarters in Espoo, Finland. Walking around the downtown (where I am staying), I have seen many more iPhones than Nokia phones. And most of the startup people I met have some variation of the iPhone. One of them who is still in college told me that Nokia gave him one of their new phones, and he decided to use it as a way to support his nationâ(TM)s largest employer. A month later, he switched back to the iPhone. Ouch! When you canâ(TM)t give away your phones to your own âoeyouth,â it is time to stop hating on other platforms and look for ways to get people to use your product.

Nokia can't even give away their phones!

Companies are out to make money by selling a product, whether a service or a tangible item. These products cost the company money to produce and/or maintain. With customers increasing their demand for bandwidth, ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network to meet that demand, which costs a LOT of money. (Gigabit per second internet to about 100,000 homes would cost an estimated half a billion dollars). This money does not grow on trees. Governments cannot afford to make that investment, at least not now, and probably not ever.

Really??? Didn't the government just toss half a billion dollars to a failed solar startup and the tax payers are just supposed to take it? Half a billion is EASILY within the government's power.

Companies are out to make money by selling a product, whether a service or a tangible item. These products cost the company money to produce and/or maintain. With customers increasing their demand for bandwidth, ISPs and cable providers have to increase their network to meet that demand, which costs a LOT of money. (Gigabit per second internet to about 100,000 homes would cost an estimated half a billion dollars). This money does not grow on trees. Governments cannot afford to make that investment, at least not now, and probably not ever. The revenue to build the Gbps connections we all want, across the nation, will come from fees like this. Get used to it, or just unplug alltogether. (Incidentally, same applies to 3G/4G wireless connections. Doesn't matter if you have a fast connection to the tower if it has to use copper to get from the tower to the internet).

For AC, yes. For DC, no. Which is the problem ...

Problem with DC : upscaling the voltage is hard, complex and inefficient (but you can convert AC directly into high-voltage DC)
Problem with AC : there does not exist such a thing as an AC battery. You want battery backup, you need DC

Only in datacenters, which work with battery backup and thus usually have multiple AC->DC->AC conversion points, with big losses, is this even a factor.

How it works today is :
BIG high-voltage AC input to the datacenter, which is converted to DC (inefficient) and fed into the power system, which charges the batteries (inefficient) and powers several huge inverters which convert back to AC (inefficient), then this AC is transmitted over a normal power distribution system into the server racks, and each server takes in AC and ... converts it into 5V and 12V DC (inefficient).

So the theory is, let's change this into :
BIG high-voltage AC input to the datacenter, converted to DC (inefficient), which charges the batteries (inefficient), is distributed troughout the building and powers the servers.

The idea being that a huge extremely high-voltage power supply is more efficient than all the ping-pong conversions going on today.

The alternative to this is what google does. Instead of eleminating the AC-DC conversions at the headend, eliminate them at the tail end.

Google datacenters:
BIG high-voltage AC input to the datacenter, which is directly distributed into the datacenter and fed into the servers, which convert it to DC, and with that DC line, charge a battery specific to that one server, and use the same source for the actual server.

It has the same efficiency gains, obvious massive redundancy and maintenance gains. You have transformed the datacenter from a big centralized SPOF into a much more resilient and more efficient beast. BUT it requires people to maintain their own battery backup.

Right, we all know apple would never spend a penny building anything.
http://gigaom.com/apple/apples-new-north-carolina-data-center-ready-to-roll-2/

what's wrong with non-entry level engineers anyhow? that they want to get paid something else than mcd pays?)

The same thing that is wrong with heart surgeons accepting a nurse position.

They call it the Android Compatibility program [link], I have read they require prototype devices and have flexed this muscle in the past to prevent things they dont like from going into phones despite them causing no compatibility issues [link]

You can build a device without their blessing, but you are forbidden from using the Android name or adding any Google service like Maps or the Marketplace (and no American carrier will sell a phone without those.)

Its not only the android brand name you cant use, you cant add any Google service either (Marketplace, Gmail, Maps, etc.)

It is my understanding Google requies a device prototype for them to certify it compatible, and there are reports, some a bit controversial, about them making rules on the spot for something they didnt like that had nothing to do with compatibility (most notably when Motorola wanted to add some third party checkin app [link].)

In theory, during that process, they can also reject a deice that does not meet certain level of durability.

Also, others find real value in some of these updates. Like a lot of $$ value.

http://gigaom.com/apple/conde-nast-subscriptions-up-268-since-newsstand-launch/

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/fisker-scores-529m-doe-loan-to-start-project-nina/

Actually, the loan is for both vehicles, though the Karma was always intended to be assembled overseas.

It's sad that anyone with Google and a couple spare minutes can do a better job of vetting stories than the Slashdot editors.

http://gigaom.com/apple/judge-samsung-does-infringe-apples-u-s-patents/

A federal judge

“held both tablets above her head, one in each hand,” and “asked Samsung lawyers to identify which was which.” Levine said it took Samsung’s legal team “a while to do so.”

They couldn't recognize their own product right in front of them. That must have been hilarious to watch, and I'm sure it was absolutely devastating in the courtroom. But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"

Or figure out a way to stuff one of these in the car....
  http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/

And doesn't Apple already have some exclusive deals? iTunes accounted for 28% of all US Music sales May 2010, more than Walmart, and that number is likely higher now.

Walmart use to weld significant influence over the music industry, telling them to lower prices and even forcing artists to change lyrics that Walmart found "objectionable" and that was when Walmart sold only 20% of the nation's music. With iTunes at 28% they have even more power, and I imagine if Apple said "do not put your music on Google's music store" how can you say no to the company responsible for 28% of your income? If Apple was smart they would have put in their TOS long ago something that says if you sell your music on iTunes you can not sell it by any other digital distribution method.

Can't argue with the earnings, they are doing well financially. But those dollars are coming from a single product, 97% of its revenue is from advertising. Think about it: 97% from a single source, one that's sensitive to economic slowdowns too.

Also about those 40 million users for Google+ mentioned in the article, a counterpoint :

"The data shows that, on the day of its public debut, Google+ traffic skyrocketed to peak levels. But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state. It would appear that although high levels of publicity were able to draw new traffic to Google+, few of them saw reason to stay."

Rather than visiting the submitter's own web site where they just re-hash what they already got from GigaOm, how about just going to the source?

http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-steals-dreamworks-from-hbo/

This is probably what I was thinking of on efficiency:
http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/
"On a full life cycle basis including power plants and oil wells, electric vehicles manage about 34% efficiency versus only 14% for gasoline vehicles [1]"

OK, so you want to create a big industry (thorium power) over the next twenty years effectively from scratch, and then when solar panels are dirt cheap, we'll say? :-)

How can it be more trouble to add storage to the grid, including by molten salt, than to build thorium or whatever power plants?

Or perhaps we can have solar thermal mainly for night-time and PV mainly for day time?

Another related item on molten salt:
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/brightsource-energy-to-offer-solar-salt-storage-too/

You can look at the trends for yourself on things like PV. They are reaching grid parity. There is non conceivable reason why, once they do, there won't be tons more research on them to further drop their prices. People are talking about solar paints already, and there will be huge profit motives to make that work eventually as fossil fuels and mainstream nuclear go away for cost reasons.

You're right; you did list some storage options, but then you went on to say there was no viable option to fossil fuels and nuclear for baseline loads. Which is it? Here I've pointed to currently (or near currently) cost-effective PV and solar thermal, with a currently commercially viable energy storage solution for nighttime in use in a real location. Why is that mix not as viable as fossil fuels for handling the load for the grid? You said it takes a lot of land, but so does fossil fuel mining and roads and so on.

We could even make solar roadways if we wanted:
http://www.solarroadways.com/

That evnut page collects a bunch of different calculations and figures, and you are right they do not all agree.