Slashdot Mirror

To put a bit of a point on it: Mercedes-Benz recently garnered a lot of positive press for an announcement that they're planning to invest $1B (over the course of an unspecified number of years) in electrifying a vehicle plant to make BEVs. That's great! An order of magnitude less than they actually need in order to stay competitive with Tesla's investments, but hey, good for them!

So far, there's one company actually pouring in the huge amounts of money to bring EV production to economic scales (and dominating each market class that they enter, even crushing their ICE competition in sales)... and then there's a bunch of others trying to catch up to where said company was years ago. Yeah, different companies try to have selling points in different regards - GM, for example, by having a moderate range on a BMW-priced (but econobox-styled) vehicle. But when your total sales are 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less than the year and a half line to get a different vehicle in the same price range, well, the market has spoken. And neither GM, nor anyone else, has put forward the capital needed to be able to present and market a vehicle to pose a real threat.

Here's a graph that I think is really telling. The size of the market for vehicles with an average selling price of nearly six figures is vastly smaller than that for vehicles with an average sale price in the ~$35-40k range - and the tax credits on the latter far more meaningful to their buyers. Yet both the Model S and Model X still outsell the Bolt and Leaf in the US.

It's hilarious to read comments and posts about how this is due to "budget cutting". These cuts are not perceptible at taxpayer level. https://www.statista.com/stati... ...yes, there's a "drop" in there from 2011-2016, but I believe that's in overseas adventuring. Far more importantly, the "drop" is to the 2008 budget, more than double the 2000 budget, when there were few of these collisions. It's now nearly $2000 per American citizen. Add up all spending on Pentagon, DOE (nukes), DVA, and the spy/surveillance services, debt servicing, and it's a trillion a year, nearly $10,000 per household.

And yet, there isn't enough money for the PEOPLE in the American military, not even enough for their really basic training. Is is really all blown on overpriced weapons systems? Can't you include training in the weapons-system budget or something? Sneak it in.

and 50 thousand dollars just wow.

Number of active Twitter accounts 328 million
https://www.statista.com/st...

Number of tweets per day 500 million. 7700 per second so far today.
http://www.internetlivestat......

1 billion in digital political advertising in 2016
https://www.forbes.com/site...

Twitter was deliberately not carrying advertising supporting Trump
https://www.recode.net/2016...

I recall other incidents but ehh

Yeah, the threat to Microsoft is not that Linux is taking over the desktop, it's that the desktop is in considerable decline from 365 million to 270 million units/year. And it's in absolute decline in a booming market where at the same time you've gone from selling 472 million to 1.5 billion smartphones a year. The same trend is confirmed by browsing statistics. It's not dying, but it's not the future. And I don't understand how you can say their server platform is not threatened and at the same time say 1/3rd of the Azure instances run Linux, yes if you got Windows desktops you'll probably have a AD/Exchange/Sharepoint server but my guess is they're an ever smaller corner of a virtualized server, just like any PC can manage to run MS Office.

It's clear that Microsoft's big plan for the future is to get businesses hooked on Azure services and consumers to give a 30% cut at the store, the product is just a means to an end like how Google delivers you Android so you'll talk to all the Google services and buy from the Play store. Everything else is a hook to get you to use it, if you have to make the tools free and open source that's what they'll do. As in, I think Microsoft is going to a place where releasing a "Windows Open Source Project" wouldn't hurt them more than Google's "Android Open Source Project", because that's not really the moneymaker. If Microsoft can make money selling ice skates, don't be surprised if hell freezes over...

I have an old, jailbroken iPad still sitting on iOS 8.4 - but it doesn't leave the house, so I'm not too worried.

There seems to be a bit of fear-mongering here with regards to iOS. As of July, 87% of iOS devices were running iOS 10.x... and so not vulnerable to this.

And as you mentioned - OS X / macOS devices are not vulnerable.

Apple enjoys a 1 quarter spike in sales on the month of a new phone. Their sales are very much flat for the rest of the year with the month before a new product announcement being only marginally lower than the preceding month.

Except that's not historically true. The month before has always been marginally higher. Also since Apple does not break down sales by month, how can you quantify that there is a spike in the "month of a new phone"?

There's a reason why Apple typically announces new phones in the fall: holiday sales. Q1 for Apple will always be tend to be higher than any other quarter as it ends the holiday season.

I meant "most premium" in terms of the most commonly purchased branded waters, as opposed to generic grocery store gallon jugs. Coke (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina), and even Walmart (Great Value Purified) all explicitly say they are reverse osmosis filtered waters. Nestle is another big player, but they're a little ambiguous saying they use reverse osmosis "and/or" other methods.

Here's a chart about branded water sales. "Private label" means "grocery store brand":
https://www.statista.com/stati...

I encourage you to examine it in great detail and write a rebuttal. Maybe google some bottled water facts. Really dig in and tear my logic to shreds, I'm sure there's flaws aplenty to nitpick. Take your time, I'll read what you have to say and/or watch television.

They added "zero" users in Q2. Now, it seems they measure in "millions of users", so they might have added under one million, I don't know. They did get 9M in Q1, which is their highest since Q1 2015...far better than q4 2015 when they actually lost 2M. Still, out of the estimated 4.77 BILLION mobile phone owners in 2017, A HREF="https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/">328 million users isn't even hitting 10%. Facebook is at 2 billion.

They added "zero" users in Q2. Now, it seems they measure in "millions of users", so they might have added under one million, I don't know. They did get 9M in Q1, which is their highest since Q1 2015...far better than q4 2015 when they actually lost 2M. Still, out of the estimated 4.77 BILLION mobile phone owners in 2017, A HREF="https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/">328 million users isn't even hitting 10%. Facebook is at 2 billion.

If this site can be trusted, the global smartphone market is some 400 billion dollars annually. The total invested in Essential to date seems to be around 300 million, which is definitely real money, but not necessarily a shocking figure. Something like 30-50 billion of VC funding gets thrown around on a quarterly basis. Andy Rubin has as good a chance as anyone to be able to deliver some value for that money, and he can probably be counted on to be able to put together a good team as well. If Uber can lose billions annually without anyone batting an eye then I don't know why these guys deserve the press, or why the "...without shipping a product" angle was necessary. Are we expecting that they're somehow less likely to do with the additional funding? Is there some part of bringing a smartphone to market that's expected to be quick, cheap, and easy?

Apparently it's a slow news day.

There are 2.5 billion smartphones in use. If each of those had two CCD sensors, that's 5 billion.
https://www.statista.com/stati...

245 million CCTV systems were installed in 2014. If that is a yearly estimate, then you could extrapolate over a decade.
https://technology.ihs.com/532...

That's another 2.5 billion.

If you look at a sales figures of digital SLR cameras vs smartphones, digital cameras are in decline:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/...
That puts smartphones at 1.5 billion/year. That could be extrapolated as well.

Possibly 14 billion, but not trillion.

Unless you're using a Sprint-style CDMA phone,

So, 14% of the US?

I'm convinced that the only substantial success of advertising is in getting companies to pay for advertising. There may be some marginal benefit for entirely unknown brands, but there's no way that companies get $100bn of value out of it, in the US alone.

Steve Jobs hated paying dividends (profit which is supposed to go to stockholders). Apple stopped paying dividends when Jobs was re-hired in 1995, and started paying them again shortly after his death in 2012. The $200+ billion in cash Apple has in the bank almost exactly equals how much it should have paid out in dividends during Jobs' reign. So I suspect what happened is the board complied with Jobs' wish not to pay dividends to stockholders, but only on the condition that they bank it so they could decide how to use it later (including possibly paying it out to future stockholders).

So basically it's pocket change because they didn't pay their owners for close to 20 years. I'd have a lot of money in the bank too if I didn't have to make payments on my home and car loan for 20 years. (Though to be fair, Google doesn't pay dividends either.)

Assuming this data is accurate, Twitter's user base seems to have hit market saturation sometime around the start of 2015. The service has remained pretty much the same since they began it, so why would anyone expect that there are suddenly more people who aren't using Twitter that have decided that they want to use it? There was a significant uptick in the first quarter of this year (possibly attributable to Twitter being Trump's medium of choice), but anyone who thought that was sustainable growth was crazy.

The numbers seem off. The latest high speed line from Paris to Bordeaux cost 8 billions for 300 km. This is in the ballpark of 27 millions per km. Highways cost around 6 millions per km. Of course, both numbers can vary greatly according to the terrain characteristics. But we are certainly not talking about a factor 100 of difference... However, it's true that it's hard to imagine how the hyperloop track could be cheap.

U definitions; U6 is most of the people who want to work but cannot find a job, cannot find a full time job (underemployment) and thus still need assistance, or who have given up.

ShadowStats also factors in those who have permanently left the work force but are still in the 19-64 age range. It's no secret that permanent disability and permanent Medicaid status have both exploded since 2008. ShadowStats factors those people into their own unemployment rate, as it appears the Federal Government moved a permanent segment of society from the unemployment rolls (U3 and U6) to "out of workforce" in an effort to lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps that's why the Labor Force Participation Rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years (note: labor force participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working - it does not include retirees).

There are 7 Billion (roughly) people in the world, and the majority don't have Internet, phones, or power. If you are in doubt, look at the populations of India and China. The majority do not live in cities, but the sticks.

Only 16% lack access to electricity. The majority do have cell phones, that is not subscriptions which is at 7+ billion somewhere. Half the world is online, at least occasionally. Maybe you should update your prejudices?

P.S. It's actually easier to do power and communication than water supply and sewage. Sanitation is still pretty lacking in many parts of the world.

Selection bias, much? You're clearly cherry-picking your data.

Prove it.

What about virtually every recent Blu-ray and DVD player

In 2015 there were only 43.5 million blu-ray players total in households in the US. And that's after 9 years of availability.

Or automotive media players

Global car sales for 2016. 77 million cars were sold.

Global smart phone sales for 2016. 1.5 billion smartphones were sold.

Global PC shipments per quarter in 2016. 70 million PCs are sold every quarter.

The numbers don't lie. Your argument is unimpressive.

Selection bias, much? You're clearly cherry-picking your data.

Prove it.

What about virtually every recent Blu-ray and DVD player

In 2015 there were only 43.5 million blu-ray players total in households in the US. And that's after 9 years of availability.

Or automotive media players

Global car sales for 2016. 77 million cars were sold.

Global smart phone sales for 2016. 1.5 billion smartphones were sold.

Global PC shipments per quarter in 2016. 70 million PCs are sold every quarter.

The numbers don't lie. Your argument is unimpressive.

Selection bias, much? You're clearly cherry-picking your data.

Prove it.

What about virtually every recent Blu-ray and DVD player

In 2015 there were only 43.5 million blu-ray players total in households in the US. And that's after 9 years of availability.

Or automotive media players

Global car sales for 2016. 77 million cars were sold.

Global smart phone sales for 2016. 1.5 billion smartphones were sold.

Global PC shipments per quarter in 2016. 70 million PCs are sold every quarter.

The numbers don't lie. Your argument is unimpressive.

Claiming she was sexist against men doesn't seem borne out by the numbers.

Or wait! Maybe she KNEW yahoo would be run into the ground and THAT'S WHY SHE KEPT 63% MEN AS HER EMPLOYEES!!!

Seriously, this is one lawsuit alleging as part of it's claims that sexism might have been involved at a company that was still a majority men by far. I'm guessing she DID fire more men than women: that's to be expected when most of the workers are men. She also probably fired far far more white people than she did people of color! She's racist against white people too!

What gets me is that the chances of dying from terrorism are tiny. I saw this graphic showing leading causes of death in perspective. Heart disease and cancer are the two big ones. Terrorism is a tiny dot. I decided to look up the hard numbers too, figuring that the graphic could be exaggerating things.

There were about 28,000 deaths from terrorism world-wide in 2015 (Source). (If we limit it to US only, the number is much smaller.) Meanwhile, 610,000 people in the US die of heart disease every year. 17.7 million in the world (Source). You would need over 630 YEARS of terrorism deaths to equal 1 year of heart disease death.

So if we're supposed to be quaking in our boots over terrorism, what should we be doing over heart disease?!!!

I suspect you will find vehicle thefts are at record lows at the moment. In general stealing cars today is much harder than it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Here are the graphs for the UK, US and Canada to show it.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

Though there does appear in all three to be a slight uptick in the last few years. Basically car crime is still *A LOT* lower than it was in the past.

I suspect you will find vehicle thefts are at record lows at the moment. In general stealing cars today is much harder than it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Here are the graphs for the UK, US and Canada to show it.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

Though there does appear in all three to be a slight uptick in the last few years. Basically car crime is still *A LOT* lower than it was in the past.

I suspect you will find vehicle thefts are at record lows at the moment. In general stealing cars today is much harder than it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Here are the graphs for the UK, US and Canada to show it.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.statista.com/stati...

Though there does appear in all three to be a slight uptick in the last few years. Basically car crime is still *A LOT* lower than it was in the past.

...houses are much larger and nicer than they were in 1970. Living space per person has almost doubled, the average house is 1,000 sq. ft. larger and has amenities like walk-in closets and expensive counter-tops you wouldn't find on an average house in the 70s.

Whilst I can find articles to see where you got this idea from, this doesn't quite pass the smell test. This is true only for new homes (i.e. the well off to construct new dwellings) and if you include established homes and the number of children per adult this picture changes.

Here is a page showing the trend of less people per household in the US over time. It may seem like there has been an improvement in living space per person (again check for all residences and not new ones in your stats), but to me it just means that adults are sharing space in the cities that don't really want to and can't bring up kids like they could in the past for financial reasons.

The GDP of Los Angeles metro area was $930 billion in 2015, with the GDP of the county being around $700 billion, so there you go.

The New York City metro GDP is $1.6 trillion, but each borough is its own county so the counties have smaller GDP, even if they're abnormally small.

The GDP of Los Angeles metro area was $930 billion in 2015, with the GDP of the county being around $700 billion, so there you go.

The New York City metro GDP is $1.6 trillion, but each borough is its own county so the counties have smaller GDP, even if they're abnormally small.

The number of people in an average household has decreased. It's not surprising that fewer individuals use less electricity.

Nope. It's just a bad summary. TFA deals with "U.S. residential electricity consumption per capita 1990-2015," so if they mean "households," it's on a collective basis rather than per household.

However, I find it hard to believe that lighting alone is responsible for this (though I might be biased since I've long used CFLs, was an early adopter of LEDs, and would not even consider incandescents for general use). Could it also be more energy-efficient computer processors (and more laptops, tablet, etc. usage as opposed to desktops)? I don't doubt that lighting contributes to this, and I guess LEDs might matter if a lot of people are switching from incandescents, but a lot of people are already using CFLs and LEDs aren't that much more efficient. One commenter in the article notes that this could also be people intentionally trying to consume less energy due to rising rates, especially since the data don't show just wealthy areas (where appliances and the like are more likely to be replaced with newer, more efficient versions) leading the trend.

The number of people in an average household has decreased. It's not surprising that fewer individuals use less electricity.

but we tax personal income, which will go away, so some replacement tax has to pay for it.

Indeed. The core problem brought by increasing automation (which is inevitable) is that the marginal utility of labor decreases.

However taxing 'robots' to solve this seems unwise. Robotics and machine learning powered automation increase efficiency, allowing higher productivity, As the companies' labor cost decline as a result, their profits can be taxed more without the overall tax burden on them increasing (as you're essentially replacing diminishing income taxes with other forms of tax) to fund basic income (or other equivalent systems) to maintain a standard of living for those individuals whose skillset has become obsolete due to automation and for whom retraining is not possible.

Pretty much all industrialized economies use progressive taxation on income. With income taxation losing ground as automation advances, I think a more apt direction would be to consider introducing some form of progression to corporate taxes. Why should say, a multinational, multibillion dollar pharmaceutical company with profit margins above 20 % or even above 50 % pay the same rate of tax as a small family business?

Implementation of such systems in the current situation is not possible because of the existence of tax-havens, and the relative ease with which larger companies can relocate their books to different nations, but this question is one which will have to be answered in the coming decades: as it looks more and more likely that the global business will be dominated by larger players taking advantage of their ability to implement automation at a large scale, we will have to come together as a planer to figure out how these entities are taxed, or we're faced with a situation in which the hoarding of money to the top 0,1 % will keep on going while the income from labor plummets and large segments of previously well-off people are plunged into poverty without any ability to compete with said large players due to lack of capital.

This is often waived off as a 'leftist' fear, but we're talking about a core capitalist principle, namely the wage share. The wage share fluctuates, but currently it looks to be trending downwards, as an ever increasing amount of profits goes to capital and re-investment, while labor costs are going down. Note that this does not mean the share of wages will ever actually reach zero, but that doesn't eliminate the problem; if nothing is done to change taxation to compensate for the plummeting wage share, consumption will collapse as the majority of the consumer base - currently gaining their income mostly in wages - will be without any income and hence without any purchasing power and we're left in a situation in which companies have immense and efficient production capabilities but no-one to buy their products, which is a highly undesirable scenario regardless of whether one's on the left or on the right.

Programmers like Mac's because they are *nix (BSD) based with Apple's GUI affixed. OS X has more in common with Android than iOS since they both incorporate an open kernel and the CLI is accessible. iOS may use the same base as OS X but without jailbreaking you aint touching it. OS X is also less than 10% of Apple's revenue. The question was what is the allure of Apple products so clearly they were referring to the iPhone which makes up over 60% of Apples revenue. And those programmers are just as likely to be running Linux/BSD/Windows (OK maybe not Windows) on that Mac as OS X. All that said. Being a programmer doesn't automatically make you a techie.

You're talking in "maybes."

I dealt in certainty.

I know my shit: It's brown, about that long, and don't stink.

In the year 2000, Apple could not support business.

It's still like that.

You have to be fair to Gartner, they were not aware of Windows anal probe 10 and thus could not take it into account. Nobody likes perves, a lesson everyone except the arse holes at M$ learned in primary school, really, really uncool behaviour ask any reasonable child and they will tell you exactly that. So M$ is killing itself in the consumer market first in smart phones and now the XBone is following suit losing market share to Sony and XBone is the popular name for it, so not seen as cool what so ever. Wow it looks pretty grim for M$ https://www.statista.com/stati.... It seems like smart phones are killing game consoles, so how long before the hook up a smart phone to a big screen TV. The privacy invasiveness and arrogance is market suicide and good riddance.

Toshiba is the #2 flash memory manufacturer. Samsung is #1. If Toshiba goes under, Samsung dominates the NAND industry with close to 50% market share (even more for high-speed NAND), and can start to dictate pricing to companies which need to buy large quantities of NAND - like Apple. So it's in Apple's best interest to make sure Toshiba stays around and kicking and manufacturing NAND.

Excellent point!

Toshiba is the #2 flash memory manufacturer. Samsung is #1. If Toshiba goes under, Samsung dominates the NAND industry with close to 50% market share (even more for high-speed NAND), and can start to dictate pricing to companies which need to buy large quantities of NAND - like Apple. So it's in Apple's best interest to make sure Toshiba stays around and kicking and manufacturing NAND.

You need to think of it in terms of expected damage, not just possible damage. Yes the CIA/NSA/whoever could theoretically suddenly decide to put you under surveillance, start monitoring all your communications, misinterpret your emails to Mom as coded threats to blow up the White House, then execute you for treason or send you to Gitmo to rot, but the odds of that happening are infinitesimal, and there's no record of it ever happening to any (innocent) American in the 10 years since PRISM started. Foreign governments of course have even less reason to care about you.

Non-government malware writers - foreign or domestic - can cause you real harm through all the usual means: ransomware, stealing personal info, hijacking your machine...whatever. Unlikely to happen to any specific individual - depending on their security hygiene - but happens all the time to zillions of people all over the planet.

US corporations, OTOH, are constantly harming you in innumerable ways. Pollution, financial exploitation of customers by banks or investment firms, degradation of employee rights... Advertising alone does more harm to people than anything the government is likely to ever do. Remember advertising by definition is deliberate psychological manipulation designed (usually) to separate you from your money by coercing you into buying shit you otherwise wouldn't have. $200+ billion a year - ~$650 per person per year - is spent on advertising in America, and you can bet they're not getting a negative ROI. (Then add to that whatever value you want to put on all your annoyance and wasted time)

That most SJWs are women and are mostly targeting men has a lot to do with the vitriol that is spewed about SJWs. A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman.

Uhm. Are they? How do you know? Is OrangeTide a masculine or feminine name? Neither. I have no idea if the majority of SJWs who post on the Internet are women or not. Being an "old fashioned" person, I tend to think they're all men, because when I started using the Internet, everybody was male.

According to random Internet site, 66.2% of the female gender people in the Americas use the Internet compared to 65.8% of the male gender people. So if I'm just picking odds here, most SJWs might be female. By a margin of 0.5%. I'm going to guess that there are significant factors that skew SJWs to one sex or another, but I have no idea what they might be or what the actual skew is. How do you know?

You have the wrong chart there, as it's combining mobile and tablet. Here's tablet market share. Apple as a manufacturer has the largest share. iOS as a tablet platform is second to Android.

> despite having one of the most expensive health care systems.

Not "one of" but "the" most expensive healthcare system by 100% increase from the next most expensive. Canada's.

Here's a nice citation: https://www.statista.com/chart...

Firstly basic research is practically non-existent in the private sector and always has been

Not true. For example, about a quarter of US college students go to a private sector college. And any listing of top research universities will have a heavy private sector presence (such as here, here, and here).

Similarly, let's see who actually is funding R&D in the US:

In 2006 the total expenditure for R&D conducted in the U.S. was about $340B in current dollars. Of this total, basic research accounts for about 18% ($62B), applied research about 22% ($75B), and development about 60% ($204B).[8] Over the past decades the U.S. institutions contributing to the output of basic research have shifted dramatically.[9] Although industrial contributions to national R&D now far outpace Federal R&D support, only about 3.8% of industry-performed R&D can be classified as 'basic', with the remainder devoted to applied R&D. For industry-funded and performed R&D, the basic percentage is about the same for 2006, 3.7%. This percentage of basic research performed by industry has hovered slightly below 4% of all industry-performed R&D for most years since the late 1990s.[10] In 2006, industry funded 17% of U.S. basic research, and performed 15% of it.

The Federal Government is the second largest source of R&D funding (28%) following industry. Federal expenditures vary greatly from agency to agency in terms of amounts, directions, and objectives, depending upon the mission of the particular agency.[11] Federal funding is the primary source of basic research support in the U.S. (over 59% in 2006[12]), of which about 56% is carried out by academic institutions. U.S. basic research is also funded by foundations (about 10%), universities and colleges (about 10%), and state and local governments (about 3.5% through funding of academic basic research).[13] Federal obligations for academic research (both basic and applied) and especially in the current support for National Institutes of Health (NIH) (whose budget had previously doubled between the years 1998 to 2003) declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to decline further in 2006 and 2007. This is the first multiyear decline in Federal obligations for academic research since 1982.[14] The intent of Federal policy is to increase support for physical sciences research in future years.[15]

Right there, we see that 17% of basic science funding in 2006 was paid directly by private industry with additional amounts by foundations and private universities and colleges. So claiming that the private sector in basic science research is non-existent is outright wrong. Even when you narrowly consider only the funding from private businesses!

We then need to consider that public funding has crowded out private funding - after all, what's the point, for example, of a billionaire donating money to a new particle accelerator, or a body of researchers to solicit private funds when public funding can easily outspend the private funding by an order of magnitude or more? Before that happened, private funding was a huge source of basic research. For example, most US professional astronomical telescopes from before the Second World War were privately funded. So private funding has been artificially suppressed by the plentiful public funding.

Finally, there's the matter of efficiency. Private research efforts tend to be a lot more productive for the money spent than public ones (which are often more about where the money is spent an

interesting, what would be the downstream consequences of that?

transportation expense, delivery expense. your goods don't magically arrive on the shelves after all.

would that bump up the cost of manufacture in america? slow down the yadda yadda? what would that do to manufacturing incentives for companies based in the US, would it incentivize relocating manufacturing overseas even more than it is currently? when not only the cost of labor is significantly cheaper, but the energy as well?

tourism is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry apparently.

https://www.statista.com/topic...

1 trillion in direct spending, of that 800 billion was by domestic travelers. transportation cost increases would hit that thing like a bag of bricks.

>> Except that Android is nowhere near being king of tablets. It is not even close to being 2nd.
B.S.
Android is powering 62-68% of tablets.
Source :
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.netmarketshare.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But they sold more of them.

Got a link to something that shows that? I'm sure you don't, or you'd have provided it.

Gee, why am I not surprised that something who has mastered the art of manipulative quoting of statistics pretending not being able to find it. Why don't you try using Google or look at Apple's fucking numbers on their page? Fuck, you can even find it on your beloved Statista - although not on the premium section, so everybody can actually look at it, unlike the links you constantly post from them. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

You are such a phony.

And I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at, but the iPhone has lost market share since the iPhone 7 came out.

But they sold more of them. And selling more is the opposite of selling less, at least in the real world we live in. Can't speak for you and your "wife" of course.

These quarterly results? The ones that show fewer launch-quarter sales than the every model since the 4s, with the exception of the 5s? Are those the quarterly results you're talking about? Or do you mean the ones that show increased revenue attributed to the considerable increase in the price of the device?

Revenue does not equal sales. Device sales are the number you want if you're trying to gauge market acceptance; and that number, for the iPhone 7, is down.

As i said, it's not just my wife...

And I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at, but the iPhone has lost market share since the iPhone 7 came out. Sure, if you only look at the 2 previous quarters, their sales numbers are up from 11.8% of new phone sales, to 12.5% of new phone sales, to 18.3% of new phone sales when the iPhone 7 came out. But, if you compare the iPhone 7's launch quarter, to that of the iPhone 4s, 5, 5s, 6, and 6s, you'll see that Apple maintained 23% of new phone sales for two quarters with the 4s, then dropped to 20.9% with the 5, 17.4% with the 5s, rose back to 19.7% with the 6, dropped again to 18.7% with the 6s, and fell to 18.3% with the 7.

They peaked at the iPhone 4s and have been trending downward ever since. The only reason gross revenue for the iPhone 7 launch beat that of the iPhone 6s is that Apple decided to raise the price considerably; actual sales numbers do not lie, they are selling fewer of them than they would be if the masses wanted what they were selling. Perhaps they should look at what made people want the 4s and do more of that?

Actually the article is a load of crap - Boeing is reducing 777 production right now, is in talks to end 747 production and has scrapped a production increase in the 787 (and may indeed scrap an entire production line in the next few years).

The only aircraft seeing production rate increases at the moment (that arent related to a new program coming on line, such as the A350XWB) are the A320 series and the 737 series - those sell well more than a thousand copies each year, with production lagging sales considerably.

Airbus is very competitive with Boeing on the 737 series and I believe both are struggling to undercut the other. Another thing that really hurts Boeing is Trump. If he implements his border taxes then their global supply chain is going to cost them big. I'm guessing they will shift to produce the aircraft outside the US entire and have foreign sales buy those. US sales might buy aircraft produced in the country, if Boeing can make it competitive but a lot of these suppliers have their own money tied up in things. It is not that easy to switch.

Either way if Boeing was doing that well then there would likely not see its employee count continuing to go down. link

under this rule.

The problem is there are are a total of 39,010 Incorporated Cities in the USA (source: https://www.statista.com/stati...).

So, for 99.79% of all US cities, net neutrality isn't a thing.