Fanboys aside, pragmatists aren't very fond of Apple. Pragmatists aren't suckered by hype. That is why they realize how strongly Apple resembles Microsoft in its heyday. Apple is perhaps worse - until recently Microsoft didn't so strongly control what could run on Windows the way Apple controls their walled garden. Apple is just more talented at appearing innocuous. Their marketing is more effective. No one proudly sported Windows the way some Apple fans show off their iDevices. Still doesn't change the nature of the corporation though.
Have you ever considered the possibility that some people actually *value* a walled garden? Like nearly everyone who isn't a tech geek? Which is like 99% of the people buying these devices?
It looks ok, but it's nothing special. Apple will keep their loyal followers, but don't expect the market share to grow.
1) iPhone 4 users
2) China
3) Brazil
I FULLY expect the market share to grow. Furthermore:
1) iPad mini
2) iTV
I fully expect the earnings to continue to grow.
Why because they increased by 1.35% (papa can get those new dancing shoes now)? My Nokia shares have almost doubled in value since i bought them a month ago.
I bought mine before the 1st iPad and have continued to buy shares because I had confidence in their long term growth and still do. Can you say the same for Nokia? I buy and hold. Doubled shares in one month is because of luck, not wise investing. If you think it is, then good luck to you in all your investments. Because that's what you're going to need.
Not necessarily based on just the announcement. But knowing the product specs gives me an idea of how well it's going to sell. How well it's going to sell gives me an idea of their earnings growth. Earnings growth = share price growth. Since the phone looks good, I'd say my shares are looking good.
I'm a Mac and iOS user, but I don't see why anyone should really freak out over this. Apple knows each every single app you load your iPhone or iPad (as well as all apps you download through the App Store on the Mac), yet no one I know of is concerned by this "invasion of privacy". If and when they start tracking private data within the apps, then I'd protest.
Like most stats of this kind, these numbers are from an ad network -- i.e. they're measuring ad views on their network by device. This shows that their ads are displayed more often on Apple products, not "actual usage". Different ad networks are more popular on Android; that's all.
You explanation makes an assumption that somehow Chitika ads are seen more often per iOS device. AFAIK, Chitika ads are just general web ads. There's no reason I know of for why it would be seen preferentially on iOS over Android.
Considering that there's at least 20 times the number of options for Android phones, isn't this bad? Also, a lot of the Android phones, esp the crappy ones, are free. Some people just don't care what phone they get as long as it's free.
I'll take a wait and see approach. It's possible that Peter Jackson has found a way to weave in a lot of background story into The Hobbit that ties both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies. I recall seeing Galadriel in the preview and she wasn't in The Hobbit so perhaps we'll see a bit more of the history of Middle Earth such as the formation of the White Council. Don't dismiss it just yet.
I'm a little tired of the analogies between software and physical freedom. The suggestion (in fact, the outright claim of this OP) is that using commercial software is the equivalent of slavery. RIDICULOUS. People making this claim are almost 100% tech geeks. For such people (and I include myself), open software is a great thing because *we know what to do with the options* and the consequences of making incorrect choices (and how to fix them). The vast majority of people (such as my parents and 99% of my friends) are NOT tech geeks. For them, open software ("freedom") presents choices to them that they do NOT want to make or simply do not know HOW to make. For them, a walled garden is a beautiful thing. Far better than the jungle out there where they may be eaten by lions and bears.
They are not a charity organization. Why would they create much more expensive USA jobs if it doesn't help their business or maximize profits for their shareholders? You might think it's the right thing to do. A shareholder of AAPL might disagree. People who like to buy Apple products might also disagree when the prices go up.
There's probably some kind of sampling bias that they didn't think of, but anything that let's me rationalize my habit is valid to me.
Hmm, I wonder if the researchers are coffee drinkers...
I would venture to guess that most people don't realize that deleting a file doesn't completely wipe it. The bigger question is, how many people who buy or receive those second hand-drives are looking to recover the data, and what % of them would do something with it that would NOT be okay with the original owner. I'd like to think not that many. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if there were scammers who look to buy cheap used drives to see if they can dig up some useful info on it. Seems to me that would be higher yield than trying to phish for it with spam, and easier than trying hack websites.
Like many other people and innovative corporations, I'm sick and tired of seeing patent litigation used as a business strategy (assuming that Nest legitimately did not steal any creation from Honeywell). I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm missing some nuance of IP law, but I've always wondered why these laws aren't written in a way that deters frivolous lawsuits. So for example, if you want to sue someone for $10 million because you feel that that person or corporation stole a creation of yours, fine. But if the judge finds your claims are not valid and that you're suing just to squash a competitor, you then owe the defendant the same amount of money that you are suing them for. Thus, if you go into court without solid evidence, you risk paying dearly for such a strategy. Right now, the problem seems to be there is no risk in suing someone other than some lawyer and court fees. Even if you lose, you kinda win by potentially tying a competitors hands behind their backs, esp if they're a small startup. For certain time-sensitive products (esp in technology), this can be a death sentence.
Re:The Sanctity of Life
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When it's time for you to go, it's time for you to go. When it's time for me to go, I'm going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer. I don't care if it's "Natural" to die. I'm going to do my very best not to. We do not have to perish, science has the answers. Maybe it's a bit too early for us, but my kid... or my grand kid will likely live for a very... very long time... Yes, we're running out of room, but there's always room in the rest of the solar system. The meek shall inherit the earth, the brave shall inherit the stars. Have fun dieing.
I'm a doctor myself and so I've been around a lot of death and disease - especially cancer. With all due respect, you won't really know what you'll do until you're faced with the actual situation. And what you will do depends ENTIRELY on your situation and your life experience. You're imagining a scenario where treatment results in a significantly longer survival with all your physical/mental abilities left intact and undamaged - essentially a cure. That's an easy choice. Unfortunately, this is NOT the case for many of the diseases that this author is talking about - particularly many types of cancer.
Your post makes me think that you are young and have not yet had someone close to you suffer from a terminal disease. It is particularly naive to state "We do not have to perish, science has the answers." Life experience will eventually teach you that this is just flat out wrong. You are perhaps forgetting that sometimes, the price to stay 'alive' (heart beating, lungs breathing) means sacrificing your actual *life* e.g. going outdoors and enjoying the sunshine, eating your favorite foods, traveling someplace you've always wanted to see, having some beer with some old friends, etc.
A slightly longer life is of little value if you end up living less. But perhaps you would make this choice regardless and that's fine too. Is it brave? After all, it's easy to be "brave" about something you haven't experienced. And I don't think it's braver than those who choose to accept their death and want to be able to do more with the time they have left.
All the speculation about an iTV is based on what the hardware or software (or price) will be. And all of it's useless. It's easy to predict that Apple will come out with something that's beautiful to look at and fun/easy to use. But there's only one thing that *really* matters for the success of Apple's foray into TV - where the content will come from. Until Apple succeeds on making a deal with the content providers to provide content on with a pricing model that's more appealing than cable and/or OTA, Apple's device will be fighting an uphill battle. I hope they do, but it's hard for me to imagine how ever since Comcast bought NBC.
The iPod succeeded because of the music they were able to obtain. The iPhone succeeded because of the apps people built. The iPad succeeded because of the adaptation of those apps for the big screen. The iTV will require some kind of similarly special content to make it succeed. Personally, I think (wish) Apple would start by buying HBO.
Gee, the article kinda sounds like it's talking about AT&T and Verizon. Except the part about them promising to raise bandwidth while lowering costs. "Golden rice bowls" definitely applies.
Does anyone else also see this as the potential foundation for the future often-rumored Apple TV? Imagine a TV set that doesn't require a remote control (or perhaps using the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad). All you need to do is talk to it...
"Record all new episodes of Family Guy."
"Show a slideshow of my photos from January of this year."
"What games are on ESPN today?"
"Turn on when Game of Thrones is on."
"When is the next NFL game?"
"Play my Coldplay channel on Pandora"
Works fine as a speech to text engine, but doesn't infer what you want done from what you said.
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Yeah, it's hard to believe people actually talk into a phone...
I mean did you know many people have laptops that can take a 12.5mm tall HDD? But most people only buy a 9mm drive?
So it would be nice if OCZ (or another manufacturer) could make a very thin (3mm) card that would piggyback on top of the HDD. It would also have to a SATA drive connector to attach it to the motherboard and then a loop through cable to attach to the drive. In this way the end user could add a SSD cache to their existing laptop!
His analogy with iPad's being Vespas and PC's being cars is actually quite apt (what is it about tech gadgets that we always compare them to automobiles?). Except that he forgets that he used it. Some people really can get by with just a scooter (or sometimes even just a bike). It all depends on which city you live in and what your job/shopping/activities situation is. I don't think too many people are saying that iPad's will make PC's completely obsolete. But it IS true that for some people, they no longer need a PC if they have an iPad. True for my parents. True for my technophobe friends. So it seems to me that he's really ranting about nothing. If a corporation with IT department needs PC's, it needs PC's. That's for the corporations to decide. It's still early in tablet development. If they ever get to the stage and Apple and it's hoard of imaginative developers create ways around the problems that PC's currently solve, well then Mr. Lewis's current argument will be obsolete. Until then, why worry enough about it write a 3 page article trying to defend the PC. The PC doesn't need defending.
Therefor, given a 'typical U.S. diet,' you would have to ride your bike instead of driving for around 400 miles to cover the bike's initial carbon footprint.
So building a car has a zero initial carbon footprint?
Seriously, I consider myself to be a pretty environmentally friendly, but these studies are ridiculous because they imply that we shouldn't put out ANY carbon into the atmosphere. Well, why don't we just wipe out all life on earth then? What we should be more concerned about is carbon balance. If we produce carbon emissions, we need to find a way to convert that carbon back into a non-gaseous form. Without industrial production, plant life can easily do that. With the mass development of industry and machinery, we need to find ways to augment it.
You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)
Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.
What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.
Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.
My understanding is this: both the Apple A4 and A5 are SoC's (System on a Chip) with ARM cores (A4 - single, A5 - dual) but are designed by Apple. Samsung only provided manufacturing capability. Design of the end product (iPhone and iPad) was done by Apple. Integration of the chip into the finished product and mass manufacturing (iPhone 4, iPad 1 and 2) was done by Foxconn and Pegatron (iPhone 4 CDMA only). I don't recall ever reading that Samsung was involved in any part of the iPhone 4 or iPads beyond the manufacturing of the chips (and flash memory). Please provide a link if you know differently. Here's one that lists parts and suppliers for the iPhone 4: LINK
Thus, at least to my understanding, replacing Samsung is simply a matter of finding someone else who can manufacture chips (and maybe even memory if they just want to be rid of Samsung). At the very least, it benefits Apple to find more than one potential supplier both for getting more supply and lower prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Fanboys aside, pragmatists aren't very fond of Apple. Pragmatists aren't suckered by hype. That is why they realize how strongly Apple resembles Microsoft in its heyday. Apple is perhaps worse - until recently Microsoft didn't so strongly control what could run on Windows the way Apple controls their walled garden. Apple is just more talented at appearing innocuous. Their marketing is more effective. No one proudly sported Windows the way some Apple fans show off their iDevices. Still doesn't change the nature of the corporation though.
Have you ever considered the possibility that some people actually *value* a walled garden? Like nearly everyone who isn't a tech geek? Which is like 99% of the people buying these devices?
It looks ok, but it's nothing special. Apple will keep their loyal followers, but don't expect the market share to grow.
1) iPhone 4 users 2) China 3) Brazil I FULLY expect the market share to grow. Furthermore: 1) iPad mini 2) iTV I fully expect the earnings to continue to grow.
Why because they increased by 1.35% (papa can get those new dancing shoes now)? My Nokia shares have almost doubled in value since i bought them a month ago.
I bought mine before the 1st iPad and have continued to buy shares because I had confidence in their long term growth and still do. Can you say the same for Nokia? I buy and hold. Doubled shares in one month is because of luck, not wise investing. If you think it is, then good luck to you in all your investments. Because that's what you're going to need.
Not necessarily based on just the announcement. But knowing the product specs gives me an idea of how well it's going to sell. How well it's going to sell gives me an idea of their earnings growth. Earnings growth = share price growth. Since the phone looks good, I'd say my shares are looking good.
Those of us who own shares of AAPL would disagree. Just sayin...
I'm a Mac and iOS user, but I don't see why anyone should really freak out over this. Apple knows each every single app you load your iPhone or iPad (as well as all apps you download through the App Store on the Mac), yet no one I know of is concerned by this "invasion of privacy". If and when they start tracking private data within the apps, then I'd protest.
Like most stats of this kind, these numbers are from an ad network -- i.e. they're measuring ad views on their network by device. This shows that their ads are displayed more often on Apple products, not "actual usage". Different ad networks are more popular on Android; that's all.
You explanation makes an assumption that somehow Chitika ads are seen more often per iOS device. AFAIK, Chitika ads are just general web ads. There's no reason I know of for why it would be seen preferentially on iOS over Android.
Considering that there's at least 20 times the number of options for Android phones, isn't this bad? Also, a lot of the Android phones, esp the crappy ones, are free. Some people just don't care what phone they get as long as it's free.
And forget about sales for a moment (you probably meant "shipments"), what about actual usage?
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/21/real-time-research-ios-dominates-over-android-when-it-comes-to-usage-says-chitika/
FTA: iOS=67.66%; Android=27.66%
I'd argue this is a lot more meaningful as it shows real world usage.
I'll take a wait and see approach. It's possible that Peter Jackson has found a way to weave in a lot of background story into The Hobbit that ties both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies. I recall seeing Galadriel in the preview and she wasn't in The Hobbit so perhaps we'll see a bit more of the history of Middle Earth such as the formation of the White Council. Don't dismiss it just yet.
I'm a little tired of the analogies between software and physical freedom. The suggestion (in fact, the outright claim of this OP) is that using commercial software is the equivalent of slavery. RIDICULOUS. People making this claim are almost 100% tech geeks. For such people (and I include myself), open software is a great thing because *we know what to do with the options* and the consequences of making incorrect choices (and how to fix them). The vast majority of people (such as my parents and 99% of my friends) are NOT tech geeks. For them, open software ("freedom") presents choices to them that they do NOT want to make or simply do not know HOW to make. For them, a walled garden is a beautiful thing. Far better than the jungle out there where they may be eaten by lions and bears.
As the saying goes, "You can never be too rich or too thin."
They are not a charity organization. Why would they create much more expensive USA jobs if it doesn't help their business or maximize profits for their shareholders? You might think it's the right thing to do. A shareholder of AAPL might disagree. People who like to buy Apple products might also disagree when the prices go up.
There's probably some kind of sampling bias that they didn't think of, but anything that let's me rationalize my habit is valid to me. Hmm, I wonder if the researchers are coffee drinkers...
I would venture to guess that most people don't realize that deleting a file doesn't completely wipe it. The bigger question is, how many people who buy or receive those second hand-drives are looking to recover the data, and what % of them would do something with it that would NOT be okay with the original owner. I'd like to think not that many. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if there were scammers who look to buy cheap used drives to see if they can dig up some useful info on it. Seems to me that would be higher yield than trying to phish for it with spam, and easier than trying hack websites.
Like many other people and innovative corporations, I'm sick and tired of seeing patent litigation used as a business strategy (assuming that Nest legitimately did not steal any creation from Honeywell). I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm missing some nuance of IP law, but I've always wondered why these laws aren't written in a way that deters frivolous lawsuits. So for example, if you want to sue someone for $10 million because you feel that that person or corporation stole a creation of yours, fine. But if the judge finds your claims are not valid and that you're suing just to squash a competitor, you then owe the defendant the same amount of money that you are suing them for. Thus, if you go into court without solid evidence, you risk paying dearly for such a strategy. Right now, the problem seems to be there is no risk in suing someone other than some lawyer and court fees. Even if you lose, you kinda win by potentially tying a competitors hands behind their backs, esp if they're a small startup. For certain time-sensitive products (esp in technology), this can be a death sentence.
When it's time for you to go, it's time for you to go. When it's time for me to go, I'm going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer. I don't care if it's "Natural" to die. I'm going to do my very best not to. We do not have to perish, science has the answers. Maybe it's a bit too early for us, but my kid... or my grand kid will likely live for a very... very long time... Yes, we're running out of room, but there's always room in the rest of the solar system. The meek shall inherit the earth, the brave shall inherit the stars. Have fun dieing.
I'm a doctor myself and so I've been around a lot of death and disease - especially cancer. With all due respect, you won't really know what you'll do until you're faced with the actual situation. And what you will do depends ENTIRELY on your situation and your life experience. You're imagining a scenario where treatment results in a significantly longer survival with all your physical/mental abilities left intact and undamaged - essentially a cure. That's an easy choice. Unfortunately, this is NOT the case for many of the diseases that this author is talking about - particularly many types of cancer.
Your post makes me think that you are young and have not yet had someone close to you suffer from a terminal disease. It is particularly naive to state "We do not have to perish, science has the answers." Life experience will eventually teach you that this is just flat out wrong. You are perhaps forgetting that sometimes, the price to stay 'alive' (heart beating, lungs breathing) means sacrificing your actual *life* e.g. going outdoors and enjoying the sunshine, eating your favorite foods, traveling someplace you've always wanted to see, having some beer with some old friends, etc.
A slightly longer life is of little value if you end up living less. But perhaps you would make this choice regardless and that's fine too. Is it brave? After all, it's easy to be "brave" about something you haven't experienced. And I don't think it's braver than those who choose to accept their death and want to be able to do more with the time they have left.
All the speculation about an iTV is based on what the hardware or software (or price) will be. And all of it's useless. It's easy to predict that Apple will come out with something that's beautiful to look at and fun/easy to use. But there's only one thing that *really* matters for the success of Apple's foray into TV - where the content will come from. Until Apple succeeds on making a deal with the content providers to provide content on with a pricing model that's more appealing than cable and/or OTA, Apple's device will be fighting an uphill battle. I hope they do, but it's hard for me to imagine how ever since Comcast bought NBC.
The iPod succeeded because of the music they were able to obtain. The iPhone succeeded because of the apps people built. The iPad succeeded because of the adaptation of those apps for the big screen. The iTV will require some kind of similarly special content to make it succeed. Personally, I think (wish) Apple would start by buying HBO.
Gee, the article kinda sounds like it's talking about AT&T and Verizon. Except the part about them promising to raise bandwidth while lowering costs. "Golden rice bowls" definitely applies.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/239020/apple_again_rumored_to_be_preparing_to_release_a_television.html
Does anyone else also see this as the potential foundation for the future often-rumored Apple TV? Imagine a TV set that doesn't require a remote control (or perhaps using the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad). All you need to do is talk to it...
"Record all new episodes of Family Guy."
"Show a slideshow of my photos from January of this year."
"What games are on ESPN today?"
"Turn on when Game of Thrones is on."
"When is the next NFL game?"
"Play my Coldplay channel on Pandora"
Works fine as a speech to text engine, but doesn't infer what you want done from what you said. The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Yeah, it's hard to believe people actually talk into a phone...
I mean did you know many people have laptops that can take a 12.5mm tall HDD? But most people only buy a 9mm drive?
So it would be nice if OCZ (or another manufacturer) could make a very thin (3mm) card that would piggyback on top of the HDD. It would also have to a SATA drive connector to attach it to the motherboard and then a loop through cable to attach to the drive. In this way the end user could add a SSD cache to their existing laptop!
Is this feasible or am I missing something?
Heat? Battery life?
His analogy with iPad's being Vespas and PC's being cars is actually quite apt (what is it about tech gadgets that we always compare them to automobiles?). Except that he forgets that he used it. Some people really can get by with just a scooter (or sometimes even just a bike). It all depends on which city you live in and what your job/shopping/activities situation is. I don't think too many people are saying that iPad's will make PC's completely obsolete. But it IS true that for some people, they no longer need a PC if they have an iPad. True for my parents. True for my technophobe friends. So it seems to me that he's really ranting about nothing. If a corporation with IT department needs PC's, it needs PC's. That's for the corporations to decide. It's still early in tablet development. If they ever get to the stage and Apple and it's hoard of imaginative developers create ways around the problems that PC's currently solve, well then Mr. Lewis's current argument will be obsolete. Until then, why worry enough about it write a 3 page article trying to defend the PC. The PC doesn't need defending.
Therefor, given a 'typical U.S. diet,' you would have to ride your bike instead of driving for around 400 miles to cover the bike's initial carbon footprint.
So building a car has a zero initial carbon footprint? Seriously, I consider myself to be a pretty environmentally friendly, but these studies are ridiculous because they imply that we shouldn't put out ANY carbon into the atmosphere. Well, why don't we just wipe out all life on earth then? What we should be more concerned about is carbon balance. If we produce carbon emissions, we need to find a way to convert that carbon back into a non-gaseous form. Without industrial production, plant life can easily do that. With the mass development of industry and machinery, we need to find ways to augment it.
You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)
Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.
What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.
Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.
My understanding is this: both the Apple A4 and A5 are SoC's (System on a Chip) with ARM cores (A4 - single, A5 - dual) but are designed by Apple. Samsung only provided manufacturing capability. Design of the end product (iPhone and iPad) was done by Apple. Integration of the chip into the finished product and mass manufacturing (iPhone 4, iPad 1 and 2) was done by Foxconn and Pegatron (iPhone 4 CDMA only). I don't recall ever reading that Samsung was involved in any part of the iPhone 4 or iPads beyond the manufacturing of the chips (and flash memory). Please provide a link if you know differently. Here's one that lists parts and suppliers for the iPhone 4: LINK
Thus, at least to my understanding, replacing Samsung is simply a matter of finding someone else who can manufacture chips (and maybe even memory if they just want to be rid of Samsung). At the very least, it benefits Apple to find more than one potential supplier both for getting more supply and lower prices.