When it was first announced, everybody and their dog figured Apple would charge closer to $1000 for the base model, and now it's hundreds of dollars overpriced at $499.
This is hilarious.
The RDF is so strong the zealots don't even remember that the price was announced along with the device.
Um? How do you think people know it's $499? Do you think they don't realize that Apple announced that when they unveiled the iPad?
Apple intentionally leaked over the top rumors in an effort to throw off speculation about the price and to keep competitors guessing.
The rumors were already that it would be around $1,000. Gartner and other analyst groups already had market figures which stated that people would likely pay up to around $700, and that the device would probably cost more than that.
Regardless of whether Apple leaked "less than $1,000", that was a number that already matched the rumors.
You've got it completely wrong when you say they don't make computers (or devices) for most people. That's *exactly* what they do. The thing you're getting confused on is the price (and specifically, the price of the Macs). The problem is that cheaper computers are pretty crappy, and that crappiness (construction, parts, performance) are *not* a benefit for most people, it's just a tradeoff to have a lower price.
As for them being luxury, aside from certain Mac-only features (like the unibody cases, glass trackpads, etc.), the only things that are "luxury" about Macs are their components and their prices.
Their components are on the higher-end of the spectrum (Core2Duo as opposed to AMD or CoreDuo or Pentiums, etc.), FireWire 800, etc. Even their graphics processors, which get a lot of flack for not being high-end, are better than the average you'll find at Best Buy or Fry's.
Their prices are not luxury in that you overpay for what you get, their prices are pretty much in line with what it costs to buy the same features from competing PC makers.
So, when it all boils down, the only luxury really is that you can't buy a truly low end Mac. Even the Mac mini, at $599, is faster than the average PC sold today.
But you're right when you say that, for some people, Apple doesn't make products for them. Those people are mainly just those that want full control and customizability of their product. However, most people really don't want that. *Not* because (as a lot of critics say) that Apple users are stupid or lazy or blinded by the shiny, but because most people both can't really take advantage of such features, and their user experience would be degraded by the added complexity. Even a large portion of those that *do* complain, and *would* take advantage of such features, find the current situation with the iPhone not that bad (re: background apps (the iPhone does, contrary to popular belief, multitask, and it does so very well) and third party app installs).
But for those that really can't abide such limitations, I don't begrudge them at all. The iPhone (and iPad and iPod touch) both clearly does not meet their needs and is not targeted at them. What I *do* begrudge is when they extrapolate out and think that their experience and desires are anything remotely resembling the norm.
You clearly do not speak from experience. The built-in apps cover all the basics (just like any standard Windows install). There are plenty of free apps, and there is *NO* more need to "buy all these stupid little 5 dollar apps" on the iPhone than there is to "buy all these stupid little $30 apps" on Windows.
But even that's a bit of a red herring. There's nothing wrong with paying for something which provides you value.
As for being tethered to iTunes, you can run an iPad completely without using iTunes, including buying apps, syncing contacts and bookmarks, buying music, TV Shows, movies, renting movies, the works.
He's talking about all the rumors saying it would be "less than $1,000", which means $999
When it was first announced it was announced WITH the price, and the general reaction, here and other places I looked, was "wow, that would be nice if it was $300".
No, the general reaction here (and some other places) was that it's a big iPhone, and it would be nice if it was a tablet MacBook. Criticism that it would be a good product at $300 wasn't to be found anywhere. The 32GB iPod touch costs that much.
The only criticism that mentioned anything about $300 was that netbooks cost that much, and are "more capable". Where the iPad $300, those people would have just said, "for the same price, I can buy a netbook that is more capable", as their argument really isn't about the price, but about wanting a small device that runs Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X, which the iPad most certainly is not (and for good reason).
Dude, there were *no* rumors that it would run Mac OS X, and no rumors that it would be "open" (in the sense of having third-party app stores or installs).
And, btw, iPhone OS *IS* OS X. OS X currently comes in two flavors, Mac OS X and iPhone OS.
Yes it's bigger than a phone... just like those things everyone else has been using for years, called computers, including laptops, netbooks and tablets.
And those things aren't called "just a big iPhone" either. Which is my point.
And the Ipad allows nothing right now. It's still not even released - I might as well say how amazing the new AmigaPad is going to be.
Actual iPads actually exist this very day. Millions are being made with the intention of them starting to hit the shelves in about a month. Your argument implies a reasonable likelihood that they may not actually reach the market any time soon.
If we are arguing in terms of what "most people want", then most people want phones from companies other than Apple, according to market figures.
Market figures don't show what people want, it shows what people bought. You should be well aware that people don't always get what they want.
Indeed, most people still want cheaper but functional (and still "smart") phones, rather than high tech but expensive toys.
No, it shows that people are buying cheaper products more often than more expensive products. It does *not* show that people *want* cheaper phones over the iPhone. I'm not sure what toys have to do with this, as we are talking phones.
Ah yes, this classic Apple fallacy: reference the Ipod, the sole area where Apple are market leader, and then apply it to other Apple products, even ones that are vaporware.
iPad isn't vaporware. Unreleased =/= vaporware.
This is a logical fallacy. It also ignores Apple products that were raved about, and then flopped and forgotten about (Apple TV, the Air) or their many products that sell okay and bring in revenue, but are still niche markets (Macs, Iphones).
I might as well argue how Windows is a success, therefore the Zune will do well too.
I don't think you understand the terms you use.
I didn't say something like "everyone buys every product Apple makes", I said Apple designs their products around the function the end user is going to be doing and *not* simply around the function the technology is doing inside of the device. That is, in no way, a logical fallacy.
More speculation about an unreleased product.
By definition, yes. Everything you've said (although have been careful not to do so far in this post) is the same.
Another classic Apple trick - "not having features actually make it better!" Nevermind an AmigaPad, I wish I thought of these tactics years ago. An Amiga from 20 years ago must beat today's machines hands down, by not having all those extra features.
Yes. It's called not shoe-horning in things that make the product worse. The specific feature I mentioned, a standard WIMP interface, *would* make the iPhone and the iPad worse.
What I did *not* say was that simply removing features willy-nilly makes something better. An Amiga 500 would not beat today's computers, because the features it lacks does *not* make it better.
The App Store isn't a flaw in the iPhone OS ecosystem, for most people.
Agreed, because most people don't have an Iphone.
They don't have to have an iPhone to see it as a flaw.
It's primarily just the geek crowd who makes a fuss
But don't you see? It's only in the geek crowd that Apple are loved and hyped about - most people don't care, but here on Slashdot, Apple are praised all the time. So if they start to criticise, then there's not many left who will like Apple after that.
That's demonstrably false. All one has to do is stop 10 white earbuds on the street and give them a geek IQ test. You may be shocked to find that a very small percentage of them have a high geek quotient.
We'll see about that. An oversized iphone that isn't a phone,
Correct. It's an iPad. The iPhone is more of a smaller iPad than the iPad is just a scaled up iPhone. The iPad is *more* capable than the iPhone. That's what the "it's just a big iPhone" complaints all miss.
What does it do that the iPod Touch doesn't?
I said it was more capable. I didn't say it had more features. The screen on the iPad allows for a much more capable UI (and there are some UI widgets that the iPad has that the iPhone doesn't). Apps like iWork aren't feasible on the iPhone. Apps like iBooks aren't as well suited for the smaller screen. And apps like Mail, Safari, and the photo viewer make good use of the larger screen.
without the general utility of a laptop or pad?
Could you clarify this some? It has all the "general utility" that most people will want.
Funny, last I heard it was still going to be limited to the apple-approved apps in the app store.
That doesn't answer my question. A third-party App Store does not qualify as some form of "general utility" that most people want.
With the apple tax on it?
You mean the device that's *cheaper* than all the competition?
What are you considering competition? Can't be laptops or netbooks, because those are cheaper. Can't be tablet PCs, because those aren't crippled.
They are crippled by using a full WIMP OS. And to call laptops categorically cheaper than the iPad is misleading. But those are side issues.
The main issue is that I'm referring to the other 9"-11" tablets that were announced at CES. Those are the direct competition.
I'll be very surprised if it's a hit with anyone other than the gadget-heads and the cultists.
"Cultists"? That's the biggest clue you don't actually understand the appeal of Apple products, and are thus are poorly equipped to judge how people will react to it.
You're right, I don't understand the appeal, unless it's the imbecilic love of form over function.
Exemplary of you to immediately start off demonstrating my point.
It's not "form over function". It's both form and function. Form and function are inextricably intertwined.
But that's not even what Apple does. For Apple, function informs form. The problem is that the "form over function" complaining geek is looking at the wrong function. That type of geek looks at the function the computer performs internally as the device's main function. Apple looks at the activity that the user wants to do as the main function.
As a clue, that's why the iPod, which had less space than a Nomad and no wireless, was anything *but* lame. It functioned as a way to listen to music better than any other player has before or since. But the geek who wants flac, filesystem access, etc., is wanting functions that are functions internal to the device and completely orthogonal to the device's main function, which is to listen to music. Adding these functions would detract from the device's real function
The same goes with the iPad. An iPad running Mac OS X with Cocoa instead of iPhone OS with Cocoa touch would have more functionality than the iPad, but it would make it utterly miserable as the function it's actually intended for, which is that of a portable multitouch device.
That's also why all those other tablets and netbooks are going to have a terrible time competing with the iPad. Those devices have more functionality, but that functionality actually makes them *less* desirable to most people. This isn't because they can't make use of that extra benefit (which is what a lot of people think), but because that extra functionality detracts from the device's actual reas
He said content, but clearly from the context he was talking about apps.
But he didn't say apps, he said content.
Context definitely counts for something, which is why I didn't go after his main point (although even there, there is a weakness, in that the context being boob apps, you can get boobs on your iPhone without every touching the app store or jailbreaking). But context only goes so far, and a term like "content" means a lot more than apps, and it's often cited (incorrectly) that the only way to get content (meaning TV shows, music, movies, etc.) is through the iTunes Store.
It's the typical trait found on the Internet today. You find a command line for a Windows problem and people hail it as the second coming awesome/easy solution but look at a command line fix for things in Linux and instantly jump on the "ZOMG! Linux has to use the command line!" bandwagon.
That's because command line fixes for Windows are novel. Command line fixes for Linux are the norm.
The most exposure the average Windows users has to command lines is when their ISP tech support has them type "ipconfig/renew" in a CMD window.
Nope. Just someone that actually has a Mac or three and isn't a member of the cult.
Being ignorant of how the Mac works doesn't mean you've avoided some sort of cult. It just means you are ignorant. Having three Macs and *still* being ignorant doesn't make things any better.
The idea that MacOS will magically banish all of your problems forever is just mindless nonsense.
Yes, it is mindless nonsense. It should be noted that *you're* the only person to have said anything like this.
The days when you can just make up any lies you like are over.
Apparently not, as your nonsense attests to.
It's so exceptionally rare to find one piece of software depends on first installing another that the issue of dependencies can be considered nonexistent on Mac OS X.
Apple, despite it's higher technical competence, is flat out evil incarnate.
Because they removed apps people were complaining about? Because they have a security model on the iPhone OS devices that require signed software? That's really all they are doing here that has the geek patrol up in arms.
BTW, how's that Xbox 360/PS3/Wii working out for you? They are even *more* restricted. If Apple is "evil incarnate", what are MS/Sony/Nintendo?
We'll see about that. An oversized iphone that isn't a phone,
Correct. It's an iPad. The iPhone is more of a smaller iPad than the iPad is just a scaled up iPhone. The iPad is *more* capable than the iPhone. That's what the "it's just a big iPhone" complaints all miss.
without the general utility of a laptop or pad?
Could you clarify this some? It has all the "general utility" that most people will want.
With the apple tax on it?
You mean the device that's *cheaper* than all the competition?
I'll be very surprised if it's a hit with anyone other than the gadget-heads and the cultists.
"Cultists"? That's the biggest clue you don't actually understand the appeal of Apple products, and are thus are poorly equipped to judge how people will react to it.
"forward-thinking" technology without a lot of technical basis to explain the process
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Bloom Energy can't technologically explain their process?
We are not talking about some software programs here but real phsical process.
That's somewhat ironic. You're saying real things are more risky than virtual things.
I'm sorry but I'd rather put my money where I know it works.
Then don't put your money into it. But the assertion that it's a foolish investment is unfounded. It may not convince you positively to support it, but there's absolutely *zero* basis to be opposed to it.
This 1000-degree oven hasn't convince me it is, dispite what it claims to be.
This isn't homeopathic cosmic crystals or something. It's an actual product that actually operates on known laws of physics. Not only that, but it's actually being used and it works.
Ok, so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million. If they save 100,000/9 months, that's 133,333/year. So it'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost, assuming that money has no time value of course. Sounds like a poor investment to me.
You're assuming quite a number of things yourself.
1. The cost of electricity will remain the same over those 30 years. 2. Their sole investment is in the devices themselves. The summary at least implies they are investing in the company itself. So this also counts as R&D and advertising. 3. That the devices are running at full efficiency. I.e., that the machines won't save even more in the future, even after taking into account energy price changes. 4. That they paid $800k apiece. Even the summary says they are cheaper than that. In units of 5, you can imagine the price will dip towards the lower bounds. 5. That these companies had to pay the full burden themselves (as people have already noted, there are often tax benefits, including potentially 50% in California). 6. Inflation and taxes won't eat into profits some other investment might net.
It would be a pretty sad world indeed if companies limited themselves to only investing in things which will immediately net them more than some base percentage.
Dogfood is when you use your own product. Google, Yahoo, and Segway... this is not *their* product, not *their* dogfood. It's Bloom Energy's. This was a choice by those companies. They could have invested in anything, and they chose this.
You understand that your money doesn't just sit there magically earning 5% by doing nothing, right?
You understand your money that goes into buying this unit doesn't just sit there doing nothing, right?
Rethink your broken world scenario as: you are better off investing your money in growing corporations than by buying a very marginal improvement in your power generation opportunities.
Rethink your broken world scenario as: you are better off investing your money in forward-thinking technologies, as not only will your money continue on in other growing corporations, but it also goes to promote a technology that you want to see grow as well.
Of course, this assumes the technology you are investing in will progress. Even though this is generally a sound assumption, what's more to the point is that what matters is what *you*, the investor, believes to be the case. If you don't see this technology going anywhere, then you probably shouldn't invest in it, but for those that do, it's definitely something worth looking into.
hey idiot...... its not capitalism that is flawed, but the people.
Hey idiot, you can't have Capitalism without people.
The problem isn't the people, it's what they are allowed to do. If the people at the banks weren't allowed to risk their depositors' money they way they did, this current financial situation would be *very* different.
The same with the housing collapse. Just a bit of regulation on both sides and there wouldn't have been any collapse at all.
But instead, in the name of Capitalism and the so-called Free Market, we removed those safeguards, and surprise surprise, we got fucked.
You see, the problem isn't the bad people. We can deal with them. The problem is if you *allow* the bad people to do the things that make them bad. If you do that, then eventually the *good* people have to do bad things just to remain competitive.
*THAT'S* what brought all of this about.
The greed the corruption is the problem. Show me something that works better........
Regulated Capitalism. Often called Socialism in America. You get all the benefits of Capitalism, while minimizing the negative impacts of the corrupt people.
"The banking system fiasco is a perfect example of pure Capitalism at work."
It most certainly was not. In a system that even remotely resembles capitalism, businesses that make bad investments lose money and ultimately end up in bankruptcy.
Did you even read my post? I pointed out that this is the standard Capitalist response. Let the fail and the market with right itself. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my post that you clearly didn't read, letting the banks fail would have sent the economy into a depression.
Which brings us to the ugly truth of Capitalism. Unregulated Capitalism always leads to depressions. The Capitalist will say this is good, because it purges the economy of the failed businesses and allows the truly successful models to thrive.
This may be true, but it fails to address one thing: people have limited lifetimes. If I lived to be thousands of years old, I wouldn't mind a decade here or there of hard times if it meant a net better lifetime. But I only get to live 50-90 years. A decade of hard times is fucking bullshit, especially if it can be avoided.
And how many people's lives are going to be totally destroyed by even a recession, let alone a depression? Do you realize that, already, hundreds, if not thousands of Americans are dead as a direct result of the current financial crisis?
How can anyone possibly support such a disgusting world view? That it's OK to let people die unnecessarily so long as it serves the great god of Capitalism?
Now, sure, I suspect most people who are ardent Capitalists won't condone such an atrocity directly, but when it comes to the policies that they promote, these things are exactly what's going to happen.
And that's just deaths. What about all the children unable to get a proper education, all the people who will be poorly fed and end up with chronic medical conditions? And the homeless? We're not talking about bums here, but people laid off from their jobs and not able to pay for a place to live?
The bailouts aren't for what you think they are for. They aren't to keep the banks afloat. They are to keep the economy from collapsing into a depression.
It sucks that the bankers are making so much as a side-effect of this, but it's better than the alternative.
But this will all fail again if we don't reign in the banks themselves with laws like Glass-Stegall. If we don't, they'll just do the same thing because *someone* will pull the same old shit again, and then everyone else will eventually have to follow suit.
Cronyism plays a role, to be sure, but the underlying substrate is Capitalism. Specifically, those with the money doing what they want with it, regardless of the effects on others.
Cronyism is just the players. Are they giving each other deals based on friendships and connections? Or are they engaging in deals based purely on objective financial decisions.
Cronyism is a problem, but it's an inextricable part of Capitalism. So long as you have capital, and you have the right to spend it as you see fit, you *have* to allow for cronyism.
Hell, even passing management positions (and eventually ownership) down the family line is cronyism.
Near as I can tell, Capitalism should involve capital. Perhaps that's just me being silly. What the banks did had nothing to do with capitalism. They had NO capital. That was exactly the problem -- they made stuff up and then spent money on it.
To claim that banks have no capital is to say down is up.
Slashdot Mirror
This is hilarious.
When it was first announced, everybody and their dog figured Apple would charge closer to $1000 for the base model, and now it's hundreds of dollars overpriced at $499.
This is hilarious.
The RDF is so strong the zealots don't even remember that the price was announced along with the device.
Um? How do you think people know it's $499? Do you think they don't realize that Apple announced that when they unveiled the iPad?
Apple intentionally leaked over the top rumors in an effort to throw off speculation about the price and to keep competitors guessing.
The rumors were already that it would be around $1,000. Gartner and other analyst groups already had market figures which stated that people would likely pay up to around $700, and that the device would probably cost more than that.
Regardless of whether Apple leaked "less than $1,000", that was a number that already matched the rumors.
You've got it completely wrong when you say they don't make computers (or devices) for most people. That's *exactly* what they do. The thing you're getting confused on is the price (and specifically, the price of the Macs). The problem is that cheaper computers are pretty crappy, and that crappiness (construction, parts, performance) are *not* a benefit for most people, it's just a tradeoff to have a lower price.
As for them being luxury, aside from certain Mac-only features (like the unibody cases, glass trackpads, etc.), the only things that are "luxury" about Macs are their components and their prices.
Their components are on the higher-end of the spectrum (Core2Duo as opposed to AMD or CoreDuo or Pentiums, etc.), FireWire 800, etc. Even their graphics processors, which get a lot of flack for not being high-end, are better than the average you'll find at Best Buy or Fry's.
Their prices are not luxury in that you overpay for what you get, their prices are pretty much in line with what it costs to buy the same features from competing PC makers.
So, when it all boils down, the only luxury really is that you can't buy a truly low end Mac. Even the Mac mini, at $599, is faster than the average PC sold today.
But you're right when you say that, for some people, Apple doesn't make products for them. Those people are mainly just those that want full control and customizability of their product. However, most people really don't want that. *Not* because (as a lot of critics say) that Apple users are stupid or lazy or blinded by the shiny, but because most people both can't really take advantage of such features, and their user experience would be degraded by the added complexity. Even a large portion of those that *do* complain, and *would* take advantage of such features, find the current situation with the iPhone not that bad (re: background apps (the iPhone does, contrary to popular belief, multitask, and it does so very well) and third party app installs).
But for those that really can't abide such limitations, I don't begrudge them at all. The iPhone (and iPad and iPod touch) both clearly does not meet their needs and is not targeted at them. What I *do* begrudge is when they extrapolate out and think that their experience and desires are anything remotely resembling the norm.
You clearly do not speak from experience. The built-in apps cover all the basics (just like any standard Windows install). There are plenty of free apps, and there is *NO* more need to "buy all these stupid little 5 dollar apps" on the iPhone than there is to "buy all these stupid little $30 apps" on Windows.
But even that's a bit of a red herring. There's nothing wrong with paying for something which provides you value.
As for being tethered to iTunes, you can run an iPad completely without using iTunes, including buying apps, syncing contacts and bookmarks, buying music, TV Shows, movies, renting movies, the works.
The hell are you talking about?
He's talking about all the rumors saying it would be "less than $1,000", which means $999
When it was first announced it was announced WITH the price, and the general reaction, here and other places I looked, was "wow, that would be nice if it was $300".
No, the general reaction here (and some other places) was that it's a big iPhone, and it would be nice if it was a tablet MacBook. Criticism that it would be a good product at $300 wasn't to be found anywhere. The 32GB iPod touch costs that much.
The only criticism that mentioned anything about $300 was that netbooks cost that much, and are "more capable". Where the iPad $300, those people would have just said, "for the same price, I can buy a netbook that is more capable", as their argument really isn't about the price, but about wanting a small device that runs Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X, which the iPad most certainly is not (and for good reason).
Dude, there were *no* rumors that it would run Mac OS X, and no rumors that it would be "open" (in the sense of having third-party app stores or installs).
And, btw, iPhone OS *IS* OS X. OS X currently comes in two flavors, Mac OS X and iPhone OS.
For some Apple fanatics, Apple could sell them a kick in the balls and they'd stand in line for six days just to buy it.
Somebody always says stupid shit like this, but people don't line up just because it's Apple, they line up because they really want the product.
Hell, some people lined up for Vista, but nobody says what you said about MS fanatics.
Yes it's bigger than a phone ... just like those things everyone else has been using for years, called computers, including laptops, netbooks and tablets.
And those things aren't called "just a big iPhone" either. Which is my point.
And the Ipad allows nothing right now. It's still not even released - I might as well say how amazing the new AmigaPad is going to be.
Actual iPads actually exist this very day. Millions are being made with the intention of them starting to hit the shelves in about a month. Your argument implies a reasonable likelihood that they may not actually reach the market any time soon.
If we are arguing in terms of what "most people want", then most people want phones from companies other than Apple, according to market figures.
Market figures don't show what people want, it shows what people bought. You should be well aware that people don't always get what they want.
Indeed, most people still want cheaper but functional (and still "smart") phones, rather than high tech but expensive toys.
No, it shows that people are buying cheaper products more often than more expensive products. It does *not* show that people *want* cheaper phones over the iPhone. I'm not sure what toys have to do with this, as we are talking phones.
Ah yes, this classic Apple fallacy: reference the Ipod, the sole area where Apple are market leader, and then apply it to other Apple products, even ones that are vaporware.
iPad isn't vaporware. Unreleased =/= vaporware.
This is a logical fallacy. It also ignores Apple products that were raved about, and then flopped and forgotten about (Apple TV, the Air) or their many products that sell okay and bring in revenue, but are still niche markets (Macs, Iphones).
I might as well argue how Windows is a success, therefore the Zune will do well too.
I don't think you understand the terms you use.
I didn't say something like "everyone buys every product Apple makes", I said Apple designs their products around the function the end user is going to be doing and *not* simply around the function the technology is doing inside of the device. That is, in no way, a logical fallacy.
More speculation about an unreleased product.
By definition, yes. Everything you've said (although have been careful not to do so far in this post) is the same.
Another classic Apple trick - "not having features actually make it better!" Nevermind an AmigaPad, I wish I thought of these tactics years ago. An Amiga from 20 years ago must beat today's machines hands down, by not having all those extra features.
Yes. It's called not shoe-horning in things that make the product worse. The specific feature I mentioned, a standard WIMP interface, *would* make the iPhone and the iPad worse.
What I did *not* say was that simply removing features willy-nilly makes something better. An Amiga 500 would not beat today's computers, because the features it lacks does *not* make it better.
The App Store isn't a flaw in the iPhone OS ecosystem, for most people.
Agreed, because most people don't have an Iphone.
They don't have to have an iPhone to see it as a flaw.
It's primarily just the geek crowd who makes a fuss
But don't you see? It's only in the geek crowd that Apple are loved and hyped about - most people don't care, but here on Slashdot, Apple are praised all the time. So if they start to criticise, then there's not many left who will like Apple after that.
That's demonstrably false. All one has to do is stop 10 white earbuds on the street and give them a geek IQ test. You may be shocked to find that a very small percentage of them have a high geek quotient.
Nowhere, in
We'll see about that. An oversized iphone that isn't a phone,
Correct. It's an iPad. The iPhone is more of a smaller iPad than the iPad is just a scaled up iPhone. The iPad is *more* capable than the iPhone. That's what the "it's just a big iPhone" complaints all miss.
What does it do that the iPod Touch doesn't?
I said it was more capable. I didn't say it had more features. The screen on the iPad allows for a much more capable UI (and there are some UI widgets that the iPad has that the iPhone doesn't). Apps like iWork aren't feasible on the iPhone. Apps like iBooks aren't as well suited for the smaller screen. And apps like Mail, Safari, and the photo viewer make good use of the larger screen.
without the general utility of a laptop or pad?
Could you clarify this some? It has all the "general utility" that most people will want.
Funny, last I heard it was still going to be limited to the apple-approved apps in the app store.
That doesn't answer my question. A third-party App Store does not qualify as some form of "general utility" that most people want.
With the apple tax on it?
You mean the device that's *cheaper* than all the competition?
What are you considering competition? Can't be laptops or netbooks, because those are cheaper. Can't be tablet PCs, because those aren't crippled.
They are crippled by using a full WIMP OS. And to call laptops categorically cheaper than the iPad is misleading. But those are side issues.
The main issue is that I'm referring to the other 9"-11" tablets that were announced at CES. Those are the direct competition.
I'll be very surprised if it's a hit with anyone other than the gadget-heads and the cultists.
"Cultists"? That's the biggest clue you don't actually understand the appeal of Apple products, and are thus are poorly equipped to judge how people will react to it.
You're right, I don't understand the appeal, unless it's the imbecilic love of form over function.
Exemplary of you to immediately start off demonstrating my point.
It's not "form over function". It's both form and function. Form and function are inextricably intertwined.
But that's not even what Apple does. For Apple, function informs form. The problem is that the "form over function" complaining geek is looking at the wrong function. That type of geek looks at the function the computer performs internally as the device's main function. Apple looks at the activity that the user wants to do as the main function.
As a clue, that's why the iPod, which had less space than a Nomad and no wireless, was anything *but* lame. It functioned as a way to listen to music better than any other player has before or since. But the geek who wants flac, filesystem access, etc., is wanting functions that are functions internal to the device and completely orthogonal to the device's main function, which is to listen to music. Adding these functions would detract from the device's real function
The same goes with the iPad. An iPad running Mac OS X with Cocoa instead of iPhone OS with Cocoa touch would have more functionality than the iPad, but it would make it utterly miserable as the function it's actually intended for, which is that of a portable multitouch device.
That's also why all those other tablets and netbooks are going to have a terrible time competing with the iPad. Those devices have more functionality, but that functionality actually makes them *less* desirable to most people. This isn't because they can't make use of that extra benefit (which is what a lot of people think), but because that extra functionality detracts from the device's actual reas
He said content, but clearly from the context he was talking about apps.
But he didn't say apps, he said content.
Context definitely counts for something, which is why I didn't go after his main point (although even there, there is a weakness, in that the context being boob apps, you can get boobs on your iPhone without every touching the app store or jailbreaking). But context only goes so far, and a term like "content" means a lot more than apps, and it's often cited (incorrectly) that the only way to get content (meaning TV shows, music, movies, etc.) is through the iTunes Store.
What other ways are there to install apps on a non-jailbroken iPhone?
He said content, not apps.
It's the typical trait found on the Internet today. You find a command line for a Windows problem and people hail it as the second coming awesome/easy solution but look at a command line fix for things in Linux and instantly jump on the "ZOMG! Linux has to use the command line!" bandwagon.
That's because command line fixes for Windows are novel. Command line fixes for Linux are the norm.
The most exposure the average Windows users has to command lines is when their ISP tech support has them type "ipconfig /renew" in a CMD window.
Nope. Just someone that actually has a Mac or three and isn't a member of the cult.
Being ignorant of how the Mac works doesn't mean you've avoided some sort of cult. It just means you are ignorant. Having three Macs and *still* being ignorant doesn't make things any better.
The idea that MacOS will magically banish all of your problems forever is just mindless nonsense.
Yes, it is mindless nonsense. It should be noted that *you're* the only person to have said anything like this.
The days when you can just make up any lies you like are over.
Apparently not, as your nonsense attests to.
It's so exceptionally rare to find one piece of software depends on first installing another that the issue of dependencies can be considered nonexistent on Mac OS X.
Apple, despite it's higher technical competence, is flat out evil incarnate.
Because they removed apps people were complaining about? Because they have a security model on the iPhone OS devices that require signed software? That's really all they are doing here that has the geek patrol up in arms.
BTW, how's that Xbox 360/PS3/Wii working out for you? They are even *more* restricted. If Apple is "evil incarnate", what are MS/Sony/Nintendo?
Apple's store is the only way to get content.
This is not true.
We'll see about that. An oversized iphone that isn't a phone,
Correct. It's an iPad. The iPhone is more of a smaller iPad than the iPad is just a scaled up iPhone. The iPad is *more* capable than the iPhone. That's what the "it's just a big iPhone" complaints all miss.
without the general utility of a laptop or pad?
Could you clarify this some? It has all the "general utility" that most people will want.
With the apple tax on it?
You mean the device that's *cheaper* than all the competition?
I'll be very surprised if it's a hit with anyone other than the gadget-heads and the cultists.
"Cultists"? That's the biggest clue you don't actually understand the appeal of Apple products, and are thus are poorly equipped to judge how people will react to it.
"forward-thinking" technology without a lot of technical basis to explain the process
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Bloom Energy can't technologically explain their process?
We are not talking about some software programs here but real phsical process.
That's somewhat ironic. You're saying real things are more risky than virtual things.
I'm sorry but I'd rather put my money where I know it works.
Then don't put your money into it. But the assertion that it's a foolish investment is unfounded. It may not convince you positively to support it, but there's absolutely *zero* basis to be opposed to it.
This 1000-degree oven hasn't convince me it is, dispite what it claims to be.
This isn't homeopathic cosmic crystals or something. It's an actual product that actually operates on known laws of physics. Not only that, but it's actually being used and it works.
Ok, so 5 units at 800,000 is 4 million. If they save 100,000/9 months, that's 133,333/year. So it'll only take them 30 years to repay the cost, assuming that money has no time value of course. Sounds like a poor investment to me.
You're assuming quite a number of things yourself.
1. The cost of electricity will remain the same over those 30 years.
2. Their sole investment is in the devices themselves. The summary at least implies they are investing in the company itself. So this also counts as R&D and advertising.
3. That the devices are running at full efficiency. I.e., that the machines won't save even more in the future, even after taking into account energy price changes.
4. That they paid $800k apiece. Even the summary says they are cheaper than that. In units of 5, you can imagine the price will dip towards the lower bounds.
5. That these companies had to pay the full burden themselves (as people have already noted, there are often tax benefits, including potentially 50% in California).
6. Inflation and taxes won't eat into profits some other investment might net.
It would be a pretty sad world indeed if companies limited themselves to only investing in things which will immediately net them more than some base percentage.
Dogfood is when you use your own product. Google, Yahoo, and Segway... this is not *their* product, not *their* dogfood. It's Bloom Energy's. This was a choice by those companies. They could have invested in anything, and they chose this.
You understand that your money doesn't just sit there magically earning 5% by doing nothing, right?
You understand your money that goes into buying this unit doesn't just sit there doing nothing, right?
Rethink your broken world scenario as: you are better off investing your money in growing corporations than by buying a very marginal improvement in your power generation opportunities.
Rethink your broken world scenario as: you are better off investing your money in forward-thinking technologies, as not only will your money continue on in other growing corporations, but it also goes to promote a technology that you want to see grow as well.
Of course, this assumes the technology you are investing in will progress. Even though this is generally a sound assumption, what's more to the point is that what matters is what *you*, the investor, believes to be the case. If you don't see this technology going anywhere, then you probably shouldn't invest in it, but for those that do, it's definitely something worth looking into.
hey idiot...... its not capitalism that is flawed, but the people.
Hey idiot, you can't have Capitalism without people.
The problem isn't the people, it's what they are allowed to do. If the people at the banks weren't allowed to risk their depositors' money they way they did, this current financial situation would be *very* different.
The same with the housing collapse. Just a bit of regulation on both sides and there wouldn't have been any collapse at all.
But instead, in the name of Capitalism and the so-called Free Market, we removed those safeguards, and surprise surprise, we got fucked.
You see, the problem isn't the bad people. We can deal with them. The problem is if you *allow* the bad people to do the things that make them bad. If you do that, then eventually the *good* people have to do bad things just to remain competitive.
*THAT'S* what brought all of this about.
The greed the corruption is the problem. Show me something that works better........
Regulated Capitalism. Often called Socialism in America. You get all the benefits of Capitalism, while minimizing the negative impacts of the corrupt people.
"The banking system fiasco is a perfect example of pure Capitalism at work."
It most certainly was not. In a system that even remotely resembles capitalism, businesses that make bad investments lose money and ultimately end up in bankruptcy.
Did you even read my post? I pointed out that this is the standard Capitalist response. Let the fail and the market with right itself. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my post that you clearly didn't read, letting the banks fail would have sent the economy into a depression.
Which brings us to the ugly truth of Capitalism. Unregulated Capitalism always leads to depressions. The Capitalist will say this is good, because it purges the economy of the failed businesses and allows the truly successful models to thrive.
This may be true, but it fails to address one thing: people have limited lifetimes. If I lived to be thousands of years old, I wouldn't mind a decade here or there of hard times if it meant a net better lifetime. But I only get to live 50-90 years. A decade of hard times is fucking bullshit, especially if it can be avoided.
And how many people's lives are going to be totally destroyed by even a recession, let alone a depression? Do you realize that, already, hundreds, if not thousands of Americans are dead as a direct result of the current financial crisis?
How can anyone possibly support such a disgusting world view? That it's OK to let people die unnecessarily so long as it serves the great god of Capitalism?
Now, sure, I suspect most people who are ardent Capitalists won't condone such an atrocity directly, but when it comes to the policies that they promote, these things are exactly what's going to happen.
And that's just deaths. What about all the children unable to get a proper education, all the people who will be poorly fed and end up with chronic medical conditions? And the homeless? We're not talking about bums here, but people laid off from their jobs and not able to pay for a place to live?
Bailouts are a load of bullshit. Here's why:
The bailouts aren't for what you think they are for. They aren't to keep the banks afloat. They are to keep the economy from collapsing into a depression.
It sucks that the bankers are making so much as a side-effect of this, but it's better than the alternative.
But this will all fail again if we don't reign in the banks themselves with laws like Glass-Stegall. If we don't, they'll just do the same thing because *someone* will pull the same old shit again, and then everyone else will eventually have to follow suit.
None of that is capitalism, it is all cronyism.
No, it's most definitely Capitalism.
Cronyism plays a role, to be sure, but the underlying substrate is Capitalism. Specifically, those with the money doing what they want with it, regardless of the effects on others.
Cronyism is just the players. Are they giving each other deals based on friendships and connections? Or are they engaging in deals based purely on objective financial decisions.
Cronyism is a problem, but it's an inextricable part of Capitalism. So long as you have capital, and you have the right to spend it as you see fit, you *have* to allow for cronyism.
Hell, even passing management positions (and eventually ownership) down the family line is cronyism.
Near as I can tell, Capitalism should involve capital. Perhaps that's just me being silly. What the banks did had nothing to do with capitalism. They had NO capital. That was exactly the problem -- they made stuff up and then spent money on it.
To claim that banks have no capital is to say down is up.