Most things made for the US get sold in Mexico and Canada so there will be 3 languages you need to translate to. Granted most app makers don't have to that but they don't have to do it in Europe either. But if you are selling software through other channels then yes you have to translate into some other languages but it's not that expensive at all unless your app is effectively an ebook.
Your phone sucks then because all the feature phones I had ran Java well enough for me to play games on my commute and on the toilet at work without any extra charging.
I agree for the most part except it's not just a one quarter thing. Android owners have always bought fewer apps and I don't see that changing. You can sell more apps on the android market now purely because there are more devices out there but ti also means there's an increase in testing and development costs. So in my mind it would be useful to see if Android is showing any real improvement in consumer app purchases if you want to use it as a serious platform.
That's true but I believe if you compare models then no one company has a phone that sells better than the iphone. As a developer that is a key point to consider. It means Apple still has the largest base that requires the least testing and other costs related to targeting multiple hardware versions.
Non-smart phones have always had the largest market share. The whole iphone vs Android thing isn't the whole market but fighting over who's number one in a small section of the over all market. I'm sure there are other solutions for cheap phones but JavaME has always been big in that area.
They were mainly picked on because they have a huge amount of idiots in their party, they have numerous times implied they'll get violent if they have to and all the tea party candidates that have run for office or have got in are complete morons. The occupy movement isn't perfect by any means but it's still a load better than the tea party and it's retarded and or senile members.
Same here in the UK. I see tons of people with Android and iOS phones but no one with a WP7 phone nor do you even hear anyone mention them. If it weren't for the internet I wouldn't know they exist.
They don't control Android so while the money is better than nothing they rather you use WP7. Which is why they often give back more money than they get to companies that give into selling WP7. The whole Android shake down is about selling WP7 not making more money.
Someone is going to have to start paying for all those wars so you're certainly not going to be paying less tax. Shame you won't be getting anything of value in return.
The patent situation has gotten increasingly worse yet we have more options than every before in terms of how we can use a computer or build one and all our options are cheaper. Yes there could reach a point where so few people would care to build their own and maybe the price will go up but it's not right to force something on the majority just to suit the minority. I don't foresee a time where servers are pre-built and unmodified or that the parts don't exist to build computer functionality into other systems. So there will always be people selling the base parts and they'll have to work openly in order for businesses to be able to do that.
We should be much more concerned about ensuring our data stays in open and free formats. That why people can have their closed systems if they want it and it doesn't effect you if you want an open system. I think all those regulations are more of an attack on open formats than hardware and people need to realise that rather than using things like SOPA to have a go at hardware models they don't like and that is why bringing up things like a free market to have a go at Apple is dumb. That is what I was trying to get at. If it's free and up to the consumer and the consumers, which are mostly computer illiterate people, don't want some all-in-one computer then it dies off and surely isn't that what is supposed to happen in a free market?
BTW, I should point out that I hate the term free market because it means nothing. It can't happen. If you remove government regulation completely and leave it solely up to the consumer then business will work together to lock people out. The consumer won't have a choice in the matter. So then the government needs to step in and force the market to be more free but that's not considered a free market to many because it's influenced by government regulation.
A free market could really only exist when corporations didn't exist. When you had farmers against other farmers or black smiths against other black smiths. The fact they couldn't grow into mega corporations kept things relatively fair. We don't live in that world now so if we want to ensure consumers have choice we need government regulation which again in theory goes against the idea of a free market and that's why it's a BS term.
If we had a free market I doubt Windows would have gotten as big as it did. Unless of course your idea of a free market includes allowing companies to do underhanded things like purposely making windows break under other versions of DOS or bullying OEMs into only selling your OS or doing your best to break compatibility in everything to retain your hold over people. Keeping in mind Windows was perhaps the last OS to include TCP/IP networking making it impossible to easily jump onto the internet. People bring up the idea of IE needing to be included with Windows so they can get other browsers. What they forget is people needed a lot more than that before they could get online with Windows and we still managed fine.
I wouldn't say Apple is perfect. They're not the worst but they're not perfect and I think the comments like yours show a clear bias against them for no reason. I don't think Apple would disappear in a "true" free market. As I said above they probably wouldn't have fallen as far behind in the first place and they clearly have something consumers want because more and more consumers are picking their PCs, realising they don't need all that legacy software thanks to the internet and windows is almost non-existent in the phone and tablet market even though in theory the mere fact it ties in best with the OS they use should be a huge selling point.
I don't see how they could do worse if they've managed to survive against microsoft when microsoft heavily stacked the deck in their favour.
iTunes isn't meant to make money. In fact I think it turns out to more or less break even or make minimal money. iTunes is there to sell ipods, iphones and ipads. In fact many people use iTunes quite happily without buying anything from Apple. You don't need to because they aren't that bothered so long as it's selling their hardware.
Funnily enough speaking of iTunes it was Steve Jobs who was pushing early on for DRM-free music on iTunes which would allowed people to take their music elsewhere and not be tied to their hardware. Something you don't see MS doing which is why I think the iPod survived and the Zune failed and yet another reason I don't see how you can come to the conclusion Apple would fail in a "true" free market. The consumers are already picking them because they've made a better product in those consumer's opinion.
I'm surprised to see this point of view infect so many Slashdot users: The only thing that can possibly validate any tool you use is that a large percentage of the world has to use the exact same tool. Gibson and Fender are the two of the largest, best-known guitar manufacturers on the planet. If I have guitar hand-built by the finest luthier in East of the Mississippi, should I feel bad because my guitar was not made by one of the "big boys"?
In case you haven't noticed video gamers and PC enthusiasts are some of the biggest brand whores in the world. They're also the most ignorant and see everything in black and white.
Android is Linux and Linux's first foray into the mainstream has proven to be insecure. It still has the weakpoint that any other OS can have and that's a stupid owner sitting behind the keyboard.
The IBM PC has effectively died. IBM doesn't make PCs. Windows based PCs are certainly still around and of course Windows still dominates because it has decades of software people are reliant on. That is why Linux and Macs struggle to take gain market share.
But if Windows was the superior product then MS shouldn't be struggling in every other consumer market. Their phone OS is pretty much a failure, they're a non-starter on tablets, zune is dead and their "big" success is the 360 which was blown away by inferior hardware (the Wii) and is only a few million ahead of the PS3 despite the 1 year lead, the price advantage, the fact most every game can be bought on both systems, despite the PS3 hackings, etc.
What I see is consumers use windows where they have to use it. Where they don't need to due to lack of legacy software they are going to either Android, Apple or anyone else.
Part of that success they built up on the desktop didn't come from natural consumer choice. It had a lot of help from underhanded tactics from Microsoft. I think the fact the Mac and Linux survived that is a testament to how much better their products are.
Non-technical people did not pick wintel machines because they were easier and better. They just happened to have the software people want which has nothing to do with the openness of the hardware which actually isn't any more open than a Mac. Linux is installable on Macs and has been for some time even with PPC variants.
That is my point. Most consumers simply do not care about hacking software or hardware. Just as most consumers don't want to tear apart their cars or mod them and what is wrong with that? It won't stop geeks from having what they want. Linux can't go away if Apple gains a 90% market share. It didn't go away despite Windows' huge market share even with MS actively bullying OEMs into only installing windows. You let people pick what they want and if more people want something they perceive as being safer and easier rather than what you pick then how does that hurt you?
You make it out like Apple is the only one with patents, copyrights and licence agreements. If that were the case you might have a point but they all play by the same rules.
In a true free market there would be more closed solutions too and the one most people want will win. I'm not sure why he's upset that most people are actually computer illiterate and want something that can be easily controlled rather than the ultimate swiss army knife of computers. Open computers won't go away and there is no need to get upset because most people don't care for that.
It does work otherwise they wouldn't pay for it to be added into the game. It's not about stopping every single person from pirating but maximising profits and it is obviously working.
Do you mean the business software alliance which supposedly MS and others got them to change their mind but afaik nothing was done in the ESA and I get the impression MS did it more for PR because they went from being nice guys for not supporting SOPA to people being informed they were part of a group that supported it so they did what they had to due to consumer pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
Copy and paste that all you want. It doesn't change that IIS is a dying pile of pig slop.
you say it does well and it's the only option. that's not a good thing.
IIS is only really used by idiots bodging together a shitty company intranet and they can't operate anything without a gui.
Yeah because it's development was already paid for and Valve charges a disgusting amount of money for hats.
Most things made for the US get sold in Mexico and Canada so there will be 3 languages you need to translate to. Granted most app makers don't have to that but they don't have to do it in Europe either. But if you are selling software through other channels then yes you have to translate into some other languages but it's not that expensive at all unless your app is effectively an ebook.
Your phone sucks then because all the feature phones I had ran Java well enough for me to play games on my commute and on the toilet at work without any extra charging.
I agree for the most part except it's not just a one quarter thing. Android owners have always bought fewer apps and I don't see that changing. You can sell more apps on the android market now purely because there are more devices out there but ti also means there's an increase in testing and development costs. So in my mind it would be useful to see if Android is showing any real improvement in consumer app purchases if you want to use it as a serious platform.
That's true but I believe if you compare models then no one company has a phone that sells better than the iphone. As a developer that is a key point to consider. It means Apple still has the largest base that requires the least testing and other costs related to targeting multiple hardware versions.
Non-smart phones have always had the largest market share. The whole iphone vs Android thing isn't the whole market but fighting over who's number one in a small section of the over all market. I'm sure there are other solutions for cheap phones but JavaME has always been big in that area.
They were mainly picked on because they have a huge amount of idiots in their party, they have numerous times implied they'll get violent if they have to and all the tea party candidates that have run for office or have got in are complete morons. The occupy movement isn't perfect by any means but it's still a load better than the tea party and it's retarded and or senile members.
The only people with WP7 phones are MS employees. Now why would they write exploits and risk losing their job?
Same here in the UK. I see tons of people with Android and iOS phones but no one with a WP7 phone nor do you even hear anyone mention them. If it weren't for the internet I wouldn't know they exist.
They don't control Android so while the money is better than nothing they rather you use WP7. Which is why they often give back more money than they get to companies that give into selling WP7. The whole Android shake down is about selling WP7 not making more money.
Someone is going to have to start paying for all those wars so you're certainly not going to be paying less tax. Shame you won't be getting anything of value in return.
The patent situation has gotten increasingly worse yet we have more options than every before in terms of how we can use a computer or build one and all our options are cheaper. Yes there could reach a point where so few people would care to build their own and maybe the price will go up but it's not right to force something on the majority just to suit the minority. I don't foresee a time where servers are pre-built and unmodified or that the parts don't exist to build computer functionality into other systems. So there will always be people selling the base parts and they'll have to work openly in order for businesses to be able to do that.
We should be much more concerned about ensuring our data stays in open and free formats. That why people can have their closed systems if they want it and it doesn't effect you if you want an open system. I think all those regulations are more of an attack on open formats than hardware and people need to realise that rather than using things like SOPA to have a go at hardware models they don't like and that is why bringing up things like a free market to have a go at Apple is dumb. That is what I was trying to get at. If it's free and up to the consumer and the consumers, which are mostly computer illiterate people, don't want some all-in-one computer then it dies off and surely isn't that what is supposed to happen in a free market?
BTW, I should point out that I hate the term free market because it means nothing. It can't happen. If you remove government regulation completely and leave it solely up to the consumer then business will work together to lock people out. The consumer won't have a choice in the matter. So then the government needs to step in and force the market to be more free but that's not considered a free market to many because it's influenced by government regulation.
A free market could really only exist when corporations didn't exist. When you had farmers against other farmers or black smiths against other black smiths. The fact they couldn't grow into mega corporations kept things relatively fair. We don't live in that world now so if we want to ensure consumers have choice we need government regulation which again in theory goes against the idea of a free market and that's why it's a BS term.
If we had a free market I doubt Windows would have gotten as big as it did. Unless of course your idea of a free market includes allowing companies to do underhanded things like purposely making windows break under other versions of DOS or bullying OEMs into only selling your OS or doing your best to break compatibility in everything to retain your hold over people. Keeping in mind Windows was perhaps the last OS to include TCP/IP networking making it impossible to easily jump onto the internet. People bring up the idea of IE needing to be included with Windows so they can get other browsers. What they forget is people needed a lot more than that before they could get online with Windows and we still managed fine.
I wouldn't say Apple is perfect. They're not the worst but they're not perfect and I think the comments like yours show a clear bias against them for no reason. I don't think Apple would disappear in a "true" free market. As I said above they probably wouldn't have fallen as far behind in the first place and they clearly have something consumers want because more and more consumers are picking their PCs, realising they don't need all that legacy software thanks to the internet and windows is almost non-existent in the phone and tablet market even though in theory the mere fact it ties in best with the OS they use should be a huge selling point.
I don't see how they could do worse if they've managed to survive against microsoft when microsoft heavily stacked the deck in their favour.
iTunes isn't meant to make money. In fact I think it turns out to more or less break even or make minimal money. iTunes is there to sell ipods, iphones and ipads. In fact many people use iTunes quite happily without buying anything from Apple. You don't need to because they aren't that bothered so long as it's selling their hardware.
Funnily enough speaking of iTunes it was Steve Jobs who was pushing early on for DRM-free music on iTunes which would allowed people to take their music elsewhere and not be tied to their hardware. Something you don't see MS doing which is why I think the iPod survived and the Zune failed and yet another reason I don't see how you can come to the conclusion Apple would fail in a "true" free market. The consumers are already picking them because they've made a better product in those consumer's opinion.
I'm surprised to see this point of view infect so many Slashdot users: The only thing that can possibly validate any tool you use is that a large percentage of the world has to use the exact same tool. Gibson and Fender are the two of the largest, best-known guitar manufacturers on the planet. If I have guitar hand-built by the finest luthier in East of the Mississippi, should I feel bad because my guitar was not made by one of the "big boys"?
In case you haven't noticed video gamers and PC enthusiasts are some of the biggest brand whores in the world. They're also the most ignorant and see everything in black and white.
Don't work for companies with big retarded HR departments.
Android is Linux and Linux's first foray into the mainstream has proven to be insecure. It still has the weakpoint that any other OS can have and that's a stupid owner sitting behind the keyboard.
The IBM PC has effectively died. IBM doesn't make PCs. Windows based PCs are certainly still around and of course Windows still dominates because it has decades of software people are reliant on. That is why Linux and Macs struggle to take gain market share.
But if Windows was the superior product then MS shouldn't be struggling in every other consumer market. Their phone OS is pretty much a failure, they're a non-starter on tablets, zune is dead and their "big" success is the 360 which was blown away by inferior hardware (the Wii) and is only a few million ahead of the PS3 despite the 1 year lead, the price advantage, the fact most every game can be bought on both systems, despite the PS3 hackings, etc.
What I see is consumers use windows where they have to use it. Where they don't need to due to lack of legacy software they are going to either Android, Apple or anyone else.
Part of that success they built up on the desktop didn't come from natural consumer choice. It had a lot of help from underhanded tactics from Microsoft. I think the fact the Mac and Linux survived that is a testament to how much better their products are.
Non-technical people did not pick wintel machines because they were easier and better. They just happened to have the software people want which has nothing to do with the openness of the hardware which actually isn't any more open than a Mac. Linux is installable on Macs and has been for some time even with PPC variants.
That is my point. Most consumers simply do not care about hacking software or hardware. Just as most consumers don't want to tear apart their cars or mod them and what is wrong with that? It won't stop geeks from having what they want. Linux can't go away if Apple gains a 90% market share. It didn't go away despite Windows' huge market share even with MS actively bullying OEMs into only installing windows. You let people pick what they want and if more people want something they perceive as being safer and easier rather than what you pick then how does that hurt you?
You make it out like Apple is the only one with patents, copyrights and licence agreements. If that were the case you might have a point but they all play by the same rules.
I know, my mom is talking about websphere all the time!
In a true free market there would be more closed solutions too and the one most people want will win. I'm not sure why he's upset that most people are actually computer illiterate and want something that can be easily controlled rather than the ultimate swiss army knife of computers. Open computers won't go away and there is no need to get upset because most people don't care for that.
It does work otherwise they wouldn't pay for it to be added into the game. It's not about stopping every single person from pirating but maximising profits and it is obviously working.
Do you mean the business software alliance which supposedly MS and others got them to change their mind but afaik nothing was done in the ESA and I get the impression MS did it more for PR because they went from being nice guys for not supporting SOPA to people being informed they were part of a group that supported it so they did what they had to due to consumer pressure.