As a developer and longtime HP fan, I am encouraged that they have announced that they don't have an announcement, but that they will announce a future announcement at which time they will announce an event where they will announce a decision. Surely this will catapult them back into relevance!
Netanyahu has done more harm to American interests than most of our enemies. So I guess it's appropriate to treat him badly. He's sabotaging U.S. *and* Israeli interests in the name of testosterone and machismo. There's no rule that says we have to treat him as if he were a legitimate ally when he's not living up to his side of the bargain.
Does anyone else even bother reading SHOUTING like this? Usually I skip over the screamers without reading or replying, but just this once I'm curious about anyone who might bother to read it. If you did read it, was in in spite of the screaming or because of it? Is that ever an effective way to communicate?
This. There is some value in well-articulated arguments and having a company with Google's clout bringing attention to the patent mess, but the moment Google stands to make more money from the system, this same guy will cheerfully advocate the other side. Which is fine, it's his job.
There are lots of different demographics out there. Apple is talking to their audience, who cares more about simplicity and reliability, plus a few gimmicky features like Siri so they can feel like they're living in the future.
Androids core demographic already expects to root their phone, install custom firmware, hack around the shortcomings, and revel in the freedom they have to spend hours fighting with their phone. We're talking about 15 - 30 year old men, and these guys are much more interested in giant robots, lightning bolts, and half naked women than they are the details of any particular phone.
"monopoly agreements with music and video publishers" -- say what? Can you point to a single publisher that has agreed to distribute exclusively through Apple?
You should probably learn something about anti-trust law before posting speculation.
Now, if Apple were buying up parts and dumping them in the ocean to prevent competitors from getting them, AND if competitors and regulators made the argument that Apple has a monopoly, then there might be anti-trust implications.
But there's nothing illegal about even a monopoly ensuring their own supply chain. And Microsoft and others have stridently argued that tablets are part of the PC market, not a standalone market of their own. Outside of tablets, I don't think there's any way to claim that Apple is a monopoly, and anti-trust law only comes into play regarding monopolies.
It's an interesting area of the law, I'd highly recommend learning something about it.
Wow, if only Apple had done some market research and prototyping, they would have picked the 7" size and wouldn't have seen the iPad get trounced by companies who picked the better form factor.
And why should inland areas on the west coast pay for Tsunami warnings? It doesn't affect them. And why should anyone whose house doesn't burn down pay for a fire department?
In civilized countries, there is an understanding that shared risk comes with shared reward. People in California pay for floods in the midwest. People in Florida pay for earthquakes in California. By spreading the risk, we help each other with greater resources than smaller areas can come up with.
What you're basically saying is that social contracts and social fabrics are over-rated, and we need to be more every-man-for-himself and dog-eat-dog. It's a fairly sociopathic view, in the most literal sense. I am really glad that people with your views are in the minority.
Other people have rightly rebutted your confusion about the business models of Amazon and Apple. But it's worth noting that the ~$10 loss that Amazon takes on each Fire is on cost of the parts and assembly, and does not include variable costs like shipping to the consumer or allocated fixed costs like R&D, support/warranty cost, marketing and advertising, or legal/regulatory costs.
I don't disagree with your points, but part of the challenge Android makers have is consumer attention. "Hundreds of alternatives" can be good for consumers but bad for manufacturers... I follow tech closely, and I'd only heard of one of the three Android tablets you mentioned.
No point in addressing your more emotional issues, but it's worth noting that the $500m figure for 2008 was revenue, not profit. When people say Apple doesn't make much from the app store, they are referring to profit, not revenue. Don't let that get in the way of a good rant, though. Please include "sheeple" in your next post, as I almost got superiority complex bingo on this one.
Well, you're pretty sure of yourself. So please let me know if you ever get a job in operations so I can short your company's stock.
Sales projections for devices like iPhones tend to spike at the introduction, curve down, then level out. It would be insane to gear up for production at peak demand levels, because some or most of it would be idled as demand dwindles after the big launch. Companies address this by estimating average demand over a 6 or 12 month period, estimating initial demand, starting production early and stockpiling inventory, and then adjusting production volume based on actual demand.
And I guess you're calling the 7% of for fortune 500 that don't have official iPhone programs the serious ones? The other 465 of them are stupid amateurs who know better?
Isn't it incredibly irritating to see that not everyone makes purchasing decisions based on your opinions and suspicisons? Seriously, WTF is wrong with everyone else?
Ah, the old "scarcity conspiracy" theory. It wouldn't be Slashdot without it. It's like the flat-earth version of marketing.
Apple may know that they are going to sell out, but I guarantee you there is no way in hell that they are better off selling fewer phones than they would be selling more. Maybe someone, somewhere who wouldn't have otherwise bought an iPhone in January will now do so after remembering a shortage and thinking that signals a superior product. But thousands of times more people (which is to say, thousands of people) will go to a store with the intent of buying an iPhone and end up buying something else when their first choice isn't available. And those are customers Apple will lose for at least a year.
Apple would rather satisfy every drop of demand at launch. Because they've decided to launch knowing they can't doesn't mean they want shortages, it just means they're better off launching today with shortages than in November (or December) with enough stock.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure even an 80 year old non-technologist like my dad would be tipped off by something as unambiguous as "write access point name settings."
Oh, wait, maybe not. Remind me, is Android for the mass market, or just for power users? Or is it like Windows, where anyone who's not an expert should expect to get their system owned, with platform apologists assuring everyone that it's the user's own fault?
I mean, as long as they are up front about what they'll do with your email address, aren't you essentially agreeing to that in exchange for the service they offer?
This smacks of the old days when people used TV antennas to get "free" TV, and then complained about commercials. If the service isn't worth the unwanted communications, don't use it. But they're under no obligation to give you what you want, on your terms, and subject to your every whim.
Now, places that are dishonest or deceptive about the contract, that's a problem. But most larger businesses are pretty straightforward, and as an adult (right?) it's up to you to make the decision of whether it's worth it.
I disagree. Larger outages in an infrastructure like Facebook's are only rarely an accumulation of smaller issues. Think about it: what's a more likely scenario for a major site-wide issue, thousands of web servers whose hard drives die simultaneously, or a flapping route caused by a configuration issue on a router?
Think of it like our body: every day, you suffer thousands of tiny injuries and insults that your autoimmune system and skin deal with and that you never know about. This frees you up to drive yourself to the doctor if you notice a lingering cough or to call the ambulance if you sever a limb. You wouldn't argue against an immune system because it might hide larger issues from conscious attention, would you?
That's generally what happens to me-too players in a fiercely competitive new market, at least if the first movers are aggressive with IP. I'm not defending it, just saying it's how the world works.
Slashdot Mirror
As a developer and longtime HP fan, I am encouraged that they have announced that they don't have an announcement, but that they will announce a future announcement at which time they will announce an event where they will announce a decision. Surely this will catapult them back into relevance!
Nice work on the anti-semitism, there. Classy.
Netanyahu has done more harm to American interests than most of our enemies. So I guess it's appropriate to treat him badly. He's sabotaging U.S. *and* Israeli interests in the name of testosterone and machismo. There's no rule that says we have to treat him as if he were a legitimate ally when he's not living up to his side of the bargain.
Does anyone else even bother reading SHOUTING like this? Usually I skip over the screamers without reading or replying, but just this once I'm curious about anyone who might bother to read it. If you did read it, was in in spite of the screaming or because of it? Is that ever an effective way to communicate?
This. There is some value in well-articulated arguments and having a company with Google's clout bringing attention to the patent mess, but the moment Google stands to make more money from the system, this same guy will cheerfully advocate the other side. Which is fine, it's his job.
There are lots of different demographics out there. Apple is talking to their audience, who cares more about simplicity and reliability, plus a few gimmicky features like Siri so they can feel like they're living in the future.
Androids core demographic already expects to root their phone, install custom firmware, hack around the shortcomings, and revel in the freedom they have to spend hours fighting with their phone. We're talking about 15 - 30 year old men, and these guys are much more interested in giant robots, lightning bolts, and half naked women than they are the details of any particular phone.
"monopoly agreements with music and video publishers" -- say what? Can you point to a single publisher that has agreed to distribute exclusively through Apple?
I suspect you're making things up again.
You should probably learn something about anti-trust law before posting speculation.
Now, if Apple were buying up parts and dumping them in the ocean to prevent competitors from getting them, AND if competitors and regulators made the argument that Apple has a monopoly, then there might be anti-trust implications.
But there's nothing illegal about even a monopoly ensuring their own supply chain. And Microsoft and others have stridently argued that tablets are part of the PC market, not a standalone market of their own. Outside of tablets, I don't think there's any way to claim that Apple is a monopoly, and anti-trust law only comes into play regarding monopolies.
It's an interesting area of the law, I'd highly recommend learning something about it.
Wow, if only Apple had done some market research and prototyping, they would have picked the 7" size and wouldn't have seen the iPad get trounced by companies who picked the better form factor.
Obviously you should spend your time developing and distributing high quality free apps to do those things.
Unfortunately, this may be a huge setback for solar power as thousands of Slashdotters are now obligated to hate it because of Apple's move.
And why should inland areas on the west coast pay for Tsunami warnings? It doesn't affect them. And why should anyone whose house doesn't burn down pay for a fire department?
In civilized countries, there is an understanding that shared risk comes with shared reward. People in California pay for floods in the midwest. People in Florida pay for earthquakes in California. By spreading the risk, we help each other with greater resources than smaller areas can come up with.
What you're basically saying is that social contracts and social fabrics are over-rated, and we need to be more every-man-for-himself and dog-eat-dog. It's a fairly sociopathic view, in the most literal sense. I am really glad that people with your views are in the minority.
So DARPA had nothing to do with the Internet?
Other people have rightly rebutted your confusion about the business models of Amazon and Apple. But it's worth noting that the ~$10 loss that Amazon takes on each Fire is on cost of the parts and assembly, and does not include variable costs like shipping to the consumer or allocated fixed costs like R&D, support/warranty cost, marketing and advertising, or legal/regulatory costs.
I don't disagree with your points, but part of the challenge Android makers have is consumer attention. "Hundreds of alternatives" can be good for consumers but bad for manufacturers... I follow tech closely, and I'd only heard of one of the three Android tablets you mentioned.
No point in addressing your more emotional issues, but it's worth noting that the $500m figure for 2008 was revenue, not profit. When people say Apple doesn't make much from the app store, they are referring to profit, not revenue. Don't let that get in the way of a good rant, though. Please include "sheeple" in your next post, as I almost got superiority complex bingo on this one.
Remind me of the last Sony launch that sold 1,000,000 devices in 24 hours without stockout issues?
Well, you're pretty sure of yourself. So please let me know if you ever get a job in operations so I can short your company's stock.
Sales projections for devices like iPhones tend to spike at the introduction, curve down, then level out. It would be insane to gear up for production at peak demand levels, because some or most of it would be idled as demand dwindles after the big launch. Companies address this by estimating average demand over a 6 or 12 month period, estimating initial demand, starting production early and stockpiling inventory, and then adjusting production volume based on actual demand.
And I guess you're calling the 7% of for fortune 500 that don't have official iPhone programs the serious ones? The other 465 of them are stupid amateurs who know better?
Isn't it incredibly irritating to see that not everyone makes purchasing decisions based on your opinions and suspicisons? Seriously, WTF is wrong with everyone else?
Ah, the old "scarcity conspiracy" theory. It wouldn't be Slashdot without it. It's like the flat-earth version of marketing.
Apple may know that they are going to sell out, but I guarantee you there is no way in hell that they are better off selling fewer phones than they would be selling more. Maybe someone, somewhere who wouldn't have otherwise bought an iPhone in January will now do so after remembering a shortage and thinking that signals a superior product. But thousands of times more people (which is to say, thousands of people) will go to a store with the intent of buying an iPhone and end up buying something else when their first choice isn't available. And those are customers Apple will lose for at least a year.
Apple would rather satisfy every drop of demand at launch. Because they've decided to launch knowing they can't doesn't mean they want shortages, it just means they're better off launching today with shortages than in November (or December) with enough stock.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure even an 80 year old non-technologist like my dad would be tipped off by something as unambiguous as "write access point name settings."
Oh, wait, maybe not. Remind me, is Android for the mass market, or just for power users? Or is it like Windows, where anyone who's not an expert should expect to get their system owned, with platform apologists assuring everyone that it's the user's own fault?
I mean, as long as they are up front about what they'll do with your email address, aren't you essentially agreeing to that in exchange for the service they offer?
This smacks of the old days when people used TV antennas to get "free" TV, and then complained about commercials. If the service isn't worth the unwanted communications, don't use it. But they're under no obligation to give you what you want, on your terms, and subject to your every whim.
Now, places that are dishonest or deceptive about the contract, that's a problem. But most larger businesses are pretty straightforward, and as an adult (right?) it's up to you to make the decision of whether it's worth it.
I disagree. Larger outages in an infrastructure like Facebook's are only rarely an accumulation of smaller issues. Think about it: what's a more likely scenario for a major site-wide issue, thousands of web servers whose hard drives die simultaneously, or a flapping route caused by a configuration issue on a router?
Think of it like our body: every day, you suffer thousands of tiny injuries and insults that your autoimmune system and skin deal with and that you never know about. This frees you up to drive yourself to the doctor if you notice a lingering cough or to call the ambulance if you sever a limb. You wouldn't argue against an immune system because it might hide larger issues from conscious attention, would you?
Shhh. That kind of perspective is not welcome here. It's all about the outrage and gnashing of teeth, mere facts shouldn't get in the way.
That's generally what happens to me-too players in a fiercely competitive new market, at least if the first movers are aggressive with IP. I'm not defending it, just saying it's how the world works.
Have you ever had a project fail? How prominently do you feature it on your resume?
Alternatively, if you're too young to have had a failure, do you plan to emphasize your failures in future resumes?