What are you talking about? According to http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/05/kin-one-and-two-review/ they cost $50 or $100 subsidized after rebates. The Droid Eris cost $99 on release which was way before Kin and went down to about $30 or so before the Kin launched. Today, there is the LG Ally which is less than the Kin was when first released but I'm not sure that it was released when Kin launched or not.
Yes, today the Kin is insanely cheap on contract but thats only because they were a failure to start with. They didn't start out that cheap and yes, there was an Android phone that was cheaper than the Kin on release (yes the Eris is discontinued now, but it was discontinued on June 21 or 22nd, way after the Kin was released).
So, no, your argument makes no sense, there was an Android phone out there for cheaper than the Kin on launch.
You are comparing two different things though, the Nexus One was designed to be a high-end phone untouched by carriers, the Kin was supposed to be a mass-market device, the Nexus One was more of a developer's or power user's plaything, in all honesty, the thing that killed the Nexus One was that cheaper (subsidized) phones started appearing with the same or better specs as the Nexus One. It makes sense to tone down a product designed for high-end use whenever cheaper, higher end products start appearing.
How are you surprised? What did the Kin do when compared to Android? For about the same price, someone could have gotten an Android phone, lets see here:
Apps, Android has a lot, Kin had none.
Flash, depending on the phone Flash could be possible on the Android phone, it was impossible on the Kin
Browser, I have no doubt that Android's browsers were better than what was on the Kin
Etc.
The only thing that would have saved the Kin would be a reduced price data plan which didn't happen. It wasn't Verizon that was the main problem it was a phone that did less than the comparable Android phones for the same required data plan. Yes, Verizon could have easily helped it work, but it was MS that created such a niche-less device in the first place.
As for the $100 statement, when you figure in all the things it can replace its probably cheaper today to get an "everything" plan than a home phone, cable and internet plan, plus, its a lot more convenient.
Microsoft seems to be willingly blind to what their users want and what is out there though. It seems to take a financial failure before they will wake up. Simply doing a crap job copying an existing product isn't going to earn you any customers, you have to be better and that is where Microsoft's things fail in most cases. And yes, Office is making MS quite a bit of money, but once word gets out about Google Docs and OOo, the case to use Office keeps on becoming less and less for most users.
I don't see Microsoft making a decent phone anytime soon because it keeps trying to emulate BlackBerry, the iPhone, Android and WebOS and failing at all of them. Microsoft will never get the reliability of BlackBerry OS, Microsoft can never reach the cult-like status of Apple, it can't just decide not to include a major feature like Flash, Multitasking, copy/paste, etc. until a future software update and expect people to buy it, Microsoft can never reach the level of appeal of the Google cloud services nor the openness of a Linux-based OS, and Microsoft will try, but fail to reach the level of ease of use of WebOS just like they tried to copy OS X and failed.
The problem was you were paying for a smartphone data plan and for the phone. For the price you were paying for a Kin why not go with Android or a Blackberry?
Microsoft tried to tap a non existent niche and failed. Had they struck a deal with Verizon to get a discounted data plan? Sure, it might have survived, but was there a single thing done right with the Kin when compared to an Android or Blackberry device?
Perhaps the kids they were marketing it to realized that if they were going to have to pay a smartphone data plan they might as well just get a smartphone that actually has apps and a future.
Really, Android phones are cheap these days and even the crappiest of Android phones can do more than Kin can.
So what are the major difference between the two parties?
The democrats want a -bit- more government, and are totally willing to enforce the parts of the constitution they like, namely the right to free speech (so long as you aren't promoting "hate" crimes, can't have true freedom now can we?). The republicans want a -bit- less government, and are totally willing to enforce the second amendment but forget any right to privacy (look at the PATRIOT Act), etc.
Ok, so you might get different views on abortion, welfare, etc. but forget any real debate over hard money, real tax reform, elimination of various government programs, etc.
They are two sides to the same coin and any differences serve to cloud the main issue of sameness.
America Speaking Out website recently launched by House Republicans to allow the public to weigh in on the issues and vote for policy positions they support. Curtis called the site an 'absolute train wreck.' 'It's an absolute disaster. It's impossible to tell who was kidding and who wasn't,' Curtis said."
Really now? You expect that a site where people can make policy decisions via the internet wouldn't be trolled to hell by 4chan or the like?
Really, you can't take anything on the internet to be 100% seriously this is true from news articles (look at how many people use The Onion as a "reliable" source) to voting.
Also, until recently a lot of them had a lack of continuing education and a lack of fresh ideas. Someone young and looking to get ahead is going to put a lot more time in classes taught by different people and keeping up to date with the trends.
...And most people can speak without the aid of a speech synthesizer and can move around that have brilliant minds, yet that doesn't stop Stephen Hawking.
We can make trends all we want but the fact is, every human is different, trends only help somewhat but there are more people who break the trend that do extraordinary work than those who follow it.
The problem with Wi-Fi is that where I am (suburbs) Wi-Fi from the local ISP is actually slower than a bar of 3G! It has lower latency than 3G of course but when it comes to download speeds your getting about 1-2 megabits per second from Wi-Fi and around 5-7 for 3G. Not to mention that Wi-Fi requires turning on yet another radio leading to worse battery life in a device that needs as much extra battery life as possible unless you do a mid-day charging.
Yes, but its Apple, look at Motorola which pretty much shipped 4 versions of the Razor phone for each of the major carriers, just add some drivers to iOS and divide manufacturing between CDMA and GSM iPhones, for a company as large as Apple, its not too huge of a feat. For a tiny community driven company, yes, for a major hardware vendor like Apple? Its easy.
Yeah, its been rumored to be coming to Verizon ever since the iPhone 3G came out though. Each time its been proven to be false or terribly delayed. We had these same stories last year with the 3GS and stories the year previous. Until we get actual proof to back it up (such as CDMA hardware company buyout by Apple or something) it has no more credit than the stories 2 years ago.
Um, my guess is that its going to have a huge impact for Verizon if they don't screw with the phones and castrate them like they've been known to do... Why would I use AT&T over Verizon? About the only thing is that AT&T's dumbphones are a bit less crippled than the stuff that Verizon sells and the iPhone, for all other smartphones Verizon is the clear winner, plus they actually have unlimited data and not a crappy 2 GB cap.
Its really too bad Apple didn't go with multiple carriers from the beginning, I think they've already tarnished their phones reputation by keeping it on AT&T's crappy network, not to mention now bandwidth caps, how am I supposed to use Hulu's Iphone app if I only have 2GB of data to last me a month?
Really, Apple should have gone multi-carrier from the 3G(S) onwards and probably from the first iPhone... But, this is Apple, after all, AT&T's terrible network is just part of the experience! Now you can be complaining about it like the masses!
Cable though you didn't have a choice. With the internet, we do. Hulu isn't competing against cable, Hulu is competing against torrents. So lets do a comparison here.
Convenience: Hulu would win here, but it decides instead to limit its access not only geographically but also by device. I can watch a torrented show on my laptop, desktop, HTPC, cell phone, Wii, Xbox, PS3, etc.
Price: You can't compete with free unless you give a much better product
Quality: Torrents don't have ads. However, you do have to deal with crappy rips and mislabeled media so its a tie.
Value for the money: With Hulu you get a lesser product than a torrent which is more inconvenient, torrents are portable and free and ad-free.
I think torrents still win, which is rather sad because Hulu could easily be better than torrents but instead they have their head in their ass.
So lets see I still get A) Ads B) Stupid blocking so I can't watch it on different devices and C) I'd have to wait for an invite?
Count me out.
To all "media" executives take a few things in note, I can go to the pirate bay and get shows ad free that I can watch everywhere without stupid little geographic or device limitations. Oh and its free.
Look, we have no problems buying your crap, but when its easier to pirate it and you get a better product? Why not download it?
But -why- does it cost so much? It is illogical that to see a doctor for about 5 minutes and get some medicine which is made out of incredibly common compounds that it would cost $200. So why is it that it costs that much? My guess is that it is multi-fold, the main thing being that doctors have to fill out so much paperwork that what takes them 5 minutes to accurately diagnose takes them many times that long to fill out the corresponding paperwork then expenses with malpractice insurance and the like, etc.
We need to be working to actually lower the price of health care to be reasonable. One of those things needs to be encouraging competition, already the cost and hassle has gone down due to those small clinics in major drug stores and by increasing that mentality, you end up with higher quality and lower prices.
Almost everyone who really browses much. For example, on Linux on Chrome I can't use backspace to go back a page, for Firefox its disabled by default but I can enable it through about:config, Chrome doesn't allow me to even control basic history options that even IE lets you, etc.
In short, every single annoyance in the UI or the like in Firefox can be removed via about:config with Chrome there are no options.
Ok, so you can customize the UI. Show me the equivalent tool of about:config in Opera, it just doesn't exist. And because it isn't open source you don't have that customization either.
As for the "free market", medicine has gotten way too complicated and expensive for people to need to vet every decision their doctor makes. Do you think doctors would magically just start being more honest and effective if their were less regulation? Just like bankers take the opportunity of deregulation to be more open and efficient and respectful of the consumer? Regulate in transparency and let people see what they are getting. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping fear mongering crooks from taking over that industry, too.
Yes, because otherwise they would lose business. If you had to jump through hoops, you would just go to a different doctor which was more friendly and helpful. As for bankers, we don't have deregulation, we just had multiple sets of regulations, some were better others were worse, we haven't had deregulation in the financial sector in our lifetimes. And the main problem with the banking system is because we have fiat currency, we have things that don't make sense in a "hard money" system like fractional reserve banking and the like, mix that in with the federal reserve... And yeah, the banking system doesn't make sense because our money doesn't make sense.
Transparency is close to a requirement when you have competition because people like transparency, people like quality, people like low prices, when things are competing in a free market you have different things to fit different niches. One only needs to look at the browser market to see that, you have people who want a huge say in what goes on and you have Firefox, you have people who want fast and cutting edge, you have Chrome, etc. the same thing could happen in the healthcare market if competition was encouraged, you have knowledgeable people who want to know every little detail, you have some people who don't mind a bit of a risk and are willing to use non-traditional methods of cures, and you have some people who just want to pay some money and be cured safely without much care about a bit of overpayment or that they aren't using the most cutting edge of treatment options.
In short, what good is transparency if people don't care about it? If people do care about it, the free market will bring transparency. If you regulate it in, and no one cares about it too much, it just means higher prices for the everyone.
Yes, but you can't customize Chrome, Opera, Safari, IE, etc. to the extent that you can Firefox. Customization is Firefox's killer feature and unless suddenly Google added About:config support in Chrome, it will be the reason why people will use Firefox.
My guess is these are the same people with like 234324324234234 extensions enabled and think that somehow Firefox should control it if a 14 year old with terrible coding practices makes an unstable extension.
Really, if you only have AdBlock installed, Firefox is pretty stable, and I'm even running nightly builds! It got a bit rocky about a week ago where it wouldn't start correctly and segfaulted when I clicked on a bookmark... But once it updated recently, it works just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? According to http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/05/kin-one-and-two-review/ they cost $50 or $100 subsidized after rebates. The Droid Eris cost $99 on release which was way before Kin and went down to about $30 or so before the Kin launched. Today, there is the LG Ally which is less than the Kin was when first released but I'm not sure that it was released when Kin launched or not.
Yes, today the Kin is insanely cheap on contract but thats only because they were a failure to start with. They didn't start out that cheap and yes, there was an Android phone that was cheaper than the Kin on release (yes the Eris is discontinued now, but it was discontinued on June 21 or 22nd, way after the Kin was released).
So, no, your argument makes no sense, there was an Android phone out there for cheaper than the Kin on launch.
You are comparing two different things though, the Nexus One was designed to be a high-end phone untouched by carriers, the Kin was supposed to be a mass-market device, the Nexus One was more of a developer's or power user's plaything, in all honesty, the thing that killed the Nexus One was that cheaper (subsidized) phones started appearing with the same or better specs as the Nexus One. It makes sense to tone down a product designed for high-end use whenever cheaper, higher end products start appearing.
How are you surprised? What did the Kin do when compared to Android? For about the same price, someone could have gotten an Android phone, lets see here:
Apps, Android has a lot, Kin had none.
Flash, depending on the phone Flash could be possible on the Android phone, it was impossible on the Kin
Browser, I have no doubt that Android's browsers were better than what was on the Kin
Etc.
The only thing that would have saved the Kin would be a reduced price data plan which didn't happen. It wasn't Verizon that was the main problem it was a phone that did less than the comparable Android phones for the same required data plan. Yes, Verizon could have easily helped it work, but it was MS that created such a niche-less device in the first place.
As for the $100 statement, when you figure in all the things it can replace its probably cheaper today to get an "everything" plan than a home phone, cable and internet plan, plus, its a lot more convenient.
Microsoft seems to be willingly blind to what their users want and what is out there though. It seems to take a financial failure before they will wake up. Simply doing a crap job copying an existing product isn't going to earn you any customers, you have to be better and that is where Microsoft's things fail in most cases. And yes, Office is making MS quite a bit of money, but once word gets out about Google Docs and OOo, the case to use Office keeps on becoming less and less for most users.
I don't see Microsoft making a decent phone anytime soon because it keeps trying to emulate BlackBerry, the iPhone, Android and WebOS and failing at all of them. Microsoft will never get the reliability of BlackBerry OS, Microsoft can never reach the cult-like status of Apple, it can't just decide not to include a major feature like Flash, Multitasking, copy/paste, etc. until a future software update and expect people to buy it, Microsoft can never reach the level of appeal of the Google cloud services nor the openness of a Linux-based OS, and Microsoft will try, but fail to reach the level of ease of use of WebOS just like they tried to copy OS X and failed.
Bad marketing had nothing to do with it.
The problem was you were paying for a smartphone data plan and for the phone. For the price you were paying for a Kin why not go with Android or a Blackberry?
Microsoft tried to tap a non existent niche and failed. Had they struck a deal with Verizon to get a discounted data plan? Sure, it might have survived, but was there a single thing done right with the Kin when compared to an Android or Blackberry device?
Perhaps the kids they were marketing it to realized that if they were going to have to pay a smartphone data plan they might as well just get a smartphone that actually has apps and a future.
Really, Android phones are cheap these days and even the crappiest of Android phones can do more than Kin can.
So what are the major difference between the two parties?
The democrats want a -bit- more government, and are totally willing to enforce the parts of the constitution they like, namely the right to free speech (so long as you aren't promoting "hate" crimes, can't have true freedom now can we?). The republicans want a -bit- less government, and are totally willing to enforce the second amendment but forget any right to privacy (look at the PATRIOT Act), etc.
Ok, so you might get different views on abortion, welfare, etc. but forget any real debate over hard money, real tax reform, elimination of various government programs, etc.
They are two sides to the same coin and any differences serve to cloud the main issue of sameness.
America Speaking Out website recently launched by House Republicans to allow the public to weigh in on the issues and vote for policy positions they support. Curtis called the site an 'absolute train wreck.' 'It's an absolute disaster. It's impossible to tell who was kidding and who wasn't,' Curtis said."
Really now? You expect that a site where people can make policy decisions via the internet wouldn't be trolled to hell by 4chan or the like?
Really, you can't take anything on the internet to be 100% seriously this is true from news articles (look at how many people use The Onion as a "reliable" source) to voting.
Yeah because democrats are better?
Lets just say that both major parties have an underlying sameness that prevents any progress other than over tiny issues.
Also, until recently a lot of them had a lack of continuing education and a lack of fresh ideas. Someone young and looking to get ahead is going to put a lot more time in classes taught by different people and keeping up to date with the trends.
...And most people can speak without the aid of a speech synthesizer and can move around that have brilliant minds, yet that doesn't stop Stephen Hawking.
We can make trends all we want but the fact is, every human is different, trends only help somewhat but there are more people who break the trend that do extraordinary work than those who follow it.
The problem with Wi-Fi is that where I am (suburbs) Wi-Fi from the local ISP is actually slower than a bar of 3G! It has lower latency than 3G of course but when it comes to download speeds your getting about 1-2 megabits per second from Wi-Fi and around 5-7 for 3G. Not to mention that Wi-Fi requires turning on yet another radio leading to worse battery life in a device that needs as much extra battery life as possible unless you do a mid-day charging.
Yes, but its Apple, look at Motorola which pretty much shipped 4 versions of the Razor phone for each of the major carriers, just add some drivers to iOS and divide manufacturing between CDMA and GSM iPhones, for a company as large as Apple, its not too huge of a feat. For a tiny community driven company, yes, for a major hardware vendor like Apple? Its easy.
Yeah, its been rumored to be coming to Verizon ever since the iPhone 3G came out though. Each time its been proven to be false or terribly delayed. We had these same stories last year with the 3GS and stories the year previous. Until we get actual proof to back it up (such as CDMA hardware company buyout by Apple or something) it has no more credit than the stories 2 years ago.
Um, my guess is that its going to have a huge impact for Verizon if they don't screw with the phones and castrate them like they've been known to do... Why would I use AT&T over Verizon? About the only thing is that AT&T's dumbphones are a bit less crippled than the stuff that Verizon sells and the iPhone, for all other smartphones Verizon is the clear winner, plus they actually have unlimited data and not a crappy 2 GB cap.
Its really too bad Apple didn't go with multiple carriers from the beginning, I think they've already tarnished their phones reputation by keeping it on AT&T's crappy network, not to mention now bandwidth caps, how am I supposed to use Hulu's Iphone app if I only have 2GB of data to last me a month?
Really, Apple should have gone multi-carrier from the 3G(S) onwards and probably from the first iPhone... But, this is Apple, after all, AT&T's terrible network is just part of the experience! Now you can be complaining about it like the masses!
Because its an attack out in the wild that the developers didn't know about and before a patch can be shipped.
Cable though you didn't have a choice. With the internet, we do. Hulu isn't competing against cable, Hulu is competing against torrents. So lets do a comparison here.
Convenience: Hulu would win here, but it decides instead to limit its access not only geographically but also by device. I can watch a torrented show on my laptop, desktop, HTPC, cell phone, Wii, Xbox, PS3, etc.
Price: You can't compete with free unless you give a much better product
Quality: Torrents don't have ads. However, you do have to deal with crappy rips and mislabeled media so its a tie.
Value for the money: With Hulu you get a lesser product than a torrent which is more inconvenient, torrents are portable and free and ad-free.
I think torrents still win, which is rather sad because Hulu could easily be better than torrents but instead they have their head in their ass.
So lets see I still get A) Ads B) Stupid blocking so I can't watch it on different devices and C) I'd have to wait for an invite?
Count me out.
To all "media" executives take a few things in note, I can go to the pirate bay and get shows ad free that I can watch everywhere without stupid little geographic or device limitations. Oh and its free.
Look, we have no problems buying your crap, but when its easier to pirate it and you get a better product? Why not download it?
But -why- does it cost so much? It is illogical that to see a doctor for about 5 minutes and get some medicine which is made out of incredibly common compounds that it would cost $200. So why is it that it costs that much? My guess is that it is multi-fold, the main thing being that doctors have to fill out so much paperwork that what takes them 5 minutes to accurately diagnose takes them many times that long to fill out the corresponding paperwork then expenses with malpractice insurance and the like, etc.
We need to be working to actually lower the price of health care to be reasonable. One of those things needs to be encouraging competition, already the cost and hassle has gone down due to those small clinics in major drug stores and by increasing that mentality, you end up with higher quality and lower prices.
Almost everyone who really browses much. For example, on Linux on Chrome I can't use backspace to go back a page, for Firefox its disabled by default but I can enable it through about:config, Chrome doesn't allow me to even control basic history options that even IE lets you, etc.
In short, every single annoyance in the UI or the like in Firefox can be removed via about:config with Chrome there are no options.
Ok, so you can customize the UI. Show me the equivalent tool of about:config in Opera, it just doesn't exist. And because it isn't open source you don't have that customization either.
As for the "free market", medicine has gotten way too complicated and expensive for people to need to vet every decision their doctor makes. Do you think doctors would magically just start being more honest and effective if their were less regulation? Just like bankers take the opportunity of deregulation to be more open and efficient and respectful of the consumer? Regulate in transparency and let people see what they are getting. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping fear mongering crooks from taking over that industry, too.
Yes, because otherwise they would lose business. If you had to jump through hoops, you would just go to a different doctor which was more friendly and helpful. As for bankers, we don't have deregulation, we just had multiple sets of regulations, some were better others were worse, we haven't had deregulation in the financial sector in our lifetimes. And the main problem with the banking system is because we have fiat currency, we have things that don't make sense in a "hard money" system like fractional reserve banking and the like, mix that in with the federal reserve... And yeah, the banking system doesn't make sense because our money doesn't make sense.
Transparency is close to a requirement when you have competition because people like transparency, people like quality, people like low prices, when things are competing in a free market you have different things to fit different niches. One only needs to look at the browser market to see that, you have people who want a huge say in what goes on and you have Firefox, you have people who want fast and cutting edge, you have Chrome, etc. the same thing could happen in the healthcare market if competition was encouraged, you have knowledgeable people who want to know every little detail, you have some people who don't mind a bit of a risk and are willing to use non-traditional methods of cures, and you have some people who just want to pay some money and be cured safely without much care about a bit of overpayment or that they aren't using the most cutting edge of treatment options.
In short, what good is transparency if people don't care about it? If people do care about it, the free market will bring transparency. If you regulate it in, and no one cares about it too much, it just means higher prices for the everyone.
Yes, but you can't customize Chrome, Opera, Safari, IE, etc. to the extent that you can Firefox. Customization is Firefox's killer feature and unless suddenly Google added About:config support in Chrome, it will be the reason why people will use Firefox.
My guess is these are the same people with like 234324324234234 extensions enabled and think that somehow Firefox should control it if a 14 year old with terrible coding practices makes an unstable extension.
Really, if you only have AdBlock installed, Firefox is pretty stable, and I'm even running nightly builds! It got a bit rocky about a week ago where it wouldn't start correctly and segfaulted when I clicked on a bookmark... But once it updated recently, it works just fine.