I think you are being too pessimistic. Right now teacher unions have enough people convinced that we need 1 teacher per x students in order for their kids to learn. And until we have better alternatives to teaching/learning they may be correct. We do have teacher aides already, so the idea of someone with less status and pay than a teacher watching their kids is already accepted and has been for at least 50 years. If you can demonstrate that kids can learn as well or better with 1 teacher per 30, 40 or 50 kids versus 20, then parents (taxpayer/voters) will be less willing to cave and will demand that administrators reduce the teacher/student ratio in order to cut costs. First, they have to be convinced. The unions would not be able to do anything about that. They depend on public opinion for their influence.
As a parent, if I thought my kid was getting a better education by being given access to better content with less student/teacher direct interaction, then I'd demand that. Do we really always need a live teacher lecture in order to impart information? I'd say that some subjects work better with in person teaching and others are less dependent on that. I'd say that much of what we consider fundamentals can be taught with less personal interaction than we have now if we had the tools. Other subjects may always be labor intensive and I'd rather shift my labor expenditures to keep that going than try to save money by providing only a narrow curriculum.
So I'm a lunatic to suggest that textbooks need updating more frequently than every 10 years and then you go on to complain that all the textbooks suck and they have for years. So if you don't replace or update them do you expect they will improve themselves while on the shelves?
I don't disagree that textbook quality is a big problem, but you've missed seeing a potential solution here. One reason they are bad is that they are expensive to replace. Also, the schools spend their money on textbooks instead of non textbooks and other content that might be more effective. When content is electronic the logistics are cheap and simple At that point it boils down to a negotiation. With physical texts its more like buying a house. It's such a hassle and the logistics are so onerous (distribution, warehousing, check out, check in, inspect, etc.) that the buyer is in a disadvantageous position. The expense of creating and distributing textbooks prevents smaller, possibly more competent companies from entering the field. And, as referenced in the article, you are not limited to textbooks. Video lectures and demonstrations, shorter articles, links and such can now be incorporated. If textbook publishers don't improve, the will obsolete themselves.
Need proof? What has the internet and electronic distribution done to newspapers, music and multi-media entertainment?
Battery dies on your iPad - Apple gives you a new one. Yup, that's their policy. BTW, this isn't about iPads.
The rest of your argument. You are completely ignoring the cost of labor. Labor costs go up faster than other costs. At some point we can't afford it either we reduce the amount of labor by investing in capital or we reduce production. We cannot sustain ever rising costs. So what do we give up - textbooks, class size and teaching quality, what? We can introduce some automation, yup that is what IT does best, and reduce the cost of labor by reducing the amount of labor we need per unit of output. Basic economics. In this case we are talking about reducing the amount of time kids need to spend with a quality teacher in person. Your teacher costs a hell of a lot more than $500 per student.
As far as you know, you don't know much. I'm not a salesman for Apple, and my comment isn't confined to the iPad. I believe this new type of device - the iPad and the better imitators are a better fit for this and many other things we've tried to use PCs for.
iPads are much more durable than laptops or netbooks. We've been evaluating them at my company. They are also much easier to set up.
You seem to think that there is no problem with a textbook being 10 years old. Well, a lot you (don't) know about textbooks. Not only do they need updating much more frequently then that, many schools don't have enough to give to students. They have to share them in class and cannot take them home. It's a huge problem and a huge expense.
As for the $500 for a device. Well, that's as cheap or cheaper than all the texts a middle or high schooler uses and you didn't include all the other teaching content - interactive and all - that can be included. You can make parents share financial responsibility or assume all of it. We used to have to pay for lost or damaged textbooks. Why not iPads?
Like it or not, the publishers are all moving fast in this direction. Where you see that its because they can make more money I see it as they can provide more value and replace some more expensive assets.
Maybe a lot of small classrooms with unionized teachers aren't as needed if we can put devices into the hands of the little darlin's. Maybe fewer teachers and some baby sitters to keep them in line would do the trick. If you think an iPad is expensive, try a teacher. A lot of them make $100,000 here in Chicago plus pensions and you can't fire them. Get rid of one teacher and you've paid for aroung 300 iPads. Fewer teachers means fewer administrators and book warehouse employees, etc. One great teacher and a production studio can produce a lot of instruction that can be used all over the country. Think about that versus tens of thousands of mediocre teachers trying to cover the same material? What is the savings there? How about the potential for home schooling? It would work better if you could get more and better content to help the parent doing the schooling. What does that save when we are spending $15,000 per student per year now?
They didn't just throw money. They bought an electronic device that proved to be much more effective than what they replaced. That's an investment with an ROI. They should expand this and replace all paper textbooks with electronic books loaded on one device. Easier to carry and easier an cheaper to keep up to date. Plus, as in the article, you can provide much more effective content than plain (out of date) text. If anything this should allow you to be equally effective with fewer teachers and administrators. If should save money.
Note that these benefits are specific to devices like the iPad and not PCs. PCs are much more expensive, delicate and difficult to set up, maintain and use. They are more prone to obsolescence. That's why computer-based teaching/earning has not expanded as rapidly as once was hoped. It was an expensive waste, but technology has improved and we are finally getting the right kinds of devices.
Not all expenditures are a waste of money. Not all are throwing money away. Otherwise you'd close all the schools, quit maintaining roads and other infrastructure and stay home. That would save a lot of money by your logic. Smart businesses know that cannot cut your way to profitability or growth.
I believe the existence of a right to privacy is still a matter of debate in US legal circles because it isn't explicitly stated. I agree with you that there is such a right, but that's my opinion and I'm just a citizen. The UN language in Article 12 seems stronger, but I don't accept the notion that the UN actually represents anyone. It's a forum for rulers to exercise their egos and negotiate deals. At best its a mild restraint on bad behavior, very mild.
Isn't an individual's right to privacy inalienable and shouldn't the UN therefore support it?
No, it's not. Where is the document that says it is? Most people live under tyranny. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. We have the rights the we or someone else has fought and won for us and we keep them by continuing to fight. Nothing inalienable about that.
With the iPhone and the iPad Apple recognized that the GUI paradigm of the PC with it's keyboard and mouse wasn't going to work. They also recognized that a touch interface is very different and requires a different approach to the UI. They let go of their PC GUI paradigm and developed a new one. It's still in its early stages much like GUI's in the mid-1980's, so we aren't seeing the full potential of touch yet. However, developers will learn and the applications will get a whole lot slicker.
This is similar to what Apple did with the GUI when they did the Mac. They saw it required a very different design approach from what most developers were used to with character mode UI's and they adapted to it. They are not afraid to leave what was comfortable and familiar and embrace a new paradigm.
Contrast that approach to things with Microsoft's. They think they can do Windows on Pads and phones and keep everything similar to what they are comfortable with. When someone in Microsoft does try a new way, they don't seem to get very far. It's as if the entropy of the entire corporation drags them down. Until Microsoft is willing to leave Windows where it is and embrace something completely different, they won't be successful in new markets.
I agree with what you've written. I'd add a couple of more observations:
1) Get the order right - pillage before you burn. Newspapers and magazines have "de-contented" over the years to save money. That reduced the real and perceived value of their products. They went on-line with this "de-contented" version and we got used to it. Then they erected the paywall. Now, I would have paid for their product if I thought it was the same product it was before all the cost cutting, but I don't really value what they ended up being. If they wait until the paywall is up to restore the quality of their content, how will I know? What will persuade me that what is behind the paywall is any better than what I was seeing before the paywall went up? The Economist hasn't made this mistake.
2) The prices are too high. Frankly anything more than 99 cents (US) a week gives me pause and I'll probably say no thanks. I won't pay 3 or 5 dollars a week for electronic content. That adds up. I compare everything to the monthly cost of HBO - which I dropped - and if it gets in that range I'm unlikely to subscribe. Too much of a commitment. With everybody asking from 3 to 10 dollars a month for their stuff it could quickly add up to a car payment. I don't have the time to consume all that content every month and I'm only willing to throw so much money away. BTW, I'm upper income middle class and I buy Apple products so if I won't pay, how many will?
Have these companies actually studied the demand elasticity curves - price versus volume trade-offs - to determine how to maximize revenues? Unlike print, it doesn't really cost more to deliver more copies and more volume means more ad income. So it seems to me that unlike some goods, maximizing revenue for electronic content probably benefits more from lower prices than most anything else.
Radio? I don't find my music on radio except on occasion I stumble on to something on public radio. A couple of weeks ago I heard The Horse Flies on "What Do You Know" and immediately ordered their CDs - indie - Funkyside.com. Mostly I do research and communicate with friends and acquaintances to find music or take a chance a show up at a venue or festival to see whoever is playing. I've found a lot of wonderful music that way. A couple of other good places to look for CDs if you like the kind of music I listen to are Yep Roc and CD Baby. I don't think they screw their artists like the big labels. do.
It is not a false dichotomy, it's the whole point. If I sell you a device and I call it a personal computer, then you'd be within your rights to have certain expectations about it that are consistent with a personal computer. If I sell you a device as a media player/internet communications tool and I don't claim it's a personal computer, then you shouldn't assume that I will support it as if it were a personal computer.
What is worse is that you've completely contradicted yourself with your Prius remark where you make my point about how the Prius is marketed being what sets expectations.
Apple sells iPods, iPhones and iPads as devices other than personal computers. If you don't want one don't buy it. If you buy it thinking its a personal computer then you're the fool.
You car manufacturer's warranty does not cover unapproved 3rd party products. Also, if you modify your car in ways that substantially alter its design specs (as defined by the manufacturer) that can void your warranty. But don't take the car analogy too far because my point isn't that the iPad is a car, it's that it is not being sold as a computer so you can't demand that it be supported as one. Computers are in many products and the extent to which you are allowed to modify their programming and still be supported is up to the manufacturer, not you.
Apple markets it as a device, not a computer. Toyota markets the Prius as an automobile, not a computer. GE markets microwaves as appliances, not computers and Comcast rents me a cable box with DVR, not a computer. Apple at least actively supports most application development and promotes the end products for you which is more than you find with other devices. Be consistent with your complaining.
Well those people were wrong for sure. I really like my iPad, but it is no substitute for a PC - whether desktop, laptop or netbook. It's better than a PC for users who are only looking for an internet, media and communications device. I can e-mail, create small documents, edit and present, but its not very good at serious original content creation.
Apple is not selling the iPad as a PC or even as a computer. It's a device. As others have pointed out, you don't see a lot of complaints about manufacturers of other devices not supporting developers. Microwaves, refrigerators and other appliances have computers in them. How about your cable box? You can hack them if you wish, but we accept the fact that if you do you violate your warranty. We accept the fact that development tools are not provided or supported by the manufacturer, because it’s a device they’ve defined and they support.
Until the iPhone, how many phone manufacturers supported the development of phone applications beyond a few chosen partners? How many carriers or manufacturers allowed you to distribute your applications using their facilities or run on their networks? Apple provided more freedom to developers on their iPhone than you could find from any other major manufacturer. Suddenly it’s your right not only to go further but to also have Apple spend its resources and risk its business and reputation supporting you? Sense of entitlement have you?
Apple isn’t stopping you from doing what you want with your iPhone or iPad, they are just refusing to help or support you.
You have more computing power in a Toyota Prius and many other cars than you do in an iPad. Why aren't slashdotters demanding free development tools, etc. for cars? If you took it upon your self to hack your car; would you expect to be covered by the manufacturer if it was then unsafe, unreliable or inoperative? I want Linux for on my Prius! Open source my BMW!
The counterpart to Flash development in the iPhone world is AJAX and HTML5. That's free and you don't need to use the app store. It's called a Rich Internet Application (RIA) or a "web app". The so-called Flash replacement is a Javascript library that makes it easier to write web apps that look like native apps. That will actually help developers who don't want to pay fee or go through the app store. You pay $99 in order to develop native apps for the iPhone - that's different.
I'm talking about the percentage of overall profit - not units sold. Apple is a dominant player in that and in terms of mobile internet use. This link is from last year when the 2 companies combined controlled 35% of the profit and were predicted by the WSJ to have 58% this year. Units sold doesn't mean much if you aren't making money.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/20/apple_rim_profit_margins_far_exceed_market_share.html
There is no evidence that Android and its model – a free ubiquitous operating system running on a plethora of devices – will ever dominate the profitable end of the market. That’s a commodity market where being adequate and low priced is what it takes. Free and open doesn’t mean success in consumer markets. Linux on the desktop anyone?
Apple has demonstrated very well the advantages of a tightly integrated optimized stack especially in mobile devices. They and RIM together account for the great majority of the profits accrued in the entire cell phone market. Apple’s personal computers are far more profitable than generic PCs.
I see HP wanting to go up against Apple in the mobile device space using Apple’s own business model. Why would they care to enter an Android market where it’s so hard to differentiate themselves? If they want to push volume with low profit margins they already have that with their PCs. Do they want to repeat that? I doubt it. They’d end up losing to the Koreans and Chinese.
Palm has been successful – technically – producing devices coupled to operating systems that offer significant consumer value. What they lack is capital. They also lack a Steve Jobs figure – a visionary willing to take risks who isn’t answerable to anyone in the short term. (He has his track record to back him up.) Will HP identify or hire such a visionary and then will they give that person the freedom to execute on their vision? If they do they will be a formidable competitor to Apple. If all they offer are some technical skills, capital and manufacturing capacity, then they will be competing in the lower less profitable tiers with the likes of HTC, Motorola and Nokia.
With Google you find out after the fact that she was filming your sexual activities and selling them on the web as porn. And she didn't pay you or offer you a cut of the proceeds.
Aren't you missing the point? They need to make it illegal so they can prosecute the criminals. Sometimes it's this "little stuff" that trips the criminals up. Al Capone and income tax evasion is one example. Many other gangsters who were very likely guilty of murder only ended up in jail because of some other more minor crime.
I read the agreement and I don't believe you are correct. IANAL, but as the agreement is written you can use a tool that writes Objective-C, C or C++ source code and then compile that code using Apple's SDK. A code generator is just a typist for you. This hinges on the meaning of the phrase "originally written", but it does not say "originally written by you". I do a lot of diagrams and pseudo code before I site down and type code. My IDE types a lot of the code for me - snippets, code completion, etc. As long as I'm submitting to the compiler valid source code and the compiler output is all that gets deployed then I'd say that qualifies as originally written. That's not what Flash, Java or.NET do.
Slashdot Mirror
As a parent, if I thought my kid was getting a better education by being given access to better content with less student/teacher direct interaction, then I'd demand that. Do we really always need a live teacher lecture in order to impart information? I'd say that some subjects work better with in person teaching and others are less dependent on that. I'd say that much of what we consider fundamentals can be taught with less personal interaction than we have now if we had the tools. Other subjects may always be labor intensive and I'd rather shift my labor expenditures to keep that going than try to save money by providing only a narrow curriculum.
I don't disagree that textbook quality is a big problem, but you've missed seeing a potential solution here. One reason they are bad is that they are expensive to replace. Also, the schools spend their money on textbooks instead of non textbooks and other content that might be more effective. When content is electronic the logistics are cheap and simple At that point it boils down to a negotiation. With physical texts its more like buying a house. It's such a hassle and the logistics are so onerous (distribution, warehousing, check out, check in, inspect, etc.) that the buyer is in a disadvantageous position. The expense of creating and distributing textbooks prevents smaller, possibly more competent companies from entering the field. And, as referenced in the article, you are not limited to textbooks. Video lectures and demonstrations, shorter articles, links and such can now be incorporated. If textbook publishers don't improve, the will obsolete themselves.
Need proof? What has the internet and electronic distribution done to newspapers, music and multi-media entertainment?
Battery dies on your iPad - Apple gives you a new one. Yup, that's their policy. BTW, this isn't about iPads. The rest of your argument. You are completely ignoring the cost of labor. Labor costs go up faster than other costs. At some point we can't afford it either we reduce the amount of labor by investing in capital or we reduce production. We cannot sustain ever rising costs. So what do we give up - textbooks, class size and teaching quality, what? We can introduce some automation, yup that is what IT does best, and reduce the cost of labor by reducing the amount of labor we need per unit of output. Basic economics. In this case we are talking about reducing the amount of time kids need to spend with a quality teacher in person. Your teacher costs a hell of a lot more than $500 per student.
iPads are much more durable than laptops or netbooks. We've been evaluating them at my company. They are also much easier to set up.
You seem to think that there is no problem with a textbook being 10 years old. Well, a lot you (don't) know about textbooks. Not only do they need updating much more frequently then that, many schools don't have enough to give to students. They have to share them in class and cannot take them home. It's a huge problem and a huge expense.
As for the $500 for a device. Well, that's as cheap or cheaper than all the texts a middle or high schooler uses and you didn't include all the other teaching content - interactive and all - that can be included. You can make parents share financial responsibility or assume all of it. We used to have to pay for lost or damaged textbooks. Why not iPads?
Like it or not, the publishers are all moving fast in this direction. Where you see that its because they can make more money I see it as they can provide more value and replace some more expensive assets.
Maybe a lot of small classrooms with unionized teachers aren't as needed if we can put devices into the hands of the little darlin's. Maybe fewer teachers and some baby sitters to keep them in line would do the trick. If you think an iPad is expensive, try a teacher. A lot of them make $100,000 here in Chicago plus pensions and you can't fire them. Get rid of one teacher and you've paid for aroung 300 iPads. Fewer teachers means fewer administrators and book warehouse employees, etc. One great teacher and a production studio can produce a lot of instruction that can be used all over the country. Think about that versus tens of thousands of mediocre teachers trying to cover the same material? What is the savings there? How about the potential for home schooling? It would work better if you could get more and better content to help the parent doing the schooling. What does that save when we are spending $15,000 per student per year now?
Note that these benefits are specific to devices like the iPad and not PCs. PCs are much more expensive, delicate and difficult to set up, maintain and use. They are more prone to obsolescence. That's why computer-based teaching/earning has not expanded as rapidly as once was hoped. It was an expensive waste, but technology has improved and we are finally getting the right kinds of devices.
Not all expenditures are a waste of money. Not all are throwing money away. Otherwise you'd close all the schools, quit maintaining roads and other infrastructure and stay home. That would save a lot of money by your logic. Smart businesses know that cannot cut your way to profitability or growth.
I believe the existence of a right to privacy is still a matter of debate in US legal circles because it isn't explicitly stated. I agree with you that there is such a right, but that's my opinion and I'm just a citizen. The UN language in Article 12 seems stronger, but I don't accept the notion that the UN actually represents anyone. It's a forum for rulers to exercise their egos and negotiate deals. At best its a mild restraint on bad behavior, very mild.
Isn't an individual's right to privacy inalienable and shouldn't the UN therefore support it?
No, it's not. Where is the document that says it is? Most people live under tyranny. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. We have the rights the we or someone else has fought and won for us and we keep them by continuing to fight. Nothing inalienable about that.
This is similar to what Apple did with the GUI when they did the Mac. They saw it required a very different design approach from what most developers were used to with character mode UI's and they adapted to it. They are not afraid to leave what was comfortable and familiar and embrace a new paradigm.
Contrast that approach to things with Microsoft's. They think they can do Windows on Pads and phones and keep everything similar to what they are comfortable with. When someone in Microsoft does try a new way, they don't seem to get very far. It's as if the entropy of the entire corporation drags them down. Until Microsoft is willing to leave Windows where it is and embrace something completely different, they won't be successful in new markets.
1) Get the order right - pillage before you burn. Newspapers and magazines have "de-contented" over the years to save money. That reduced the real and perceived value of their products. They went on-line with this "de-contented" version and we got used to it. Then they erected the paywall. Now, I would have paid for their product if I thought it was the same product it was before all the cost cutting, but I don't really value what they ended up being. If they wait until the paywall is up to restore the quality of their content, how will I know? What will persuade me that what is behind the paywall is any better than what I was seeing before the paywall went up? The Economist hasn't made this mistake.
2) The prices are too high. Frankly anything more than 99 cents (US) a week gives me pause and I'll probably say no thanks. I won't pay 3 or 5 dollars a week for electronic content. That adds up. I compare everything to the monthly cost of HBO - which I dropped - and if it gets in that range I'm unlikely to subscribe. Too much of a commitment. With everybody asking from 3 to 10 dollars a month for their stuff it could quickly add up to a car payment. I don't have the time to consume all that content every month and I'm only willing to throw so much money away. BTW, I'm upper income middle class and I buy Apple products so if I won't pay, how many will?
Have these companies actually studied the demand elasticity curves - price versus volume trade-offs - to determine how to maximize revenues? Unlike print, it doesn't really cost more to deliver more copies and more volume means more ad income. So it seems to me that unlike some goods, maximizing revenue for electronic content probably benefits more from lower prices than most anything else.
Radio? I don't find my music on radio except on occasion I stumble on to something on public radio. A couple of weeks ago I heard The Horse Flies on "What Do You Know" and immediately ordered their CDs - indie - Funkyside.com. Mostly I do research and communicate with friends and acquaintances to find music or take a chance a show up at a venue or festival to see whoever is playing. I've found a lot of wonderful music that way. A couple of other good places to look for CDs if you like the kind of music I listen to are Yep Roc and CD Baby. I don't think they screw their artists like the big labels. do.
I have a patent on such sites.
You've set a very low standard for liberty.
Do you mean to say that there is an alternative to liberty or death? Imagine that!
What is worse is that you've completely contradicted yourself with your Prius remark where you make my point about how the Prius is marketed being what sets expectations.
Apple sells iPods, iPhones and iPads as devices other than personal computers. If you don't want one don't buy it. If you buy it thinking its a personal computer then you're the fool.
You car manufacturer's warranty does not cover unapproved 3rd party products. Also, if you modify your car in ways that substantially alter its design specs (as defined by the manufacturer) that can void your warranty. But don't take the car analogy too far because my point isn't that the iPad is a car, it's that it is not being sold as a computer so you can't demand that it be supported as one. Computers are in many products and the extent to which you are allowed to modify their programming and still be supported is up to the manufacturer, not you.
Apple markets it as a device, not a computer. Toyota markets the Prius as an automobile, not a computer. GE markets microwaves as appliances, not computers and Comcast rents me a cable box with DVR, not a computer. Apple at least actively supports most application development and promotes the end products for you which is more than you find with other devices. Be consistent with your complaining.
Well those people were wrong for sure. I really like my iPad, but it is no substitute for a PC - whether desktop, laptop or netbook. It's better than a PC for users who are only looking for an internet, media and communications device. I can e-mail, create small documents, edit and present, but its not very good at serious original content creation.
Apple is not selling the iPad as a PC or even as a computer. It's a device. As others have pointed out, you don't see a lot of complaints about manufacturers of other devices not supporting developers. Microwaves, refrigerators and other appliances have computers in them. How about your cable box? You can hack them if you wish, but we accept the fact that if you do you violate your warranty. We accept the fact that development tools are not provided or supported by the manufacturer, because it’s a device they’ve defined and they support.
Until the iPhone, how many phone manufacturers supported the development of phone applications beyond a few chosen partners? How many carriers or manufacturers allowed you to distribute your applications using their facilities or run on their networks? Apple provided more freedom to developers on their iPhone than you could find from any other major manufacturer. Suddenly it’s your right not only to go further but to also have Apple spend its resources and risk its business and reputation supporting you? Sense of entitlement have you?
Apple isn’t stopping you from doing what you want with your iPhone or iPad, they are just refusing to help or support you.
You have more computing power in a Toyota Prius and many other cars than you do in an iPad. Why aren't slashdotters demanding free development tools, etc. for cars? If you took it upon your self to hack your car; would you expect to be covered by the manufacturer if it was then unsafe, unreliable or inoperative? I want Linux for on my Prius! Open source my BMW!
Yes, indeed! I can run copies on as many desktops as I care to. Just add monkeys and ta dah - Shakespeare!
The counterpart to Flash development in the iPhone world is AJAX and HTML5. That's free and you don't need to use the app store. It's called a Rich Internet Application (RIA) or a "web app". The so-called Flash replacement is a Javascript library that makes it easier to write web apps that look like native apps. That will actually help developers who don't want to pay fee or go through the app store. You pay $99 in order to develop native apps for the iPhone - that's different.
I'm talking about the percentage of overall profit - not units sold. Apple is a dominant player in that and in terms of mobile internet use. This link is from last year when the 2 companies combined controlled 35% of the profit and were predicted by the WSJ to have 58% this year. Units sold doesn't mean much if you aren't making money. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/20/apple_rim_profit_margins_far_exceed_market_share.html
There is no evidence that Android and its model – a free ubiquitous operating system running on a plethora of devices – will ever dominate the profitable end of the market. That’s a commodity market where being adequate and low priced is what it takes. Free and open doesn’t mean success in consumer markets. Linux on the desktop anyone?
Apple has demonstrated very well the advantages of a tightly integrated optimized stack especially in mobile devices. They and RIM together account for the great majority of the profits accrued in the entire cell phone market. Apple’s personal computers are far more profitable than generic PCs.
I see HP wanting to go up against Apple in the mobile device space using Apple’s own business model. Why would they care to enter an Android market where it’s so hard to differentiate themselves? If they want to push volume with low profit margins they already have that with their PCs. Do they want to repeat that? I doubt it. They’d end up losing to the Koreans and Chinese.
Palm has been successful – technically – producing devices coupled to operating systems that offer significant consumer value. What they lack is capital. They also lack a Steve Jobs figure – a visionary willing to take risks who isn’t answerable to anyone in the short term. (He has his track record to back him up.) Will HP identify or hire such a visionary and then will they give that person the freedom to execute on their vision? If they do they will be a formidable competitor to Apple. If all they offer are some technical skills, capital and manufacturing capacity, then they will be competing in the lower less profitable tiers with the likes of HTC, Motorola and Nokia.
With Google you find out after the fact that she was filming your sexual activities and selling them on the web as porn. And she didn't pay you or offer you a cut of the proceeds.
Aren't you missing the point? They need to make it illegal so they can prosecute the criminals. Sometimes it's this "little stuff" that trips the criminals up. Al Capone and income tax evasion is one example. Many other gangsters who were very likely guilty of murder only ended up in jail because of some other more minor crime.
I read the agreement and I don't believe you are correct. IANAL, but as the agreement is written you can use a tool that writes Objective-C, C or C++ source code and then compile that code using Apple's SDK. A code generator is just a typist for you. This hinges on the meaning of the phrase "originally written", but it does not say "originally written by you". I do a lot of diagrams and pseudo code before I site down and type code. My IDE types a lot of the code for me - snippets, code completion, etc. As long as I'm submitting to the compiler valid source code and the compiler output is all that gets deployed then I'd say that qualifies as originally written. That's not what Flash, Java or .NET do.