Developers set the price of the app, and a 0$ price is allowed. Q&A answers are available from Apple Insider's notes page, including more information about developer registration, VoIP limitations and so on.
The much-needed focus on availability is a real breath of fresh air. If one can recover a previous state (i.e. if it is available), it's a great deal easier to restore integrity. Confidentiality improvements are always welcome, of course, but they'll never be complete, and availability allows us to recover after the fact.
Also, Time Machine is a great forensic tool.
Overall, of course, I'm lauding the article more than 10.5, since I'm unaware of any of these features being truly new to the IT world.
On any given flight, maybe 5% of the people will pay for this, causing a slowdown for everyone else that one would need sensitive instruments to measure. They're milking the blowhards.
And how many people out there in the corporate mainstream are ready to rely on VoIP and whatever wifi might be available? If folks were ready to restructure their communication expectations, it'd be a fine device, but I suspect they're still a little ahead of things.
Perhaps they had planned to release the SDK earlier via a Apple-style surprise, but timing slipped, and Jobs felt the need to just go ahead and announce it anyway to avoid the development community making Apple look like a stodgy dinosaur in the meantime. Besides that, I really can't understand why they wouldn't have announced it around release time.
I hope the signing requirement will be a verifiable registration of your key with Apple and not a large fee of some sort. I've got a lot of third party apps on my iTouch that are excellent quality and free. Apple would be depriving themselves of most of that developer community by limiting things to large companies.
Isn't that the truth! It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.
It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.
Of course, it could also be that it's taken them this long for events to prove to AT&T that resistance was ultimately futile and counterproductive. Hard to say, with that crowd.
How about a tax on people in the city to make sure people out in the 'burbs and rural areas can get their internet service without having to pay the extra cost of wiring low-density areas? We could just add it to the list of covert subsidies for unfair, environmentally-destructive low-density living.
True enough, but it's still going to lower their margins - as jcr points out above. One of the reason investors love Apple so much is their unusually high margins.
Of course, it would seem to me that they're making a mistake. High margins in most companies implies a very efficient operation relative to competitors because most firms don't have much price control. Apple's cachet, however, allows them considerable price control, and cachet is a fairly ephemeral asset, no matter how effective Apple has been in recent years in building it.
I've seen the estimates saying the the parts cost ~$220, but I haven't seen any production/total costs. Assuming that the sum amounted to ~$250 as parent post says, the margin was approximately 58%, but now it would be 37.5%, which is a somewhat hefty drop, but not so unusual. My (mostly unsupported) suspicion is that the real cost to put an 8GB iPhone on a retail shelf was more like $350, implying a margin drop of ~42% to ~12%, if costs haven't fallen significantly.
That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.
Of course, it's also possible that they inflated the initial sale price a little to allow for the steep drop. This would seem like a good way to make a little extra money and reinforce the exclusivity of iPhone ownership, but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had.
Lack of backlighting on paper books is actually one reason I worked out a way to prop my laptop so I could read in bed. Plus, after I pass out, the screen turns itself off automatically!
But I like the monitor being the only source of light in the room. How am I going to see the screen when I'm sitting like a mushroom in my dungeon/office with the lights off? This technology is a bummer.
Unless we could make suits/coverings out of it that would display a video feed of what's behind you: active camouflage!
I can think of a wide variety of reasons that they didn't allow 3rd party development, and not all of them involve AT&T at all. However, public justifications matter to companies that care about PR - and Apple does. If facts on the ground make their earlier negotiated agreements (whatever they were) unsustainable when it comes time for them to explain themselves to the market, they're likely to find a way to change things, whatever AT&T says.
However, if the first applications *do* somehow cause network disruption (or they portray them as the cause, Apple could decide to stick to the agreements and instead try to spike independent dev efforts.
Gas mileage on an average car has more than doubled since '55, so the cost per mile has actually probably dropped significantly since '55 (again, relative to minimum-wage increases)
Assuming Apple doesn't take steps in a subsequent update to actively disable third party applications, this could provide a channel for showing (or not) that third party applications doesn't automatically mean disruption of the provider network. Hopefully the inaugural apps will play nice, creating pressure on Apple to release an SDK to make it more likely that subsequent apps also play nice, rather than start patching it closed like a console. Apple has to respond, but they could go either way.
While it seems ordinary to expect skin to resist excessive losses for some time period as long as it is mechanically supported, it would seem that the sweater and breatheability recommendation in the original post would work against that. Perhaps some even more advanced suit with a sophisticated regional seal system and/or with reinforcement including the face one could find a way to manage all the gas-filled cavities and points of high permeability so that one did not need any air pressure for extended periods. Given the demo suit, however, I just assumed it was a sort of joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Developers set the price of the app, and a 0$ price is allowed. Q&A answers are available from Apple Insider's notes page, including more information about developer registration, VoIP limitations and so on.
I don't particularly want the dollar strong. I'd rather have US goods competitively priced in the global market.
This was WWI - Hitler was just a young fellow at the time.
The much-needed focus on availability is a real breath of fresh air. If one can recover a previous state (i.e. if it is available), it's a great deal easier to restore integrity. Confidentiality improvements are always welcome, of course, but they'll never be complete, and availability allows us to recover after the fact.
Also, Time Machine is a great forensic tool.
Overall, of course, I'm lauding the article more than 10.5, since I'm unaware of any of these features being truly new to the IT world.
On any given flight, maybe 5% of the people will pay for this, causing a slowdown for everyone else that one would need sensitive instruments to measure. They're milking the blowhards.
I guess I just tend to assume that the only non-geek market segment to which such a device would appeal is the corporate type.
And how many people out there in the corporate mainstream are ready to rely on VoIP and whatever wifi might be available? If folks were ready to restructure their communication expectations, it'd be a fine device, but I suspect they're still a little ahead of things.
Perhaps they had planned to release the SDK earlier via a Apple-style surprise, but timing slipped, and Jobs felt the need to just go ahead and announce it anyway to avoid the development community making Apple look like a stodgy dinosaur in the meantime. Besides that, I really can't understand why they wouldn't have announced it around release time.
Perhaps, but why would they have waited until now to announce it?
Isn't that the truth! It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.
It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.
Of course, it could also be that it's taken them this long for events to prove to AT&T that resistance was ultimately futile and counterproductive. Hard to say, with that crowd.
How about a tax on people in the city to make sure people out in the 'burbs and rural areas can get their internet service without having to pay the extra cost of wiring low-density areas? We could just add it to the list of covert subsidies for unfair, environmentally-destructive low-density living.
True enough, but it's still going to lower their margins - as jcr points out above. One of the reason investors love Apple so much is their unusually high margins.
Of course, it would seem to me that they're making a mistake. High margins in most companies implies a very efficient operation relative to competitors because most firms don't have much price control. Apple's cachet, however, allows them considerable price control, and cachet is a fairly ephemeral asset, no matter how effective Apple has been in recent years in building it.
I've seen the estimates saying the the parts cost ~$220, but I haven't seen any production/total costs. Assuming that the sum amounted to ~$250 as parent post says, the margin was approximately 58%, but now it would be 37.5%, which is a somewhat hefty drop, but not so unusual. My (mostly unsupported) suspicion is that the real cost to put an 8GB iPhone on a retail shelf was more like $350, implying a margin drop of ~42% to ~12%, if costs haven't fallen significantly.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.
Of course, it's also possible that they inflated the initial sale price a little to allow for the steep drop. This would seem like a good way to make a little extra money and reinforce the exclusivity of iPhone ownership, but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had.
Sounds elegant. I'll do it with duct tape!
Lack of backlighting on paper books is actually one reason I worked out a way to prop my laptop so I could read in bed. Plus, after I pass out, the screen turns itself off automatically!
Now if they could just make ebooks suck less...
But I like the monitor being the only source of light in the room. How am I going to see the screen when I'm sitting like a mushroom in my dungeon/office with the lights off? This technology is a bummer.
Unless we could make suits/coverings out of it that would display a video feed of what's behind you: active camouflage!
I can think of a wide variety of reasons that they didn't allow 3rd party development, and not all of them involve AT&T at all. However, public justifications matter to companies that care about PR - and Apple does. If facts on the ground make their earlier negotiated agreements (whatever they were) unsustainable when it comes time for them to explain themselves to the market, they're likely to find a way to change things, whatever AT&T says.
However, if the first applications *do* somehow cause network disruption (or they portray them as the cause, Apple could decide to stick to the agreements and instead try to spike independent dev efforts.
Gas mileage on an average car has more than doubled since '55, so the cost per mile has actually probably dropped significantly since '55 (again, relative to minimum-wage increases)
Assuming Apple doesn't take steps in a subsequent update to actively disable third party applications, this could provide a channel for showing (or not) that third party applications doesn't automatically mean disruption of the provider network. Hopefully the inaugural apps will play nice, creating pressure on Apple to release an SDK to make it more likely that subsequent apps also play nice, rather than start patching it closed like a console. Apple has to respond, but they could go either way.
minimum wage in 1955 was $.75/hr, now it is $5.85 (680% growth)
a gallon of gas in 1955 was $.29, now it averages $2.56 (783% growth)
Thought I think the concept of a sweater in space is inherently funny
While it seems ordinary to expect skin to resist excessive losses for some time period as long as it is mechanically supported, it would seem that the sweater and breatheability recommendation in the original post would work against that. Perhaps some even more advanced suit with a sophisticated regional seal system and/or with reinforcement including the face one could find a way to manage all the gas-filled cavities and points of high permeability so that one did not need any air pressure for extended periods. Given the demo suit, however, I just assumed it was a sort of joke.
Animal testing gives good data. A summary:
h tml
http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.