As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
You say that as if I'm supposed to axiomatically agree that it is a bad thing. Sorry but growth and progress ARE good things.
It's not good enough that a company provides jobs and turns a profit. It has to show "growth".
That's correct. Do you understand why? If I'm going to invest in a company I'm going to expect a return on my investment. Companies that don't grow don't provide a return. Companies that don't grow are replaced by those that do and the jobs go to the ones that are growing. Companies that don't improve their products lose to those that do and their profits follow.
It's not good enough that a given computer can perform all sorts of useful functions. It has to be reinvented as more powerful every 374 days.
Quite so. I want to be able to do more tomorrow than I can do today. Otherwise we may as well still be living as hunter gatherers. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember when computers weren't a part of our daily lives but I am and it's better now that they are. And I want the ones tomorrow to be better than the ones today. The paper phone directory was "good enough" but the internet is better. Rotary phones worked fine but mobile phones are better. Societies that don't steadily improve their technology stagnate and fail. You really don't want that.
I do agree that a Mac Mini should cost less now than it did over three years ago. But what's wrong with good enough?
What's wrong with it is that I'm not going to buy it when there is something else available that is better. Apple charges premium prices for their devices so it's not unreasonable to expect their products to *gasp* actually be premium products. Selling a computer that basically hasn't been updated for 3 years for the same price you did 3 years ago is just either arrogance or stupidity. Apple has by design a small product line and they have plenty of resources (esp cash) so there really is no excuse for them selling any products that aren't best in class or nearly so. If some other company comes out with a better product then I'm going to buy that instead.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish.
A "couple of products languish"? They only have a couple of products! They've got basically three desktop machines (with various configurations) and the iMac is the only one that is even remotely up to date as I write this. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not even close to the best hardware available in their respective market segments right now. They are better on the laptop side of things but their decisions there haven't been universally great either. (16GB max ram on MBP? One USB-C port for the whole machine?) I understand that they sell more laptops than desktops but that's not an acceptable excuse. With the billions Apple has in the bank I'm fairly confident that it isn't a resources problem so that means it is a decision rather than a limitation.
Most damning to my mind is that Apple still can't seem to figure out how to really tightly integrate the software between their Macintosh computers and their phones and tablets and other devices. The Mac has kind of become the bastard step child. Ironic since the real value proposition for any Apple machine is in the software. Put Windows on a Mac without OS X and nobody is going to pay a premium for that. People buy Apple products for the software and Apple really is a software company. If they are going to bundle their software with hardware as they have always done, then the hardware for their Macintosh line needs to be better than it currently is and needs to remain so. Otherwise one can find more value in a Windows or Linux box for a lot of use cases.
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.
Apple charges premium prices for their products and historically they've been good enough to justify that pricing. That's fine but with premium pricing we should fully expect to get a premium product including hardware that is somewhere close to the best available at the time of purchase. With as few products as Apple has in their lineup (by design) they should have NO problem keeping their products at or near the best available in their respective categories. And currently it is undeniable that they routinely fail in this test in their Macintosh division particularly with their desktop machines.
It's very difficult to recommend much from the current crop of Macs to customers, and that's deeply worrisome to us, as a Mac-based software company.
Apple's Mac division has really kind of gone of the rails in recent years. They've made multiple repeated bizarre design decisions and they seldom update their hardware. While is hasn't been all bad, it's getting hard to recommend the Mac to people I previously would have done so without hesitation. They cater to a fairly specific customer and that's fine but they aren't even doing a very good job of that anymore.
It's pretty clear that the focus of management is on the iPhone. Understandable but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of the value proposition from Apple comes from the tight ecosystem integration. Without that it's not so compelling to buy an iPhone or an iPad. Honestly I don't see a lot of tight integration in ways that are useful to me.
I have a Mac Mini and I'm about to replace it but probably not with another Mac Mini and the way things are going not with any other type of Mac either. Apple just isn't investing in the Mac and if they cannot be bothered in spite of the massive cash hoard they have then why should I care either? Apple should be making the Mac the best type of PC available and they just aren't. They are nice enough but they're behind the technology curve at this point. I don't think they need to be bleeding edge but they aren't even close to the edge on PCs anymore. Either they are incompetent or they just can't be bothered and I tend to favor the later theory.
Many utility companies allow you to pay in cash through affiliated stores.
I'm aware though few people actually do this. Most who do are people who cannot get a proper bank account or credit card.
Why not buy a PC in cash, especially used?
Because acquiring and carrying a wad of cash that large is more than a little inconvenient. I cannot remember the last time I walked around with more than about $200 cash on my person. And none of the PCs I would actually buy cost an amount of money where a cash transaction makes much sense.
It's a few-hundred-dollar purchase at most these days -- they've become a commodity item.
One only has to walk into an Apple store to disprove that. A cheap PC that is worth half a shit costs $400 and they go up steeply from there.
Per my other post....I've yet to see in the US, a non-cash business in meatspace.
Yes you have but I think you mean retailers. Most (though not all) retailers accept cash but many other businesses do not as a general practice and the number is increasing. Heck my company pretty much never deals in cash. We could in principle but it would be wildly inconvenient and cost a lot more because we aren't a retailer.
It may take over..but I don't see it going fully that way in my lifetime.
I would agree with that though I do think you will see increasing numbers of businesses that find cash to not be worth the bother. It really comes down to whether the increased revenue and profits offsets the added cost of handling the cash. For most businesses it does but not all. But if companies could do away with checkout counters and their costs in exchange for not handling cash anymore I think some of them will take the plunge.
I tend to think this move, so far, is mostly outside the US, I mean, we still write and take checks here.....you know? While that isn't exactly cash, it is cash equivalent and doesn't require a network connection to accept and deposit.
Writing checks sort of speaks to how backwards our system is here in the US. And yes checks do require a network connection at some point albeit not necessarily at the point of sale. Many retailers will not accept them unless they can verify them electronically. Frankly checks are hugely annoying and expensive to the retailer. Younger people tend to use a lot less of them. I can't remember the last time I saw someone under the age of 50 using a check at the grocery store.
I pay for things with cash. If a business doesn't take cash, they don't get my business.
Really? You never write a check? Never use a credit or debit card? You make your house payment in cash? Pay your utilities in cash? You purchased your PC in cash?
Yeah I don't believe you are telling the truth. If you are then I kind of pity you.
Cashiers rank among the top jobs in the US by numbers employed.
It is true that a lot of people are employed as cashiers. This is unfortunate because the job of cashier is not a value added job. It doesn't make the product better, it doesn't improve the shopping experience, and it's a large cost to both the retailer and the customer.
Is Microsoft also working on technology that will eliminate the problems they're planning on creating when they make millions of jobs obsolete?
No and nor should they. You're typing this on a computer and you don't see the irony in your argument? Should Microsoft have been subsidizing Smith Corona typewriters because PCs reduced the need for clerical staff? Should Ford have been worrying about what happened to people who ride horses? The job of cashier adds NO value. It's necessary to ensure the transaction takes place but it doesn't benefit the customer or the retailer and it certainly should not be maintained as a jobs program if we can do away with that task. All it does is add cost to the transaction for everyone involved. That is not a job worth protecting.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of consumer spending and business revenue depends on millions of people being employable.
They remain employable - they'll just be doing something else.
How about solving problems that actually exist? We already have "self checkouts". Is that a major problem that needs addressing?
Yes it is a major problem because it's a major cost for retailers. Most retailers have fairly thin margins and anything they can do to reduce headcount and other costs in the checkout process is something worth considering. There is NOTHING value added about the checkout process. It's necessary but it does not add value to the customer or the product. If anything it makes the shopping experience notably less pleasant. It's a cost center for the retailer which they would happily get rid of if they could.
Bullshit they aren't. Bing gets its revenue from ads. Linked-In gets lots of money from data mining. Microsoft sells data mining tools. Your faith in Microsoft on this topic is wildly incorrect.
Well, that would not seem wise, to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from a large amount of potential business, just to not take cash.
That depends heavily on what you are selling and who you are selling it to. I guarantee the Apple Store isn't doing a lot of cash transactions. Amazon seems to be doing alright and the vast majority of what they sell doesn't involve paper money at all. Other companies like McDonalds or Walmart do rather a lot of cash business. Cash isn't inherently good or bad but companies shouldn't be obligated to handle it if it reduces their profits.
And hey, not everyone has a smartphone, you know?
No but the number of people who do is a huge number - presently around 77% of Americans. It's plausible that the money saved by not having to handle cash more than makes up for the lost customers. Honestly I don't know anyone in my personal life who dogmatically uses cash. Most I know use it when they have to but don't prefer it.
I have plenty of credit...I could use, but I also would rather buy with cash and not have my purchases associated with my identity as much as possible.
That's fine as long as you recognize that the vendors are under no obligation to sell to you if they prefer to be paid with credit cards or some other form of payment. I think you are being a little paranoid but I understand valuing privacy and respect the impulse.
I"m certainly not alone with wanting to use cash for one of any number of valid reasons, and I can't imagine a business wanting to bar itself from a large amount of potential revenue.
It's not about the amount of revenue. It's about the amount of PROFIT. Not all revenue generates equal profits. Cash transactions tend to be small in value so you need a lot of them to make handling cash worthwhile. Many businesses fit this profile but many others do not. For my company cash would be a LOT more hassle than checks or credit cards since most of our transactions with our customers are thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.
eh, same things done with metals like gold and silver too...no difference
Oh but there are some very big and important differences. Not the least of which is that you don't have to handle and exchange a hunk of metal.
doesn't matter what the market's good/currency is, can be done in all of them
In principle yes but some crimes are far more elegant and easy to get away with than others. Cryptocurrency is a criminal's wet dream. Hard to trace, hard to restrict, no physical object to handle, crosses borders easily, confused and conflicted to non existent regulations, fairly easy to convert to other currencies or assets, and a bunch of greedy fools clamoring to get rich quick using it. You couldn't design a better system for money laundering and facilitating illegal payments if you tried.
Not really they aren't. What every currency and every asset for that matter are backed by is nothing more than belief. People believe it has value and so it does. Usually there is some rationality to this belief but not always. You cannot explain the price of gold based on any sort of rational valuation. (Which is why a gold standard is a stupid idea) You can say a currency is backed by something but all you are doing in that case is making a derivative and the value still ultimately depends on belief in the value of the underlying asset. (which again is why a gold standard is a stupid idea)
Cryptocurrencies are stupid for many reasons but not because of what they are (or aren't) backed by.
Cryptocurrency, even all the coins put together, is still well within the range of what well financed individuals can screw with and fleece other investors.
The British Pound is well within the range of what well financed individuals and hedge funds can screw with. Bitcoin and other so called cryptocurrencies are childs play by comparison.
Please go research what a Ponzi scheme is and maybe you'll comprehend. Then go research Pump and dump. Finally try to understand the meaning of the term securities fraud.
Even if it was with the intent to push the prices up, isn't that also done with everything?
A concentrated campaign of price manipulation may have accounted for at least half of the increase in the price of Bitcoin and other big cryptocurrencies last year,
Just say it. It's a Ponzi scheme. Admit it and you'll feel better.
If you are an honest believer in cryptocurrencies I admire your earnest faith in humanity but virtually everything about cryptocurrences virtually screams scam to anyone with a functioning brain and any sense of skepticism. It is nothing more than a bunch of greedy people trying to make a fast buck from credulous fools using the latest financial fad.
quote>Tesla does use some nice technology, but their showcase application requires high power to weight, where for utility-scale electrical storage weight is not a big issue, while cost and cycle efficiency is much more of an issue. Lithium's greatest asset is low mass, not low cost.
Cost has a lot more to do with scale than it does anything else. And there isn't just one type of Lithium Ion battery out there. Li-Ion is a family of battery chemistries with varying performance and price points. There is no fundamental reason to believe Li-Ion batteries cannot be made for reasonable cost given sufficient volume and advances in chemistry.
In any case, as one of the other commentators noted, it's worth looking at multiple technological solutions, rather than fixating on just one approach.
People are doing just that. But do not discount the economic value of standardizing on a common technology even if it isn't optimal for a given use case.
They didn't. But their price to performance for most applications isn't very good so there have never been a lot of them. They are expensive, they have relatively low energy density and low specific power, they charge slowly and discharge slowly (not good for large sudden power draws), they product a lot of hydrogen requiring ventilation, their charge characteristics are challenging with solar inverters, they require frequent and routine inspection and maintenance to maintain performance, and they are very bulky and heavy.
They have their uses and have been used in specialized applications for a long time. But there are better options out there for most use cases.
The battery life is in decades, even with constant charging and discharging.
Only with very diligent maintenance. They aren't very good for applications like solar.
The problem is the app store. Apple should not be allowed to be the sole vendor.
Why? Because it bothers you? It's their product and they can do what they want. If you don't like it buy something else. And take your pathetic whining with you. Apple owes you nothing.
By law, they should be forced to support other stores.
I'm thinking you must be trolling because otherwise you are retarded. "By law"? They don't even have a majority of the smartphone market so what would be the point of that? Go buy Android or something else if you don't like it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a single product from Apple. Literally every product they sell is the very definition of discretionary and there are very reasonable competitive options their entire product line.
Are (any) fiat-currency and (any) cryptocurrency really equivalent, as cryptocurrency fans claim? For example, US Dollar and Bitcoin are really equals?
Clearly no they are not equivalent. Anyone who claims otherwise is not dealing in objective facts. That's not to say that cryptocurrencies are in principle intrinsically inferior but in actual practice thus far they definitely are for most legal transactions and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Liquidity, risk, utility as store of value, transaction costs, volatility, inflation, and many more features have wildly different profiles between fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies. In an honest and objective appraisal cryptocurrencies are inferior in most respects for most people.
Or, could it be really because Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies followed it) are actually Ponzi Schemes?
To be fair there is SOME honest usage of cryptocurrencies but you are quite right that most of them are nothing more than thinly disguised get rich quick schemes if not outright fraud. Most of the usage of them is for illegal activity and money laundering and speculation. There certainly is no economic advantage to them over currencies like the dollar as the transaction costs are substantially higher as is the risk. (volatility, exchange rate, counterparty, etc... take your pick - it's very risky compared to the dollar and with risk comes expense)
The most interesting thing about cryptocurrencies has nothing to do with the currency. It's the blockchain technology which has all sorts of far more interesting applications than any cryptocurrency.
As it is prone to, Apple has decided that its customers are too stupid to do this.
How is preventing a bunch of fraudulent scammers from hijacking people's computers in any way a statement that users are "too stupid"? If you want to run mining software knock yourself out. Nothing is preventing you from doing it - you just can't get it through the App Store. Go compile the software yourself if its important to you. Neither Apple nor the vast majority of their customers have anything to gain by permitting this sort of crap in the App Store. You know damn well that these apps would chew up all the performance of the phone and Apple would get blamed for it AND have to clean up the mess. You know damn well that these apps would be disguised as something other than what they actually are - effectively a form of malware.
Alternatively, is this just another case of "we know better than you what you want to do"?
No, it's simply protecting Apple's own interest and the interests of the vast majority of their users. Most of us have little to zero interest in cryptocurrency and even less in the fraud and criminality that tends to surround it. The majority of cryptocurrency activity is nothing but thinly disguised get rich quick scams and pyramid schemes. While there is some honest activity too it's impossible to tell who those parties are reliably and so it's sensible to just prevent such apps from being distributed through the App Store as policy. If you don't like it then don't buy Apple products.
It's my device, I should be able to run whatever I want.
So what is stopping you? Just because Apple isn't cooperating with you is irrelevant. As you said it's your hardware so wipe off iOS and put whatever idiotic mining software or malware you want on it. Hell, run Android on an iPhone if you want.
That's why I prefer Android.
A distinction without a difference. If you like Android better that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that you own the hardware and you can compile and run whatever software you want on it. If you want to argue that Apple should cooperate with you running whatever software you want, then you have an argument. It's a walled garden with all that entails. But if your argument is that you should be allowed to run whatever software you want then your argument is moot because you already have that right. The flipside is that Apple is not and should not be under any obligation to cooperate with you if they don't think it is in their interest to do so.
But if they had let Electroneum in they'd have to let them all into the store or they'd be picking winners and losers, so I guess it had to be all or none.
That's kind of the point. Most of the activity surrounding cryptocurrency mining is nothing more than transparent get rich quick scams. There also is quite a lot of organized criminal activity surrounding them including bitcoin. While there is undoubtedly some amount of honest activity, there is no practical way for Apple to determine who is "honest" and who isn't. Allowing such software also would tend to make their devices perform like shit and Apple would of course get blamed for this. Apple isn't stupid so it makes sense to ban all mining software because there is no upside for them nor for virtually any of their users.
If you want to do this sort of mining on a mobile phone for whatever reason buy some other sort of phone. I assure you nobody will care - Apple least of all.
So, your reasons for thinking that the FCC cannot deal with any issues that arise?
Short version? No I don't think that under the current administration that they have ANY interest in dealing with "any issues that arise". This isn't the sort of thing you can deal with after the fact. By the time the FCC (or FTC) gets around to dealing with it the damage will already be done.
Remember, I'm not saying providers won't misbehave, I'm saying the FCC is free to fix any issue that come up with a smaller set of targeted regulations.
Net neutrality solves the problem neatly without the need for any reactive regulations which will inevitably be too little and too late. The ONLY parties that are against net neutrality are the big ISPs who I assure you do not have my interests close to their heart.
I'm also saying that if you have any complaints about your ISP, you are free to bring the issues to the FCC's attention either online, by phone or in person.
Seriously? You think a complaint by ME is going matter even a little bit? Comcast is a MONOPOLY where I live. I could complain until the cows come home and it wouldn't matter one bit. If Comcast decides to play favorites with my internet traffic there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. That's why net neutrality matters.
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision on a means of implementation (a regulation) de-facto IS a decision about what the law is. Congress delegated law making power. If Congress does not like a particular interpretation of the law they are empowered to pass legislation to clarify the powers they are delegating to the legislative branch or to give them further constraints. Congress is empowered to be as specific as they like with how they want a federal agency to behave. But in the absence of specificity from the Legislative branch federal agencies can and do write laws in the form of regulations on a daily basis within whatever mandate they are granted. Regulations ARE laws. Whether Congress writes a detailed law itself or delegates that authority to the Executive branch (which they do most of the time) has exactly the same effect at the end of the day. There is NO difference.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this.
You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion. You're not arguing with my opinion and whether or not you think it sensible is irrelevant because that is how it works. I suggest you educate yourself on this point because it's important.
IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC.
The FCC has already been granted powers by Congress. We can debate whether those powers extend to regulating Net Neutrality or not (the Judiciary has held that they do thus far) but the fact is that the FCC like all other federal agencies is granted substantial power to interpret the laws via regulations and to enforce those regulations. EVERY federal agency has the power to write laws via regulations. Regulations ARE laws whether you like it or not. That is how it works whether you like it or not.
In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law.
That does not matter if the powers Congress already granted the FCC are broad enough to permit them to create (or remove) regulations surrounding Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC does indeed have powers that broad as the Supreme Court has issued a ruling supporting the FCC's authority to write (or not) such regulations back in 2005. There have been other federal rulings that similarly affirm the FCC's authority to make such regulations under their existing authority. If Congress wishes to change this state of affairs they are empowered to do so.
Fuck the judicial "branch" and their rewriting of laws. They have no place and no value in our society. Lame ducks.
So let me get this straight. The judiciary is granted by the Constitution the power to interpret laws and decide between conflicting opinions regarding those interpretations. This is a vital part of the checks and balances in our government but you are uncomfortable with that fact. So you are effectively saying we should not have a Judiciary with the power to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check or to correct Congress when they make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.
Slashdot Mirror
As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
You say that as if I'm supposed to axiomatically agree that it is a bad thing. Sorry but growth and progress ARE good things.
It's not good enough that a company provides jobs and turns a profit. It has to show "growth".
That's correct. Do you understand why? If I'm going to invest in a company I'm going to expect a return on my investment. Companies that don't grow don't provide a return. Companies that don't grow are replaced by those that do and the jobs go to the ones that are growing. Companies that don't improve their products lose to those that do and their profits follow.
It's not good enough that a given computer can perform all sorts of useful functions. It has to be reinvented as more powerful every 374 days.
Quite so. I want to be able to do more tomorrow than I can do today. Otherwise we may as well still be living as hunter gatherers. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember when computers weren't a part of our daily lives but I am and it's better now that they are. And I want the ones tomorrow to be better than the ones today. The paper phone directory was "good enough" but the internet is better. Rotary phones worked fine but mobile phones are better. Societies that don't steadily improve their technology stagnate and fail. You really don't want that.
I do agree that a Mac Mini should cost less now than it did over three years ago. But what's wrong with good enough?
What's wrong with it is that I'm not going to buy it when there is something else available that is better. Apple charges premium prices for their devices so it's not unreasonable to expect their products to *gasp* actually be premium products. Selling a computer that basically hasn't been updated for 3 years for the same price you did 3 years ago is just either arrogance or stupidity. Apple has by design a small product line and they have plenty of resources (esp cash) so there really is no excuse for them selling any products that aren't best in class or nearly so. If some other company comes out with a better product then I'm going to buy that instead.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish.
A "couple of products languish"? They only have a couple of products! They've got basically three desktop machines (with various configurations) and the iMac is the only one that is even remotely up to date as I write this. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not even close to the best hardware available in their respective market segments right now. They are better on the laptop side of things but their decisions there haven't been universally great either. (16GB max ram on MBP? One USB-C port for the whole machine?) I understand that they sell more laptops than desktops but that's not an acceptable excuse. With the billions Apple has in the bank I'm fairly confident that it isn't a resources problem so that means it is a decision rather than a limitation.
Most damning to my mind is that Apple still can't seem to figure out how to really tightly integrate the software between their Macintosh computers and their phones and tablets and other devices. The Mac has kind of become the bastard step child. Ironic since the real value proposition for any Apple machine is in the software. Put Windows on a Mac without OS X and nobody is going to pay a premium for that. People buy Apple products for the software and Apple really is a software company. If they are going to bundle their software with hardware as they have always done, then the hardware for their Macintosh line needs to be better than it currently is and needs to remain so. Otherwise one can find more value in a Windows or Linux box for a lot of use cases.
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.
Apple charges premium prices for their products and historically they've been good enough to justify that pricing. That's fine but with premium pricing we should fully expect to get a premium product including hardware that is somewhere close to the best available at the time of purchase. With as few products as Apple has in their lineup (by design) they should have NO problem keeping their products at or near the best available in their respective categories. And currently it is undeniable that they routinely fail in this test in their Macintosh division particularly with their desktop machines.
It's very difficult to recommend much from the current crop of Macs to customers, and that's deeply worrisome to us, as a Mac-based software company.
Apple's Mac division has really kind of gone of the rails in recent years. They've made multiple repeated bizarre design decisions and they seldom update their hardware. While is hasn't been all bad, it's getting hard to recommend the Mac to people I previously would have done so without hesitation. They cater to a fairly specific customer and that's fine but they aren't even doing a very good job of that anymore.
It's pretty clear that the focus of management is on the iPhone. Understandable but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of the value proposition from Apple comes from the tight ecosystem integration. Without that it's not so compelling to buy an iPhone or an iPad. Honestly I don't see a lot of tight integration in ways that are useful to me.
I have a Mac Mini and I'm about to replace it but probably not with another Mac Mini and the way things are going not with any other type of Mac either. Apple just isn't investing in the Mac and if they cannot be bothered in spite of the massive cash hoard they have then why should I care either? Apple should be making the Mac the best type of PC available and they just aren't. They are nice enough but they're behind the technology curve at this point. I don't think they need to be bleeding edge but they aren't even close to the edge on PCs anymore. Either they are incompetent or they just can't be bothered and I tend to favor the later theory.
Many utility companies allow you to pay in cash through affiliated stores.
I'm aware though few people actually do this. Most who do are people who cannot get a proper bank account or credit card.
Why not buy a PC in cash, especially used?
Because acquiring and carrying a wad of cash that large is more than a little inconvenient. I cannot remember the last time I walked around with more than about $200 cash on my person. And none of the PCs I would actually buy cost an amount of money where a cash transaction makes much sense.
It's a few-hundred-dollar purchase at most these days -- they've become a commodity item.
One only has to walk into an Apple store to disprove that. A cheap PC that is worth half a shit costs $400 and they go up steeply from there.
Per my other post....I've yet to see in the US, a non-cash business in meatspace.
Yes you have but I think you mean retailers. Most (though not all) retailers accept cash but many other businesses do not as a general practice and the number is increasing. Heck my company pretty much never deals in cash. We could in principle but it would be wildly inconvenient and cost a lot more because we aren't a retailer.
It may take over..but I don't see it going fully that way in my lifetime.
I would agree with that though I do think you will see increasing numbers of businesses that find cash to not be worth the bother. It really comes down to whether the increased revenue and profits offsets the added cost of handling the cash. For most businesses it does but not all. But if companies could do away with checkout counters and their costs in exchange for not handling cash anymore I think some of them will take the plunge.
I tend to think this move, so far, is mostly outside the US, I mean, we still write and take checks here.....you know? While that isn't exactly cash, it is cash equivalent and doesn't require a network connection to accept and deposit.
Writing checks sort of speaks to how backwards our system is here in the US. And yes checks do require a network connection at some point albeit not necessarily at the point of sale. Many retailers will not accept them unless they can verify them electronically. Frankly checks are hugely annoying and expensive to the retailer. Younger people tend to use a lot less of them. I can't remember the last time I saw someone under the age of 50 using a check at the grocery store.
I pay for things with cash. If a business doesn't take cash, they don't get my business.
Really? You never write a check? Never use a credit or debit card? You make your house payment in cash? Pay your utilities in cash? You purchased your PC in cash?
Yeah I don't believe you are telling the truth. If you are then I kind of pity you.
Cashiers rank among the top jobs in the US by numbers employed.
It is true that a lot of people are employed as cashiers. This is unfortunate because the job of cashier is not a value added job. It doesn't make the product better, it doesn't improve the shopping experience, and it's a large cost to both the retailer and the customer.
Is Microsoft also working on technology that will eliminate the problems they're planning on creating when they make millions of jobs obsolete?
No and nor should they. You're typing this on a computer and you don't see the irony in your argument? Should Microsoft have been subsidizing Smith Corona typewriters because PCs reduced the need for clerical staff? Should Ford have been worrying about what happened to people who ride horses? The job of cashier adds NO value. It's necessary to ensure the transaction takes place but it doesn't benefit the customer or the retailer and it certainly should not be maintained as a jobs program if we can do away with that task. All it does is add cost to the transaction for everyone involved. That is not a job worth protecting.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of consumer spending and business revenue depends on millions of people being employable.
They remain employable - they'll just be doing something else.
How about solving problems that actually exist? We already have "self checkouts". Is that a major problem that needs addressing?
Yes it is a major problem because it's a major cost for retailers. Most retailers have fairly thin margins and anything they can do to reduce headcount and other costs in the checkout process is something worth considering. There is NOTHING value added about the checkout process. It's necessary but it does not add value to the customer or the product. If anything it makes the shopping experience notably less pleasant. It's a cost center for the retailer which they would happily get rid of if they could.
Microsoft is not in the business of data mining.
Bullshit they aren't. Bing gets its revenue from ads. Linked-In gets lots of money from data mining. Microsoft sells data mining tools. Your faith in Microsoft on this topic is wildly incorrect.
Well, that would not seem wise, to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from a large amount of potential business, just to not take cash.
That depends heavily on what you are selling and who you are selling it to. I guarantee the Apple Store isn't doing a lot of cash transactions. Amazon seems to be doing alright and the vast majority of what they sell doesn't involve paper money at all. Other companies like McDonalds or Walmart do rather a lot of cash business. Cash isn't inherently good or bad but companies shouldn't be obligated to handle it if it reduces their profits.
And hey, not everyone has a smartphone, you know?
No but the number of people who do is a huge number - presently around 77% of Americans. It's plausible that the money saved by not having to handle cash more than makes up for the lost customers. Honestly I don't know anyone in my personal life who dogmatically uses cash. Most I know use it when they have to but don't prefer it.
I have plenty of credit...I could use, but I also would rather buy with cash and not have my purchases associated with my identity as much as possible.
That's fine as long as you recognize that the vendors are under no obligation to sell to you if they prefer to be paid with credit cards or some other form of payment. I think you are being a little paranoid but I understand valuing privacy and respect the impulse.
I"m certainly not alone with wanting to use cash for one of any number of valid reasons, and I can't imagine a business wanting to bar itself from a large amount of potential revenue.
It's not about the amount of revenue. It's about the amount of PROFIT. Not all revenue generates equal profits. Cash transactions tend to be small in value so you need a lot of them to make handling cash worthwhile. Many businesses fit this profile but many others do not. For my company cash would be a LOT more hassle than checks or credit cards since most of our transactions with our customers are thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.
eh, same things done with metals like gold and silver too...no difference
Oh but there are some very big and important differences. Not the least of which is that you don't have to handle and exchange a hunk of metal.
doesn't matter what the market's good/currency is, can be done in all of them
In principle yes but some crimes are far more elegant and easy to get away with than others. Cryptocurrency is a criminal's wet dream. Hard to trace, hard to restrict, no physical object to handle, crosses borders easily, confused and conflicted to non existent regulations, fairly easy to convert to other currencies or assets, and a bunch of greedy fools clamoring to get rich quick using it. You couldn't design a better system for money laundering and facilitating illegal payments if you tried.
Real currencies are debt backed.
Not really they aren't. What every currency and every asset for that matter are backed by is nothing more than belief. People believe it has value and so it does. Usually there is some rationality to this belief but not always. You cannot explain the price of gold based on any sort of rational valuation. (Which is why a gold standard is a stupid idea) You can say a currency is backed by something but all you are doing in that case is making a derivative and the value still ultimately depends on belief in the value of the underlying asset. (which again is why a gold standard is a stupid idea)
Cryptocurrencies are stupid for many reasons but not because of what they are (or aren't) backed by.
Cryptocurrency, even all the coins put together, is still well within the range of what well financed individuals can screw with and fleece other investors.
The British Pound is well within the range of what well financed individuals and hedge funds can screw with. Bitcoin and other so called cryptocurrencies are childs play by comparison.
What exactly is the problem here?
Please go research what a Ponzi scheme is and maybe you'll comprehend. Then go research Pump and dump. Finally try to understand the meaning of the term securities fraud.
Even if it was with the intent to push the prices up, isn't that also done with everything?
No it isn't.
A concentrated campaign of price manipulation may have accounted for at least half of the increase in the price of Bitcoin and other big cryptocurrencies last year,
Just say it. It's a Ponzi scheme. Admit it and you'll feel better.
If you are an honest believer in cryptocurrencies I admire your earnest faith in humanity but virtually everything about cryptocurrences virtually screams scam to anyone with a functioning brain and any sense of skepticism. It is nothing more than a bunch of greedy people trying to make a fast buck from credulous fools using the latest financial fad.
quote>Tesla does use some nice technology, but their showcase application requires high power to weight, where for utility-scale electrical storage weight is not a big issue, while cost and cycle efficiency is much more of an issue. Lithium's greatest asset is low mass, not low cost.
Cost has a lot more to do with scale than it does anything else. And there isn't just one type of Lithium Ion battery out there. Li-Ion is a family of battery chemistries with varying performance and price points. There is no fundamental reason to believe Li-Ion batteries cannot be made for reasonable cost given sufficient volume and advances in chemistry.
In any case, as one of the other commentators noted, it's worth looking at multiple technological solutions, rather than fixating on just one approach.
People are doing just that. But do not discount the economic value of standardizing on a common technology even if it isn't optimal for a given use case.
Why did they stop making them?
They didn't. But their price to performance for most applications isn't very good so there have never been a lot of them. They are expensive, they have relatively low energy density and low specific power, they charge slowly and discharge slowly (not good for large sudden power draws), they product a lot of hydrogen requiring ventilation, their charge characteristics are challenging with solar inverters, they require frequent and routine inspection and maintenance to maintain performance, and they are very bulky and heavy.
They have their uses and have been used in specialized applications for a long time. But there are better options out there for most use cases.
The battery life is in decades, even with constant charging and discharging.
Only with very diligent maintenance. They aren't very good for applications like solar.
The problem is the app store. Apple should not be allowed to be the sole vendor.
Why? Because it bothers you? It's their product and they can do what they want. If you don't like it buy something else. And take your pathetic whining with you. Apple owes you nothing.
By law, they should be forced to support other stores.
I'm thinking you must be trolling because otherwise you are retarded. "By law"? They don't even have a majority of the smartphone market so what would be the point of that? Go buy Android or something else if you don't like it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a single product from Apple. Literally every product they sell is the very definition of discretionary and there are very reasonable competitive options their entire product line.
Are (any) fiat-currency and (any) cryptocurrency really equivalent, as cryptocurrency fans claim?
For example, US Dollar and Bitcoin are really equals?
Clearly no they are not equivalent. Anyone who claims otherwise is not dealing in objective facts. That's not to say that cryptocurrencies are in principle intrinsically inferior but in actual practice thus far they definitely are for most legal transactions and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Liquidity, risk, utility as store of value, transaction costs, volatility, inflation, and many more features have wildly different profiles between fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies. In an honest and objective appraisal cryptocurrencies are inferior in most respects for most people.
Or, could it be really because Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies followed it) are actually Ponzi Schemes?
To be fair there is SOME honest usage of cryptocurrencies but you are quite right that most of them are nothing more than thinly disguised get rich quick schemes if not outright fraud. Most of the usage of them is for illegal activity and money laundering and speculation. There certainly is no economic advantage to them over currencies like the dollar as the transaction costs are substantially higher as is the risk. (volatility, exchange rate, counterparty, etc... take your pick - it's very risky compared to the dollar and with risk comes expense)
The most interesting thing about cryptocurrencies has nothing to do with the currency. It's the blockchain technology which has all sorts of far more interesting applications than any cryptocurrency.
As it is prone to, Apple has decided that its customers are too stupid to do this.
How is preventing a bunch of fraudulent scammers from hijacking people's computers in any way a statement that users are "too stupid"? If you want to run mining software knock yourself out. Nothing is preventing you from doing it - you just can't get it through the App Store. Go compile the software yourself if its important to you. Neither Apple nor the vast majority of their customers have anything to gain by permitting this sort of crap in the App Store. You know damn well that these apps would chew up all the performance of the phone and Apple would get blamed for it AND have to clean up the mess. You know damn well that these apps would be disguised as something other than what they actually are - effectively a form of malware.
Alternatively, is this just another case of "we know better than you what you want to do"?
No, it's simply protecting Apple's own interest and the interests of the vast majority of their users. Most of us have little to zero interest in cryptocurrency and even less in the fraud and criminality that tends to surround it. The majority of cryptocurrency activity is nothing but thinly disguised get rich quick scams and pyramid schemes. While there is some honest activity too it's impossible to tell who those parties are reliably and so it's sensible to just prevent such apps from being distributed through the App Store as policy. If you don't like it then don't buy Apple products.
It's my device, I should be able to run whatever I want.
So what is stopping you? Just because Apple isn't cooperating with you is irrelevant. As you said it's your hardware so wipe off iOS and put whatever idiotic mining software or malware you want on it. Hell, run Android on an iPhone if you want.
That's why I prefer Android.
A distinction without a difference. If you like Android better that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that you own the hardware and you can compile and run whatever software you want on it. If you want to argue that Apple should cooperate with you running whatever software you want, then you have an argument. It's a walled garden with all that entails. But if your argument is that you should be allowed to run whatever software you want then your argument is moot because you already have that right. The flipside is that Apple is not and should not be under any obligation to cooperate with you if they don't think it is in their interest to do so.
But if they had let Electroneum in they'd have to let them all into the store or they'd be picking winners and losers, so I guess it had to be all or none.
That's kind of the point. Most of the activity surrounding cryptocurrency mining is nothing more than transparent get rich quick scams. There also is quite a lot of organized criminal activity surrounding them including bitcoin. While there is undoubtedly some amount of honest activity, there is no practical way for Apple to determine who is "honest" and who isn't. Allowing such software also would tend to make their devices perform like shit and Apple would of course get blamed for this. Apple isn't stupid so it makes sense to ban all mining software because there is no upside for them nor for virtually any of their users.
If you want to do this sort of mining on a mobile phone for whatever reason buy some other sort of phone. I assure you nobody will care - Apple least of all.
Oh, wait, you are being sarcastic...
Ya think? ;-)
So, your reasons for thinking that the FCC cannot deal with any issues that arise?
Short version? No I don't think that under the current administration that they have ANY interest in dealing with "any issues that arise". This isn't the sort of thing you can deal with after the fact. By the time the FCC (or FTC) gets around to dealing with it the damage will already be done.
Remember, I'm not saying providers won't misbehave, I'm saying the FCC is free to fix any issue that come up with a smaller set of targeted regulations.
Net neutrality solves the problem neatly without the need for any reactive regulations which will inevitably be too little and too late. The ONLY parties that are against net neutrality are the big ISPs who I assure you do not have my interests close to their heart.
I'm also saying that if you have any complaints about your ISP, you are free to bring the issues to the FCC's attention either online, by phone or in person.
Seriously? You think a complaint by ME is going matter even a little bit? Comcast is a MONOPOLY where I live. I could complain until the cows come home and it wouldn't matter one bit. If Comcast decides to play favorites with my internet traffic there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. That's why net neutrality matters.
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision on a means of implementation (a regulation) de-facto IS a decision about what the law is. Congress delegated law making power. If Congress does not like a particular interpretation of the law they are empowered to pass legislation to clarify the powers they are delegating to the legislative branch or to give them further constraints. Congress is empowered to be as specific as they like with how they want a federal agency to behave. But in the absence of specificity from the Legislative branch federal agencies can and do write laws in the form of regulations on a daily basis within whatever mandate they are granted. Regulations ARE laws. Whether Congress writes a detailed law itself or delegates that authority to the Executive branch (which they do most of the time) has exactly the same effect at the end of the day. There is NO difference.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this.
You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion. You're not arguing with my opinion and whether or not you think it sensible is irrelevant because that is how it works. I suggest you educate yourself on this point because it's important.
IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC.
The FCC has already been granted powers by Congress. We can debate whether those powers extend to regulating Net Neutrality or not (the Judiciary has held that they do thus far) but the fact is that the FCC like all other federal agencies is granted substantial power to interpret the laws via regulations and to enforce those regulations. EVERY federal agency has the power to write laws via regulations. Regulations ARE laws whether you like it or not. That is how it works whether you like it or not.
In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law.
That does not matter if the powers Congress already granted the FCC are broad enough to permit them to create (or remove) regulations surrounding Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC does indeed have powers that broad as the Supreme Court has issued a ruling supporting the FCC's authority to write (or not) such regulations back in 2005. There have been other federal rulings that similarly affirm the FCC's authority to make such regulations under their existing authority. If Congress wishes to change this state of affairs they are empowered to do so.
Fuck the judicial "branch" and their rewriting of laws. They have no place and no value in our society. Lame ducks.
So let me get this straight. The judiciary is granted by the Constitution the power to interpret laws and decide between conflicting opinions regarding those interpretations. This is a vital part of the checks and balances in our government but you are uncomfortable with that fact. So you are effectively saying we should not have a Judiciary with the power to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check or to correct Congress when they make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
Yeah... let's just say I don't agree with you.
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.