The problem is the average spend difference is much greater than 2::1. If you are counting all Android i.e. 3rd world Android and verticals it wouldn't shock me if the difference is spend is closer to 50::1. If you limit this just to the top billion (i.e. richest billion phone users) Android is 60/40 with iOS probably selling 2::1 not counting vertical applications. Count vertical apps and you are around 5::1. The remaining 3 billion or so buy far less than the 600m Android users in the top billion and so add little.
That is simply not true that no one is making money. Apple has crossed the $25BN Now Paid To iOS Devs. And an even bigger market exists for apps to support websites and vertical applications. The people not making money are app developers who write fairly generic applications and thus have lots of competition and then don't make them meaningfully better than the competition. There is a flood of generic apps and the value there is 0.
Bad likely to advance to mediocre. GNUStep is working on supporting Swift binding (http://heronsperch.blogspot.com/2015/06/swift-20-going-open-source-great-news.html) Once that works Swift code will run via. GNUStep in other environments. Which means that Swift code could be ported without a rewrite but it still won't feel native to other platforms.
That being said lots of non-cross platform languages are popular. Look at the.NET family.
I'm not sure that's such a good example for your case. The EU didn't want an Internet explorer monopoly. They still got one and got token versions of Windows with Netscape that no one really used and didn't meaningfully influence IE becoming the web standard.
That's rather a pretty good example of the EU caving in all but name.
The context here was treaty between the EU and the USA not treaties within the EU.
Companies that want to defy EU decisions have to pull out of the entire EU.
Possibly. It is unclear right now. The EU hasn't wanted to cultivate its own technology infrastructure. The disruption of driving USA technology out of the EU would likely be a recession and could very well be a depression. So far that's not something they have wanted to have happen.
The EU has conflicting and competing interests. For example they want to advantage EU technologies and at the same time they want other businesses which are technology consumers to get the maximum advantages at the lowest cost from technology. Moreover they are much more concerned with keeping tariffs low in areas like machinery where they are the dominant producers than worrying about computer technology imports.
So I don't know what the EU is going to choose to do over legal conflict. My guess is that they are going to muddle through. The EU will try and maintain some ability to regulate, mostly to satisfy domestic pressures, but at the same time not attack American technology companies in ways that cause them to simply pullout of the EU marketplace.
Agreed. But the point is that it is not unreasonable for America as a society to decide to destroy those orchards and buy the produce short term rather than transport the water indefinitely. Once that choice is made to transition, then how to transition becomes the question.
That's a subscription model not a lowish per article model. With a few exceptions like Wall Street Journal (and even theirs is starting to fail) most sites don't have content uniquely good enough to keep subscribers. As you get more specialized it works. Certainly that model works but the cost per user is high not low.
But California is in this fix because of Liberals and their policies..they have owned and operated the state since the turn of the 19th Century.
Your history is off. California is not a uniformally economically liberal state. It is arguably one of the states that has been most traditionally economically conservative. It became Democratic in the 1990s because the Republicans adopted anti-immigrant policies. You can see during the 20th century California has had mostly Republican governors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The state assembly is more mixed but certainly not uniformally Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is not unusual at all in America to have situations with resources where the demand outstrips the supply at low prices. The way we handle this is by allowing price to adjust. California has just raised prices to $500 per 326,000 gallons. Consumers are not going to have a problem if the bulk price were to go to 10x that level. But it would shutdown most farming. It would also make all sorts of water savings devices profitable.
The way to handle the water crisis is to let the price of water move up to a level where supply and demand come into balance.
and Google had datacentres in Europe that serve European requests
That's not entirely true. Not all requests for data will be served out of Europe. Particularly as people start using USA sites. Quite often the data moves and far less of the data is served out of France. The argument that where the computers live is what's important not where the consumers live is much easier to enforce but of course that doesn't accomplish everything the EU wants. For example the situation with Spanish Google news where Google did pull out and yet Spain still wanted to the right to regulate.
I think the problem is the existence of multinational international information services with national regulation is simply impossible if we are going to have a world of freely flowing information. The proper way for this to be handled is by treaty law not national law.
Look above. The claim of AmiMoJo is that where the production of data takes place not the consumption is the controlling location.
And no that isn't how it is. Many American businesses with consumers outside the country don't follow local laws. For example the New York Times doesn't follow British security laws even though it has UK subscribers. Similarly the Guardian doesn't follow US law regarding warrants even though it has many millions of Americans who consume their content including advertising.
But if you're a multinational, and try to sell out of somewhere to the EU without adhering to the regulations, you will get slapped down.
Of course. But that's not the problem. This argument isn't over Google.fr but Google.com
Now, the trouble is that Google isn't actually charging for anything, which makes it a little less clear.
Google's customers are advertisers, the attention of the EU people using Google's services are the product. That's one of the problems with the consumption model in that Google reverses the newspaper / magazine way of doing business.
The problem is today is that companies operate in multiple countries and are thus ambiguous as to who is responsible. So what I'm suggesting is that when the France wants to regulate Google
French Government -> USA Government -> Google USA -> Google France not French Government -> Google France -> Google USA
And conversely when the USA wants to regulate Orange's USA MVNO USA Government -> French Government -> Orange France -> Orange's USA MVNO not USA Government -> Orange's USA MVNO.
Forgiveness and forgetfulness don't have to be related. We can also have societal indifference. If everyone knew all the dirt on everyone that also creates a situation where you can't hold grudges against people for past misdeeds.
I don't see in any case with our current information infrastructure how we can enforce forgetfulness. It is far easier to enforce forgiveness if needed.
You would also want to ban out of country ownership that's not open and regulating. No foreign holding companies in the Cayman islands. Foreign holdings only from countries that are seen to regulate and where that is open and above board.
Just like French courts don't have jurisdiction over Google's US operation.
Well google.com is Google's US operation. Google.fr is Google's French operation. I don't mind that global CDN's being illegal, that every country has their own content rules but if you want that then the rule should be that Google.com can't be served out of France.
Methinks you are kinda nuts. Saudi Arabia is an independent country with independent policies on many many issues. Certainly they are an ally of the USA but not an extension of the USA.
Personally I think a far better situation is to do something like flag ships. There are no international corporations. Every corporation registers with a single county and that country regulates. Then at the WTO level the countries can cross negotiate with one another.
That way Google is regulated by the USA primarily with only its French specific version regulated by France and Orange is regulated by France with only its American specific MVNOs regulated by the USA.
I find it very interesting that you are siding with France on this when on Microsoft you had precisely the opposite stance. There the USA was demanding that Microsoft's USA employees follow USA law and in that case your feeling was the the EU / Ireland had an obligation to be involved and regulate because of where the servers were physically located regardless of the status of the data.
If an article that saves you a day's work up front isn't worth $200-2000 much less $2 then you are just too a customer that is too hard to sell to. They make more money from advertising to you then selling you content. The market you are asking for can't exist, it just isn't profitable enough.
The app market mainly exists because:
a) There are small numbers of people paying a lot (either in the commercial space or addicts for in app purchases) b) There are large numbers of people willing to pay some. But more than you are saying.
Advertising 1926-2014 hangs around 1 to 1.4% of GDP, with a few exceptional years. Moreover advertising spending lags the media, people trust older media more so even as television replaced radio, radio advertising revenues stayed high well into the early 1960s. Similarly with Internet and old media.
Information technologies spending is around 5-8% or about 5x as large as advertising. Also fairly stable.
Plus why not do effectively what Apple did when they adopted BSD as the core. Pick something that works and run with it.
You are contradicting themselves that's what they did do with QNX. They had a core that worked well. The core i.e. low level OS was never the problem.
But I still think that BB doesn't know what their customers really want. They are still trying to please the IT departments, the telcos, and their enterprise customers.
Enterprise and government are their customers. As for trying to please... that was 2 years ago now they are trying to find any niche at all.
So don't allow things like security profiles where the IT department can effectively trash the phone.
They've had this for many years. Far and away the best home / work separation until probably last year and even then only for those customers who buy Good.
. People buy them for their keyboards. As long as the font is large enough for blind boomers the phone will sell in droves.
That was the Q10 / Q5. They didn't sell in droves. Now of course they have the Wide and the Blackberry Classic and... and they don't sell in droves.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the average spend difference is much greater than 2::1. If you are counting all Android i.e. 3rd world Android and verticals it wouldn't shock me if the difference is spend is closer to 50::1. If you limit this just to the top billion (i.e. richest billion phone users) Android is 60/40 with iOS probably selling 2::1 not counting vertical applications. Count vertical apps and you are around 5::1. The remaining 3 billion or so buy far less than the 600m Android users in the top billion and so add little.
That is simply not true that no one is making money. Apple has crossed the $25BN Now Paid To iOS Devs. And an even bigger market exists for apps to support websites and vertical applications. The people not making money are app developers who write fairly generic applications and thus have lots of competition and then don't make them meaningfully better than the competition. There is a flood of generic apps and the value there is 0.
Bad likely to advance to mediocre. GNUStep is working on supporting Swift binding (http://heronsperch.blogspot.com/2015/06/swift-20-going-open-source-great-news.html) Once that works Swift code will run via. GNUStep in other environments. Which means that Swift code could be ported without a rewrite but it still won't feel native to other platforms.
That being said lots of non-cross platform languages are popular. Look at the .NET family.
That's been solved: http://www.mdisc.com/
We finally have a media designed to last.
The EU wanted browser diversity in the windows ecosystem They didn't get that.
I'm not sure that's such a good example for your case. The EU didn't want an Internet explorer monopoly. They still got one and got token versions of Windows with Netscape that no one really used and didn't meaningfully influence IE becoming the web standard.
That's rather a pretty good example of the EU caving in all but name.
The context here was treaty between the EU and the USA not treaties within the EU.
Possibly. It is unclear right now. The EU hasn't wanted to cultivate its own technology infrastructure. The disruption of driving USA technology out of the EU would likely be a recession and could very well be a depression. So far that's not something they have wanted to have happen.
The EU has conflicting and competing interests. For example they want to advantage EU technologies and at the same time they want other businesses which are technology consumers to get the maximum advantages at the lowest cost from technology. Moreover they are much more concerned with keeping tariffs low in areas like machinery where they are the dominant producers than worrying about computer technology imports.
So I don't know what the EU is going to choose to do over legal conflict. My guess is that they are going to muddle through. The EU will try and maintain some ability to regulate, mostly to satisfy domestic pressures, but at the same time not attack American technology companies in ways that cause them to simply pullout of the EU marketplace.
Agreed. But the point is that it is not unreasonable for America as a society to decide to destroy those orchards and buy the produce short term rather than transport the water indefinitely. Once that choice is made to transition, then how to transition becomes the question.
That's a subscription model not a lowish per article model. With a few exceptions like Wall Street Journal (and even theirs is starting to fail) most sites don't have content uniquely good enough to keep subscribers. As you get more specialized it works. Certainly that model works but the cost per user is high not low.
It is much cheaper to move the farms to where the water is and transport the food, than to transport the water and grow the food locally.
Your history is off. California is not a uniformally economically liberal state. It is arguably one of the states that has been most traditionally economically conservative. It became Democratic in the 1990s because the Republicans adopted anti-immigrant policies. You can see during the 20th century California has had mostly Republican governors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The state assembly is more mixed but certainly not uniformally Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is not unusual at all in America to have situations with resources where the demand outstrips the supply at low prices. The way we handle this is by allowing price to adjust. California has just raised prices to $500 per 326,000 gallons. Consumers are not going to have a problem if the bulk price were to go to 10x that level. But it would shutdown most farming. It would also make all sorts of water savings devices profitable.
The way to handle the water crisis is to let the price of water move up to a level where supply and demand come into balance.
That's not entirely true. Not all requests for data will be served out of Europe. Particularly as people start using USA sites. Quite often the data moves and far less of the data is served out of France. The argument that where the computers live is what's important not where the consumers live is much easier to enforce but of course that doesn't accomplish everything the EU wants. For example the situation with Spanish Google news where Google did pull out and yet Spain still wanted to the right to regulate.
I think the problem is the existence of multinational international information services with national regulation is simply impossible if we are going to have a world of freely flowing information. The proper way for this to be handled is by treaty law not national law.
Look above. The claim of AmiMoJo is that where the production of data takes place not the consumption is the controlling location.
And no that isn't how it is. Many American businesses with consumers outside the country don't follow local laws. For example the New York Times doesn't follow British security laws even though it has UK subscribers. Similarly the Guardian doesn't follow US law regarding warrants even though it has many millions of Americans who consume their content including advertising.
Of course. But that's not the problem. This argument isn't over Google.fr but Google.com
Google's customers are advertisers, the attention of the EU people using Google's services are the product. That's one of the problems with the consumption model in that Google reverses the newspaper / magazine way of doing business.
The problem is today is that companies operate in multiple countries and are thus ambiguous as to who is responsible. So what I'm suggesting is that when the France wants to regulate Google
French Government -> USA Government -> Google USA -> Google France not
French Government -> Google France -> Google USA
And conversely when the USA wants to regulate Orange's USA MVNO
USA Government -> French Government -> Orange France -> Orange's USA MVNO not
USA Government -> Orange's USA MVNO.
Forgiveness and forgetfulness don't have to be related. We can also have societal indifference. If everyone knew all the dirt on everyone that also creates a situation where you can't hold grudges against people for past misdeeds.
I don't see in any case with our current information infrastructure how we can enforce forgetfulness. It is far easier to enforce forgiveness if needed.
You would also want to ban out of country ownership that's not open and regulating. No foreign holding companies in the Cayman islands. Foreign holdings only from countries that are seen to regulate and where that is open and above board.
Well google.com is Google's US operation. Google.fr is Google's French operation. I don't mind that global CDN's being illegal, that every country has their own content rules but if you want that then the rule should be that Google.com can't be served out of France.
Methinks you are kinda nuts. Saudi Arabia is an independent country with independent policies on many many issues. Certainly they are an ally of the USA but not an extension of the USA.
Personally I think a far better situation is to do something like flag ships. There are no international corporations. Every corporation registers with a single county and that country regulates. Then at the WTO level the countries can cross negotiate with one another.
That way Google is regulated by the USA primarily with only its French specific version regulated by France and Orange is regulated by France with only its American specific MVNOs regulated by the USA.
I find it very interesting that you are siding with France on this when on Microsoft you had precisely the opposite stance. There the USA was demanding that Microsoft's USA employees follow USA law and in that case your feeling was the the EU / Ireland had an obligation to be involved and regulate because of where the servers were physically located regardless of the status of the data.
If an article that saves you a day's work up front isn't worth $200-2000 much less $2 then you are just too a customer that is too hard to sell to. They make more money from advertising to you then selling you content. The market you are asking for can't exist, it just isn't profitable enough.
The app market mainly exists because:
a) There are small numbers of people paying a lot (either in the commercial space or addicts for in app purchases)
b) There are large numbers of people willing to pay some. But more than you are saying.
Advertising 1926-2014 hangs around 1 to 1.4% of GDP, with a few exceptional years. Moreover advertising spending lags the media, people trust older media more so even as television replaced radio, radio advertising revenues stayed high well into the early 1960s. Similarly with Internet and old media.
Information technologies spending is around 5-8% or about 5x as large as advertising. Also fairly stable.
You should be ashamed of yourself carrying on like you are 12 when you are old enough to have that user number.
You are contradicting themselves that's what they did do with QNX. They had a core that worked well. The core i.e. low level OS was never the problem.
Enterprise and government are their customers. As for trying to please ... that was 2 years ago now they are trying to find any niche at all.
They've had this for many years. Far and away the best home / work separation until probably last year and even then only for those customers who buy Good.
That was the Q10 / Q5. They didn't sell in droves. Now of course they have the Wide and the Blackberry Classic and... and they don't sell in droves.