Well it requires special permission to get an app that can run execute internal code on the iOS store. They do exist. For example gambit scheme, and I have a calculator with a javascript interpreter... They just want reasonable protections.
OSX app store though is mostly wide open. There are some restrictions, for example sandboxing and use of external services, but mostly the idea is that the App Store for OSX should have 95+% the diversity of OSX applications.
And using the same logic I can get root on any Unix box. 1) Find an application that has root 2) Get it to load external content 3) The new content bypasses all the protections on the box.
Gatekeeper prevents downloaded applications that are untrusted from accidentally being run. It doesn't prevent trusted applications from doing anything.
Apple under Jobs was often a software company where they sold their software in a hardware / software bundle. Apple under Cook is more of a hardware company where software doesn't play as much of a role.
First off Jobs made a lot of sacrifices. There were many things far worse about Apple products during Job's tenure. Cook fixed a lot of the unbalanced aspects that Apple machines weren't particularly good in many ways.
I see Apple's momentum as coming from Cook. iPhone beat Android by being 2nd or 3rd in almost every hardware category: battery life, screen quality, weight, thinness... Software wise the OS and widgets are probably behind Android. I'd say that OSX is behind Windows in most areas. The most important reason people buy Apple is the culture of customer base their demand for high quality experiences leads to better applications. Apple is able to maintain their hold on those customers through the excellent hardware. Apple is able to get almost all the people willing to pay more.
You don't see ads like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... because Apple isn't selling better 1st party applications anymore (though they have become incredibly dominant especially on iPad for 3rd party applications).
I suggest you look at their financial report. Their music revenue is $4b (flat BTW) and other content is $1.7b. That's out of a total of $222.4b in revenue for all divisions.
Maybe it's more they're limiting how many they make in order to make it seem like they're selling more. It's not like they've ever done that before, or anything, right?
No mostly (or ever) they haven't done that before. That would be stupidly expensive for almost no benefit. The numbers will be out in July. Apple is going to want April-June sales to be high not low when they release numbers.
As for hatred, I don't think your comments sounded like you are hating Apple. I just don't think you understand the product line and how Apple is evolving it. Like I said above look at how the Air evolved 2008-2011 that's the pattern they likely follow. The need to get the weight down to make the advantages of OSX for battery life clear, they need to get retina and they need to not lose the $800 price point on the low end. They can't do all those things at once so they have forking lines.
What you're seeing now is the last of Steve's momentum
I don't see that. What I've seen from Apple for the last 6 years or so has been a shift towards massive innovations in manufacturing and logistics and a move away from a focus on "insanely great" software. Manufacturing and logistics is Tim Cook's baby. The 2015 MacBook may not be your or my cup of tea, but I can unquestionably say its the most complex laptop to manufacture on the market today bar none. I can't really think of much that's even close to that level of complexity. The Microsoft Surface 1, and the Chrome Books are about the only product I can think of that's pushing the envelope in manufacturing even close to the degree Apple is.
As far as being useful. In a world in which PC sales have been slipping for 6 years they have grown their sales. The results on marketshare are pretty good. http://cdn.macrumors.com/artic... That graph is the unit numbers. The ASP gap has been growing till it is approaching almost 3x what it is for PCs, and of course in terms of margin Apple has consistently pulled 85-92% of the margin from PCs sales for many years running.
They aren't failing to be useful they are exceptionally useful to end users. That doesn't mean they fit everyone.
And that has precisely what to do with the point I was countering? It's a basic needs machine. Yes, it's a luxury item, so we'll call it a luxury basic needs machine, but it's still a basic needs machine, plain and simple. You didn't even attempt to argue, you only agreed with me without realizing it.
People still on XP are not buying a $1300-2k laptop, when there are laptops available for $300 with better performance / storage / features.
Unless they care about point #5.
But you still seem to have missed my point. There really is no market for the new MacBook. You're absolutely right that there are better machines available for 1/4 the price. Even people who buy luxury for the sake of luxury aren't complete morons and they'll seldom pay more than 2x the price of the "common person's" equivalent version of something, so this isn't even targeted at that crowd. It's the absolute most basic of basic needs machines, coming to you at a mobile workstation price; I'm too lazy to search out sales figures for it, but I'd be surprised if they've covered R&D at this point.
It isn't a basic needs laptop. It is a specialized needs laptop: a customer who needs the absolute minimum amount of weight and thin. As for OSX being closer to Windows XP than Windows 8, I'd say that's not true.
Even people who buy luxury for the sake of luxury aren't complete morons and they'll seldom pay more than 2x the price of the "common person's" equivalent version of something, so this isn't even targeted at that crowd.
There is nothing like this. There is nothing at 2lbs that offers anywhere near this level of performance. That's the point. The custom is someone for whom 2 vs. 3 lbs is worth a lot of money. That's the feature they want.
As for sales figures. Apple is currently 6 weeks backordered on the new MacBook. They've sold every laptop they can make for the very least all through this quarter. But the sales figures aren't going to be what's critical. This laptop represents the future of their lower end product. They are going to get all their consumer laptops down to 2lbs over the next few years. The whole thing is R&D for the change to the product line.
I'm not sure an iPhone 4 is a good fit for the average bottom 60%. The carrier they are using likely has no iPhone support. There is no iPhone store in their language. Even if they can get on the store Apple assumes you have a credit card. The battery is probably shot and around $100 to replace. Apple doesn't even support it with the current OS.
The New MacBook is a very expensive laptop for the performance that makes tremendous sacrifices to achieve an almost unparalleled degree of thin and light. That is a luxury good. I'd say this very much like the MacBook Air in 2008, an extremely expensive laptop designed for people with light needs who are willing to spend a lot for thin and light. Given Apple's history I'd assume overtime that the performance of the MacBook becomes comparable to the Air (i.e. they can mostly compensate for the lost pound) and the Air gets dropped.
I know lots of people who paid $4k for the Air when it came out, I can easily see them buying this thing over 1lb less of weight. People still on XP are not buying a $1300-2k laptop, when there are laptops available for $300 with better performance / storage / features.
I doubt that. Apple doesn't make all that much from content in the first place. What percentage of content do you think the bottom 16% purchases? I'd be shocked if it is even 1% at this point. The cost of support, especially in terms of a distraction factor in a company structured to only support a small numbers of products, could easily exceed the value.
That 16% represents the bottom of the market, the people who spend the least on computers. Look at the phone market where Apple is happily catering to the top 15% with no product even available for the bottom 85% (unless you could used and then still nothing for the bottom 60%). Apple has no problem dropping low margin customers. They aren't Microsoft.
People still on Windows XP would be terrible Apple customers. Mostly:
1) They are cheap. 2) They have basic needs 3) Quality of hardware and software doesn't matter much to them. They likely don't care about thin and light. 4) They don't like change. 5) As much as they care they like the Windows pre-Aero interface.
Certainly forced obsolescence is a fair criticism of single vendor. But let's use your analogy of HDTV
In 1936 the British invented the first HDTV, followed by a French model 1in 1949 and a Soviet model in 1958 In 1964 NHK decided to start producing HDTV televisions and broadcasts. They had those going by 1972 During the 1970s several other vendors in other countries got involved In 1979 the Higher definition study group was created In 1981 the first USA manufacturer got involved In 1983 the 1979 was rewritten to include some digital technology In 1993 the first HDTV broadcast in the USA took place In 1994 there was field testing in almost 200 sites In 1996 the first HDTV station came online In 1998 the first national (coast to coast) HDTV broadcast happened etc...
Notice the staggering speed of working with standards rather than a single vendor?
True we don't. The Internet became asymmetric. On the other hand the PSTN never did. And non-experts use that. We don't know to what extent address scarcity issues drove the internet becoming asymmetric. If the internet is permanently going to be asymmetric than with things like virtual hosting there is no good reason IPv4 couldn't be made to work for a very long time.
In fact, you'll return to the early NAT days when they were rare, and spend hours trying to figure out why your VOIP app works half the time, but when someone calls in, you can't talk, at all because someone has a firewall in the way and it's blocking the connection.
I would agree that there will be transitioning problems as the world moves from a mature IPv4/NAT to a less mature IPv6. I see that as fairly short term and overall the situation will be much improved.
And let's not forget the nice corporate firewalls that already exist today and filter everything that's not HTTP, HTTPS, FTP or SMTP. Just silently dropped. Those will be really fun to diagnose
I don't think those exist much anymore. There are too many network protocols. And there is nothing to diagnose. If communication X has to happen on port Y and Y is blocked at location Z...
And work firewall-less? This is the modern internet, and remote vulnerabilities, spoofs, amplification attacks and others are just sitting there waiting to be discovered.
Our phones go on the internet essentially naked. Our laptops do as well. If the device doesn't allow unsolicited incoming on most ports and almost all ports are closed except when in use that is very much like a firewall.
Well this is a USA group dealing with USA law so that requirement on evaluating the group can't budge. As for the rest, I don't know what the status is but mostly native animals in the USA can be owned.
By the way, since you seem like an informed person (and because i am a Greek - and sorry for my English!): this Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), is some kind of the usual left-wing group (that cares for the rights of animals but believes killing unborn human babies is a human right)?
The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only organization working through the common law to achieve actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own. So normally in the USA groups work for "animal rights" which are specific prohibitions on acts of cruelty. They are aiming to give animals legally enforceable rights. So for example it is illegal to starve a dog to death but a dog under no circumstances has a legal right to food.
As far as their attitude towards abortion.
The organization is official neutral.
Steven M. Wise (Harvard Law School animal rights activist) who heads the group has written on the analogy though only with passing references so it is hard to develop a clear view. He appears to believe. that the fetus is less developed than sophisticated and thus they have a weaker claim. He has specifically made the claim that higher primates should have rights similar to those we grant profoundly retarded human beings. He seems mildly pro-choice, but his writings would be consistent with either pro-choice or pro-life positions.
Jane Goodall who is a spokesperson is a strong advocate for population control, unquestionably pro-choice.
I would be shocked if 90% - 99% of the code between the 2 apps was the same
Then you should be shocked. I've managed a bunch of tablet vs. phone apps and the code sharing is around 60-80% best case and around 10-30% worst. You have to remember they have different functionalities, whole different systems. The GUI code is vastly different. How long the designer targets the interaction for affects greatly the GUI.
If anyone is still making completely different apps for different devices, they are doing it wrong.
I think you need think about UI design and forget about the technology issues. The technology exists to enable GUIs but the GUIs exist to enable particular use cases. Different use cases means different GUIs.
Storing data to the cloud and restoring the data from the cloud should be abstracted. If you had an OO app, you'd just have concrete classes to implement the google and apple cloud save/load features.
It isn't just save/load a particular non-district binary.
Certainly iCloud supports a storage mechanism for "Documents" which are blobs of data. But they also use Core Data where 3 way merging of data can occur between devices and Apple servers and the servers understand the object hierarchy. Finally there are things like key/value pairs where the data is small but the lookups can be Apple managed. You can't just abstract that all as a save/load for blobs of data without doing lowest common denominator and losing huge chunks of iCloud functionality.
The 3 way merge being the most critical. Apple customers are coming to expect that they can do work on their phone then pick up their tablet and work on the same data seamlessly. For that to happen the system has to be able to intelligently deal with the situation where changes have occurred: A makes change to version X it is not saved B makes change to version X. Saves and creates X1 A gets online and sees that current version is X1 not X.
Why doesn't apple do vector graphics?... Anyway the answer is easy. You just do all the graphics as vector graphics and then generate the raster graphics for specific resolutions when needed (that's actually exactly what happens when rendering vector graphics anyway).
Because of visual quality that's possible when you lock down the pixels: left is rastor right is vector. http://projectgenerationd.com/...
Apple's belief is, that icons (which are seen over and over again) should be hand drawn at the right resolution to be perfect not auto-generated. Versatility here you are gaining at the cost of image quality.
The summary is wrong or at the very least highly misleading. What the judge did was allow the argument for chimp personhood to go forward. In other words the court did not find that chimps were unquestionably merely property. That's much weaker than deciding they are actual persons or legal persons. So yes there was a step forward for Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) but nowhere near as big a step as the summary implies.
That's a good argument. I would agree the switch to IPv6 has taken too long and thus it has legacy problems already before implementation. I'd pick IPv6 over IPv4 but I'd certainly pick something better were that on the table as an option.
The home / small business will be first because they are huge networks that can be transitioned by carriers in a more or less uniform way. The average user just experience a switch over a short period of years:
a) IPv6 is not available to b) IPv6 is available if they turn it on to c) IPv6 is on running dual stack with IPv4, IPv4 handles most of their traffic to d) IPv6 handles most traffic, IPv4 addresses are available but end user experiences lag and possibly other aspects of worse performance on v4 connections.
Absolutely home / small business go IPv6 before the rest. Those are huge networks in terms of being able to reclaim v4 space and they can be switched in a more or less uniform way.
You don't have to use future tense anymore. They've run out of steam. We have a situation now where routers use conflicting IPv4 address schemes and thus huge blocks of machines have no IP path to other huge blocks of machines.
There are 0 American farmers whose cost of labor is low enough that it pays for them to scratch out dirt by hand than it does for them to use a tractor. There are 0 American builders who should shovel by hand rather than use an evacuator.
The people in your charity are Americans. Their time is worth $25/hr minimum and likely more like $100/hr. The idea that they can't afford $1k investment per employee is stupid. Regardless of what they say. They may be cheapskates but their assessment of what makes sense is not based on reality.
Agree with you Ben. This will change as the carriers in the USA upgrade to have IPv6 and home / small business rolls over./. has become a can't do world of defeatists. Breaking connectivity is not going to be an acceptable option. That's obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it requires special permission to get an app that can run execute internal code on the iOS store. They do exist. For example gambit scheme, and I have a calculator with a javascript interpreter... They just want reasonable protections.
OSX app store though is mostly wide open. There are some restrictions, for example sandboxing and use of external services, but mostly the idea is that the App Store for OSX should have 95+% the diversity of OSX applications.
And using the same logic I can get root on any Unix box.
1) Find an application that has root
2) Get it to load external content
3) The new content bypasses all the protections on the box.
Gatekeeper prevents downloaded applications that are untrusted from accidentally being run. It doesn't prevent trusted applications from doing anything.
Apple under Jobs was often a software company where they sold their software in a hardware / software bundle. Apple under Cook is more of a hardware company where software doesn't play as much of a role.
First off Jobs made a lot of sacrifices. There were many things far worse about Apple products during Job's tenure. Cook fixed a lot of the unbalanced aspects that Apple machines weren't particularly good in many ways.
I see Apple's momentum as coming from Cook. iPhone beat Android by being 2nd or 3rd in almost every hardware category: battery life, screen quality, weight, thinness... Software wise the OS and widgets are probably behind Android. I'd say that OSX is behind Windows in most areas. The most important reason people buy Apple is the culture of customer base their demand for high quality experiences leads to better applications. Apple is able to maintain their hold on those customers through the excellent hardware. Apple is able to get almost all the people willing to pay more.
You don't see ads like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
because Apple isn't selling better 1st party applications anymore (though they have become incredibly dominant especially on iPad for 3rd party applications).
I suggest you look at their financial report. Their music revenue is $4b (flat BTW) and other content is $1.7b. That's out of a total of $222.4b in revenue for all divisions.
No mostly (or ever) they haven't done that before. That would be stupidly expensive for almost no benefit. The numbers will be out in July. Apple is going to want April-June sales to be high not low when they release numbers.
As for hatred, I don't think your comments sounded like you are hating Apple. I just don't think you understand the product line and how Apple is evolving it. Like I said above look at how the Air evolved 2008-2011 that's the pattern they likely follow. The need to get the weight down to make the advantages of OSX for battery life clear, they need to get retina and they need to not lose the $800 price point on the low end. They can't do all those things at once so they have forking lines.
I don't see that. What I've seen from Apple for the last 6 years or so has been a shift towards massive innovations in manufacturing and logistics and a move away from a focus on "insanely great" software. Manufacturing and logistics is Tim Cook's baby. The 2015 MacBook may not be your or my cup of tea, but I can unquestionably say its the most complex laptop to manufacture on the market today bar none. I can't really think of much that's even close to that level of complexity. The Microsoft Surface 1, and the Chrome Books are about the only product I can think of that's pushing the envelope in manufacturing even close to the degree Apple is.
As far as being useful. In a world in which PC sales have been slipping for 6 years they have grown their sales. The results on marketshare are pretty good. http://cdn.macrumors.com/artic... That graph is the unit numbers. The ASP gap has been growing till it is approaching almost 3x what it is for PCs, and of course in terms of margin Apple has consistently pulled 85-92% of the margin from PCs sales for many years running.
They aren't failing to be useful they are exceptionally useful to end users. That doesn't mean they fit everyone.
And that has precisely what to do with the point I was countering? It's a basic needs machine. Yes, it's a luxury item, so we'll call it a luxury basic needs machine, but it's still a basic needs machine, plain and simple. You didn't even attempt to argue, you only agreed with me without realizing it.
People still on XP are not buying a $1300-2k laptop, when there are laptops available for $300 with better performance / storage / features.
Unless they care about point #5.
But you still seem to have missed my point. There really is no market for the new MacBook. You're absolutely right that there are better machines available for 1/4 the price. Even people who buy luxury for the sake of luxury aren't complete morons and they'll seldom pay more than 2x the price of the "common person's" equivalent version of something, so this isn't even targeted at that crowd. It's the absolute most basic of basic needs machines, coming to you at a mobile workstation price; I'm too lazy to search out sales figures for it, but I'd be surprised if they've covered R&D at this point.
It isn't a basic needs laptop. It is a specialized needs laptop: a customer who needs the absolute minimum amount of weight and thin. As for OSX being closer to Windows XP than Windows 8, I'd say that's not true.
There is nothing like this. There is nothing at 2lbs that offers anywhere near this level of performance. That's the point. The custom is someone for whom 2 vs. 3 lbs is worth a lot of money. That's the feature they want.
As for sales figures. Apple is currently 6 weeks backordered on the new MacBook. They've sold every laptop they can make for the very least all through this quarter. But the sales figures aren't going to be what's critical. This laptop represents the future of their lower end product. They are going to get all their consumer laptops down to 2lbs over the next few years. The whole thing is R&D for the change to the product line.
I'm not sure an iPhone 4 is a good fit for the average bottom 60%.
The carrier they are using likely has no iPhone support.
There is no iPhone store in their language.
Even if they can get on the store Apple assumes you have a credit card.
The battery is probably shot and around $100 to replace.
Apple doesn't even support it with the current OS.
etc...
The New MacBook is a very expensive laptop for the performance that makes tremendous sacrifices to achieve an almost unparalleled degree of thin and light. That is a luxury good. I'd say this very much like the MacBook Air in 2008, an extremely expensive laptop designed for people with light needs who are willing to spend a lot for thin and light. Given Apple's history I'd assume overtime that the performance of the MacBook becomes comparable to the Air (i.e. they can mostly compensate for the lost pound) and the Air gets dropped.
I know lots of people who paid $4k for the Air when it came out, I can easily see them buying this thing over 1lb less of weight. People still on XP are not buying a $1300-2k laptop, when there are laptops available for $300 with better performance / storage / features.
I doubt that. Apple doesn't make all that much from content in the first place. What percentage of content do you think the bottom 16% purchases? I'd be shocked if it is even 1% at this point. The cost of support, especially in terms of a distraction factor in a company structured to only support a small numbers of products, could easily exceed the value.
That 16% represents the bottom of the market, the people who spend the least on computers. Look at the phone market where Apple is happily catering to the top 15% with no product even available for the bottom 85% (unless you could used and then still nothing for the bottom 60%). Apple has no problem dropping low margin customers. They aren't Microsoft.
People still on Windows XP would be terrible Apple customers. Mostly:
1) They are cheap.
2) They have basic needs
3) Quality of hardware and software doesn't matter much to them. They likely don't care about thin and light.
4) They don't like change.
5) As much as they care they like the Windows pre-Aero interface.
Certainly forced obsolescence is a fair criticism of single vendor. But let's use your analogy of HDTV
In 1936 the British invented the first HDTV, followed by a French model 1in 1949 and a Soviet model in 1958
In 1964 NHK decided to start producing HDTV televisions and broadcasts. They had those going by 1972
During the 1970s several other vendors in other countries got involved
In 1979 the Higher definition study group was created
In 1981 the first USA manufacturer got involved
In 1983 the 1979 was rewritten to include some digital technology
In 1993 the first HDTV broadcast in the USA took place
In 1994 there was field testing in almost 200 sites
In 1996 the first HDTV station came online
In 1998 the first national (coast to coast) HDTV broadcast happened
etc...
Notice the staggering speed of working with standards rather than a single vendor?
True we don't. The Internet became asymmetric. On the other hand the PSTN never did. And non-experts use that. We don't know to what extent address scarcity issues drove the internet becoming asymmetric. If the internet is permanently going to be asymmetric than with things like virtual hosting there is no good reason IPv4 couldn't be made to work for a very long time.
I would agree that there will be transitioning problems as the world moves from a mature IPv4/NAT to a less mature IPv6. I see that as fairly short term and overall the situation will be much improved.
I don't think those exist much anymore. There are too many network protocols. And there is nothing to diagnose. If communication X has to happen on port Y and Y is blocked at location Z...
Our phones go on the internet essentially naked. Our laptops do as well. If the device doesn't allow unsolicited incoming on most ports and almost all ports are closed except when in use that is very much like a firewall.
Well this is a USA group dealing with USA law so that requirement on evaluating the group can't budge. As for the rest, I don't know what the status is but mostly native animals in the USA can be owned.
The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only organization working through the common law to achieve actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own. So normally in the USA groups work for "animal rights" which are specific prohibitions on acts of cruelty. They are aiming to give animals legally enforceable rights. So for example it is illegal to starve a dog to death but a dog under no circumstances has a legal right to food.
As far as their attitude towards abortion.
The organization is official neutral.
Steven M. Wise (Harvard Law School animal rights activist) who heads the group has written on the analogy though only with passing references so it is hard to develop a clear view. He appears to believe. that the fetus is less developed than sophisticated and thus they have a weaker claim. He has specifically made the claim that higher primates should have rights similar to those we grant profoundly retarded human beings. He seems mildly pro-choice, but his writings would be consistent with either pro-choice or pro-life positions.
Jane Goodall who is a spokesperson is a strong advocate for population control, unquestionably pro-choice.
Then you should be shocked. I've managed a bunch of tablet vs. phone apps and the code sharing is around 60-80% best case and around 10-30% worst. You have to remember they have different functionalities, whole different systems. The GUI code is vastly different. How long the designer targets the interaction for affects greatly the GUI.
I think you need think about UI design and forget about the technology issues. The technology exists to enable GUIs but the GUIs exist to enable particular use cases. Different use cases means different GUIs.
It isn't just save/load a particular non-district binary.
Certainly iCloud supports a storage mechanism for "Documents" which are blobs of data. But they also use Core Data where 3 way merging of data can occur between devices and Apple servers and the servers understand the object hierarchy. Finally there are things like key/value pairs where the data is small but the lookups can be Apple managed. You can't just abstract that all as a save/load for blobs of data without doing lowest common denominator and losing huge chunks of iCloud functionality.
The 3 way merge being the most critical. Apple customers are coming to expect that they can do work on their phone then pick up their tablet and work on the same data seamlessly. For that to happen the system has to be able to intelligently deal with the situation where changes have occurred:
A makes change to version X it is not saved
B makes change to version X. Saves and creates X1
A gets online and sees that current version is X1 not X.
Because of visual quality that's possible when you lock down the pixels:
left is rastor right is vector.
http://projectgenerationd.com/...
Apple's belief is, that icons (which are seen over and over again) should be hand drawn at the right resolution to be perfect not auto-generated. Versatility here you are gaining at the cost of image quality.
The summary is wrong or at the very least highly misleading. What the judge did was allow the argument for chimp personhood to go forward. In other words the court did not find that chimps were unquestionably merely property. That's much weaker than deciding they are actual persons or legal persons. So yes there was a step forward for Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) but nowhere near as big a step as the summary implies.
That's a good argument. I would agree the switch to IPv6 has taken too long and thus it has legacy problems already before implementation. I'd pick IPv6 over IPv4 but I'd certainly pick something better were that on the table as an option.
The home / small business will be first because they are huge networks that can be transitioned by carriers in a more or less uniform way. The average user just experience a switch over a short period of years:
a) IPv6 is not available to
b) IPv6 is available if they turn it on to
c) IPv6 is on running dual stack with IPv4, IPv4 handles most of their traffic to
d) IPv6 handles most traffic, IPv4 addresses are available but end user experiences lag and possibly other aspects of worse performance on v4 connections.
At step (d) the carrier has lots of addresses
Absolutely home / small business go IPv6 before the rest. Those are huge networks in terms of being able to reclaim v4 space and they can be switched in a more or less uniform way.
You don't have to use future tense anymore. They've run out of steam. We have a situation now where routers use conflicting IPv4 address schemes and thus huge blocks of machines have no IP path to other huge blocks of machines.
There are 0 American farmers whose cost of labor is low enough that it pays for them to scratch out dirt by hand than it does for them to use a tractor. There are 0 American builders who should shovel by hand rather than use an evacuator.
The people in your charity are Americans. Their time is worth $25/hr minimum and likely more like $100/hr. The idea that they can't afford $1k investment per employee is stupid. Regardless of what they say. They may be cheapskates but their assessment of what makes sense is not based on reality.
Agree with you Ben. This will change as the carriers in the USA upgrade to have IPv6 and home / small business rolls over. /. has become a can't do world of defeatists. Breaking connectivity is not going to be an acceptable option. That's obvious.
Most everything runs dual stack. So no.