OK I'll try this. Traditionally Init services were about starting processes. They didn't have capacities for keeping processes running. Which meant that for processes that need to be kept running and for which there was a real possibility of failure (most of them) the init had to start a process management system which then started the functional process. This has been the status for years. With systemd there is a process maintenance component standard in the init system. Which means that processes not only start but are capable of being kept in a stable state easily and automatically. Process management stops being something system admins work hard at and instead becomes something that happens out of the box.
They also have a monopoly on sales of computers licensed to run the OS X operating system, which means jack squat to antitrust law because there are other PCs out there, just like there are other phones out there.
OSX would apply equally. It is illegal to use your power in one domain over a customer to restrict their actions in an unrelated domain. If Apple were to use its control over OS X to try and restrict their customer's choice of cars that would still be illegal. Having a monopoly obviously makes it worse and shifts the burden but it doesn't change the underlying offense.
I get that. But humans right now are numerous in almost every habitat on the planet. A gradual falloff isn't remotely like extinction. Extinction becomes a real possibility at something like 1000 humans. That's 28 halvings or 56 generations or around 1400 years of contraction. That's a very long time to suppose that a trend continues. Especially given the trend is self correcting as resources become more abundant as the number of humans decreases.
satisfies the political, economic, and technological realities of today.
Nonsense. They most certainly have. Gradually shift to green. What we spent on the Iraq war would have been more than enough to fund America's switch to primarily being on wind power.
There are about 7.25b people. There were about 1b people in 1800 and I don't think anyone would consider the population to be going extinct then. Right now in the lowest reproducing countries the rate is 1.3 children per female. That induces halving in population per 2 generations. Or about 6 generations so even if we were to have the lowest rate in the planet we would be in 200 years about where we were 200 years ago. At that point resources would be abundant.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile app sales.
They do have a monopoly on app sales for Apple devices.
. Ford doesn't get sued for changing Ford motors to be incompatible with aftermarket stuff,
That's still cars. If Ford were to expand into coffee shops and create a custom cup holder that would only work with Ford coffee shops coffee cups (not available anywhere else) that might very well be restraint of trade because they would be using their car position to create unfair competition for coffee.
CurrentC is a coalition of different retailers, Wal-Mart is only one of them. Don't make it out like this is another evil scheme of Wal-Mart's design.
Walmart organized MCX and leads it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/la... I don't know where you are getting the "evil" part but it most certainly is WalMart's design.
Just to add to what you said in addition to fraud there are disputes like the service rendered was unsatisfactory. Many places have terrible return and customer satisfaction policies (though the internet has helped this greatly). Credit cards were a big part of ending all sorts of unethical behavior by merchants.
BTW you are correct. Just so you know for next time. Apple's actual fee is.15% and that is being paid as an intermediary processor fee, which is normal and already part of credit card transactions.
Of course, Apple and Google can shut CurrentC down before they even get out of the starting gate - simply ban them from the app stores.
That would likely be seen as a violation of anti-trust law and rightfully so. Given that Apple is engaging in the payments market as a for profit service they are selling to credit cards, using their monopoly position on the App store for iOS applications to extend restrain trade in another domain... And of course Amex/Visa/MC is backing ApplePay and they are also arguably a monopoly on cashier non-cash payment..
___
Apple can offer nice services but they are going to have to be careful about not being cute when it comes to payments.
Very good analogy. In today's world the BBS would just be business phone lines and billed at business rates. There is less of a regulatory framework which means we get better prices but less protections.
And frequently, shareholders file a lawsuit against the CxO and/or Board of Directors for doing something like making materially false statements which overvalued the future of the stock, leading to major losses. How did it happen if shareholders are the ones in charge? And how is it a separate issue?
You are conflating 3 different things here.
1) A corporation acting in the interest of shareholders via. breaking the law. 2) A board elected by the shareholders acting in the interests of the board and not the people they represent. 3) Corporate management acting in their own interests and not the interests of the board/shareholders.
With AT&T the accusation is (1) is taking place. That's wholly different than (2) and (3) which you are talking about.
How are they innocent? They elected the board of directors who implemented the policies being objected to. They as owners are absolutely responsible for AT&T's conduct.
Your point about the utility is right, but that's mainly how they do it. Your point about bandwidth is way off. Transporting the data from the website to a central carrier hotel near your phone is cheap, almost free. Getting it to the tower often costs more than the rest of the trip. Getting from the tower to your phone costs a lot. Moreover you as a subscriber aren't the one paying the $.02 / gb that's the data provider (like Netflix) they are happy to charge you $.00 nothing for that part of the trip they only want to charge you for the last mile usage (plus a tiny fraction of traffic which is consumer to consumer traffic).
The real fully loaded cost of bandwidth to deliver via. cellular is somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-7 / gb depending on how you count. The cost of the subsidy is about $20 / mo. The cost of the service: minutes, SMS, billing... is under $10 / mo.
And guess what that's pretty much how they charge you. You pay a base fee which includes the phone subsidy and a cost per gb which works out to $5-10 / gb.
So it's the customer's fault that there isn't enough bandwidth because they're using too much, rather than AT&T's fault for not expanding the network to cope
I don't remember the exact figures but AT&T did something like a 7000% expansion 2007-2011 and it has continued expanding since then. AT&T most certainly has put a fortune into expanding the network. The big thing holding back cellular data in the United States at this point is the stupid way other bandwidth is being used, most obviously broadcast television.
They aren't going to switch to unlimited this time. The true cost of providing genuinely unlimited 4G is far far more than what they are collecting. So this resolves by unlimited just disappearing.
But more to the point, all that profit came from positive inertia of business decisions made before Ballmer became the Lord High Mukkimuck of the Evil Empire.
Not really. Prior to Ballmer Microsoft had a profitable OS, Office division with some other misc products like Mice that made money. The explosion into the servers came under Ballmer: SQLServer, Lync, Dynamics... as key players, that's Ballmer not Gates.
Nothing Ballmer initiated contributed a significant percentage to MS profits.
Their revenue went from $25b to $60b under Ballmer. That growth mainly came from expansions upmarket of office and server. $35b / yr is a lot of money. I'd settle for just what Ballmer created.
Hard to know. Amazon is hitting $1b / quarter. They are spending about $4.59 billion / yr in infrastructure costs. They have some OpEx. They are obviously pricing their service way too low if they have to maintain that level of CapEx. But it is unclear that when the market calms down they will.
Amazon is simply too opaque about everything. As long as they can easily raise money based on sales growth we'll never know how profitable any of that is.
The Mac mini is getting to be a terrible value NQA. On the low end it offers a very cheap entry point. On the high end it is a ripoff. The iMacs are overpriced and they seem like a better deal.
What you are describing is the old macbook line. They used to have a macbook and a macbook air. The macbook was designed to be much cheaper than the macbook pro, while the air was slower but much lighter and thinner. At this point they can do an air type design for $1k not $4k. So there is no reason to offer the macbook. If you want performance buy the pro. If you want value for your money, and don't care about design, buy an HP.
I'm not sure that's so shocking. Assume there were a predator that killed 90% of the shortest 1/3rd of all humans at age 15. Let that run for 20 generations. I don't see how the average male height going to 6' 4" would be at all out of character. Heck it might happen faster than 20 generations, possibly more like 5.
Slashdot Mirror
OK I'll try this. Traditionally Init services were about starting processes. They didn't have capacities for keeping processes running. Which meant that for processes that need to be kept running and for which there was a real possibility of failure (most of them) the init had to start a process management system which then started the functional process. This has been the status for years. With systemd there is a process maintenance component standard in the init system. Which means that processes not only start but are capable of being kept in a stable state easily and automatically. Process management stops being something system admins work hard at and instead becomes something that happens out of the box.
OSX would apply equally. It is illegal to use your power in one domain over a customer to restrict their actions in an unrelated domain. If Apple were to use its control over OS X to try and restrict their customer's choice of cars that would still be illegal. Having a monopoly obviously makes it worse and shifts the burden but it doesn't change the underlying offense.
I get that. But humans right now are numerous in almost every habitat on the planet. A gradual falloff isn't remotely like extinction. Extinction becomes a real possibility at something like 1000 humans. That's 28 halvings or 56 generations or around 1400 years of contraction. That's a very long time to suppose that a trend continues. Especially given the trend is self correcting as resources become more abundant as the number of humans decreases.
Nonsense. They most certainly have. Gradually shift to green. What we spent on the Iraq war would have been more than enough to fund America's switch to primarily being on wind power.
There are about 7.25b people. There were about 1b people in 1800 and I don't think anyone would consider the population to be going extinct then. Right now in the lowest reproducing countries the rate is 1.3 children per female. That induces halving in population per 2 generations. Or about 6 generations so even if we were to have the lowest rate in the planet we would be in 200 years about where we were 200 years ago. At that point resources would be abundant.
They do have a monopoly on app sales for Apple devices.
That's still cars. If Ford were to expand into coffee shops and create a custom cup holder that would only work with Ford coffee shops coffee cups (not available anywhere else) that might very well be restraint of trade because they would be using their car position to create unfair competition for coffee.
Walmart organized MCX and leads it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/la... I don't know where you are getting the "evil" part but it most certainly is WalMart's design.
Just to add to what you said in addition to fraud there are disputes like the service rendered was unsatisfactory. Many places have terrible return and customer satisfaction policies (though the internet has helped this greatly). Credit cards were a big part of ending all sorts of unethical behavior by merchants.
BTW you are correct. Just so you know for next time. Apple's actual fee is .15% and that is being paid as an intermediary processor fee, which is normal and already part of credit card transactions.
Which is evidence of racketeering not that the cash was from the proceeds of drug sales. That setup gets the bank account seized though.
That would likely be seen as a violation of anti-trust law and rightfully so. Given that Apple is engaging in the payments market as a for profit service they are selling to credit cards, using their monopoly position on the App store for iOS applications to extend restrain trade in another domain... And of course Amex/Visa/MC is backing ApplePay and they are also arguably a monopoly on cashier non-cash payment..
___
Apple can offer nice services but they are going to have to be careful about not being cute when it comes to payments.
CurrentC is Walmart. It is not Google nor Apple.
Very good analogy. In today's world the BBS would just be business phone lines and billed at business rates. There is less of a regulatory framework which means we get better prices but less protections.
They are mostly. The emerging players in content delivery Level3, Zayo, Century Link... don't act as ISPs for individuals.
You are conflating 3 different things here.
1) A corporation acting in the interest of shareholders via. breaking the law.
2) A board elected by the shareholders acting in the interests of the board and not the people they represent.
3) Corporate management acting in their own interests and not the interests of the board/shareholders.
With AT&T the accusation is (1) is taking place. That's wholly different than (2) and (3) which you are talking about.
How are they innocent? They elected the board of directors who implemented the policies being objected to. They as owners are absolutely responsible for AT&T's conduct.
Your point about the utility is right, but that's mainly how they do it. Your point about bandwidth is way off. Transporting the data from the website to a central carrier hotel near your phone is cheap, almost free. Getting it to the tower often costs more than the rest of the trip. Getting from the tower to your phone costs a lot. Moreover you as a subscriber aren't the one paying the $.02 / gb that's the data provider (like Netflix) they are happy to charge you $.00 nothing for that part of the trip they only want to charge you for the last mile usage (plus a tiny fraction of traffic which is consumer to consumer traffic).
The real fully loaded cost of bandwidth to deliver via. cellular is somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-7 / gb depending on how you count. The cost of the subsidy is about $20 / mo. The cost of the service: minutes, SMS, billing... is under $10 / mo.
And guess what that's pretty much how they charge you. You pay a base fee which includes the phone subsidy and a cost per gb which works out to $5-10 / gb.
I don't remember the exact figures but AT&T did something like a 7000% expansion 2007-2011 and it has continued expanding since then. AT&T most certainly has put a fortune into expanding the network. The big thing holding back cellular data in the United States at this point is the stupid way other bandwidth is being used, most obviously broadcast television.
They aren't going to switch to unlimited this time. The true cost of providing genuinely unlimited 4G is far far more than what they are collecting. So this resolves by unlimited just disappearing.
Not really. Prior to Ballmer Microsoft had a profitable OS, Office division with some other misc products like Mice that made money. The explosion into the servers came under Ballmer: SQLServer, Lync, Dynamics... as key players, that's Ballmer not Gates.
Their revenue went from $25b to $60b under Ballmer. That growth mainly came from expansions upmarket of office and server. $35b / yr is a lot of money. I'd settle for just what Ballmer created.
Hard to know. Amazon is hitting $1b / quarter. They are spending about $4.59 billion / yr in infrastructure costs. They have some OpEx. They are obviously pricing their service way too low if they have to maintain that level of CapEx. But it is unclear that when the market calms down they will.
Amazon is simply too opaque about everything. As long as they can easily raise money based on sales growth we'll never know how profitable any of that is.
The Mac mini is getting to be a terrible value NQA. On the low end it offers a very cheap entry point. On the high end it is a ripoff. The iMacs are overpriced and they seem like a better deal.
What you are describing is the old macbook line. They used to have a macbook and a macbook air. The macbook was designed to be much cheaper than the macbook pro, while the air was slower but much lighter and thinner. At this point they can do an air type design for $1k not $4k. So there is no reason to offer the macbook. If you want performance buy the pro. If you want value for your money, and don't care about design, buy an HP.
I'm not sure that's so shocking. Assume there were a predator that killed 90% of the shortest 1/3rd of all humans at age 15. Let that run for 20 generations. I don't see how the average male height going to 6' 4" would be at all out of character. Heck it might happen faster than 20 generations, possibly more like 5.
Or better. Backup complex software always. Have extra backups done using a different mechanism before updates.