They do that all the time. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate actions in foreign countries. The whole idea of diplomatic recognition is that governments recognize each other as legitimate and agree to some level of cooperation and coordination. Trade relations enhance this further. Other specific treaties extend it even further.
So for example American airlines (or any plane that flies to the USA) still have to follow USA maintenance schedules even if the plane is currently abroad.
The legal situation has already been cleaned up, though Microsoft isn't happy about it. Microsoft has already published on this since the last ruling. What they are asserting is that the foreign customer (business) that uses Azure is knowingly transferring their data to the USA (regardless of where the physical servers are) when they use Azure and thus they are the ones legally responsible. So far that seems to be pasting muster with the EU.
I.e. Azure sells to company X in France. Company X has data that is subject to privacy laws. By company X using Azure they are the ones moving the data to the USA violating French law. Which turns this into a France / French company issue and not an Microsoft / France issue. Better for everyone to regulate.
Yes an American citizen owning a house in Amsterdam could be forced to turn over materials in this house. The American has an obligation to follow not flout USA law including answering warrants and subpoenas.
What if the data was in my locked briefcase in Microsoft's London office.... Do you think they should just hand it over to USA prosecutors without going through the UK's legal process?
Yes. Microsoft USA has a legal obligation to get it from Microsoft UK even if the data is in the London office. Microsoft UK may not care but Microsoft USA must.
Hold on. Your analogy is missing something crucial.
Case 1: The bedroom is in a condo that belongs to your parents -- this ruling wouldn't apply even by analogy Case 2: The bedroom is a rental and is owned by an American company -- then this ruling would apply by analogy. And yes USA courts should have jurisdiction.
I'm going to come down with yes. If a corporations chooses to operate directly in country X they should be subject to the laws of company X. I'd prefer it if all corporations were national and simply traded. Not fully owned subsidiaries but genuinely independent businesses. The UN is not capable nor does it have the right policies to be a global government and without strong controls corporations are a real problem.
In the USA among postpay customers Apple marketshare is over 70%. They don't care about global marketshare and they shouldn't care about global marketshare.
I'll ask if anyone knows the TCO on these Linux roll outs.
There haven't been many lately. About a decade ago they were popular. You have to classify 3 groups of rollouters.
a) Companies that never had much of a Windows culture. Often their desktops were mostly Windows running terminals, X-Stations (or windows as an X-client)... The servers were SCO, Solaris, HPUX, AIX... They converted to Linux cheaply and easily.
b) Companies that were mid sized or small and highly motivated. Generally the owner pushed this through over all objections. They converted but often broke enterprise systems.
c) Companies that were highly motivated and larger. IBM, Oracle, Sun are good examples. Dismal embarrassing failures. Costs skyrocketed and they never managed to get off Windows.
d) Institutions that were only moderately motivated and larger but very patient willing to stay with it for a decade or more. Those have had successes and appear to have saved money. But the distraction factor was really high as "migrating to Linux" had to remain near the top of the IT agenda year after year after year affecting all sorts of purchasing and infrastructure projects.
In terms of your thing about support. Linux is much easier to support via. managed services. That's where the saving come from labor wise.
No the service is not the same. In one case they were leveraging the existing PSTN for last mile delivery and you were paying for a feed around 30kbis. Today you are paying for last mile in your internet and the feed is around 30mbis a 1000x more data. Moreover the usage is more frequent which means less sharing with things like TV video. So in reality it is closer to 5000x as much bandwidth required by the carriers. That is not free.
Internet is good here because people have been willing to pay lots for it. In the days of cheap ISPs they weren't willing to pay lots. In the days before that, internet was often metered something like $6/hr to use at 2400 baud.
I think you keep phones a bit too long. The point of an acquisition is an integration. They haven't "burned down those networks" they use their bandwidth and towers as part of their integrated offerings. Take a look at diagrams of what their towers do.
I gather, the "competitive market" of mobile operators in the US is in pretty bad shape
You are gathering from people who mostly don't know what they are talking about. The USA has a geography and lower population density, and road system vs. public transit system which makes it vastly more expensive to provide service. Moreover they get much less government support in terms of funding. As a consequence USA carriers are far more sophisticated than their European counterparts. The idea that the USA is a technological backwater for mobile came from the 1990s and early 2000s when the cost of creating was so vast that it took far longer here. Also because of the price point mobility during that period of time was more enterprise oriented so many/. readers don't know about the excellent enterprise features mobile carriers have instead focusing on things consumers want.
Data will always be much more expensive to deliver in the USA than most of Europe and Asia. That's geography. The effect of that though is carriers with far deeper pockets and far more interesting offerings.
Don't get me wrong cash infusions do matter. SoftBank's funding has allowed Sprint to do some excellent stuff with their towers which means tower for tower Sprint is far and away the most efficient around. But that's taken years and cost many billions. And it still leaves Sprint with a worse network than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that Iliad's pockets aren't really that deep. The buyout itself is too big for them. Where is the cash going to come from for the huge network upgrades that T-mobile / MetroPCS needs? T-Mobile has the money to finance the current Metro conversion city by city. But after that it would fall to Iliad. Where does that extra money come from? Sprint, Verizon and AT&T are all doing large upgrades for the rest of the decade.
Re:It's better to hear people you might disagree w
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'd expect that if I were to take a collection of the last 100 statements from most techno libertarians on matters of fact and 100 statements from the average CIA spokesperson on matters of fact and had a God's eye view of the situation the CIA would be more accurate. In the case of the CIA / NSA they are often deliberately misleading the public on a few facts they consider crucial while being accurate on a huge collections of information. In the case of the techno libertarians, like many semi-credible analysts they are making wild conjectures and exaggerating to "raise awareness".
A responsible professional press's job is to try and start crossing between them and try and build a better factual picture for their readership. So yes they have to have a voice.
Second, the way Tomi compares the smartphone sales numbers seems legit to me. He takes all smartphone unit sales
No he doesn't. This was a much more serious problem about 18 months back. He excluded huge Symbian sales when the phone was sold without the intent to install many apps (the Asha line) so that Elop's numbers looked worse while including many of the Chinese Androids that are unable to install apps. He most certainly does not do that.
The carriers in the USA are not threatened by Android hegemony they are threatened by iOS becoming a de-facto monopoly on the high end. That you got that backwards is yet again a reason you should be listening to someone other than Tomi's nonsense.
In fact, under the Constitution the Senate cannot directly order the CIA to do anything as that would be a violation of separation of powers
The CIA is an independent agency they are not part of the executive. __
As far as the rest I think the issue is the deletion of documents and the referral to justice for the purpose of intimidation. Monitoring in and of itself of the network would not have been noticed by the Senate investigators. It was taking action based on that monitoring which was noticed. Let's at this point just assume the obvious that the CIA wasn't just monitoring but acting on the result.
My point there is that simply in terms of the popularity of the platform -- hardware sales, in short -- Apple seems to be losing momentum, while Android devices are gaining market share
Actually the opposite is happening, which is going to come as a bit of a shock. There is a tendency to consider "smartphones" as a single category which would be very much like grouping "transportation facilitation devices" including planes, cars, bicycles and sneakers. If you look at the market as segmented financially as something like
There is tremendous growth in Android at the $80-119 level, caused by people migrating up from $60 feature phones to say $90 Android phones. There is some growth at $120-199 and $45-79. There is actual shrinkage at $500+ and some shrinkage at the top end of the i.e. $450+ phones. The phone market appears to be segmenting in a way very similar to what happened to tablets, where a large price gap is opening up between Android phones and iOS phones with either attracting a different group of users. There is some resistance to this but the trend has been steady for years.
My point there is that simply in terms of the popularity of the platform -- hardware sales, in short -- Apple seems to be losing momentum,
Well yes. Their market segment is almost fully converted. So they are becoming a comfortable majority platform with the only possibility being a gradual move towards a monopoly at those price points.
I'm just suggesting that those iOS developers who haven't either hit the big time in the initial gold rush or carved out a niche where they can stand out and charge sensible money seem to be starting to give up and look elsewhere, wherever that might be.
I think they are getting jobs as corporate app developers. The enterprise mobility space is exploding. Lots of young entrepreneurs becoming employees. Much more fun to build your dream application than a passenger activity application for a cruise ship.
As a final point, while there certainly are premium apps out there, typical B2C apps on the App Store are not among them.
Let me rephrase that. Non niche B2C applications are consolidating. Which is what you would expect in a maturing market. The niche apps are still exploding. App store revenues for B2C are still rising at 50% annually on a platform that is growing much more slowly.
We appear to have reached the point where anyone who doesn't win big fairly quickly can't actually sustain a viable business writing iOS apps
Again I'd say non-niche, non-vertical and that's kinda healthy. It creates an incentive to develop a broader and deeper portfolio. Mobility still needs better niche and vertical applications. Which is BTW why I do think it is fine for the future. Developers now need to write apps that are about something specialized and partner with someone with domain expertise.
Well they can order the Justice Department to prosecute, hold a impeachment for Brennan in the house, or even disband the CIA. It depends how POed they are.
The problem here is that its one thing to simply assume Brennan was lying, but its another thing to prove it. The fact that he now says an internal investigation shows members of the CIA did monitor systems operated by Congress doesn't mean he was lying when he testified they did not. It could mean that he simply didn't know, and if that's the case your prosecution would go nowhere.
Well I checked. Here was the statement "We are not in any way trying to thwart the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report's progress [or] release. As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into computers, nothing could be further from the truth. That's beyond the scope of reason.. tried to work as collaboratively as possible with the committee on its report, and we will continue to do so.". The statement wasn't under oath though so I was wrong there. He can't be charged with anything. Lying to a reporter is not a crime.
Apparently what happened was that the CIA created a special firewall within the actual CIA network that they configured to allow Senate investigators to gain access to CIA files. It was this firewall the CIA monitored, which had the net effect of monitoring the Senate's access to the CIA. Even that is basically illegal, but assuming you could monitor what other people did to your network sounds like the sort of mistake a lot of people would make. It would be legal in almost any other setting, but not specifically in this context.
It doesn't appear so. It appears they didn't just monitor but tracked documents and then deleted them. They weren't just doing network monitoring they were doing ECM. The CIA has no right to anything that the Senate ultimately wants.
Apple did a really good job putting the whole package together, they generated hype and customers, and that in turn generated a market for the apps that would follow and ultimately the whole ecosystem we now know.
Exactly. The original claim was that there was some revolutionary technology. Also that it was immediately apparent that this was a game changes. What was revolutionary was the synthesis of ideas, putting them all together. And it wasn't immediately apparent that this was a game changer and not just another good design.
____
We do disagree on iOS as an app development platform. The iPhone store's revenues have increased to 2x the size of Android play store. Moreover advertising revenue is substantially higher . Finally enterprise development spend is much better, something like an order of magnitude the SoftLayer / IBM partnership is only going to enhance that. It takes a lot of $.99 game to make up for a single $1m enterprise license. So no the momentum is not in Android's direction. Moreover Google's direction is to weaken the app ecosystem further towards better web integration. So I'm disagreeing with you across the board here.
I think the Apple killing projects is working to the benefit of the platform though is a tough cultural shift for people coming from Android or Windows. They aren't used to a platform owner exercising that kind of control. I don't see how it is really too much of a problem for applications developers that aren't trying to be irresponsible or damaging though. I can only think of a very small number of projects that were even questionably that got blocked. I can think of many projects where developers were required to do something right and that's a good thing.
What I think in terms of this thread is it is mostly BS. A large numbers of people who design mediocre general purpose applications are finding that they have 0 market on iPhone. The action is in market leaders, niche applications that can sell at a high price and vertical applications that can sell at a high price. Most of the applications that can't be found, can't be found because they are bad. The 30% developer tax doesn't apply there.
As for low app prices, prices have been going up since 2010. The iPad in particular created the ability to offer a more expensive version and drove prices up not down. The enterprise stuff drives prices way up.
I'm not sure how weakened the White house is. You look at the electoral map I'd have even more trouble seeing how the Republicans would get to 270. Moreover how does going after the CIA weaken the White House? The CIA reports to the DNI who had broad support.
Treason is much more than just not doing what congress tells you to do. I agree with you congress should prosecute for lying under oath and lying to congress. They also might want to restructure these agencies. The intelligence agencies are out of control. But treason, no.
People don't understand what's game-changing when it happens. It is only in retrospect which creates a bias towards events of the past. So for example when movable type was invented it was a substantial improvement to the cost of laying out plates of text and thus allowed for shorter runs. The game changing aspects would take a few more years to become apparent.
Slashdot Mirror
They do that all the time. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate actions in foreign countries. The whole idea of diplomatic recognition is that governments recognize each other as legitimate and agree to some level of cooperation and coordination. Trade relations enhance this further. Other specific treaties extend it even further.
So for example American airlines (or any plane that flies to the USA) still have to follow USA maintenance schedules even if the plane is currently abroad.
The legal situation has already been cleaned up, though Microsoft isn't happy about it. Microsoft has already published on this since the last ruling. What they are asserting is that the foreign customer (business) that uses Azure is knowingly transferring their data to the USA (regardless of where the physical servers are) when they use Azure and thus they are the ones legally responsible. So far that seems to be pasting muster with the EU.
I.e. Azure sells to company X in France. Company X has data that is subject to privacy laws. By company X using Azure they are the ones moving the data to the USA violating French law. Which turns this into a France / French company issue and not an Microsoft / France issue. Better for everyone to regulate.
Yes an American citizen owning a house in Amsterdam could be forced to turn over materials in this house. The American has an obligation to follow not flout USA law including answering warrants and subpoenas.
Yes. Microsoft USA has a legal obligation to get it from Microsoft UK even if the data is in the London office. Microsoft UK may not care but Microsoft USA must.
Hold on. Your analogy is missing something crucial.
Case 1: The bedroom is in a condo that belongs to your parents -- this ruling wouldn't apply even by analogy
Case 2: The bedroom is a rental and is owned by an American company -- then this ruling would apply by analogy. And yes USA courts should have jurisdiction.
Good point with the bribery analogy.
The NSA isn't about prosecution. The FBI, Customs... would care far more.
If they aren't in China then it doesn't matter. This is only about business in the USA.
I'm going to come down with yes. If a corporations chooses to operate directly in country X they should be subject to the laws of company X. I'd prefer it if all corporations were national and simply traded. Not fully owned subsidiaries but genuinely independent businesses. The UN is not capable nor does it have the right policies to be a global government and without strong controls corporations are a real problem.
In the USA among postpay customers Apple marketshare is over 70%. They don't care about global marketshare and they shouldn't care about global marketshare.
There haven't been many lately. About a decade ago they were popular. You have to classify 3 groups of rollouters.
a) Companies that never had much of a Windows culture. Often their desktops were mostly Windows running terminals, X-Stations (or windows as an X-client)... The servers were SCO, Solaris, HPUX, AIX... They converted to Linux cheaply and easily.
b) Companies that were mid sized or small and highly motivated. Generally the owner pushed this through over all objections. They converted but often broke enterprise systems.
c) Companies that were highly motivated and larger. IBM, Oracle, Sun are good examples. Dismal embarrassing failures. Costs skyrocketed and they never managed to get off Windows.
d) Institutions that were only moderately motivated and larger but very patient willing to stay with it for a decade or more. Those have had successes and appear to have saved money. But the distraction factor was really high as "migrating to Linux" had to remain near the top of the IT agenda year after year after year affecting all sorts of purchasing and infrastructure projects.
In terms of your thing about support. Linux is much easier to support via. managed services. That's where the saving come from labor wise.
No the service is not the same. In one case they were leveraging the existing PSTN for last mile delivery and you were paying for a feed around 30kbis. Today you are paying for last mile in your internet and the feed is around 30mbis a 1000x more data. Moreover the usage is more frequent which means less sharing with things like TV video. So in reality it is closer to 5000x as much bandwidth required by the carriers. That is not free.
Internet is good here because people have been willing to pay lots for it. In the days of cheap ISPs they weren't willing to pay lots. In the days before that, internet was often metered something like $6/hr to use at 2400 baud.
I think you keep phones a bit too long. The point of an acquisition is an integration. They haven't "burned down those networks" they use their bandwidth and towers as part of their integrated offerings. Take a look at diagrams of what their towers do.
You are gathering from people who mostly don't know what they are talking about. The USA has a geography and lower population density, and road system vs. public transit system which makes it vastly more expensive to provide service. Moreover they get much less government support in terms of funding. As a consequence USA carriers are far more sophisticated than their European counterparts. The idea that the USA is a technological backwater for mobile came from the 1990s and early 2000s when the cost of creating was so vast that it took far longer here. Also because of the price point mobility during that period of time was more enterprise oriented so many /. readers don't know about the excellent enterprise features mobile carriers have instead focusing on things consumers want.
Data will always be much more expensive to deliver in the USA than most of Europe and Asia. That's geography. The effect of that though is carriers with far deeper pockets and far more interesting offerings.
Don't get me wrong cash infusions do matter. SoftBank's funding has allowed Sprint to do some excellent stuff with their towers which means tower for tower Sprint is far and away the most efficient around. But that's taken years and cost many billions. And it still leaves Sprint with a worse network than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that Iliad's pockets aren't really that deep. The buyout itself is too big for them. Where is the cash going to come from for the huge network upgrades that T-mobile / MetroPCS needs? T-Mobile has the money to finance the current Metro conversion city by city. But after that it would fall to Iliad. Where does that extra money come from? Sprint, Verizon and AT&T are all doing large upgrades for the rest of the decade.
I'd expect that if I were to take a collection of the last 100 statements from most techno libertarians on matters of fact and 100 statements from the average CIA spokesperson on matters of fact and had a God's eye view of the situation the CIA would be more accurate. In the case of the CIA / NSA they are often deliberately misleading the public on a few facts they consider crucial while being accurate on a huge collections of information. In the case of the techno libertarians, like many semi-credible analysts they are making wild conjectures and exaggerating to "raise awareness".
A responsible professional press's job is to try and start crossing between them and try and build a better factual picture for their readership. So yes they have to have a voice.
No he doesn't. This was a much more serious problem about 18 months back. He excluded huge Symbian sales when the phone was sold without the intent to install many apps (the Asha line) so that Elop's numbers looked worse while including many of the Chinese Androids that are unable to install apps. He most certainly does not do that.
The carriers in the USA are not threatened by Android hegemony they are threatened by iOS becoming a de-facto monopoly on the high end. That you got that backwards is yet again a reason you should be listening to someone other than Tomi's nonsense.
The CIA is an independent agency they are not part of the executive.
__
As far as the rest I think the issue is the deletion of documents and the referral to justice for the purpose of intimidation. Monitoring in and of itself of the network would not have been noticed by the Senate investigators. It was taking action based on that monitoring which was noticed. Let's at this point just assume the obvious that the CIA wasn't just monitoring but acting on the result.
Actually the opposite is happening, which is going to come as a bit of a shock. There is a tendency to consider "smartphones" as a single category which would be very much like grouping "transportation facilitation devices" including planes, cars, bicycles and sneakers. If you look at the market as segmented financially as something like
$500+ phones
$300-499
$200-299
$120-199
$80-119
$45-79
$45-
There is tremendous growth in Android at the $80-119 level, caused by people migrating up from $60 feature phones to say $90 Android phones. There is some growth at $120-199 and $45-79. There is actual shrinkage at $500+ and some shrinkage at the top end of the i.e. $450+ phones. The phone market appears to be segmenting in a way very similar to what happened to tablets, where a large price gap is opening up between Android phones and iOS phones with either attracting a different group of users. There is some resistance to this but the trend has been steady for years.
Well yes. Their market segment is almost fully converted. So they are becoming a comfortable majority platform with the only possibility being a gradual move towards a monopoly at those price points.
I think they are getting jobs as corporate app developers. The enterprise mobility space is exploding. Lots of young entrepreneurs becoming employees. Much more fun to build your dream application than a passenger activity application for a cruise ship.
Let me rephrase that. Non niche B2C applications are consolidating. Which is what you would expect in a maturing market. The niche apps are still exploding. App store revenues for B2C are still rising at 50% annually on a platform that is growing much more slowly.
Again I'd say non-niche, non-vertical and that's kinda healthy. It creates an incentive to develop a broader and deeper portfolio. Mobility still needs better niche and vertical applications. Which is BTW why I do think it is fine for the future. Developers now need to write apps that are about something specialized and partner with someone with domain expertise.
Well they can order the Justice Department to prosecute, hold a impeachment for Brennan in the house, or even disband the CIA. It depends how POed they are.
Well I checked. Here was the statement "We are not in any way trying to thwart the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report's progress [or] release. As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into computers, nothing could be further from the truth. That's beyond the scope of reason.. tried to work as collaboratively as possible with the committee on its report, and we will continue to do so.". The statement wasn't under oath though so I was wrong there. He can't be charged with anything. Lying to a reporter is not a crime.
It doesn't appear so. It appears they didn't just monitor but tracked documents and then deleted them. They weren't just doing network monitoring they were doing ECM. The CIA has no right to anything that the Senate ultimately wants.
Show me the road to 270 in 2016.
There were other phones with full sized screens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Exactly. The original claim was that there was some revolutionary technology. Also that it was immediately apparent that this was a game changes. What was revolutionary was the synthesis of ideas, putting them all together. And it wasn't immediately apparent that this was a game changer and not just another good design.
____
We do disagree on iOS as an app development platform. The iPhone store's revenues have increased to 2x the size of Android play store. Moreover advertising revenue is substantially higher . Finally enterprise development spend is much better, something like an order of magnitude the SoftLayer / IBM partnership is only going to enhance that. It takes a lot of $.99 game to make up for a single $1m enterprise license. So no the momentum is not in Android's direction. Moreover Google's direction is to weaken the app ecosystem further towards better web integration. So I'm disagreeing with you across the board here.
I think the Apple killing projects is working to the benefit of the platform though is a tough cultural shift for people coming from Android or Windows. They aren't used to a platform owner exercising that kind of control. I don't see how it is really too much of a problem for applications developers that aren't trying to be irresponsible or damaging though. I can only think of a very small number of projects that were even questionably that got blocked. I can think of many projects where developers were required to do something right and that's a good thing.
What I think in terms of this thread is it is mostly BS. A large numbers of people who design mediocre general purpose applications are finding that they have 0 market on iPhone. The action is in market leaders, niche applications that can sell at a high price and vertical applications that can sell at a high price. Most of the applications that can't be found, can't be found because they are bad. The 30% developer tax doesn't apply there.
As for low app prices, prices have been going up since 2010. The iPad in particular created the ability to offer a more expensive version and drove prices up not down. The enterprise stuff drives prices way up.
I'm not sure how weakened the White house is. You look at the electoral map I'd have even more trouble seeing how the Republicans would get to 270. Moreover how does going after the CIA weaken the White House? The CIA reports to the DNI who had broad support.
Treason is much more than just not doing what congress tells you to do. I agree with you congress should prosecute for lying under oath and lying to congress. They also might want to restructure these agencies. The intelligence agencies are out of control. But treason, no.
People don't understand what's game-changing when it happens. It is only in retrospect which creates a bias towards events of the past. So for example when movable type was invented it was a substantial improvement to the cost of laying out plates of text and thus allowed for shorter runs. The game changing aspects would take a few more years to become apparent.