Which doesn't really make all that much sense. What has Apple actually done to cause such a stock drop?
It's not what they've done, it's what they haven't done, and what others have done.
Investors have this perception of Apple as an innovator, creating new markets where none existed, and this perception is built into the stock's valuation. With the iPhone 5, Apple released not a new innovative product, but yet another incremental iteration of the iPhone. Then they did it again with the iPad mini and iPad 4. All the while, you have headlines like Android surpassing iPhone market share, Samsung selling more Galaxy phones than iPhone. The iPad mini was perhaps the worst of the bunch, where Apple was perceived as following Google's lead into smaller tablets, especially when Steve Jobs was quoted as saying they would never do such a thing. Right or wrong, this perception is not good for the narrative that Apple is a leader and can magically create markets where none existed before.
Perhaps the decline has everything to do with the Jobs RDF wearing off. Perhaps it has everything to do with Apple's first mover advantage in smartphones wearing off. Maybe it's just the competition heating up, or a combination of these and other factors. But what's clear is that Apple is no longer in a position to dominate the smartphone and tablet markets on their own, which is a real problem for them, since their massive profits are *largely* derived from iPhone sales.
I don't think it's a coincidence that AAPL hit an all time high the day the iPhone 5 was released, and has been in a steep decline since then.
Microsoft should not have named it "Windows" at all to avoid the confusion. That's the point.
Do you really think iOS and OSX has more distinction than Windows 8 and Windows RT? I've had to explain the difference between iOS and OSX many times to friends and family who were confused as to which was which. This was even worse in the early days of iPhone, when Apple and Steve Jobs insisted very publicly that iPhone ran OSX.
Windows spokespeople (plus fanboys) insisted Vista was doing well right up until Microsoft put a bullet in its brain and launched Win 7.
Of course they did, that's their job (the spokespeople, not the fanboys). But Microsoft's own licenses sold numbers about Vista show the failure. Microsoft announced that they sold 20M Vista licenses in the first month. That rate dropped to an average of 9M units per month for the next two years. That's not the rate you want to be selling at when manufacturers are selling 20M PCs per month worldwide. Windows 7 sold at a rate of 20M units per month on average over its lifetime, when OEMs were shipping 30M units per month. Taking out Apple's Mac sales, that's a much better figure.
Yes, it is has been declining since Oct 26. Here is how the data looks on a daily basis: http://i.imgur.com/hNPSv.png
The blue line is before Windows 8 launch, the red line is after. Windows 7 was at an all time weekly high the week of Oct 26, when Windows 8 was launched. It's been going down steadily since then (minus some distortion due to holidays, but it's now just about back on the original trajectory started on Oct 26).
As for Windows 8, the stats are broken down when you download the CSV data.
2.89% as of today. According to stat counter, windows 8 is growing at about the same rate windows 7 was growing in the month leading up to oct 26 (a little faster actually). Since oct 26 windows 7 has been declining. So much for the theory that everyone is buying windows 8 machines and downgrading. These stats also include all the hundreds of millions of computers sold since 2009, growth in internet traffic, as well as iPad and android stats. So how many machines is 2.89%? We don't know. But it's clear windows 8 is growing and growing steadily, no matter the naysaying here on slashdot.
1) That's actually a low rate for Windows adoption
Windows 7 sold as many licenses in the same period (ref). According to IDC, the PC industry in Q4 2012 sold 89.8M units worldwide (ref). IDC also claims in Q4 2009, the PC industry sold 89.6M units (ref). So between 2009 and 2012 we see no growth and the same sales... we can see Windows 8 is selling at the same rate as Windows 7.
Isn't that the same argument that was made when they sold 40M? Presumably, if there were still 40M licenses sitting on shelves, OEMs wouldn't buy 20M more to further sit on shelves.
OEMs try to keep as little inventory as possible. They only buy as many as they think they can sell. So how many exactly are in consumer's hands? Less than 60M and more than you care to admit.
You are comparing a single action to a series of actions, and then claiming the latter one is superior because repeating it often enough results in more data!
Any machine that only ever performs a single action is not Turing complete. Performing multiple actions sequentially is exactly how computers operate, and is what makes them useful computational devices. If you've been arguing from this perspective, your point still does not hold. Since your computer can only perform one operation, it can only do one of three things only only once: move its read position, change its state, or write a single bit. Thus, the only precision you can achieve is flipping one bit, so the keyboard is *still* the most accurate input device you can achieve.
Now, if you were to compare apples to apples you could use either input device to get the exact same result if you just repeated the action often enough. You could enter 1.000 units with a mouse just as well as you could enter it with a keyboard.
If you read my original comment I said the keyboard is the most precise device you could create. Any device which reduces to the functionality of the binary keyboard, like clicking a mouse button, is therefore obviously just as precise. As long as you can manipulate the data stream on a per bit basis, you've achieved maximum precision. Something like a mouse optical sensor or inertial unit does not work this way (although I could think of a couple ways to rig them to do so). What still is not true is your initial assertion that you could create a device *more* precise.
If you are still confused by any of this, may I suggest a course on Automata Theory? I haven't taken this particular one, but looking at the syllabus, you should have all the information by Week 6 to arrive at the same conclusion I am presenting here.
You mean the values between 0-255 can be represented in binary by entering 8 ones or zeroes, not keyboard presses, as the typical keyboard has 104/105 keys and each key can have two different states. A "binary keyboard" is, again, logically impossible
No, what I mean is literally, a binary keyboard. That is, a keyboard for the express purpose of writing binary code. A hypothetical instrument used to create the tape that programs a turing machine. Again, in computer science the term "binary" is not used as an ajective to refer to "a representation of two different values" as you put it earlier, but is a reference to binary code.
You're confusing the term precision with something else.
Correct, I am conflating accuracy and precision, as is so easy to do. But the first half of this sentence is again wrong, as I will explain below.
You actually just proved your own argument as false there: the sensor only needs to be put in one, single position to reach the same value as you'd have to enter 8 different values in binary to get, ie. the sensor has much wider degree of precision.
Here you are ignoring your own advice to not confuse precision. What does "wide degree of precision" mean? If we're going to start being pedantic, we should define our term precision so as to eliminate all ambiguity. Precision, as I understand it in this context, is to mean how exact you can specify a command. This could be an action, a string, a number... any type of input. Thus, a "wide degree of precision" would mean that the ability of the sensor to specify a command can change. Meaning this sensor might be able to specify 256 levels of pressure or 512. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this as I understand it so please elaborate.
In fact, with this I've mistakenly shown that the binary keyboard is not only precise but accurate. Accuracy, defined as how often we can replicate the same input. I might touch a pressure sensor and get a reading of 143. If I try again, I get a reading of 140. Then 160. But on my binary keyboard, I can enter in 143 every single time. Accuracy.
With the binary keyboard I can construct any string of any length to within the capabilities of the processor I'm using. Precision.
Actually, any number whatsoever can be represented by bits as long as you use enough bits.
I know this very well. I'm surprised you are arguing against me if you also recognize this. Let me try to explain it to you a different way, so perhaps you can see this more clearly. You know of course that when you press keys on your keyboard, you send a binary number to the computer that represents the character you pressed. Let's assume this is an 8bit number, so your keyboard can have 256 unique characters. So then it's easy to see that this 256 key keyboard is the same thing as a keyboard that just has two buttons: 1 and 0. We'll call this a binary keyboard. If you press a 1 it sends a 1. If you press a 0 it sends a 0. So the only difference between this keyboard and the 256 key keyboard is you have to press a series of 0s and 1s eight times in order to send a single character to the computer. Okay, so this establishes the 256 key keyboard and the binary keyboard can do the exact same thing.
But now let's generalize to any input. You mouse send binary signals to the computer. Your joystick. Your microphone. Absolutely everything that flows through the CPU is a string of binary characters. Therefore, a binary keyboard can replace any of the above peripherals. You just have to enter the correct sequence of 0s and 1s and you move the cursor as the mouse would or replicate a voice as the microphone would. Hopefully you're still with me.
It should be clear to you now, that for any command you send to the computer via an input device, I can send one more precise with a binary keyboard. If you use a mouse to move its coordinates 1.00 units to the left, I can send a command with my keyboard to move 1.000 units. On my particular computer, the most precise I can possibly be is 64 bits, and I can achieve this with the binary keyboard by typing in a sequence of 64 binary digits.
This should be very clear to you now. You know the basic unit of a computer is a bit. If you want to count anything or construct any set of instructions, they must be composed of bits. Therefore, a device which can constructs commands of bits is the most fine-grained (precise) input method possible. Going back to your 8bit register, it has 8bits of precision, while the maximum possible on my machine is 64bits. Your argument is therefore only valid for an 8bit processor.
Obviously someone could add a pressure sensor to a keyboard and get 256 bits of precision.
You do realize what you just wrote, don't you? Your pressure sensor converts a pressure reading to a number between 0 and 255, which again can be represented by pressing the binary keyboard 8 times. This means that binary+pressure sensor has the same capabilities as just binary. In fact it's impossible for the pressure sensor to be more precise than the binary keyboard, because the upper limit of possible precision is the processor's architecture, which again the binary keyboard can achieve perfectly.
But if you want to get even more into it, the binary keyboard is still more precise due to the imprecise sensor you introduced. You can type out every single number between 0 and 256 easily and exactly with a binary keyboard. Do you think you can apply 256 different levels of pressure? Do you think if I tell you "apply a pressure of 143" you could hit that exact number on your first try? I know I could with my binary keyboard. 10001111. No you go. I'll be waiting and you let me know how that goes.
Microsoft/Sony might not allow it but Gamestop, Amazon, and other retailers, and friends certainly do. I got Fable II used for $2 only shortly after it was released. I currently see Rage for Xbox 360 on Amazon for $7.00 ($3.00 + $4.00 shipping). And I still swap and borrow games all the time for free with my friends. Can't do that with Steam.
A bit is the smallest logical unit a modern computer can handle, but the more bits you use the more fine-grained you get, ie. a 1bit register can only represent on or off, whereas an 8bit register can register 256 different values. Ergo, your assessment is incorrect.
Alan Turing says I'm correct. Any 8bit register for example can be represented by a string of single bits. Your computer is a subset of a Turing machine, the fine grain control of which is a series of zeros and ones. Anything else is just an abstraction of this.
That doesn't even make sense. Binary literally means a representation of two different values
I'm sorry this confused you, I was using the computer scientist shorthand "binary" meaning "binary code." Since absolutely everything on a computer is just binary code, by typing in a string of binary commands you could be as precise as the processor's architecture can handle. This is about as pure CS as you can get.
You can get games below cost for Xbox and Playstation too. You can either buy second hand or even borrow games from friends. I've gotten many year old games for pennies on the dollar out of the bins at Gamestop. And then there's always sales on Xbox live sales (don't know about PSN since I don't have a PS), which discount games like Steam. Skyrim was only $30 during Christmas.
No, iron. We're going for realism here. But if you thought you could do damage with a wiimote slipping out of your hand.... let's just say the crowbar wrist strap is going to have to be heavy duty.
Considering a bit is the limit for how fine grained you can get on a computer, the keyboard is the most precise input device you could create.... it just has many other shortcomings. Imagine gaming in binary.
My point is that a touchscreen 12 inches from one's eyes is not going to go over very well with a whole lot of normal people.
Point taken. But this still says nothing about the utility of touch on a desktop or laptop. This just says one configuration might not work for another, which is true today For a user with vision problems, they might have to use a proxy touch device... sort of like a large touch pad or a wacom digitizer. Actually you might not need to interact with any surface at all; hardware like the kinect and leap motion might enable gesture based control to be embedded right into your monitor. This presents new problems, like zero tactile feedback, but offers new possibilities like 6DOF multi point input, completely impossible with a mouse or keyboard or even touch.
No, the point was mostly to show that opinions are all over the place. Fujitsu cutting their FY sales estimates from 7M to 6M tell us nothing when the entire industry is moving 350M units a year. It especially tells us nothing about Windows 8, as it wasn't out for the majority of their FY. Just like my original post you replied to, there's a huge wealth of data out there, and focusing on one single statistic, data point, or quote from a CEO doesn't give the full picture.
Google's most recent figure was 700,000 apps in the Google Play store. That's a discrepancy of almost 100,000 apps, probably more since the 700,000 figure is from October. Any ideas why the figures are so different? I'm assuming this App Brain site is crawling the Google Play store for its statistics. They have a nice set of stats, but disappointingly not the one I'm interested in: the number of tablet specific/optimised apps.
At the same time, that revenue figure is only a measurement of the paid apps revenue. The unknown figure for both platforms is how much developers are making from ad revenue. This could potentially be much higher on Android.
It's overwhelmingly games. And of these top 100 apps, developers like Rovio and EA are overrepresented. Meaning if your app isn't a game and your company isn't Rovio, you're probably not making much at all. Rovio and EA on the other hand are probably making well over $700,000.
Dell sells about 3x more machines yearly than Fujitsu. Also, Dell was one of the big OEMs to really make a push on Windows 8, and it appears to be paying off. Fujitsu still does not offer Windows 8 on most of their systems, even their tablets and convertible tablet PCs, where arguably Windows 8 makes the most sense. Their tablets and tablet PCs range from $1000 to over $2000, while Dell is selling comparable systems for half that. It's no wonder they're not seeing the demand they expected.
So unless you aren't going to age, a vertical screen 12 inches away is just a loser idea for us all
Perhaps. But this pretty much describes the common configuration for a laptop, sitting in your lap or on the table in front of you. The laptop I'm typing this on right this very second is about 13" from my eyes. Okay, so maybe this configuration is bad for older eyes. Keyboards are bad for older hands with arthritis. My 98 year old grandfather can type.2 words per minute and has extreme difficulty using a mouse. This does not make keyboard or mouse bad input devices.... it just makes a need for accessibility options for operating systems and hardware.
Apple's last announcements on these figures were in September and October. In September, they quoted 700,000 total iOS apps, and in October they quoted 275,000 iPad apps. That's an average rate 641 total iOS apps per day, and 427 iPad specific apps per day. (Source: Apple)
The numbers on Android are a little hard to find. Does anyone have a figure for how many Android tablet apps are available?
It seems the Google Play store is growing faster, with 833 apps per day on average between September and October... but based on Google's previous announcements they seem to approve apps in fits and starts, with some periods approving thousands of apps per day, and other periods where the approval rate drops to 1/3 of that. (Source: Google)
On the Windows side, the Windows 8/RT store is growing at the same rate as the iPad app catalog, with an average 584 apps per day (before the Holidays). And the Windows Phone store is growing at about 300 apps per day over the past 6 months. I don't know how to combine these figures to compare to Android or iOS, since it's not clear how iOS counts apps for iPhone and iPad (is that 1 app or 2 apps) (Source: http://metrostore.preweb.sk/ and http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/)
Slashdot Mirror
Which doesn't really make all that much sense. What has Apple actually done to cause such a stock drop?
It's not what they've done, it's what they haven't done, and what others have done.
Investors have this perception of Apple as an innovator, creating new markets where none existed, and this perception is built into the stock's valuation. With the iPhone 5, Apple released not a new innovative product, but yet another incremental iteration of the iPhone. Then they did it again with the iPad mini and iPad 4. All the while, you have headlines like Android surpassing iPhone market share, Samsung selling more Galaxy phones than iPhone. The iPad mini was perhaps the worst of the bunch, where Apple was perceived as following Google's lead into smaller tablets, especially when Steve Jobs was quoted as saying they would never do such a thing. Right or wrong, this perception is not good for the narrative that Apple is a leader and can magically create markets where none existed before.
Perhaps the decline has everything to do with the Jobs RDF wearing off. Perhaps it has everything to do with Apple's first mover advantage in smartphones wearing off. Maybe it's just the competition heating up, or a combination of these and other factors. But what's clear is that Apple is no longer in a position to dominate the smartphone and tablet markets on their own, which is a real problem for them, since their massive profits are *largely* derived from iPhone sales.
I don't think it's a coincidence that AAPL hit an all time high the day the iPhone 5 was released, and has been in a steep decline since then.
Microsoft should not have named it "Windows" at all to avoid the confusion. That's the point.
Do you really think iOS and OSX has more distinction than Windows 8 and Windows RT? I've had to explain the difference between iOS and OSX many times to friends and family who were confused as to which was which. This was even worse in the early days of iPhone, when Apple and Steve Jobs insisted very publicly that iPhone ran OSX.
Windows spokespeople (plus fanboys) insisted Vista was doing well right up until Microsoft put a bullet in its brain and launched Win 7.
Of course they did, that's their job (the spokespeople, not the fanboys). But Microsoft's own licenses sold numbers about Vista show the failure. Microsoft announced that they sold 20M Vista licenses in the first month. That rate dropped to an average of 9M units per month for the next two years. That's not the rate you want to be selling at when manufacturers are selling 20M PCs per month worldwide. Windows 7 sold at a rate of 20M units per month on average over its lifetime, when OEMs were shipping 30M units per month. Taking out Apple's Mac sales, that's a much better figure.
Yes, it is has been declining since Oct 26. Here is how the data looks on a daily basis: http://i.imgur.com/hNPSv.png
The blue line is before Windows 8 launch, the red line is after. Windows 7 was at an all time weekly high the week of Oct 26, when Windows 8 was launched. It's been going down steadily since then (minus some distortion due to holidays, but it's now just about back on the original trajectory started on Oct 26).
As for Windows 8, the stats are broken down when you download the CSV data.
2.89% as of today. According to stat counter, windows 8 is growing at about the same rate windows 7 was growing in the month leading up to oct 26 (a little faster actually). Since oct 26 windows 7 has been declining. So much for the theory that everyone is buying windows 8 machines and downgrading. These stats also include all the hundreds of millions of computers sold since 2009, growth in internet traffic, as well as iPad and android stats. So how many machines is 2.89%? We don't know. But it's clear windows 8 is growing and growing steadily, no matter the naysaying here on slashdot.
Microsoft has always included that number in their licenses sold statistic, even with Windows 7, which sold at the same rate.
1) That's actually a low rate for Windows adoption
Windows 7 sold as many licenses in the same period (ref). According to IDC, the PC industry in Q4 2012 sold 89.8M units worldwide (ref). IDC also claims in Q4 2009, the PC industry sold 89.6M units (ref). So between 2009 and 2012 we see no growth and the same sales... we can see Windows 8 is selling at the same rate as Windows 7.
Isn't that the same argument that was made when they sold 40M? Presumably, if there were still 40M licenses sitting on shelves, OEMs wouldn't buy 20M more to further sit on shelves.
OEMs try to keep as little inventory as possible. They only buy as many as they think they can sell. So how many exactly are in consumer's hands? Less than 60M and more than you care to admit.
You are comparing a single action to a series of actions, and then claiming the latter one is superior because repeating it often enough results in more data!
Any machine that only ever performs a single action is not Turing complete. Performing multiple actions sequentially is exactly how computers operate, and is what makes them useful computational devices. If you've been arguing from this perspective, your point still does not hold. Since your computer can only perform one operation, it can only do one of three things only only once: move its read position, change its state, or write a single bit. Thus, the only precision you can achieve is flipping one bit, so the keyboard is *still* the most accurate input device you can achieve.
Now, if you were to compare apples to apples you could use either input device to get the exact same result if you just repeated the action often enough. You could enter 1.000 units with a mouse just as well as you could enter it with a keyboard.
If you read my original comment I said the keyboard is the most precise device you could create. Any device which reduces to the functionality of the binary keyboard, like clicking a mouse button, is therefore obviously just as precise. As long as you can manipulate the data stream on a per bit basis, you've achieved maximum precision. Something like a mouse optical sensor or inertial unit does not work this way (although I could think of a couple ways to rig them to do so). What still is not true is your initial assertion that you could create a device *more* precise.
If you are still confused by any of this, may I suggest a course on Automata Theory? I haven't taken this particular one, but looking at the syllabus, you should have all the information by Week 6 to arrive at the same conclusion I am presenting here.
You mean the values between 0-255 can be represented in binary by entering 8 ones or zeroes, not keyboard presses, as the typical keyboard has 104/105 keys and each key can have two different states. A "binary keyboard" is, again, logically impossible
No, what I mean is literally, a binary keyboard. That is, a keyboard for the express purpose of writing binary code. A hypothetical instrument used to create the tape that programs a turing machine. Again, in computer science the term "binary" is not used as an ajective to refer to "a representation of two different values" as you put it earlier, but is a reference to binary code.
You're confusing the term precision with something else.
Correct, I am conflating accuracy and precision, as is so easy to do. But the first half of this sentence is again wrong, as I will explain below.
You actually just proved your own argument as false there: the sensor only needs to be put in one, single position to reach the same value as you'd have to enter 8 different values in binary to get, ie. the sensor has much wider degree of precision.
Here you are ignoring your own advice to not confuse precision. What does "wide degree of precision" mean? If we're going to start being pedantic, we should define our term precision so as to eliminate all ambiguity. Precision, as I understand it in this context, is to mean how exact you can specify a command. This could be an action, a string, a number... any type of input. Thus, a "wide degree of precision" would mean that the ability of the sensor to specify a command can change. Meaning this sensor might be able to specify 256 levels of pressure or 512. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this as I understand it so please elaborate.
In fact, with this I've mistakenly shown that the binary keyboard is not only precise but accurate. Accuracy, defined as how often we can replicate the same input. I might touch a pressure sensor and get a reading of 143. If I try again, I get a reading of 140. Then 160. But on my binary keyboard, I can enter in 143 every single time. Accuracy.
With the binary keyboard I can construct any string of any length to within the capabilities of the processor I'm using. Precision.
Actually, any number whatsoever can be represented by bits as long as you use enough bits.
I know this very well. I'm surprised you are arguing against me if you also recognize this. Let me try to explain it to you a different way, so perhaps you can see this more clearly. You know of course that when you press keys on your keyboard, you send a binary number to the computer that represents the character you pressed. Let's assume this is an 8bit number, so your keyboard can have 256 unique characters. So then it's easy to see that this 256 key keyboard is the same thing as a keyboard that just has two buttons: 1 and 0. We'll call this a binary keyboard. If you press a 1 it sends a 1. If you press a 0 it sends a 0. So the only difference between this keyboard and the 256 key keyboard is you have to press a series of 0s and 1s eight times in order to send a single character to the computer. Okay, so this establishes the 256 key keyboard and the binary keyboard can do the exact same thing.
But now let's generalize to any input. You mouse send binary signals to the computer. Your joystick. Your microphone. Absolutely everything that flows through the CPU is a string of binary characters. Therefore, a binary keyboard can replace any of the above peripherals. You just have to enter the correct sequence of 0s and 1s and you move the cursor as the mouse would or replicate a voice as the microphone would. Hopefully you're still with me.
It should be clear to you now, that for any command you send to the computer via an input device, I can send one more precise with a binary keyboard. If you use a mouse to move its coordinates 1.00 units to the left, I can send a command with my keyboard to move 1.000 units. On my particular computer, the most precise I can possibly be is 64 bits, and I can achieve this with the binary keyboard by typing in a sequence of 64 binary digits.
This should be very clear to you now. You know the basic unit of a computer is a bit. If you want to count anything or construct any set of instructions, they must be composed of bits. Therefore, a device which can constructs commands of bits is the most fine-grained (precise) input method possible. Going back to your 8bit register, it has 8bits of precision, while the maximum possible on my machine is 64bits. Your argument is therefore only valid for an 8bit processor.
Hopefully this is clear to you now.
Obviously someone could add a pressure sensor to a keyboard and get 256 bits of precision.
You do realize what you just wrote, don't you? Your pressure sensor converts a pressure reading to a number between 0 and 255, which again can be represented by pressing the binary keyboard 8 times. This means that binary+pressure sensor has the same capabilities as just binary. In fact it's impossible for the pressure sensor to be more precise than the binary keyboard, because the upper limit of possible precision is the processor's architecture, which again the binary keyboard can achieve perfectly.
But if you want to get even more into it, the binary keyboard is still more precise due to the imprecise sensor you introduced. You can type out every single number between 0 and 256 easily and exactly with a binary keyboard. Do you think you can apply 256 different levels of pressure? Do you think if I tell you "apply a pressure of 143" you could hit that exact number on your first try? I know I could with my binary keyboard. 10001111. No you go. I'll be waiting and you let me know how that goes.
Microsoft/Sony might not allow it but Gamestop, Amazon, and other retailers, and friends certainly do. I got Fable II used for $2 only shortly after it was released. I currently see Rage for Xbox 360 on Amazon for $7.00 ($3.00 + $4.00 shipping). And I still swap and borrow games all the time for free with my friends. Can't do that with Steam.
A bit is the smallest logical unit a modern computer can handle, but the more bits you use the more fine-grained you get, ie. a 1bit register can only represent on or off, whereas an 8bit register can register 256 different values. Ergo, your assessment is incorrect.
Alan Turing says I'm correct. Any 8bit register for example can be represented by a string of single bits. Your computer is a subset of a Turing machine, the fine grain control of which is a series of zeros and ones. Anything else is just an abstraction of this.
That doesn't even make sense. Binary literally means a representation of two different values
I'm sorry this confused you, I was using the computer scientist shorthand "binary" meaning "binary code." Since absolutely everything on a computer is just binary code, by typing in a string of binary commands you could be as precise as the processor's architecture can handle. This is about as pure CS as you can get.
You can get games below cost for Xbox and Playstation too. You can either buy second hand or even borrow games from friends. I've gotten many year old games for pennies on the dollar out of the bins at Gamestop. And then there's always sales on Xbox live sales (don't know about PSN since I don't have a PS), which discount games like Steam. Skyrim was only $30 during Christmas.
No, iron. We're going for realism here. But if you thought you could do damage with a wiimote slipping out of your hand.... let's just say the crowbar wrist strap is going to have to be heavy duty.
Considering a bit is the limit for how fine grained you can get on a computer, the keyboard is the most precise input device you could create.... it just has many other shortcomings. Imagine gaming in binary.
My point is that a touchscreen 12 inches from one's eyes is not going to go over very well with a whole lot of normal people.
Point taken. But this still says nothing about the utility of touch on a desktop or laptop. This just says one configuration might not work for another, which is true today For a user with vision problems, they might have to use a proxy touch device... sort of like a large touch pad or a wacom digitizer. Actually you might not need to interact with any surface at all; hardware like the kinect and leap motion might enable gesture based control to be embedded right into your monitor. This presents new problems, like zero tactile feedback, but offers new possibilities like 6DOF multi point input, completely impossible with a mouse or keyboard or even touch.
No, the point was mostly to show that opinions are all over the place. Fujitsu cutting their FY sales estimates from 7M to 6M tell us nothing when the entire industry is moving 350M units a year. It especially tells us nothing about Windows 8, as it wasn't out for the majority of their FY. Just like my original post you replied to, there's a huge wealth of data out there, and focusing on one single statistic, data point, or quote from a CEO doesn't give the full picture.
I based my figures from those presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play
Google's most recent figure was 700,000 apps in the Google Play store. That's a discrepancy of almost 100,000 apps, probably more since the 700,000 figure is from October. Any ideas why the figures are so different? I'm assuming this App Brain site is crawling the Google Play store for its statistics. They have a nice set of stats, but disappointingly not the one I'm interested in: the number of tablet specific/optimised apps.
At the same time, that revenue figure is only a measurement of the paid apps revenue. The unknown figure for both platforms is how much developers are making from ad revenue. This could potentially be much higher on Android.
A straight up average is inappropriate, as there are some massive outliers. Take a look at the top paid apps: http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/paid-apps/
It's overwhelmingly games. And of these top 100 apps, developers like Rovio and EA are overrepresented. Meaning if your app isn't a game and your company isn't Rovio, you're probably not making much at all. Rovio and EA on the other hand are probably making well over $700,000.
And here's what Michael Dell had to say about Windows 8: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/dell-says-interest-for-microsoft-s-windows-8-is-high.html
Dell sells about 3x more machines yearly than Fujitsu. Also, Dell was one of the big OEMs to really make a push on Windows 8, and it appears to be paying off. Fujitsu still does not offer Windows 8 on most of their systems, even their tablets and convertible tablet PCs, where arguably Windows 8 makes the most sense. Their tablets and tablet PCs range from $1000 to over $2000, while Dell is selling comparable systems for half that. It's no wonder they're not seeing the demand they expected.
So unless you aren't going to age, a vertical screen 12 inches away is just a loser idea for us all
Perhaps. But this pretty much describes the common configuration for a laptop, sitting in your lap or on the table in front of you. The laptop I'm typing this on right this very second is about 13" from my eyes. Okay, so maybe this configuration is bad for older eyes. Keyboards are bad for older hands with arthritis. My 98 year old grandfather can type .2 words per minute and has extreme difficulty using a mouse. This does not make keyboard or mouse bad input devices.... it just makes a need for accessibility options for operating systems and hardware.
Apple's last announcements on these figures were in September and October. In September, they quoted 700,000 total iOS apps, and in October they quoted 275,000 iPad apps. That's an average rate 641 total iOS apps per day, and 427 iPad specific apps per day. (Source: Apple)
The numbers on Android are a little hard to find. Does anyone have a figure for how many Android tablet apps are available?
It seems the Google Play store is growing faster, with 833 apps per day on average between September and October... but based on Google's previous announcements they seem to approve apps in fits and starts, with some periods approving thousands of apps per day, and other periods where the approval rate drops to 1/3 of that. (Source: Google)
On the Windows side, the Windows 8/RT store is growing at the same rate as the iPad app catalog, with an average 584 apps per day (before the Holidays). And the Windows Phone store is growing at about 300 apps per day over the past 6 months. I don't know how to combine these figures to compare to Android or iOS, since it's not clear how iOS counts apps for iPhone and iPad (is that 1 app or 2 apps) (Source: http://metrostore.preweb.sk/ and http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/)
Anyone else have other figures available?