I saved $2 a month because I cancelled the DVD portion of my membership. I had Blue Velvet sitting on my desk for 6 months and I never watched it. I'm not going to thank Netflix for the price increase, but in my case it is saving me money.
If the content providers win and they start to stream their own content to us then I can get what I always wanted in the first place, that being "a la carte" pricing of cable TV content. I refuse to pay $50/month for the 4 channels I'd like to watch, so I just don't have TV. If all the cable channels start to stream their own content for a buck or two a month then I can finally get a little content which I for one would like. PBR on VS for the win!
I found the video and watched it. I don't feel any more enlightened as a result. While the video of upgrading through all the OSes was really quite interesting to me, this one fell flat. Sorry amigo, but you can't strike gold in every vein.
My GWT (google web toolkit) sites are not working with IE9 this morning. Irritation is starting to grow. I sure hope Google releases an update to the GWT SDK soon. It was a pretty serious error to not get ahead of this I think. The RCs and Betas have been around for and they didn't work either.
That seems reasonable at first glance, but the organizations against net neutrality are old, established, and have long history of greasing the palms of our representatives. The young upstarts are going to have to spend a ton to get to the front of the congressional feed trough.
Why did AT&T bother to put fiber all over town for it's customers' if they don't want us to use the bandwidth? They are Ma Bell, do they really have a shortage of bandwidth?
It's more than that though. They command a high price because the apple store is proprietary so it is really not feasible to commoditize the entire apple experience. Until there is a competitive open app store (and hardware platforms) they will be able to command any price. The Android Market is the most likely candidate, but there are very few apps that are designed for the tablet format yet and, as an android developer, I can tell you that it is not a trivial to just upsize a smart phone app for the tablet form factor. Hours of farting around with the code will have to be done before an app never envisioned for tablet use will work well on the larger device. Longer if you really want to take advantage of all the screen real estate.
Like I said, I applaud Apple for creating a market where none existed and none was needed. To suggest that they are "making it so cheap", implying to me that the OP was suggesting that they were almost giving it away was overselling it quite a bit in my mind. I realize that some people want to be early adopters and are willing to pay premiums for stuff. I'm glad they suffer the irritation so I can buy the product once it has shown usefulness and it has been priced like a commodity. Those early adopters who paid a premium though are deluding themselves if they think they are getting products "so cheap" though.
Do you have an iPad? Like it? My wife is bugging me to get her one. I'm stalling her so I can get an android tablet so I can have a tool for testing software that I write. She has decided that she "needs" this so she can read scientific papers that come in PDF format. She sits for hours in the lazy boy with her laptop on her lap writing, so I don't get the urgency, but to each their own.
I didn't have the article in front of me when I wrote my original comment, but $410 or $500 in markup over parts is less the point than that they are marking up the retail price quite a lot over the price of the parts used to build it. I could care less what they charge, but I thought the suggestion that they are "making it so cheap" didn't make a lot of sense, and I still don't. So, like I said before, I stand by my original comment. I agree though, I was not very clear.
When these devices are priced like the commodity that they are, I might put one in the house. Until then, I'll sit in marvel at Apple convincing a bunch of people to buy an over priced gadget that doesn't perform any necessary task. Apple, I applaud you for separating so many people from so much money.
The 32GB ipad costs 730 and according to these sources the parts cost at or below 300. So the gross margin before labor and FOB china is between $400 & $500. I stand by my original comment.
Cheap? The Wall Street Journal had a story about these. Both of them cost about $500 more than the parts used to build them. Obviously they don't cost $500 to put together and ship, so there is a substantial profit margin.
This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft? Likely less than 1% of people would ever care to look at the source; many times fewer still would ever successfully compile it. I'm completely confused by this.
Much like music before it, publishers can't decide if books are personal or intellectual property. If they are personal property, then you should be able to do with it what you want after you purchase it. Put it on any device. Share your ONE copy as you want. Sell it when you are done etc. If a book is intellectual property and you only have a license to the content, then the form of the content takes should be provided to the license holder at cost. Say I buy a license to Rush, 2112, a favorite album of mine. I should be able to get an MP3 version for the cost of transmitting it to me. I should be able to get a CD, LP, cassette, 8 track or whatever new format is available whenever and as often as I want one for the cost reproduction and delivery. If books are intellectual property, then I should be able to get a nook, kindle, mobi, pdf, word doc, and any other digital version for the pennies it would cost to deliver it to me and printed versions should be made available at printing cost + shipping once I've purchased a license. The caveat for IP is that I cannot share it with anyone ever.
As it is now, they want the best of both worlds. They sell me a license to the content and give me no credit for that license if I want to put that content on some other device I own. Buying a printed version in the IP world should essentially mean I get free digital versions of that product for life. Same with music. I promise you that if you sold Harper Collins a piece of software and they lost the hard drive it was on, they'd insist that you let them install it on another computer. Why are we not treated the same way?
When I was campaigning for this man, who is now the president, I had hoped he would turn back the clock and fix the over reaching of his predecessors. So naive! I'm ashamed of myself for HOPING. I should have know it would just be the same shit, different day.
If they are building a factory and mass producing these things, as they claim, then they must believe they work. They would be investing a lot of money in tool manufacture to get the factory pumping out units. If they really do it, the device almost certainly works to some degree. Lenders are not stupid (recent events in the mortgage industry aside) so they will only finance it if it works and if these guys are fraudsters motivated by making money, building a factory isn't the profitable way to start.
This is all much ado about nothing until the product is in the Sharper Image catalog. When it is in there though, I'll read the reviews at Amazon and then I'm going buy one. If this is all a fantasy of a deranged mind, then who cares anyway?
Couldn't Sony put a new certificate on a dongle that all new games would require. One dongle for all games and let sony pay for it. It took years for the last dongle to get cracked. Would this one be any different?
It hardly matters how it works. It only matters that is does work. Smarter people can then go about figuring out how it works. Let these people make the investment in a factory to build these machines. The DoE can buy one can test it. If it takes nickel and hydrogen and energy and makes copper and 31*energy, then we can all retire or join the United Federation of Planets. Otherwise we are just out a few thousand dollars; money that otherwise would have been spent to kill brown people for Jesus in a foreign land. We are all better off no matter what how it turns out!
Slashdot Mirror
I saved $2 a month because I cancelled the DVD portion of my membership. I had Blue Velvet sitting on my desk for 6 months and I never watched it. I'm not going to thank Netflix for the price increase, but in my case it is saving me money.
They cannot say with certitude if they were actually hijacked. I'm thinking Hannity got this drink on last night...
I wonder if this will extend to any website built in GWT? That would be sort of err...sucky.
If the content providers win and they start to stream their own content to us then I can get what I always wanted in the first place, that being "a la carte" pricing of cable TV content. I refuse to pay $50/month for the 4 channels I'd like to watch, so I just don't have TV. If all the cable channels start to stream their own content for a buck or two a month then I can finally get a little content which I for one would like. PBR on VS for the win!
That's what you get for putting money on the line. No one would do that for the glory of it because there would be no glory in it.
That seems unlikely. Care to elaborate your point of view.
I sure hope AT&T will let me get 3G speeds on my Nexus S now. I'm stuck on EDGE. Lame.
in a word, no
I found the video and watched it. I don't feel any more enlightened as a result. While the video of upgrading through all the OSes was really quite interesting to me, this one fell flat. Sorry amigo, but you can't strike gold in every vein.
My GWT (google web toolkit) sites are not working with IE9 this morning. Irritation is starting to grow. I sure hope Google releases an update to the GWT SDK soon. It was a pretty serious error to not get ahead of this I think. The RCs and Betas have been around for and they didn't work either.
That seems reasonable at first glance, but the organizations against net neutrality are old, established, and have long history of greasing the palms of our representatives. The young upstarts are going to have to spend a ton to get to the front of the congressional feed trough.
Why did AT&T bother to put fiber all over town for it's customers' if they don't want us to use the bandwidth? They are Ma Bell, do they really have a shortage of bandwidth?
It's more than that though. They command a high price because the apple store is proprietary so it is really not feasible to commoditize the entire apple experience. Until there is a competitive open app store (and hardware platforms) they will be able to command any price. The Android Market is the most likely candidate, but there are very few apps that are designed for the tablet format yet and, as an android developer, I can tell you that it is not a trivial to just upsize a smart phone app for the tablet form factor. Hours of farting around with the code will have to be done before an app never envisioned for tablet use will work well on the larger device. Longer if you really want to take advantage of all the screen real estate.
Like I said, I applaud Apple for creating a market where none existed and none was needed. To suggest that they are "making it so cheap", implying to me that the OP was suggesting that they were almost giving it away was overselling it quite a bit in my mind. I realize that some people want to be early adopters and are willing to pay premiums for stuff. I'm glad they suffer the irritation so I can buy the product once it has shown usefulness and it has been priced like a commodity. Those early adopters who paid a premium though are deluding themselves if they think they are getting products "so cheap" though.
Do you have an iPad? Like it? My wife is bugging me to get her one. I'm stalling her so I can get an android tablet so I can have a tool for testing software that I write. She has decided that she "needs" this so she can read scientific papers that come in PDF format. She sits for hours in the lazy boy with her laptop on her lap writing, so I don't get the urgency, but to each their own.
I didn't have the article in front of me when I wrote my original comment, but $410 or $500 in markup over parts is less the point than that they are marking up the retail price quite a lot over the price of the parts used to build it. I could care less what they charge, but I thought the suggestion that they are "making it so cheap" didn't make a lot of sense, and I still don't. So, like I said before, I stand by my original comment. I agree though, I was not very clear.
When these devices are priced like the commodity that they are, I might put one in the house. Until then, I'll sit in marvel at Apple convincing a bunch of people to buy an over priced gadget that doesn't perform any necessary task. Apple, I applaud you for separating so many people from so much money.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-07/apple-ipad-parts-may-cost-as-little-as-260-isuppli-says-after-teardown.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20037865-64.html
The 32GB ipad costs 730 and according to these sources the parts cost at or below 300. So the gross margin before labor and FOB china is between $400 & $500. I stand by my original comment.
Cheap? The Wall Street Journal had a story about these. Both of them cost about $500 more than the parts used to build them. Obviously they don't cost $500 to put together and ship, so there is a substantial profit margin.
MS Bob and Apple Newton come to mind.
This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft? Likely less than 1% of people would ever care to look at the source; many times fewer still would ever successfully compile it. I'm completely confused by this.
Much like music before it, publishers can't decide if books are personal or intellectual property. If they are personal property, then you should be able to do with it what you want after you purchase it. Put it on any device. Share your ONE copy as you want. Sell it when you are done etc. If a book is intellectual property and you only have a license to the content, then the form of the content takes should be provided to the license holder at cost. Say I buy a license to Rush, 2112, a favorite album of mine. I should be able to get an MP3 version for the cost of transmitting it to me. I should be able to get a CD, LP, cassette, 8 track or whatever new format is available whenever and as often as I want one for the cost reproduction and delivery. If books are intellectual property, then I should be able to get a nook, kindle, mobi, pdf, word doc, and any other digital version for the pennies it would cost to deliver it to me and printed versions should be made available at printing cost + shipping once I've purchased a license. The caveat for IP is that I cannot share it with anyone ever.
As it is now, they want the best of both worlds. They sell me a license to the content and give me no credit for that license if I want to put that content on some other device I own. Buying a printed version in the IP world should essentially mean I get free digital versions of that product for life. Same with music. I promise you that if you sold Harper Collins a piece of software and they lost the hard drive it was on, they'd insist that you let them install it on another computer. Why are we not treated the same way?
When I was campaigning for this man, who is now the president, I had hoped he would turn back the clock and fix the over reaching of his predecessors. So naive! I'm ashamed of myself for HOPING. I should have know it would just be the same shit, different day.
I think you are missing the point of the story. It is SO FANTASIC a tale that to test it out will be very easy and therefore very cheap.
Every once and a while people stumble onto fantasic advances. No reason to ignore it completely when a trivial inspection can verify it.
If they are building a factory and mass producing these things, as they claim, then they must believe they work. They would be investing a lot of money in tool manufacture to get the factory pumping out units. If they really do it, the device almost certainly works to some degree. Lenders are not stupid (recent events in the mortgage industry aside) so they will only finance it if it works and if these guys are fraudsters motivated by making money, building a factory isn't the profitable way to start.
This is all much ado about nothing until the product is in the Sharper Image catalog. When it is in there though, I'll read the reviews at Amazon and then I'm going buy one. If this is all a fantasy of a deranged mind, then who cares anyway?
The investment in their factory to manufacture these machines will be more than the cost of a single unit.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profit
Look it up, it's a cool word.
Couldn't Sony put a new certificate on a dongle that all new games would require. One dongle for all games and let sony pay for it. It took years for the last dongle to get cracked. Would this one be any different?
It hardly matters how it works. It only matters that is does work. Smarter people can then go about figuring out how it works. Let these people make the investment in a factory to build these machines. The DoE can buy one can test it. If it takes nickel and hydrogen and energy and makes copper and 31*energy, then we can all retire or join the United Federation of Planets. Otherwise we are just out a few thousand dollars; money that otherwise would have been spent to kill brown people for Jesus in a foreign land. We are all better off no matter what how it turns out!