All the Amazon lockdown is what sucks about the Kindle Fire. They tried to make it a more feature-full book reader, rather than a full-blown tablet computer, and they succeeded.
Apple: 50+% of the phone industry by revenue, 80+% of the phone industry by profit, and the tablet industry?
But a minority of the market by volume, and declining, and as volume share continues to drop, revenue and profit shares will follow. The problem with owning the high end and letting others own the low end is that as low-end device capabilities improve the high end gets squeezed out.
the tablet industry? hell, let's just call a spade a spade and call it the iPad industry.
The Nexus 7 hasn't even started shipping yet, but there's every reason to expect that it will significantly change the tablet market. Apple doesn't want to sell $200 devices with basically no profit margin, but it's very likely that huge numbers of people will want to buy a powerful tablet for $200. There really hasn't been a low end of the tablet market for Apple to worry about, because all of the cheap tablets sucked. The Nexus 7 is very likely to change that, sparking a fierce competition that Apple doesn't want to play in. It's very likely that the result will be that Apple will again find itself owning the lower-volume, higher-value part of the space.
Unlike the late 80s and early 90s, I think there is room today for more than one winner, because the big, complex apps tend to be based in the cloud, with phone and tablet apps primarily being small, simple pieces of software, so it's not unreasonable for software makers to implement their mobile apps twice (I'm not sure they're going to want to do it three times, though; sorry, Microsoft). Even in the PC era, Apple was largely able to hold onto a high-end, profitable niche, and it seems likely that they'll be able to do that even better today.
But Apple's single-manufacturer model is pretty much guaranteed to end up getting squeezed out of most of the market in the long run. I predict they'll be able to maintain around 25%.
If you click on "show search tools" on the left, and then "verbatim", Google will stop searching for other spellings and synonyms and will require all search terms to be on the page. In general, verbatim mode actually lowers the quality of the search results, which is why it's turned off by default, but there are exceptions so it's made available as an option.
Michigan is enormous. It's farther from the Detroit to the straits of Macinac than it is from Detroit to New York City, and the straits are only a little over halfway to the border
Huh?
Just measured (with Google Maps): Straight-line distance from Detroit to the strait is ~255 miles, driving distance is ~288 miles. Straight-line distance from Detroit to New York City is ~480 miles, driving distance is ~614 miles.
New York City is roughly twice as far from Detroit as the Strait of Mackinac.
1. tab-only (I do not like tabs, and have tried many times to use them but just cannot do it),[...] 4. a non-user-friendly bookmark interface
These are related. The expected way to use bookmarks in Chrome is tightly tied to tabbed browsing. When you open a new, empty tab, you're shown your bookmarks at the top of the empty page, ready to use. If you like tabs (I do), this is very slick. Control-T to open a tab, then click the bookmark you want.
As CronoCloud loves to tell me: "You are an edge case."
I think the guy who wants two different search bars is the edge case. Most people would rather just query in one place and have the device find what they're looking for without bothering them about specifying where to look.
Gmail does it quite well, IMO. Just hit the link to "pop out" each message into a separate window.
The link to pop it out into a new window is "after" i open a message. It should be in the message list.
Meh. Perhaps you open messages in separate windows a lot more than I do..
How so? The only difference is whether your attachment has to get uploaded while you compose the message or when you send the message.
If it takes me 5 minutes to compose a few messages and it takes the mail client 45 minutes to send them, that's a a lot better. I can go do something else.
Either your network connection is really slow, or you send really huge attachments. Perhaps I don't care about this because I never send large files as attachments any more.
. For batch handling, Gmail allows you to query for larger sets of threads and apply operations to the entire set at once (click "Select All" to select all visible, then click the link that pops up to select all matches). You can perform operations on thousands of messages at once.
Its much clumsier, especially for arbitrary selections.
In what way?
You can do this with Gmail's tags. They can be nested, and they show up as expandable/collapsible folders within folders.
And it works, but its clumsier in html/javascript, than it is on a native application. Its less responsive, its less clear what it is doing, its less clear what is being selected. Especially on an older / slower computer.
You say it's clumsier and less responsive... in what way is it clumsier? As far as responsiveness, it's instantaneous on all of my machines, including my Chromebook, which is hardly a speed demon. Less clear what it's doing how? You click the twisty and it opens the sub-folder list. You click on a sub-folder and it displays the messages. How could that be clearer?
So what you're really talking about here is a deficiency of IMAP.
If you restrict yourself to treating Gmail labels as though they were as limited as IMAP folders, the problem disappears.
What is the point of googles tag model if you are just going to use them like folders?
Well, fine, but it hardly makes sense to call it additional functionality a weakness.
If you wanted to do something similar with a regular IMAP client, you'd have had to copy the message to each relevant folder (meaning you'd actually have 40GB of e-mail).
That's beside the point. People using folder systems tend to organize things in folders. People using tag systems tend to tag things. The problem is not that IMAP is a poor way to implement a tag system, the problem is that google gives us a tag system and no tools to properly migrate tagged data.
You can migrate it just fine via IMAP, as you mentioned. So it's not quite as efficient as it could be... big whoop. This is a reason to prefer standalone mail clients? I don't see it.
#1 Synchronization of drafts across multiple computers. Yeah, you can save something to your "Drafts" IMAP folder and then sync it to a different computer to start working on it, but with Gmail you can just start typing a response, then walk away, grab a different computer a few hours (or seconds!) later and there's your auto-saved draft, in the thread.
Thunderbird auto saves to drafts too.
Hmm. It's been a couple of years since I used Thunderbird, but I don't recall that it continuously auto-saves. If so, then that's just as good as Gmail.
#3 Priority Inbox. If you handle large amounts of e-mail on a daily basis, priority inbox rocks....
This is not a webmail specific feature, and could be easily implemented in any client.
Why not use the web interface? Email is simple enough that in my experience there really isn't a lot that a native app can do that a good webmail interface can't.
There are several things.
#1 I like really advanced complex features like having multiple messages open simultaneously, the average web interface either doesn't support this or does it poorly.
Gmail does it quite well, IMO. Just hit the link to "pop out" each message into a separate window.
#3 Hotkeys - yes some web interfaces have them, but its a mess.
How so? I think Gmail's keyboard interface is great. I can't think of any case I have to use the mouse with Gmail that I wouldn't have to use it with Thunderbird.
#4 Attachment handling - web clients are getting better but it still sucks, and its far worse if your internet connection is ever less than perfect.
How so? The only difference is whether your attachment has to get uploaded while you compose the message or when you send the message.
#5 Mass message handling... most web clients let you handle a page of email at a time.
I'm not certain what you mean by this. Thunderbird gives you a longer scrolling list, but you can set Gmail to show 50 threads at a time, and you can only read/respond to one message at a time anyway. For batch handling, Gmail allows you to query for larger sets of threads and apply operations to the entire set at once (click "Select All" to select all visible, then click the link that pops up to select all matches). You can perform operations on thousands of messages at once.
#6 Folders - yeah yeah... gmail has tags and they aren't bad either, but like being able to expand and collapse folders within folders within folders.
You can do this with Gmail's tags. They can be nested, and they show up as expandable/collapsible folders within folders.
On the subject of tags...here's an interesting problem... migrate all your tagged mail from one gmail account to another one. This is painful as hell. I'm speaking as a Google Apps for Enterprises user here too... the paid version with phone support...
Only way to do is via IMAP,... which treats tags as folders. So if you've got someone with 5GB of email who is really got into tagging, and every message is tagged 3 or 4 different ways, IMAP sees it as 40GB of email.
And this is only a problem because you took advantage of the ability to have multiple tags on e-mails. If you wanted to do something similar with a regular IMAP client, you'd have had to copy the message to each relevant folder (meaning you'd actually have 40GB of e-mail).
So what you're really talking about here is a deficiency of IMAP. If you restrict yourself to treating Gmail labels as though they were as limited as IMAP folders, the problem disappears.
Now for some things that Gmail does better than Thunderbird:
#1 Synchronization of drafts across multiple computers. Yeah, you can save something to your "Drafts" IMAP folder and then sync it to a different computer to start working on it, but with Gmail you can just start typing a response, then walk away, grab a different computer a few hours (or seconds!) later and there's your auto-saved draft, in the thread. Finish it and send it. I do this all the time... start typing an e-mail on my desktop machine, then have to run off to a meeting, taking my laptop or my tablet with me, then finish it up there and send it.
#2 This auto-saving to the cloud is also awesome when your machine crashes, power goes out, etc.
#3 Priority Inbox. If you handle large amounts of e-mail on a daily basis, priority inbox rocks. I get hundreds of non-spam e-mails per day, most of which I don't actually need to look at, most of the time. Gmail's priority inbox does an amazing job of picking out the s
Have you ever thought marrying, having kids and a family are fundamental rights of a human (and even an animal)?
What exactly do you mean by "rights"? If you mean that no one should be able to stop you from doing those things, then I agree. If you mean that society owes you a living that enables you do to those things, then I disagree.
However, raising a family can be done on virtually any income. If you don't make much money, it means a lot of sacrifices by both you and your wife, but it can absolutely be done. Many, many people raise happy, healthy families on very low incomes.
Out of all the people in the entire world, are you saying, without a single piece of evidence, that not a single one of those people love a pet as much as a child? Calling the idea "insane" because you don't like it doesn't prove anything.
All people in the world is a ridiculously high standard for proof, especially since it includes a lot of people who have no idea if they'd love a child more, since they haven't had one. So the way you pose the question, it's inherently unanswerable.
A more practical question is: What percentage of people who love both pets and their children would equate the two? Imagine doing a survey with a series of questions "Do you have a pet? Do you love your pet a great deal? Do you have a child? Would you say you love your pet more, less or about the same as your child?". A "no" to any of the first three would end the questions; we're only interested in responses from people who have a basis for comparison.
Of course, I've never performed such a survey. What I have seen, anecdotally, but dozens of times, is people who have pets they care a great deal about, for years, and then have a child. What happens in every single case I've observed is that the pet instantly becomes far less important. The feelings for the pet don't change, but they're dwarfed by the feelings for the child.
Might there be exceptions? Certainly there may, but my observation is that if there are, they're very few -- and I suspect the exceptions would be people who are emotionally damaged in some way. Might you be such an exception? It's possible, but you can't know until you have a child.
That's not to say you should. If you don't feel a powerful desire for children, then by all means don't have them. But it's a stretch to argue that a normal, healthy human being can love a pet as much as a child, from what I've observed. I think we're just hard-wired to love our kids in a way that pets can't replicate.
My son's phone (Nexus S running ICS) is configured and working fine with a non-Google account. He can use Google Play to get apps, books, and stuff. Works fine. Is this an Android version issue?
From previous experience my browser fingerprint from one fingerprint-info site, told me that my browser finger print was unique out of over 300K visitors to date. That's fairly specific.
If that's the same site I saw... I visited it twice and it told me my fingerprint was unique the second time, too. I think it's bogus.
Loss of innocent life is a much bigger issue than destruction of evidence. Paramilitary tactics create way too much of the former to be justified by the latter.
Which I think is stupid. Absent someone being in danger inside the location, or (and even this is iffy) the possible destruction of evidence, there is absolutely no reason to be that aggressive.
Given the number of people (and officers) who are killed every year due to aggressive entry tactics, including a fair number of completely innocent people (not to mention criminals whose crimes did not justify summary execution), I think the only reason those tactics should ever be used is if someone's life is in imminent danger. And I think police officials who use or order such tactics when not necessary should be charged with negligent homicide if they go wrong and someone dies.
...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.
So don't record video while you're driving. Honestly, I expect that people won't be using this to stream their life anyway, for a simple, pragmatic reason: battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
What sort of Amazon lockdown are you referring to? Kindle Fire supports "Unknown sources".
How about Android Market, er, Google Play?
I have to admit that I don't have firsthand knowledge of the suckage here, and haven't dug into the detailed complaints of my friends who do.
All the Amazon lockdown is what sucks about the Kindle Fire. They tried to make it a more feature-full book reader, rather than a full-blown tablet computer, and they succeeded.
Apple: 50+% of the phone industry by revenue, 80+% of the phone industry by profit, and the tablet industry?
But a minority of the market by volume, and declining, and as volume share continues to drop, revenue and profit shares will follow. The problem with owning the high end and letting others own the low end is that as low-end device capabilities improve the high end gets squeezed out.
the tablet industry? hell, let's just call a spade a spade and call it the iPad industry.
The Nexus 7 hasn't even started shipping yet, but there's every reason to expect that it will significantly change the tablet market. Apple doesn't want to sell $200 devices with basically no profit margin, but it's very likely that huge numbers of people will want to buy a powerful tablet for $200. There really hasn't been a low end of the tablet market for Apple to worry about, because all of the cheap tablets sucked. The Nexus 7 is very likely to change that, sparking a fierce competition that Apple doesn't want to play in. It's very likely that the result will be that Apple will again find itself owning the lower-volume, higher-value part of the space.
Unlike the late 80s and early 90s, I think there is room today for more than one winner, because the big, complex apps tend to be based in the cloud, with phone and tablet apps primarily being small, simple pieces of software, so it's not unreasonable for software makers to implement their mobile apps twice (I'm not sure they're going to want to do it three times, though; sorry, Microsoft). Even in the PC era, Apple was largely able to hold onto a high-end, profitable niche, and it seems likely that they'll be able to do that even better today.
But Apple's single-manufacturer model is pretty much guaranteed to end up getting squeezed out of most of the market in the long run. I predict they'll be able to maintain around 25%.
it's not really about source access even though. it's about operators like verizon selling devices with locked bootloaders.
Do you think the Nexus 7 will be locked?
Actually if I had my choice I would rather have an 11.5 inch ipad. I want an 8.5X11 or A5 size screen.
A tablet with an 8.5"x11" screen would be a 13.9" tablet. Screens are measured diagonally, for some reason.
If you click on "show search tools" on the left, and then "verbatim", Google will stop searching for other spellings and synonyms and will require all search terms to be on the page. In general, verbatim mode actually lowers the quality of the search results, which is why it's turned off by default, but there are exceptions so it's made available as an option.
Michigan is enormous. It's farther from the Detroit to the straits of Macinac than it is from Detroit to New York City, and the straits are only a little over halfway to the border
Huh?
Just measured (with Google Maps): Straight-line distance from Detroit to the strait is ~255 miles, driving distance is ~288 miles. Straight-line distance from Detroit to New York City is ~480 miles, driving distance is ~614 miles.
New York City is roughly twice as far from Detroit as the Strait of Mackinac.
Which taken together provide long term cost savings, mostly because you are investing in your own resources.
Not that I disagree at all (or want to), but a citation or two on this would be good to have around if anyone has 'em.
I'm sure HP/EDS, IBM, Capgemini, and Wipro can provide plenty of citations showing the opposite.
1. tab-only (I do not like tabs, and have tried many times to use them but just cannot do it),[...] 4. a non-user-friendly bookmark interface
These are related. The expected way to use bookmarks in Chrome is tightly tied to tabbed browsing. When you open a new, empty tab, you're shown your bookmarks at the top of the empty page, ready to use. If you like tabs (I do), this is very slick. Control-T to open a tab, then click the bookmark you want.
As CronoCloud loves to tell me: "You are an edge case."
I think the guy who wants two different search bars is the edge case. Most people would rather just query in one place and have the device find what they're looking for without bothering them about specifying where to look.
Gmail does it quite well, IMO. Just hit the link to "pop out" each message into a separate window.
The link to pop it out into a new window is "after" i open a message. It should be in the message list.
Meh. Perhaps you open messages in separate windows a lot more than I do..
How so? The only difference is whether your attachment has to get uploaded while you compose the message or when you send the message.
If it takes me 5 minutes to compose a few messages and it takes the mail client 45 minutes to send them, that's a a lot better. I can go do something else.
Either your network connection is really slow, or you send really huge attachments. Perhaps I don't care about this because I never send large files as attachments any more.
. For batch handling, Gmail allows you to query for larger sets of threads and apply operations to the entire set at once (click "Select All" to select all visible, then click the link that pops up to select all matches). You can perform operations on thousands of messages at once.
Its much clumsier, especially for arbitrary selections.
In what way?
You can do this with Gmail's tags. They can be nested, and they show up as expandable/collapsible folders within folders.
And it works, but its clumsier in html/javascript, than it is on a native application. Its less responsive, its less clear what it is doing, its less clear what is being selected. Especially on an older / slower computer.
You say it's clumsier and less responsive... in what way is it clumsier? As far as responsiveness, it's instantaneous on all of my machines, including my Chromebook, which is hardly a speed demon. Less clear what it's doing how? You click the twisty and it opens the sub-folder list. You click on a sub-folder and it displays the messages. How could that be clearer?
So what you're really talking about here is a deficiency of IMAP.
If you restrict yourself to treating Gmail labels as though they were as limited as IMAP folders, the problem disappears.
What is the point of googles tag model if you are just going to use them like folders?
Well, fine, but it hardly makes sense to call it additional functionality a weakness.
If you wanted to do something similar with a regular IMAP client, you'd have had to copy the message to each relevant folder (meaning you'd actually have 40GB of e-mail).
That's beside the point. People using folder systems tend to organize things in folders. People using tag systems tend to tag things. The problem is not that IMAP is a poor way to implement a tag system, the problem is that google gives us a tag system and no tools to properly migrate tagged data.
You can migrate it just fine via IMAP, as you mentioned. So it's not quite as efficient as it could be... big whoop. This is a reason to prefer standalone mail clients? I don't see it.
#1 Synchronization of drafts across multiple computers. Yeah, you can save something to your "Drafts" IMAP folder and then sync it to a different computer to start working on it, but with Gmail you can just start typing a response, then walk away, grab a different computer a few hours (or seconds!) later and there's your auto-saved draft, in the thread.
Thunderbird auto saves to drafts too.
Hmm. It's been a couple of years since I used Thunderbird, but I don't recall that it continuously auto-saves. If so, then that's just as good as Gmail.
#3 Priority Inbox. If you handle large amounts of e-mail on a daily basis, priority inbox rocks....
This is not a webmail specific feature, and could be easily implemented in any client.
"Could be" != "is". Thunderbird doesn't do it.
Why not use the web interface? Email is simple enough that in my experience there really isn't a lot that a native app can do that a good webmail interface can't.
There are several things.
#1 I like really advanced complex features like having multiple messages open simultaneously, the average web interface either doesn't support this or does it poorly.
Gmail does it quite well, IMO. Just hit the link to "pop out" each message into a separate window.
#3 Hotkeys - yes some web interfaces have them, but its a mess.
How so? I think Gmail's keyboard interface is great. I can't think of any case I have to use the mouse with Gmail that I wouldn't have to use it with Thunderbird.
#4 Attachment handling - web clients are getting better but it still sucks, and its far worse if your internet connection is ever less than perfect.
How so? The only difference is whether your attachment has to get uploaded while you compose the message or when you send the message.
#5 Mass message handling... most web clients let you handle a page of email at a time.
I'm not certain what you mean by this. Thunderbird gives you a longer scrolling list, but you can set Gmail to show 50 threads at a time, and you can only read/respond to one message at a time anyway. For batch handling, Gmail allows you to query for larger sets of threads and apply operations to the entire set at once (click "Select All" to select all visible, then click the link that pops up to select all matches). You can perform operations on thousands of messages at once.
#6 Folders - yeah yeah... gmail has tags and they aren't bad either, but like being able to expand and collapse folders within folders within folders.
You can do this with Gmail's tags. They can be nested, and they show up as expandable/collapsible folders within folders.
On the subject of tags ...here's an interesting problem... migrate all your tagged mail from one gmail account to another one. This is painful as hell. I'm speaking as a Google Apps for Enterprises user here too... the paid version with phone support...
Only way to do is via IMAP,... which treats tags as folders. So if you've got someone with 5GB of email who is really got into tagging, and every message is tagged 3 or 4 different ways, IMAP sees it as 40GB of email.
And this is only a problem because you took advantage of the ability to have multiple tags on e-mails. If you wanted to do something similar with a regular IMAP client, you'd have had to copy the message to each relevant folder (meaning you'd actually have 40GB of e-mail).
So what you're really talking about here is a deficiency of IMAP. If you restrict yourself to treating Gmail labels as though they were as limited as IMAP folders, the problem disappears.
Now for some things that Gmail does better than Thunderbird:
#1 Synchronization of drafts across multiple computers. Yeah, you can save something to your "Drafts" IMAP folder and then sync it to a different computer to start working on it, but with Gmail you can just start typing a response, then walk away, grab a different computer a few hours (or seconds!) later and there's your auto-saved draft, in the thread. Finish it and send it. I do this all the time... start typing an e-mail on my desktop machine, then have to run off to a meeting, taking my laptop or my tablet with me, then finish it up there and send it.
#2 This auto-saving to the cloud is also awesome when your machine crashes, power goes out, etc.
#3 Priority Inbox. If you handle large amounts of e-mail on a daily basis, priority inbox rocks. I get hundreds of non-spam e-mails per day, most of which I don't actually need to look at, most of the time. Gmail's priority inbox does an amazing job of picking out the s
I saw the same thing, but I think they meant "Google" as a verb here. It's just poorly worded.
Ah, that makes sense. I should have seen that because the other interpretation is so clearly wrong.
Google "cut off Netscape's air supply".
s/Google/Microsoft/
Have you ever thought marrying, having kids and a family are fundamental rights of a human (and even an animal)?
What exactly do you mean by "rights"? If you mean that no one should be able to stop you from doing those things, then I agree. If you mean that society owes you a living that enables you do to those things, then I disagree.
However, raising a family can be done on virtually any income. If you don't make much money, it means a lot of sacrifices by both you and your wife, but it can absolutely be done. Many, many people raise happy, healthy families on very low incomes.
Out of all the people in the entire world, are you saying, without a single piece of evidence, that not a single one of those people love a pet as much as a child? Calling the idea "insane" because you don't like it doesn't prove anything.
All people in the world is a ridiculously high standard for proof, especially since it includes a lot of people who have no idea if they'd love a child more, since they haven't had one. So the way you pose the question, it's inherently unanswerable.
A more practical question is: What percentage of people who love both pets and their children would equate the two? Imagine doing a survey with a series of questions "Do you have a pet? Do you love your pet a great deal? Do you have a child? Would you say you love your pet more, less or about the same as your child?". A "no" to any of the first three would end the questions; we're only interested in responses from people who have a basis for comparison.
Of course, I've never performed such a survey. What I have seen, anecdotally, but dozens of times, is people who have pets they care a great deal about, for years, and then have a child. What happens in every single case I've observed is that the pet instantly becomes far less important. The feelings for the pet don't change, but they're dwarfed by the feelings for the child.
Might there be exceptions? Certainly there may, but my observation is that if there are, they're very few -- and I suspect the exceptions would be people who are emotionally damaged in some way. Might you be such an exception? It's possible, but you can't know until you have a child.
That's not to say you should. If you don't feel a powerful desire for children, then by all means don't have them. But it's a stretch to argue that a normal, healthy human being can love a pet as much as a child, from what I've observed. I think we're just hard-wired to love our kids in a way that pets can't replicate.
You didn't notice the lack of the giant home button?
Is the big money from Google TV and Apple TV going to be selling low-margin boxes, or in selling your viewing habits?
Google doesn't sell customer data, except in aggregate, statistical form, and not much of that.
My son's phone (Nexus S running ICS) is configured and working fine with a non-Google account. He can use Google Play to get apps, books, and stuff. Works fine. Is this an Android version issue?
Judging by my own defunct hotmail account, I wouldn't want to do that. So much spam.
But it'd all get run through Gmail's spam filters, so you wouldn't actually see it.
From previous experience my browser fingerprint from one fingerprint-info site, told me that my browser finger print was unique out of over 300K visitors to date. That's fairly specific.
If that's the same site I saw... I visited it twice and it told me my fingerprint was unique the second time, too. I think it's bogus.
Loss of innocent life is a much bigger issue than destruction of evidence. Paramilitary tactics create way too much of the former to be justified by the latter.
Nothing new/useful to see here. Move along, move along. Feel free to Google "ECMO" as you're heading out the door....
How many ambulances carry an ECMO machine?
Their training says to strike hard...
Which I think is stupid. Absent someone being in danger inside the location, or (and even this is iffy) the possible destruction of evidence, there is absolutely no reason to be that aggressive.
Given the number of people (and officers) who are killed every year due to aggressive entry tactics, including a fair number of completely innocent people (not to mention criminals whose crimes did not justify summary execution), I think the only reason those tactics should ever be used is if someone's life is in imminent danger. And I think police officials who use or order such tactics when not necessary should be charged with negligent homicide if they go wrong and someone dies.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.
So don't record video while you're driving. Honestly, I expect that people won't be using this to stream their life anyway, for a simple, pragmatic reason: battery life.