The Chrome results are most surprising. I always thought it was the most efficient, while Internet Explorer and Firefox were bloated and slow. If these results are correct, it looks like Chrome is a bad choice if battery life is important.
I still don't think I can bring myself to using Internet Explorer but Firefox's results are close enough.
I trust Amazon to store my files compared to myself. I am lazy when it comes to backing files up and if someone breaks into my house and steals my computer, I am screwed. If you are very paranoid, you can keep a backup copy on your own computer and one on the cloud.
Amazon lets you download the music you buy so you can keep it forever and not have to rely on streaming. The cloud just provides a easy way to access your music collection from multiple devices
Chrome OS, Android, etc. do nothing to "widen the moat" (other than maybe some name recognition).
Android definitely widens the moat. It increases the value of the Google brand and prevents competitors like Bing from stealing market share in the mobile search and advertising.
Buffett talked about the value of Disney before the mid 90s when they cheapened the brand by releasing crap. When you bought a cartoon for you kids to watch, you know that the Disney movie will be quality even if you never heard of the movie before. No other cartoon studio could match Disney at the time.
Google has a similar moat as Disney used to have. People know that Google is a trustworthy company and has many quality products. Would you rather have a Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo or AOL email address? How do you feel about using Yahoo or Bing as a search engine? How do you feel when you see a website that uses MapQuest to show its location compared to Google Maps? If you want to make money off online advertising, which company would you use?
When it comes to search and advertising, Google has a huge moat that cant be touched no matter how many billions of dollars Microsoft or Yahoo waste.
I expect them to do stupid stuff, but this is beyond stupid. It is like Dell saying it is going to abandon Microsoft.
I highly doubt the claim of this rumor. If it was true, the stock price would be taking a big dip by now
My guess is that Motorola is going to be adding new features on top of the existing Android platform to make it stand out. Something stupid, but not batshit crazy.
Economics shows that protectionism can be good in certain cases and is not very controversial.
In an ideal open market, American companies would be earning money shipping software overseas while buying manufacturing goods from China. Instead, we have China getting American software for free while it makes money off selling us goods, putting the US at a greater disadvantage.
If Chinese companies do have real comparative advantage, they should be able to compete with the US while playing by the same rules.
IANAL, but as I see it basically Microsoft could sue ANYONE. I doubt that there is any business in the United States that doesn't have some part somewhere that was made by a Chinese company that didn't pirate something Microsoft along the way.
The article clearly states:
The bill would affect retailers that make $50 million or more in annual sales and that have a direct contract with the manufacturer. Retailers would have 18 months to change manufacturers or persuade their manufacturers to pay for software.
If you are a small business, you aren't affected. If you don't have a direct relationship with the Chinese company you aren't affected. Even if they do find a violation, you won't get sued unless you still have a direct relationship with the manufacturer 18 months from now.
How difficult is it to show that the software used is pirated or not? It is not like auditing thousands of pages of financial records. The company just has to show that it acquired a genuine license from Microsoft.
If Microsoft Seattle hires a H1B, delivered 25 years ago by a midwife in a clinic who's administrator wears pirated Nike runners... etc (even letting aside jurisdiction in investigation, enforcement, etc what are the limits in taking the responsibility in concerning time, subject of the obligation, aso)
I'm not a lawyer so I can't provide details, but I am sure that they can place reasonable limits.
Software is a capital good which is used in production of other goods and services. It is easy to show that the company is gaining a competitive advantage using pirated goods.
A case for Nike would more likely be with a soccer club using counterfeit T-shirts who wants to get involved with an American business, but I imagine that case would be harder to defend in court.
Manufacturers are putting Froyo on tablets even though Google has explicitly said that the OS was not designed for tablets.
There is nothing stopping phone manufactures putting Honeycomb on their phones just so that they can say that they have Android 3.0 while the competitors have Android 2.2. People would buy they phones thinking they are top of the line but the bad user experience would damage the Android brand and reputation.
I am assuming that readers of the NYT are more affluent than average and the people who read the paper on a daily basis might be willing to pay. The price might make sense for the demographic they are targeting.
I really think that there are those who are willing to pay for online content and those what won't no matter what the price is. Lowering the price might not attract enough new people to make up for the difference.
The price isn't the problem. It is the double charging for getting the same content on multiple devices.
If you buy the paper on your iPad, you shouldn't be locked out from using the browser if you want to read a story at work. The only thing this does is piss of the people who are willing to give you money.
The copyright laws are needed more than ever because of the ease of pirating.
There is nothing wrong with people expecting to be paid for their work. If they believe that it should be given away for free, then it should be given away for free. Many people already do that with open source software.
The Android tablets are even worst the than the iPad at the moment.
It doesn't matter what features the tablet has, but what you can do with it. The reason that the iPad is so successful is because it is supported by large number of developers who are able to make up for the fact that the device has limited functionality. Android still has some catching up to do before their devices can compete with Apple
I don't see salary being the biggest deterrent. Companies just don't want to train entry level workers anymore. They rather just hire someone overseas with some experience.
If there is a clear path for students to transition from school to a stable career, you would see a big increase in enrollment, but US businesses are more focused on short term gains instead of investing in the future American workforce.
You pay for the right to use the Internet on your mobile device for a month up to 2 GB. It is a big difference.
If carriers want they can charge people by the MB and then you would have the right to use it for whatever you want, but most Americans don't prefer that business model.
Companies make mistakes all the time and Google has its share of flops. They know that there are problems with the market and are trying to improve it.
Because developers were complaining about the return policy, Google changed the return Window from 24 hours to 15 minutes. They released the web version of the market as a way to help make new apps more discoverable.
They soon will face competition from Amazon and it will put more pressure on them to make improvements.
As a business, setting up a public marketplace is about the marketplace, not about the policing. Policing is secondary -- way secondary. There's zero profit in policing the marketplace for Google. There's simply no money to be made. None, until it becomes so rampant that developers like you stop using the marketplace as a result.
There is lots of money to be made in policing the market. Apple polices the its own App Store and it is much more successful than Google's.
Developers want a market so that makes their app easily discovered and their copyright will be protected. If they don't get this, they will focus more resources on iPhone development.
Customers want high quality apps without worrying about filtering through spam and malware. If they don't like the experience, they will buy an iPhone.
The only people who benefit from Google's hands off approach are spammers and criminals. Apple's approach maybe overreaching, but it benefits high quality developers and that is where they will flock until Google gets it's act together.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chrome results are most surprising. I always thought it was the most efficient, while Internet Explorer and Firefox were bloated and slow. If these results are correct, it looks like Chrome is a bad choice if battery life is important.
I still don't think I can bring myself to using Internet Explorer but Firefox's results are close enough.
Why should you trust them to keep your things?
I trust Amazon to store my files compared to myself. I am lazy when it comes to backing files up and if someone breaks into my house and steals my computer, I am screwed. If you are very paranoid, you can keep a backup copy on your own computer and one on the cloud.
Other services don't compare
Amazon lets you download the music you buy so you can keep it forever and not have to rely on streaming. The cloud just provides a easy way to access your music collection from multiple devices
Chrome OS, Android, etc. do nothing to "widen the moat" (other than maybe some name recognition).
Android definitely widens the moat. It increases the value of the Google brand and prevents competitors like Bing from stealing market share in the mobile search and advertising.
Buffett talked about the value of Disney before the mid 90s when they cheapened the brand by releasing crap. When you bought a cartoon for you kids to watch, you know that the Disney movie will be quality even if you never heard of the movie before. No other cartoon studio could match Disney at the time.
Google has a similar moat as Disney used to have. People know that Google is a trustworthy company and has many quality products. Would you rather have a Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo or AOL email address? How do you feel about using Yahoo or Bing as a search engine? How do you feel when you see a website that uses MapQuest to show its location compared to Google Maps? If you want to make money off online advertising, which company would you use?
When it comes to search and advertising, Google has a huge moat that cant be touched no matter how many billions of dollars Microsoft or Yahoo waste.
I expect them to do stupid stuff, but this is beyond stupid. It is like Dell saying it is going to abandon Microsoft.
I highly doubt the claim of this rumor. If it was true, the stock price would be taking a big dip by now
My guess is that Motorola is going to be adding new features on top of the existing Android platform to make it stand out. Something stupid, but not batshit crazy.
Economics shows that protectionism can be good in certain cases and is not very controversial.
In an ideal open market, American companies would be earning money shipping software overseas while buying manufacturing goods from China. Instead, we have China getting American software for free while it makes money off selling us goods, putting the US at a greater disadvantage.
If Chinese companies do have real comparative advantage, they should be able to compete with the US while playing by the same rules.
IANAL, but as I see it basically Microsoft could sue ANYONE. I doubt that there is any business in the United States that doesn't have some part somewhere that was made by a Chinese company that didn't pirate something Microsoft along the way.
The article clearly states:
The bill would affect retailers that make $50 million or more in annual sales and that have a direct contract with the manufacturer. Retailers would have 18 months to change manufacturers or persuade their manufacturers to pay for software.
If you are a small business, you aren't affected. If you don't have a direct relationship with the Chinese company you aren't affected. Even if they do find a violation, you won't get sued unless you still have a direct relationship with the manufacturer 18 months from now.
How difficult is it to show that the software used is pirated or not? It is not like auditing thousands of pages of financial records. The company just has to show that it acquired a genuine license from Microsoft.
The law isn't that unreasonable
There has to be more to the story.
There is no rational business reason for Motorola to go up against Android especially after seeing how Nokia failed. It just doesn't smell right.
If Microsoft Seattle hires a H1B, delivered 25 years ago by a midwife in a clinic who's administrator wears pirated Nike runners... etc (even letting aside jurisdiction in investigation, enforcement, etc what are the limits in taking the responsibility in concerning time, subject of the obligation, aso)
I'm not a lawyer so I can't provide details, but I am sure that they can place reasonable limits.
Software is a capital good which is used in production of other goods and services. It is easy to show that the company is gaining a competitive advantage using pirated goods.
A case for Nike would more likely be with a soccer club using counterfeit T-shirts who wants to get involved with an American business, but I imagine that case would be harder to defend in court.
If Microsoft China provides or requires counterfeit Nike T-shirts for its employees, then Nike can sue.
Manufacturers are putting Froyo on tablets even though Google has explicitly said that the OS was not designed for tablets.
There is nothing stopping phone manufactures putting Honeycomb on their phones just so that they can say that they have Android 3.0 while the competitors have Android 2.2. People would buy they phones thinking they are top of the line but the bad user experience would damage the Android brand and reputation.
I am assuming that readers of the NYT are more affluent than average and the people who read the paper on a daily basis might be willing to pay. The price might make sense for the demographic they are targeting.
I really think that there are those who are willing to pay for online content and those what won't no matter what the price is. Lowering the price might not attract enough new people to make up for the difference.
The price isn't the problem. It is the double charging for getting the same content on multiple devices.
If you buy the paper on your iPad, you shouldn't be locked out from using the browser if you want to read a story at work. The only thing this does is piss of the people who are willing to give you money.
The copyright laws are needed more than ever because of the ease of pirating.
There is nothing wrong with people expecting to be paid for their work. If they believe that it should be given away for free, then it should be given away for free. Many people already do that with open source software.
The Android tablets are even worst the than the iPad at the moment.
It doesn't matter what features the tablet has, but what you can do with it. The reason that the iPad is so successful is because it is supported by large number of developers who are able to make up for the fact that the device has limited functionality. Android still has some catching up to do before their devices can compete with Apple
I don't see salary being the biggest deterrent. Companies just don't want to train entry level workers anymore. They rather just hire someone overseas with some experience.
If there is a clear path for students to transition from school to a stable career, you would see a big increase in enrollment, but US businesses are more focused on short term gains instead of investing in the future American workforce.
You do not pay for 2 GB a month
You pay for the right to use the Internet on your mobile device for a month up to 2 GB. It is a big difference.
If carriers want they can charge people by the MB and then you would have the right to use it for whatever you want, but most Americans don't prefer that business model.
Companies make mistakes all the time and Google has its share of flops. They know that there are problems with the market and are trying to improve it.
Because developers were complaining about the return policy, Google changed the return Window from 24 hours to 15 minutes. They released the web version of the market as a way to help make new apps more discoverable.
They soon will face competition from Amazon and it will put more pressure on them to make improvements.
As a business, setting up a public marketplace is about the marketplace, not about the policing. Policing is secondary -- way secondary. There's zero profit in policing the marketplace for Google. There's simply no money to be made. None, until it becomes so rampant that developers like you stop using the marketplace as a result.
There is lots of money to be made in policing the market. Apple polices the its own App Store and it is much more successful than Google's.
Developers want a market so that makes their app easily discovered and their copyright will be protected. If they don't get this, they will focus more resources on iPhone development.
Customers want high quality apps without worrying about filtering through spam and malware. If they don't like the experience, they will buy an iPhone.
The only people who benefit from Google's hands off approach are spammers and criminals. Apple's approach maybe overreaching, but it benefits high quality developers and that is where they will flock until Google gets it's act together.