The others I mention have developed a good brand image. Nokia could release a new handset running Ice Cream Sandwich. So could Samsung, HTC, Motorola and LG. Anything Nokia does, they can also do, but the people who already have Android phones will most likely stick with the brand they have when they upgrade (which will not be Nokia), so Nokia just gets 20% of new users. Maybe slightly more from people switching from Symbian. There's nothing Nokia can offer that the others can.
OTOH, they get a huge quantity of the people switching to WP7. I guess the other established smartphone companies could push as hard as Nokia in those markets as well, but the point is, they're not doing so. That would mean splitting their efforts between the established Android brand where they already have a good market share and the high risk Windows brand.
Fair enough. I'm mainly going by my own opinions. I did like my Nokia 3510i all those years ago. I don't think I'd be much interested in a Nokia Android phone than one from any of the other major companies. WP7 is at least intriguing and Nokia seem to be the best brand supporting that.
Nokia are clearly hoping there are more people with my views than with yours. We'll have to wait and see to find out if there are.
WP7 has an interface that may or may not be better than the other two major OSs but is clearly different. Some people may prefer it.
If they make an Android phone, they're latecomers to an already crowded market. Why should someone buy a Nokia device when HTC have a range of products, so do Motorola, so do Samsung, so do LG. What can Nokia do to persuade people to buy their phone instead?
Betting on WP7 is a gamble, but it does have the chance of a big payoff, and Microsoft's backing isn't something to be sneezed at.
There's probably not a lot in it either way. Both regions have a comparable population in the best demographic for purchasing the device.
Executives tend to prefer the domestic market. They understand it a little better, and overseas markets will leave them one more step removed from the actual decisions.
The iPad didn't disrupt the iMac. Newer models of Apple computers don't distrupt the old ones. Enhancements to existing technology aren't disruptive. Businesses love these. They sell a similar but better product to the same people. And ultimately the iPhone is still an evolution of the iPod, that Apple can sell for more money and sell apps for.
The actual disruptive businesses are the ones where Apple followed. DRM free music suddenly made iTunes/iPod less desirable, and Apple had to drop DRM from iTunes. Android offers the choice of hardware vendors that Apple can't offer. Apple actively resists certain technologies, such as third party enhancements for their existing products. Hell, they don't even want to make it easy to program for the iPhone outside of their set of languages. Think Flash would be desirable? Apple doesn't want it disrupting their marketplace.
The reason this hasn't caused a problem is that none of these technologies is important enough to displace their existing tech. Should someone produce a killer app that works in Flash, and Flash becoem so good that it can compete with the App Store Apple will have this same dilemma as any other innovator.
A policy that they use the software that they're used to/have been trained on/know how to circumvent the bugs/has been verified to run all their standard software?
So roughly how much was that DVD every 4 months worth to you? Presumably DVD + streaming was worth $9.99. Streaming on its own isn't worth $7.99. So presumably, that DVD rental service was worth more than $2 per month to you.
In other words, sacrificing that DVD rental saves you $2 per month. That was the option that you rejected. How much would you pay for just the DVD rental?
They managed to keep most of their customers. Their lower price should allow them to expand their customer base a lot more quickly. The 20% reduction in per customer revenue will have had a much bigger impact. This is somewhat mitigated by the customers who actually do pay the extra, and the reduced cost from only having to provide one service to the rest.
Is that 1 DVD every 4 months really worth $2 a month to you?
But regardless, you could easily be an anomoly. For every customer like you they lost, maybe they lost 10 customers who wee a net cost. Maybe they also gained a few customers who felt the lower price justified joining.
They want to expand into Britain. You get Ireland more or less for free. A country with the same standards, the same language (at least as far as Movies are concerned - no films are dubbed or subbed into Irish), and has a small population so a lot of companies lump the two countries together for convenience of licensing purposes
Smaller companies may well end up paying more even if they win.
Corporate lawyers are pretty good at estimating the success of this sort of thing. Microsoft will probably offer to settle at some point, but have to carry this through a certain way because a threat of a lawsuit is worthless if you aren't seen to be willing to carry it out.
Notice how concepts such as justice and who's actually in the right don't come into this...
The A600 was probably the most portable. Small enough to fit into a backpack. there were even backpacks made for the purpose. External PSU was a bit of a nuisance though, and I'm fairly sure the A600 still kept this.
Yes, but since you responded to a post about whether it was misleading, I was wondering whether you were talking about that, or simply observing that it's irrelevant. And since the whole article is about the legal case, then it's possible you;re referring to that.
It's about context, you see. I now understand.
Yes, you're right. These two situations are different in the way you describe. But we already know that. It said that this was scripted in the article.
I'm assuming we're talking about the legal complaint here. If I'm mistaken I apologise in advance.
Lies aren't in themselves, actionable. You actually have to demonstrate the image was harmed by the lies. Seems to me that had Top Gear told the truth, and actually run the car until the batteries had run out, the harm done to Tesla's image would be the same.
So, if they did the same test, and ran it until the battery went flat, which it would have done, will that resolve the situation? It's not just "possible" It's a certainty that this will happen.
I'll accept that this was dishonest. I'll not accept that Tesla's image was harmed by the dishonesty.
But would the battery would have gone flat after a fairly short time of driving like that. So the question is is it a simulation or a lie? For it to actually be misleading, Tesla would need to claim that the battery wouldn't go flat, not that it didn't.
He doesn't seem to hate electric cars per se. Just the fact that you need to spend forever recharging them. I agree with that criticism. You have to completely change the way you use a car for electric to be viable.
Well, if it's accessible in the UK, then the libelled person can sue in a UK court, and will probably win. There's not a lot they can do to you if you never enter the UK.
There are more possible relationships than close cooperation and active war though. Suppose parts of Europe have a disagreement with Israel, or the US decides to support a war against Egypt or Turkey that the EU opposes. The US and the European countries aren't going to be shooting at each other or taking out each others satellites, but might decide that they don't want the enemies of their allies to use their GPS system.
Well, if I were to try to measure "relaxation", I'd measure heart and breathing rate, and possibly a few other factors of someone who considers themselves to be relaxed, and use that as a baseline for "relaxed", and similarly for not relaxed. I'd then see what proportion of people reach this relaxed state after different stimuli.
I'd also fully expect the media to want to have an exact figure for how relaxing it is and publish any percentage they could get their grubby mitts on as how much more relaxing it is.
Editors are important, but you don't need to sign with a publishing house to get your book edited. There's nothing stopping you from hiring a freelance editor and publishing on Amazon if you think it's necessary.
Lack of money is. Ultimately a publisher these days is simply a one stop shop offering a loan, editing, typesetting, cover art, promotion, distribution and a selection of other tasks that are needed to make a book successful.
You could get all that yourself from other sources but I suspect few lenders would lend you money on the same terms - no requirement to pay it all back until your writing careers is a success.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides the Nokia brand?
The others I mention have developed a good brand image. Nokia could release a new handset running Ice Cream Sandwich. So could Samsung, HTC, Motorola and LG. Anything Nokia does, they can also do, but the people who already have Android phones will most likely stick with the brand they have when they upgrade (which will not be Nokia), so Nokia just gets 20% of new users. Maybe slightly more from people switching from Symbian. There's nothing Nokia can offer that the others can.
OTOH, they get a huge quantity of the people switching to WP7. I guess the other established smartphone companies could push as hard as Nokia in those markets as well, but the point is, they're not doing so. That would mean splitting their efforts between the established Android brand where they already have a good market share and the high risk Windows brand.
Fair enough. I'm mainly going by my own opinions. I did like my Nokia 3510i all those years ago. I don't think I'd be much interested in a Nokia Android phone than one from any of the other major companies. WP7 is at least intriguing and Nokia seem to be the best brand supporting that.
Nokia are clearly hoping there are more people with my views than with yours. We'll have to wait and see to find out if there are.
Amongst other reasons, product differentiation.
WP7 has an interface that may or may not be better than the other two major OSs but is clearly different. Some people may prefer it.
If they make an Android phone, they're latecomers to an already crowded market. Why should someone buy a Nokia device when HTC have a range of products, so do Motorola, so do Samsung, so do LG. What can Nokia do to persuade people to buy their phone instead?
Betting on WP7 is a gamble, but it does have the chance of a big payoff, and Microsoft's backing isn't something to be sneezed at.
There's probably not a lot in it either way. Both regions have a comparable population in the best demographic for purchasing the device.
Executives tend to prefer the domestic market. They understand it a little better, and overseas markets will leave them one more step removed from the actual decisions.
The iPad didn't disrupt the iMac. Newer models of Apple computers don't distrupt the old ones. Enhancements to existing technology aren't disruptive. Businesses love these. They sell a similar but better product to the same people. And ultimately the iPhone is still an evolution of the iPod, that Apple can sell for more money and sell apps for.
The actual disruptive businesses are the ones where Apple followed. DRM free music suddenly made iTunes/iPod less desirable, and Apple had to drop DRM from iTunes. Android offers the choice of hardware vendors that Apple can't offer. Apple actively resists certain technologies, such as third party enhancements for their existing products. Hell, they don't even want to make it easy to program for the iPhone outside of their set of languages. Think Flash would be desirable? Apple doesn't want it disrupting their marketplace.
The reason this hasn't caused a problem is that none of these technologies is important enough to displace their existing tech. Should someone produce a killer app that works in Flash, and Flash becoem so good that it can compete with the App Store Apple will have this same dilemma as any other innovator.
A policy that they use the software that they're used to/have been trained on/know how to circumvent the bugs/has been verified to run all their standard software?
Doesn't seem too unreasonable.
So roughly how much was that DVD every 4 months worth to you? Presumably DVD + streaming was worth $9.99. Streaming on its own isn't worth $7.99. So presumably, that DVD rental service was worth more than $2 per month to you.
In other words, sacrificing that DVD rental saves you $2 per month. That was the option that you rejected. How much would you pay for just the DVD rental?
I can read. I never disagreed with what you said.
They managed to keep most of their customers. Their lower price should allow them to expand their customer base a lot more quickly. The 20% reduction in per customer revenue will have had a much bigger impact. This is somewhat mitigated by the customers who actually do pay the extra, and the reduced cost from only having to provide one service to the rest.
Is that 1 DVD every 4 months really worth $2 a month to you?
But regardless, you could easily be an anomoly. For every customer like you they lost, maybe they lost 10 customers who wee a net cost. Maybe they also gained a few customers who felt the lower price justified joining.
And kept 25 million, some of whom are paying more, others are costing the company less.
They want to expand into Britain. You get Ireland more or less for free. A country with the same standards, the same language (at least as far as Movies are concerned - no films are dubbed or subbed into Irish), and has a small population so a lot of companies lump the two countries together for convenience of licensing purposes
Smaller companies may well end up paying more even if they win.
Corporate lawyers are pretty good at estimating the success of this sort of thing. Microsoft will probably offer to settle at some point, but have to carry this through a certain way because a threat of a lawsuit is worthless if you aren't seen to be willing to carry it out.
Notice how concepts such as justice and who's actually in the right don't come into this...
The A600 was probably the most portable. Small enough to fit into a backpack. there were even backpacks made for the purpose. External PSU was a bit of a nuisance though, and I'm fairly sure the A600 still kept this.
Yes, but since you responded to a post about whether it was misleading, I was wondering whether you were talking about that, or simply observing that it's irrelevant. And since the whole article is about the legal case, then it's possible you;re referring to that.
It's about context, you see. I now understand.
Yes, you're right. These two situations are different in the way you describe. But we already know that. It said that this was scripted in the article.
I'm assuming we're talking about the legal complaint here. If I'm mistaken I apologise in advance.
Lies aren't in themselves, actionable. You actually have to demonstrate the image was harmed by the lies. Seems to me that had Top Gear told the truth, and actually run the car until the batteries had run out, the harm done to Tesla's image would be the same.
So, if they did the same test, and ran it until the battery went flat, which it would have done, will that resolve the situation? It's not just "possible" It's a certainty that this will happen.
I'll accept that this was dishonest. I'll not accept that Tesla's image was harmed by the dishonesty.
What about if they do another test, drive it until the batteries run down, then push it off the track?
This would happen if they kept driving it like that, but would allow Top Gear to prove that it wasn't misleading.
But would the battery would have gone flat after a fairly short time of driving like that. So the question is is it a simulation or a lie? For it to actually be misleading, Tesla would need to claim that the battery wouldn't go flat, not that it didn't.
He doesn't seem to hate electric cars per se. Just the fact that you need to spend forever recharging them. I agree with that criticism. You have to completely change the way you use a car for electric to be viable.
Well, if it's accessible in the UK, then the libelled person can sue in a UK court, and will probably win. There's not a lot they can do to you if you never enter the UK.
There are more possible relationships than close cooperation and active war though. Suppose parts of Europe have a disagreement with Israel, or the US decides to support a war against Egypt or Turkey that the EU opposes. The US and the European countries aren't going to be shooting at each other or taking out each others satellites, but might decide that they don't want the enemies of their allies to use their GPS system.
Well, if I were to try to measure "relaxation", I'd measure heart and breathing rate, and possibly a few other factors of someone who considers themselves to be relaxed, and use that as a baseline for "relaxed", and similarly for not relaxed. I'd then see what proportion of people reach this relaxed state after different stimuli.
I'd also fully expect the media to want to have an exact figure for how relaxing it is and publish any percentage they could get their grubby mitts on as how much more relaxing it is.
They're metric asstonnes (or arsetonnes in britian and commonwealth countries). The asston is the imperial measure.
Amazon can market authors much better than traditional publishers can.
They can, but will they? If their costs are kept low, then there's no incentive to market. Just get as many books out there as possible.
Editors are important, but you don't need to sign with a publishing house to get your book edited. There's nothing stopping you from hiring a freelance editor and publishing on Amazon if you think it's necessary.
Lack of money is. Ultimately a publisher these days is simply a one stop shop offering a loan, editing, typesetting, cover art, promotion, distribution and a selection of other tasks that are needed to make a book successful.
You could get all that yourself from other sources but I suspect few lenders would lend you money on the same terms - no requirement to pay it all back until your writing careers is a success.