Um, if you get the GameBoy/DS, then you get the whole mobile gaming thing. Just because the NGage was poorly designed and implemented and your Omnia doesn't have the right interfaces doesn't mean mobile gaming is bad.
Only true if Amazon traffic was higher than YouTube traffic:)
Essentially the point is that more people are searching within YouTube for videos than within Yahoo!, for everything. Which says something about marketshare. Even Amazon is listed, and it ranks below Microsoft's Live search site.
That's not the point, especially if there are standardized applications tailored towards this platform.
The only other option would be to decrease tuition but make an iPod or iPhone mandatory (much like some schools make a Mac or PC a mandatory part of classes).
No, for values of shrinking where laptop sales are greater than desktop sales.
In other words, Apple COULD invest in the desktop market, but chose to invest in the laptop market instead because it is growing faster. Just like Apple chose to invest in mobile phones instead of DVRs or tablets because, in proportion, those markets are also shrinking.
If the math isn't obvious: 99 desktop and 99 laptop sales today means there is a 50/50 market. If next year we see 110 desktop sales but 150 laptop sales, yes, both markets grew but the skew is now 43% desktops and 57% laptops.
Desktops are being outsold by laptops, at least in the US, and that trend will continue worldwide. The reason iMac killers don't sell is that until 2008, most iMac killers were suicidal; ugly, bulky, expensive, and hard to use.
Why would Apple want to compete in a shrinking market? They just need the Mac mini to last another three years and that market will essentially be dead.
You almost have it right. Modern medicine isn't killing our species, it's increasing the depth, breadth, and diversity of our genepool by allowing more survivors.
Not only is it masking genetic defects, it is allowing non-detrimental genetic drift to occur until enough accumulate to either kill the individual outright or produce a beneficial adaptation.
Lack of fur is also a benefit because it allows us to live in otherwise too-hot locations, so don't knock it for making us susceptible in wintry places.
What? My wifi works fine. As for bluetooth, Apple hasn't implemented it fully yet (for a comparison, neither has Google in the Android G1); Apple hasn't also implemented MMS, video capture, cut and paste, etc, etc. so I wouldn't imply it to be fear so much as lack of resources.
No, the iPhone's browser is still superior. The touch interface goes a long way towards that, as does autozoom, standards support, and the large screen. Of course now, after the release of the first iPhone, there are plenty of large touch screen mobile phones, but the iPhone pushed the market in that direction.
No, it won't. People have been replacing the non-replaceable battery in iPods since 2001. It's not difficult, it just requires tools and time (both included in $25 kits), or you get a certified repair outfit to do it for you for $90.
Then you just get it replaced. Just because it isn't end user serviceable doesn't make it irreplaceable. People have been doing battery replacements on iPods for years.
I didn't mean to imply they were all beneficial to users.
The size reduction, weight reduction, complexity reduction, shipping reduction, and packaging reduction each add up to higher margins for Apple, and as such are benefits to them. If each contributes $0.03, then you get $0.15 benefit per iPhone and across the 8m or so iPhones sold, that's $1.2m in additional profit for Apple.
For the user the rigidity, strength, and size are the only real benefits to the user.
That's normally how these things work. Want more, pay more. I haven't seen nearly as capable a web browser on a handheld device before the iPhone.
Same with the iPod; there didn't exist nearly as capable an MP3 player until four years after the iPod was released, and even then it was thicker and heavier...
That's stupid. This affects you because it tells you how/why the product exists.
If it isn't profitable, it doesn't exist. If it isn't beneficial, it isn't produced.
Lack of a battery case increases profit and introduces product benefits, so Apple decided not to make the battery replaceable; to wit the MacBook Air has no replaceable battery while the MacBook and MacBook Pro do, so it's definitely within their engineering prowess to do so.
And in case you didn't know, benefits: 1) Increased rigidity/strength of the case 2) Decreased size/volume of the device 3) Increased reliability/robustness of the device
I believe it. 1) Adding a battery compartment would raise failure rates when dropped or manufactured as it would require additional parts such as a latch/catch, cover, battery bay, and battery clip. 2) Adding additional parts would entail a larger design, which pushes up packaging costs, reduces product density, and increases shipping costs. 3) A larger design makes the phone less attractive; as it stands the 3G iPhone is already slightly larger than the 2G iPhone. 4) The lack of the battery compartment is a design plus as the case is more rigid, more sound, and stronger, which means it is necessarily less complex, less heavy, and less fragile for the end user.
This holds true for any equipment which is user accessible vs non user accessible. Imagine how awkward/clumsy a laptop would be if the LCD were user removeable/replaceable? Hinges, latches, and connectors would be substantially weakened. The same would be true in a flip-phone too.
So it isn't merely a bug, the lack of replaceable battery is definitely a feature.
Um, the iPhone works with external batteries. This is an old known solution ever since the first iPod in 2001. If you're a business user with an iPhone, then there are many solutions to prevent dead batteries from killing your business.
So... yes, you can do that with an iPhone. If you can suffer the inconvenience of swapping a battery, you can definitely suffer the less inconvenience of plugging in the iPhone into an external battery.
I believe it. 10 years of Apple products is more than convincing: iPod->iPod touch (notice how thin it got) iBook->MacBook Air (notice how small/thin it got)
And you use the word "anticompetitive" in a funny way. You make it sound like Apple's business motive is making money off battery replacements. Apple sells iPods/Macs/iPhones, not batteries. The battery is an incidental, and probably even less profitable than the iTunes store.
The thin design has multiple benefits for Apple:
Higher product density (therefore higher profits per cubic foot storage) Smaller products are cheaper to ship (lower costs per cubic foot shipping) Smaller products require less packaging (lower cost per unit) Smaller products require less material (lower cost per unit)
So there are many reasons beyond design or anticompetitive to make things small/thin
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, like wifi or extended battery life, or a web browser right?
I think they made a good choice. For everyone else there is either jailbreak or the G1.
Um, if you get the GameBoy/DS, then you get the whole mobile gaming thing. Just because the NGage was poorly designed and implemented and your Omnia doesn't have the right interfaces doesn't mean mobile gaming is bad.
Why is it important to regulate the industry at all?
Other than for malicious intent I mean. If people want to find what other people think, what's wrong with this setup?
Only true if Amazon traffic was higher than YouTube traffic :)
Essentially the point is that more people are searching within YouTube for videos than within Yahoo!, for everything. Which says something about marketshare. Even Amazon is listed, and it ranks below Microsoft's Live search site.
Google is also a website with a search facility.
That's not the point, especially if there are standardized applications tailored towards this platform.
The only other option would be to decrease tuition but make an iPod or iPhone mandatory (much like some schools make a Mac or PC a mandatory part of classes).
How do you know it's them, and not their infected computer conversing with you?
No, for values of shrinking where laptop sales are greater than desktop sales.
In other words, Apple COULD invest in the desktop market, but chose to invest in the laptop market instead because it is growing faster. Just like Apple chose to invest in mobile phones instead of DVRs or tablets because, in proportion, those markets are also shrinking.
If the math isn't obvious: 99 desktop and 99 laptop sales today means there is a 50/50 market. If next year we see 110 desktop sales but 150 laptop sales, yes, both markets grew but the skew is now 43% desktops and 57% laptops.
Wait, except that the part with the actual competition is shrinking.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/economy-hits-us-pc-sales-but-notebook-growth-remains-strong/
Desktops are being outsold by laptops, at least in the US, and that trend will continue worldwide. The reason iMac killers don't sell is that until 2008, most iMac killers were suicidal; ugly, bulky, expensive, and hard to use.
Why would Apple want to compete in a shrinking market? They just need the Mac mini to last another three years and that market will essentially be dead.
No, we just redefined what strong and healthy is. Evolution hasn't stopped and we haven't regressed. We have a more diverse genepool now, that's all.
You're saying you aren't smart enough to be suave and impressive?
You almost have it right. Modern medicine isn't killing our species, it's increasing the depth, breadth, and diversity of our genepool by allowing more survivors.
Not only is it masking genetic defects, it is allowing non-detrimental genetic drift to occur until enough accumulate to either kill the individual outright or produce a beneficial adaptation.
Lack of fur is also a benefit because it allows us to live in otherwise too-hot locations, so don't knock it for making us susceptible in wintry places.
What? My wifi works fine. As for bluetooth, Apple hasn't implemented it fully yet (for a comparison, neither has Google in the Android G1); Apple hasn't also implemented MMS, video capture, cut and paste, etc, etc. so I wouldn't imply it to be fear so much as lack of resources.
No, the iPhone's browser is still superior. The touch interface goes a long way towards that, as does autozoom, standards support, and the large screen. Of course now, after the release of the first iPhone, there are plenty of large touch screen mobile phones, but the iPhone pushed the market in that direction.
No, it won't. People have been replacing the non-replaceable battery in iPods since 2001. It's not difficult, it just requires tools and time (both included in $25 kits), or you get a certified repair outfit to do it for you for $90.
Then you just get it replaced. Just because it isn't end user serviceable doesn't make it irreplaceable. People have been doing battery replacements on iPods for years.
I didn't mean to imply they were all beneficial to users.
The size reduction, weight reduction, complexity reduction, shipping reduction, and packaging reduction each add up to higher margins for Apple, and as such are benefits to them. If each contributes $0.03, then you get $0.15 benefit per iPhone and across the 8m or so iPhones sold, that's $1.2m in additional profit for Apple.
For the user the rigidity, strength, and size are the only real benefits to the user.
Because it's a better MP3 player/phone?
That's normally how these things work. Want more, pay more. I haven't seen nearly as capable a web browser on a handheld device before the iPhone.
Same with the iPod; there didn't exist nearly as capable an MP3 player until four years after the iPod was released, and even then it was thicker and heavier...
With that kind of target audience, I'm surprised Apple doesn't have larger market share.
That's stupid. This affects you because it tells you how/why the product exists.
If it isn't profitable, it doesn't exist. If it isn't beneficial, it isn't produced.
Lack of a battery case increases profit and introduces product benefits, so Apple decided not to make the battery replaceable; to wit the MacBook Air has no replaceable battery while the MacBook and MacBook Pro do, so it's definitely within their engineering prowess to do so.
And in case you didn't know, benefits:
1) Increased rigidity/strength of the case
2) Decreased size/volume of the device
3) Increased reliability/robustness of the device
I believe it.
1) Adding a battery compartment would raise failure rates when dropped or manufactured as it would require additional parts such as a latch/catch, cover, battery bay, and battery clip.
2) Adding additional parts would entail a larger design, which pushes up packaging costs, reduces product density, and increases shipping costs.
3) A larger design makes the phone less attractive; as it stands the 3G iPhone is already slightly larger than the 2G iPhone.
4) The lack of the battery compartment is a design plus as the case is more rigid, more sound, and stronger, which means it is necessarily less complex, less heavy, and less fragile for the end user.
This holds true for any equipment which is user accessible vs non user accessible. Imagine how awkward/clumsy a laptop would be if the LCD were user removeable/replaceable? Hinges, latches, and connectors would be substantially weakened. The same would be true in a flip-phone too.
So it isn't merely a bug, the lack of replaceable battery is definitely a feature.
Then you're saying the system doesn't work?
That people don't vote, that governments face little repercussions, and that there is really no representation?
Um, the iPhone works with external batteries. This is an old known solution ever since the first iPod in 2001. If you're a business user with an iPhone, then there are many solutions to prevent dead batteries from killing your business.
So... yes, you can do that with an iPhone. If you can suffer the inconvenience of swapping a battery, you can definitely suffer the less inconvenience of plugging in the iPhone into an external battery.
Because people like iPods?
By people I mean constituents, friends, family, etc.
I believe it. 10 years of Apple products is more than convincing:
iPod->iPod touch (notice how thin it got)
iBook->MacBook Air (notice how small/thin it got)
And you use the word "anticompetitive" in a funny way. You make it sound like Apple's business motive is making money off battery replacements. Apple sells iPods/Macs/iPhones, not batteries. The battery is an incidental, and probably even less profitable than the iTunes store.
The thin design has multiple benefits for Apple:
Higher product density (therefore higher profits per cubic foot storage)
Smaller products are cheaper to ship (lower costs per cubic foot shipping)
Smaller products require less packaging (lower cost per unit)
Smaller products require less material (lower cost per unit)
So there are many reasons beyond design or anticompetitive to make things small/thin