I was saying the fact they're using last gen hardware in a current gen premium device is a bigger problem than the fact that they're trying to do the desktop replacement thing again. I'm not saying anything about the SoC having an impact on the desktop replacement or the quality of the desktop replacement.
Technically, the hardware is faster in the Samsung. I get your point, however, and you're only technically inaccurate. I'm not trying to claim the Samsung will be better. The iPad pro has better benchmarks than the 835. The key is, speed isn't everything in benchmarks. The 835 is clocked faster, but doesn't perform as well. Apple has better integration between hardware and software, and better optimization in the hardware. That all being said, real world performance doesn't care much about benchmarks. We've seen it before where devices with lower scores feel just as fast, or faster, as ones with higher scores. Benchmarks are mostly a spec race and have very little true impact on the user. You're not likely to see any major performance difference between the devices.
This tablet is overpriced for last gen hardware. But, the $600-700 price range for the market segment isn't completely absurd. A laptop/desktop replacement it isn't. It IS a media device. But, it's capable of performing light computer tasks. It's capable of playing games, You can read books, and watch TV on it. It's the jack of all trades. There are apps that work amazingly well on android/iOS that the web counterparts for PC are terrible in comparison. It's a more portable form factor. If you want to carry it with you, it's much easier than a laptop. Both in terms of average size and weight, but in ease of use for consumption tasks that are more likely when on the move.
The only thing really cutting into that segment is that phones are getting slightly bigger as we go. They can't compete with a 10" tablet in size, but if you're less particular about the viewing area a phone will do all the same tasks.
Honestly, I think the bigger problem is that they didn't bother using a current gen SoC. It would be different if the 845 was just hitting the market, but even Samsung has had the s9 out for months already. They pulled the same crap with the previous gen tablet. You should be able to expect premium prices on outdated hardware.
I never made a claim of morality on the things I listed. I had also included an "Insert here" to imply I'm just listing examples. However, I used brackets and thus it didn't show up. I wasn't thinking. That being said, morality and legality are two very separate things. Regardless of whether you think drugs are OK or not... They are illegal. The government allowing their sale in stores would impart the belief that they were legal.
The US is a democracy. There are multiple variations of democracy, and the definitions are broad enough for the US to fall under the umbrella. From what I can tell, it all comes down to what specific set of rules you are restricting the term to. If you want to restrict it to a set that it no longer applies to the US, that's all well and good. That's your choice. If someone else wants to use a more broad definition, that is their choice. Both would be equally valid, just not useful when you're not using the same definition in an argument. If you're going to tell someone their wrong for using a term, maybe you should have a better understanding of how varied a definition that term truly holds.
I just want to make clear, I'm not arguing the merits of whether the files should or should not be made available. I'm only countering your logic about the data being out there and the irreversible part already being done.
Just because the files are able to be acquired through torrents or some other "unofficial" site, doesn't mean that should not take steps to prevent its distribution. Yes, it's on the internet. As long as somebody cares, it'll be somewhere. The same can be said about actual guns. You can buy a gun from a guy on the streets, but it doesn't mean that we should just up and remove all regulations on gun sales and ownership. Substitute stolen cars, drugs, assassins, prostitutes, if it helps. If you want to bring it back to digital, you can find cracked versions of software online. Why don't businesses offer them for download online? The main reason is because it lends credence to the idea that it's legal.
While you can live with that, not everyone can. Gaming is a more prominent usage that needs lower ping times. I'm sure VOIP and VPN would be happier with lower pings. 20-30ms slower may not cause enough of a delay itself, but that also depends on the baseline
On top of that, the speeds aren't really any better than DSL. They're also usually either much more expensive, or heavily datacapped.
More than what was previously understood, less than would be actually necessary(as we understand it now). However, that only accounts for one factor in that universe.
Yes, I get that it wasn't a 100% serious comment. But, there is a lot of potential(for better or worse) in some of the guided human evolution of his universe.
Went on vacation, wasn't able to respond timely. I just wanted to clarify. My original point was that Amazon likely has their trusted suppliers for the products sold through them directly. They don't have that option when dealing with 3rd party sellers.
The only way for 3rd party sellers to be able to sell through Amazon, with the level of quality control you're talking about, would be for Amazon to require everything to ship through them. They would have to test each individual item, software included. Then, they would have to ship it out to the customer. This adds extra shipping costs to the overall product cost. It also requires the testers to fully understand and be able to confirm each individual product to confirm everything works correctly. This would be equivalent to a brick and mortar testing each product individually. It's just not fucking practical.
I'm not saying getting rid of the 3rd party sellers isn't a solution. In terms of product control it's the best solution. I'm just saying the only practical method of handling counterfeit(or any other not-as-described) products, while keeping the 3rd party sellers, is to handle complaints from sales and punish sellers that appear to be doing it intentionally. As a business strategy the 3rd party sellers have their pros and cons. The customers should pay attention to what they're doing and understand the potential risks when purchasing from a 3rd party seller. It's no better/worse than buying from a stall at a farmer's market, flea market, convention, etc. You have to take the bad with the good. As long as Amazon is handling reported problems with 3rd party sellers, they're doing the best they can.
You're either lying, or not grasping what is being said. You're saying every single individual item is opened, tested, and then sealed back up before being stocked on the shelf for sale? Every single USB drive is pulled out of it's package and checked that it is in fact able to store the right amount of data. Every single TV is pulled out and tested that it works. On and on with every single possible product. Again, not by someone up the chain that you trust.. but by your store. I know from personal experience that just isn't true for any normal store.
As for your earlier mention of defending Amazon, I'm not. At least, not all of their business practices. I was only explaining why Amazon testing literally every single item is just a stupid idea.
Brick and mortar stores don't inspect each and every product as it comes into the store. That would be insane. Brick and mortar stores get their shipments from trusted sources and assume they won't get screwed over.The only way for Amazon to do the same would be to not allow 3rd party sellers at all.
First, unless it goes through an Amazon warehouse, the product is handled and shipped by the third party. Amazon is only the store front. Second, the third party could always provide correct samples to Amazon while then provide fake ones to the customer, unless they manually test each and every product(Would be counter to the first point). Third, if it comes to digital products, the people they hire would have to be very knowledgeable about every digital product they check. They would also need to buy multiple copies of the product through "personal" accounts to verify they're getting what the customer gets and that each time it matches up. Then, determine if the digital product they receive is correct and contact the developer/producer/etc and verify. Again, this would be for every seller of every product.
>> "We strictly prohibit the sale of counterfeit products, and these games have been removed." That's all it would say on this.
What else did they need to say? Someone violated their policy and they bounced them.
Except, they didn't say that at all!
That was a direct quote from an Amazon spokesperson. It came from the article, and even made it into the summary. I don't see how you can say they didn't say that.
The laws around the debt can vary by location. In one example, a quick search online mentions that unsecured debt is paid by the estate. Secured debts have priority, then unsecured debts, and then whatever is left goes to the beneficiaries.
To be candid, repayment of outstanding debt is a legal matter. While I do believe this is in poor taste, it doesn't shock me in an official communication about the debt.
You realize, you keep just spouting the same trash each time. You have no actual argument aside from your initial post. It's just the same thing over and over. As I have said, your assumptions aren't necessarily wrong in a lot of cases. They are, however, the only way to do business. What I countered with is a widely used business practice. Repeating yourself does nothing to bolster your position. I'm done trying.
A lot of what you're saying is true in most cases. However, companies already lower prices when it suits them so there isn't a concern about setting expectations. In the end, profit IS what drives them. Sometimes that means smaller margins off of more customers.
Why would any results of "leverage to use during price negotiations" need to be passed onto the consumers?
Why drop the price when the population is paying that price now and will accept paying more for HD and new 4K?
New networks to ensure 4K is great and new media to entertain costs money.
The consumers pay what they pay now and can be told to pay more for new updates.
Businesses at this level are more than willing to pass savings on to customers. The first would be due to direct competition. Not as relevant to the ISP, but is to the media side. The other is whether the increase of customers and/or public opinion due to the price cut will off set the profits lost by offering a savings. By cutting the prices after a major merge like this, they would be showing the customers the benefits of the merge. The customers would, potentially, start thinking better of the whole situation. If done well, it's cheap marketing with improved public opinion.
Why would adding a big media comply to a big telco company change the costs of networks around the USA? Lower TV prices?.
Because things aren't as simple as you imply. One overly simple answer is that by controlling both they have more leverage to use during price negotiations.
Well, the severity of the two problems likely comes down to whether it's for personal use or not. Servers or multi-user workstations probably care a lot more about the system still being usable, vs a user losing their stuff.
I think there is some confusion there. AT&T has been offering free HBO before all this. The $65 plan USED to offer HBO. They're raising the cost to $70 and removing HBO. They did the opposite of what you're talking about here
That's clearly what Nvidia thinks but I seriously doubt it. There are plenty of other things for tech journalists to write about. Also, just because you don't sign the Nvidia NDA and therefore don't have early access to Nvidia propaganda doesn't mean you can't write anything about Nvidia.
First, having other things to talk about isn't going to save journalists.. in of itself. For all its faults, Nvidia is the winner when it comes to video cards. As long as their cards keep coming out on top, that won't change. When it comes to news related to video cards, you just cannot talk about them. It's almost a point of fact. As to the part about not signing the NDA, that's entirely correct. However, I was responding to someone who's idea was to just stop talking about them altogether. It's ideological, not practical.
All the same I think a better strategy for journalists is to tell Nvidia that they won't be signing their NDA because it's much too restrictive. Nvidia would get the message much faster that way. You would hope any journalist with integrity would do that anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. Most info I found online showed how we qualify as both a republic and a democracy. I also saw references to how similar the two are.
I was saying the fact they're using last gen hardware in a current gen premium device is a bigger problem than the fact that they're trying to do the desktop replacement thing again. I'm not saying anything about the SoC having an impact on the desktop replacement or the quality of the desktop replacement.
Technically, the hardware is faster in the Samsung. I get your point, however, and you're only technically inaccurate. I'm not trying to claim the Samsung will be better. The iPad pro has better benchmarks than the 835. The key is, speed isn't everything in benchmarks. The 835 is clocked faster, but doesn't perform as well. Apple has better integration between hardware and software, and better optimization in the hardware. That all being said, real world performance doesn't care much about benchmarks. We've seen it before where devices with lower scores feel just as fast, or faster, as ones with higher scores. Benchmarks are mostly a spec race and have very little true impact on the user. You're not likely to see any major performance difference between the devices.
This tablet is overpriced for last gen hardware. But, the $600-700 price range for the market segment isn't completely absurd. A laptop/desktop replacement it isn't. It IS a media device. But, it's capable of performing light computer tasks. It's capable of playing games, You can read books, and watch TV on it. It's the jack of all trades. There are apps that work amazingly well on android/iOS that the web counterparts for PC are terrible in comparison. It's a more portable form factor. If you want to carry it with you, it's much easier than a laptop. Both in terms of average size and weight, but in ease of use for consumption tasks that are more likely when on the move.
The only thing really cutting into that segment is that phones are getting slightly bigger as we go. They can't compete with a 10" tablet in size, but if you're less particular about the viewing area a phone will do all the same tasks.
Honestly, I think the bigger problem is that they didn't bother using a current gen SoC. It would be different if the 845 was just hitting the market, but even Samsung has had the s9 out for months already. They pulled the same crap with the previous gen tablet. You should be able to expect premium prices on outdated hardware.
I never made a claim of morality on the things I listed. I had also included an "Insert here" to imply I'm just listing examples. However, I used brackets and thus it didn't show up. I wasn't thinking. That being said, morality and legality are two very separate things. Regardless of whether you think drugs are OK or not... They are illegal. The government allowing their sale in stores would impart the belief that they were legal.
The US is a democracy. There are multiple variations of democracy, and the definitions are broad enough for the US to fall under the umbrella. From what I can tell, it all comes down to what specific set of rules you are restricting the term to. If you want to restrict it to a set that it no longer applies to the US, that's all well and good. That's your choice. If someone else wants to use a more broad definition, that is their choice. Both would be equally valid, just not useful when you're not using the same definition in an argument. If you're going to tell someone their wrong for using a term, maybe you should have a better understanding of how varied a definition that term truly holds.
I just want to make clear, I'm not arguing the merits of whether the files should or should not be made available. I'm only countering your logic about the data being out there and the irreversible part already being done.
Just because the files are able to be acquired through torrents or some other "unofficial" site, doesn't mean that should not take steps to prevent its distribution. Yes, it's on the internet. As long as somebody cares, it'll be somewhere. The same can be said about actual guns. You can buy a gun from a guy on the streets, but it doesn't mean that we should just up and remove all regulations on gun sales and ownership. Substitute stolen cars, drugs, assassins, prostitutes, if it helps. If you want to bring it back to digital, you can find cracked versions of software online. Why don't businesses offer them for download online? The main reason is because it lends credence to the idea that it's legal.
While you can live with that, not everyone can. Gaming is a more prominent usage that needs lower ping times. I'm sure VOIP and VPN would be happier with lower pings. 20-30ms slower may not cause enough of a delay itself, but that also depends on the baseline
On top of that, the speeds aren't really any better than DSL. They're also usually either much more expensive, or heavily datacapped.
More than what was previously understood, less than would be actually necessary(as we understand it now). However, that only accounts for one factor in that universe.
Yes, I get that it wasn't a 100% serious comment. But, there is a lot of potential(for better or worse) in some of the guided human evolution of his universe.
Went on vacation, wasn't able to respond timely. I just wanted to clarify. My original point was that Amazon likely has their trusted suppliers for the products sold through them directly. They don't have that option when dealing with 3rd party sellers.
The only way for 3rd party sellers to be able to sell through Amazon, with the level of quality control you're talking about, would be for Amazon to require everything to ship through them. They would have to test each individual item, software included. Then, they would have to ship it out to the customer. This adds extra shipping costs to the overall product cost. It also requires the testers to fully understand and be able to confirm each individual product to confirm everything works correctly. This would be equivalent to a brick and mortar testing each product individually. It's just not fucking practical.
I'm not saying getting rid of the 3rd party sellers isn't a solution. In terms of product control it's the best solution. I'm just saying the only practical method of handling counterfeit(or any other not-as-described) products, while keeping the 3rd party sellers, is to handle complaints from sales and punish sellers that appear to be doing it intentionally. As a business strategy the 3rd party sellers have their pros and cons. The customers should pay attention to what they're doing and understand the potential risks when purchasing from a 3rd party seller. It's no better/worse than buying from a stall at a farmer's market, flea market, convention, etc. You have to take the bad with the good. As long as Amazon is handling reported problems with 3rd party sellers, they're doing the best they can.
You're either lying, or not grasping what is being said. You're saying every single individual item is opened, tested, and then sealed back up before being stocked on the shelf for sale? Every single USB drive is pulled out of it's package and checked that it is in fact able to store the right amount of data. Every single TV is pulled out and tested that it works. On and on with every single possible product. Again, not by someone up the chain that you trust.. but by your store. I know from personal experience that just isn't true for any normal store.
As for your earlier mention of defending Amazon, I'm not. At least, not all of their business practices. I was only explaining why Amazon testing literally every single item is just a stupid idea.
So, you're saying you open each and every individual item that comes into the store and test it?
Brick and mortar stores don't inspect each and every product as it comes into the store. That would be insane. Brick and mortar stores get their shipments from trusted sources and assume they won't get screwed over.The only way for Amazon to do the same would be to not allow 3rd party sellers at all.
First, unless it goes through an Amazon warehouse, the product is handled and shipped by the third party. Amazon is only the store front. Second, the third party could always provide correct samples to Amazon while then provide fake ones to the customer, unless they manually test each and every product(Would be counter to the first point). Third, if it comes to digital products, the people they hire would have to be very knowledgeable about every digital product they check. They would also need to buy multiple copies of the product through "personal" accounts to verify they're getting what the customer gets and that each time it matches up. Then, determine if the digital product they receive is correct and contact the developer/producer/etc and verify. Again, this would be for every seller of every product.
>> "We strictly prohibit the sale of counterfeit products, and these games have been removed." That's all it would say on this.
What else did they need to say? Someone violated their policy and they bounced them.
Except, they didn't say that at all!
That was a direct quote from an Amazon spokesperson. It came from the article, and even made it into the summary. I don't see how you can say they didn't say that.
The laws around the debt can vary by location. In one example, a quick search online mentions that unsecured debt is paid by the estate. Secured debts have priority, then unsecured debts, and then whatever is left goes to the beneficiaries.
To be candid, repayment of outstanding debt is a legal matter. While I do believe this is in poor taste, it doesn't shock me in an official communication about the debt.
You realize, you keep just spouting the same trash each time. You have no actual argument aside from your initial post. It's just the same thing over and over. As I have said, your assumptions aren't necessarily wrong in a lot of cases. They are, however, the only way to do business. What I countered with is a widely used business practice. Repeating yourself does nothing to bolster your position. I'm done trying.
A lot of what you're saying is true in most cases. However, companies already lower prices when it suits them so there isn't a concern about setting expectations. In the end, profit IS what drives them. Sometimes that means smaller margins off of more customers.
Why would any results of "leverage to use during price negotiations" need to be passed onto the consumers? Why drop the price when the population is paying that price now and will accept paying more for HD and new 4K? New networks to ensure 4K is great and new media to entertain costs money. The consumers pay what they pay now and can be told to pay more for new updates.
Businesses at this level are more than willing to pass savings on to customers. The first would be due to direct competition. Not as relevant to the ISP, but is to the media side. The other is whether the increase of customers and/or public opinion due to the price cut will off set the profits lost by offering a savings. By cutting the prices after a major merge like this, they would be showing the customers the benefits of the merge. The customers would, potentially, start thinking better of the whole situation. If done well, it's cheap marketing with improved public opinion.
Why would adding a big media comply to a big telco company change the costs of networks around the USA? Lower TV prices? .
Because things aren't as simple as you imply. One overly simple answer is that by controlling both they have more leverage to use during price negotiations.
Well, the severity of the two problems likely comes down to whether it's for personal use or not. Servers or multi-user workstations probably care a lot more about the system still being usable, vs a user losing their stuff.
I think there is some confusion there. AT&T has been offering free HBO before all this. The $65 plan USED to offer HBO. They're raising the cost to $70 and removing HBO. They did the opposite of what you're talking about here
For clarification "you just cannot NOT talk about them."
That's clearly what Nvidia thinks but I seriously doubt it. There are plenty of other things for tech journalists to write about. Also, just because you don't sign the Nvidia NDA and therefore don't have early access to Nvidia propaganda doesn't mean you can't write anything about Nvidia.
First, having other things to talk about isn't going to save journalists.. in of itself. For all its faults, Nvidia is the winner when it comes to video cards. As long as their cards keep coming out on top, that won't change. When it comes to news related to video cards, you just cannot talk about them. It's almost a point of fact. As to the part about not signing the NDA, that's entirely correct. However, I was responding to someone who's idea was to just stop talking about them altogether. It's ideological, not practical.
All the same I think a better strategy for journalists is to tell Nvidia that they won't be signing their NDA because it's much too restrictive. Nvidia would get the message much faster that way. You would hope any journalist with integrity would do that anyway.
I fully agree with you there.