When Apple introduced the Apple I, there was no other consumer-market computer. Before that there were kits for hobbyists and bigger computers for scientists. When Apple introduced digital music players there were other players that captured significant consumer interest. So there was no market. A simplistic UI and a flashy iTunes store made that enormously profitable. When Apple introduced the iPhone there was no other music phone on the market that was worth the trouble and nobody knew how to make it profitable. When Apple introduced iPads there were other tablets on the market. They were klunky and didn't sell very well. Again, no market because the applications that you could run on them were too limited.
Apple created all those markets by creating products designed for and targeted at a wide consumer demographic. They were easy to use. And Apple really learned their lesson from the troubles they had in the early 90s. Macintoshes were the LAST products they made and maybe the last they'll ever make that aren't targeted to capture a continuing revenue stream for paid content.
Nobody said their stuff was shit. It works and it works pretty well. Some of their products work VERY well. But there are other products on the market that also work very well. The difference is the effectiveness of their marketing.
I'm probably twice your age, not half. I remember the release of the first Apple computer. Before that there were various kit computers like the Altair, designed for hobbyists. Apple made the first one really designed and marketed as a consumer product.
Commodore's PET was a close second. A PET was the second computer I ever programmed. The first I had to program via a teletype and store my programs on punch tape. The Apple II was the third computer I used and programmed.
1. Apple's marketing people are the best in the consumer electronics industry.
2. Their top management always knew that they were a CONSUMER electronics company. Not a computer company that also made some accessories. Not a technology company or a software company, although they were really good at those things too.
Apple's phone doesn't employ much more advanced tech than high-end Android phones. Apple's music store doesn't employ any technology that its competitors don't have. There's nothing unusually compelling about their music players -- any more.
Their distinction is that they got there first.
There are two aspects of marketing where Apple really excelled. The first is conventional marketing: push, push, push that product. The second (which is really the first) is that Apple, unlike its competition, wasn't afraid to go out and create a market where one didn't exist. That's always been part of Apple's business model. It started with the Apple computer. They were the first company to really market computers to home users. They didn't INVENT computers or even computers that could have been sold directly to consumers. They were just the first to ignore their fear that the market wouldn't accept them.
Apple was right out front with the digital music players and a digital music store. Then they were the first to bring music to phones. It's not like nobody had thought of this before. It was all being discussed in electronics companies across the the USA and Japan. Lots of engineers had great ideas for how this would work. They all knew how these things could be done. But at these other companies management wasn't interested in taking a risk on introducing a new category of consumer product. Apple was all about that risk.
Steve Jobs, specifically, wanted to be first because he knew how much being first was worth.
Best selling digital music player -- Marketing. Best selling cell phone -- Marketing. Best profit margins -- Marketing. Largest digital music download store -- Marketing.
Q1: Two independent? sources produce photons whose states are entangled? How does that make sense? Q 2: How do you establish that Bob and Alice's selection of correlated filters did not cause Victor to choose entanglement? Isn't that a valid interpretation of the results? Q 3: What does "combines them so that their states are entangled" mean? How is this done? How does it differ from an experiment to determine if the polarizations agree?
I saw a woman today at the grocery store who looked like she had zero body fat. Not a pretty sight I can tell you. I wanted to drop six pounds of bacon in her basket as an act of charity, bit I thought she might take it amiss. Besides, it wouldn't have been enough.
The article says they successfully cloned the roundworm gene into a sheep but doesn't say how much it changes the fat in the sheep. Who knows if it's even significant? And who knows if it's OK for sheep's health to make a weird kind of fat and who know if people will like to eat wormutton?
A lot of the taste of meat is in the fat. Will it taste wormy?
So intergalactic space is modeled as what, completely empty? And dark matter and dark energy are modeled as what?
But maybe more interesting than that is how do you model the boundary conditions? What's beyond the end of simulated space and how do you model that? How do you model the fact that the universe has no fixed frame of reference?
CEOs might be an exception. Normal employees are subject to the judgment of their managers who wouldn't be employing them if they did not think they were worth their pay.
I see median ages of death for males at about 35. So the idea that men were "old" at 30 is not supported by data. More than half of the men lived longer than that, and about half of the women lived longer than that. So it doesn't make sense to me in the light of that data to say that a person was unlikely to live to be 45 or 50 -- old enough to see children born to them at 30 to adulthood. That's only 15 or 20 years past median, and we know the standard deviation must have been quite large because 20% or so of children died in their first 5 years.
And I think it's clear that there was a reproductive advantage to living long enough to see your grandchildren.
Well, I've certainly never seen it written down but HR people have suggested that salary isn't something that should be talked about with other workers. Supposedly it's bad for morale or something. And I've never seen anybody fired or disciplined for discussing pay.
The salary would be justified or they wouldn't be paying Mike that much. But if Cathy's skills and productivity match Mike's she can argue that she should be paid as much as Mike because her value to the company is the same. But she can only make that argument if she knows what Mike is paid. So the company doesn't want her to know, nor does it want Mike to know that he's paid more than Cathy.
Slashdot Mirror
When Apple introduced the Apple I, there was no other consumer-market computer. Before that there were kits for hobbyists and bigger computers for scientists.
When Apple introduced digital music players there were other players that captured significant consumer interest. So there was no market. A simplistic UI and a flashy iTunes store made that enormously profitable.
When Apple introduced the iPhone there was no other music phone on the market that was worth the trouble and nobody knew how to make it profitable.
When Apple introduced iPads there were other tablets on the market. They were klunky and didn't sell very well. Again, no market because the applications that you could run on them were too limited.
Apple created all those markets by creating products designed for and targeted at a wide consumer demographic. They were easy to use. And Apple really learned their lesson from the troubles they had in the early 90s. Macintoshes were the LAST products they made and maybe the last they'll ever make that aren't targeted to capture a continuing revenue stream for paid content.
Nobody said their stuff was shit. It works and it works pretty well. Some of their products work VERY well. But there are other products on the market that also work very well. The difference is the effectiveness of their marketing.
I'm probably twice your age, not half. I remember the release of the first Apple computer. Before that there were various kit computers like the Altair, designed for hobbyists. Apple made the first one really designed and marketed as a consumer product.
Commodore's PET was a close second. A PET was the second computer I ever programmed. The first I had to program via a teletype and store my programs on punch tape. The Apple II was the third computer I used and programmed.
... and I'm glad it's happening in another country.
1. Apple's marketing people are the best in the consumer electronics industry.
2. Their top management always knew that they were a CONSUMER electronics company. Not a computer company that also made some accessories. Not a technology company or a software company, although they were really good at those things too.
Apple's phone doesn't employ much more advanced tech than high-end Android phones.
Apple's music store doesn't employ any technology that its competitors don't have.
There's nothing unusually compelling about their music players -- any more.
Their distinction is that they got there first.
There are two aspects of marketing where Apple really excelled. The first is conventional marketing: push, push, push that product. The second (which is really the first) is that Apple, unlike its competition, wasn't afraid to go out and create a market where one didn't exist. That's always been part of Apple's business model. It started with the Apple computer. They were the first company to really market computers to home users. They didn't INVENT computers or even computers that could have been sold directly to consumers. They were just the first to ignore their fear that the market wouldn't accept them.
Apple was right out front with the digital music players and a digital music store. Then they were the first to bring music to phones. It's not like nobody had thought of this before. It was all being discussed in electronics companies across the the USA and Japan. Lots of engineers had great ideas for how this would work. They all knew how these things could be done. But at these other companies management wasn't interested in taking a risk on introducing a new category of consumer product. Apple was all about that risk.
Steve Jobs, specifically, wanted to be first because he knew how much being first was worth.
There isn't a veil of liability for criminal violations. The individuals who committed the crimes are simply prosecuted.
Best selling digital music player -- Marketing.
Best selling cell phone -- Marketing.
Best profit margins -- Marketing.
Largest digital music download store -- Marketing.
You were saying?
You did not see this woman. It was about an unhealthily low amount of body fat.
And I can totally clean and jerk more than six pounds of bacon.
And not have to think about eating worms. Ewe!
Ewe!
Q1: Two independent? sources produce photons whose states are entangled? How does that make sense?
Q 2: How do you establish that Bob and Alice's selection of correlated filters did not cause Victor to choose entanglement? Isn't that a valid interpretation of the results?
Q 3: What does "combines them so that their states are entangled" mean? How is this done? How does it differ from an experiment to determine if the polarizations agree?
An influence on the brain function of a sheep could only be for the better though.
I don't know where that nonsense came from. The fat gene comes from a worm.
I saw a woman today at the grocery store who looked like she had zero body fat. Not a pretty sight I can tell you. I wanted to drop six pounds of bacon in her basket as an act of charity, bit I thought she might take it amiss. Besides, it wouldn't have been enough.
The article says they successfully cloned the roundworm gene into a sheep but doesn't say how much it changes the fat in the sheep. Who knows if it's even significant? And who knows if it's OK for sheep's health to make a weird kind of fat and who know if people will like to eat wormutton?
A lot of the taste of meat is in the fat. Will it taste wormy?
So intergalactic space is modeled as what, completely empty? And dark matter and dark energy are modeled as what?
But maybe more interesting than that is how do you model the boundary conditions? What's beyond the end of simulated space and how do you model that? How do you model the fact that the universe has no fixed frame of reference?
CEOs might be an exception. Normal employees are subject to the judgment of their managers who wouldn't be employing them if they did not think they were worth their pay.
Or are resigned to the fact that there's nobody else who might be elected and prefer one of those two over the other.
Yeah we should totally convert our cropland to producing fuel to heat homesand move cars because people don't need to eat food.
Where do I sign up?
Is the 1000 TCF the economically recoverable portion or the total amount of gas in the ground?
It makes a big difference.
They're saying it was inefficient to have it as its own department separate from computer engineering and software engineering disciplines.
But I wonder where one would study advanced topics in computing now. Maybe the answer is "not at the University of Florida."
I see median ages of death for males at about 35. So the idea that men were "old" at 30 is not supported by data. More than half of the men lived longer than that, and about half of the women lived longer than that. So it doesn't make sense to me in the light of that data to say that a person was unlikely to live to be 45 or 50 -- old enough to see children born to them at 30 to adulthood. That's only 15 or 20 years past median, and we know the standard deviation must have been quite large because 20% or so of children died in their first 5 years.
And I think it's clear that there was a reproductive advantage to living long enough to see your grandchildren.
Well, I've certainly never seen it written down but HR people have suggested that salary isn't something that should be talked about with other workers. Supposedly it's bad for morale or something. And I've never seen anybody fired or disciplined for discussing pay.
The salary would be justified or they wouldn't be paying Mike that much. But if Cathy's skills and productivity match Mike's she can argue that she should be paid as much as Mike because her value to the company is the same. But she can only make that argument if she knows what Mike is paid. So the company doesn't want her to know, nor does it want Mike to know that he's paid more than Cathy.
Well if our spending is only 10% as efficient...