They're currently structured on that premise- about like every other publicly traded company. It's so they can keep their shareseller price inflated. If they were structured like publicly traded companies of years past, they'd be more interested in long-term sustainable business (which would be still doing **GOOD** right now...amazingly so...) and worrying about increasing dividends and a slower paced growth of the share value so people would be shareholders instead of sharesellers (A shareholder is intending on holding onto their shares for an extended length of time as a proper invesment that gains decently over time- along with paying out with dividends over time... A shareseller is intending on holding the shares only long enough to find a bigger bagholder for them to fob the shares off onto before the thing implodes on them...).
As much as it sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, the actions of BoA, Chase, and pals actively forclosing on people IN GOOD STANDING [southcoast...torney.com], and in some cases, WHO DIDN'T HAVE LOANS to begin with, are quite suspicious.
I understand that one shouldn't attribute to malic what can be explained by incompetence, but the "incompetence" defense doesn't mesh with the "leading experts" line of thought behind the bailouts.
Having had a bit of "fun" with one of their "pals" until recently you should attribute malice to this situation. Seriously.
It's time for a reboot of at least one of the parties a' la what happened to the Whigs back ages back. (For those that don't know their history, the Republican party spun out of the Whigs for very much the same style/sort of situation we see today with things...).
Right now, they're just flip sides of the same corroded coin.
Which means, if Apple's smart, they'll not try to appeal and back down. Posner's basically setting the stage for ending this before it ever gets to appeals.
It's a CPU bug and a software one. If it's supposed to be securing something and it fails to do so, it's the fault of the CPU itself, regardless of whether there's good code there or not. As for the code, yeah, they should've been doing it- but the CPU should've stood there and stopped it. Now I'm going to be leery of Intel parts (again...) because of things like this.
Actually, only compared to Intel's TOP-END. You know, that stuff that runs for about $600-1000 per CPU chip...
Only reason I bought Intel this last upgrade cycle was that Micro Center was running a sale on some of that top tier so it was priced competitively with AMD's top end. However, I'm getting the impression that part of the reason Intel's faster has more to do with shortcuts in their implementation of silicon- as is evidenced by this little boo-boo.
Which is actually illegal. The terms of the deals are they extend this phone at ths price with this payment plan and you agree to not walk away from those terms for a time no less than two years- which you pay a penalty to them if you do.
The terms for payment and the services offered legally don't have an expiry. The way they get you to change contracts up is to "upgrade" your phone at a discount at the 1-2 year mark.
Sadly, this little price increase just made it more economical to not sign a new deal and just simply buy the phone at full price, keeping the old terms in place. You'll save $200-400 over the lock-in term of the agreement to do that so long as you can bear the brunt of the up-front price. I suggest saving up for it or using revolving credit on a short-term basis.
Well, one of the execs had jokingly called Verizon Wireless, "Bohica Communications" at the time of the Christmas party at Primeco the year the merger had come to pass.
Well... How do you access the Internet? Some of us don't have the luxury of having a usable Landline link to it. I use my smartphone and the USB dongle I have for those purposes.
Pay full price for the phone. Save up for it. It's actually cheaper in the long run to do that and it reminds Verizon that we're their Customers, not "Consumers".
Here's a bit of a reality check: With unlimited voice, text, AND data, I am paying $120/mo for something that has 6Gb of data and the same feature set otherwise- it's not an improvement other than you can now share data. If I did that...heh...I'd end up spending more along the lines of what I do now for the 10Gb tier on the USB dongle plus the phone plan- and only have 6Gb of usage as opposed to 12-15 per month.
Save up for a new phone at full retail price. You'll be 200-600 dollars better off in the long run by doing that. Moreover, the pricing you have will be pinned at the old pricing for anything and everything on the line. They're going to jack things up a while it seems until they realize that they may well have priced themselves out poorly.
What most people don't get is this: It's actually cheaper, even if it's slightly more painful up front, to buy the phone unsubsidized and keep the plan.
Cost per month of the pre bullshit tiers of 5Gb (what most power users will have...): $50 Cost per month of the unlimited plan: $30 Cost per month of the 6Gb tier under the "Share everything" plan: $60
Cost of an unsubsidized Galaxy Nexus: $649 Cost of subsidized: $199
So... $450 dollars divided by 24 months is $18.79 per month. The move from unlimited to a 5Gb tier is $20 per month. The move to the "Share everything" equivalent is $30.
It'll cost you $720 more to take that subsidized device over it's "expected" lifespan with the new notion Verizon's got for you than if you bite the bullet and buy it up-front.
Take a wild guess what I intend on doing... If enough of the left over unlimited and 10Gb tier people do this to Verizon, they might even wise up because it'll cost them those profits they thought they were getting.
Excuse me... If you think I'll come out ahead, you're smoking CRACK.
1 Galaxy Nexus. 2-3.5 Gb use per month. Grandfathered unlimited data. 1 LTE dongle as primary internet. I'm a consultant and "landline" internet isn't possible. ~10Gb per month.
You see a problem there? I'll end up spending approximately the same or more per month under the new plans. I'm not coming out ahead. There's others. YOU might come out ahead. About 1/3rd or so will come out ahead. But it's not this shiny thing you or Verizon make it out to be.
Heh... They tried to get me to buy into a "family" plan and their tiered data plans was going to "save me money" over my absolutely unlimited everything setup on my single phone. They faced the same reality that I was going to spend MORE doing it that way than anything else- needless to say, the wife stayed on her AT&T plan and I didn't move anyone onto my account that day.
They're constrained by what they can/can't do there by the law. Lacking a current contract, they're mainly limited to the terms of the prior agreement (i.e. the contract is still really in place, but they won't subsidize a phone for you if you don't sign up with a new contract with new terms).
Sadly, they've placed themselves in a bad position with the current plan. It's actually cheaper for many people to run with their current contract terms and buy the new phone if they'll save up the money for it or put it on a revolving credit plan and pay it off in a couple of months' time than take them up on these shared buckets. They've priced them too high. Seriously. It's $20 more for the 10Gb tier than before this bullshit- and while they weren't shared, I can assure you that I use that much data by myself fairly regularly on my dongle. It might work out "okay" (though more expensive...) for someone with a family and four smartphones with slightly lower than average to average use. It doesn't work out okay for road-warriors and remote people using their service. It just got more expensive is all it did.
Slashdot Mirror
They're currently structured on that premise- about like every other publicly traded company. It's so they can keep their shareseller price inflated. If they were structured like publicly traded companies of years past, they'd be more interested in long-term sustainable business (which would be still doing **GOOD** right now...amazingly so...) and worrying about increasing dividends and a slower paced growth of the share value so people would be share holders instead of share sellers (A shareholder is intending on holding onto their shares for an extended length of time as a proper invesment that gains decently over time- along with paying out with dividends over time... A shareseller is intending on holding the shares only long enough to find a bigger bagholder for them to fob the shares off onto before the thing implodes on them...).
Having had a bit of "fun" with one of their "pals" until recently you should attribute malice to this situation. Seriously.
More like an Oligarchy...
It's time for a reboot of at least one of the parties a' la what happened to the Whigs back ages back. (For those that don't know their history, the Republican party spun out of the Whigs for very much the same style/sort of situation we see today with things...).
Right now, they're just flip sides of the same corroded coin.
Which means, if Apple's smart, they'll not try to appeal and back down. Posner's basically setting the stage for ending this before it ever gets to appeals.
There's a hardware list- and there's a library that can detect that you're running in a VM and which VM you're actually running in.
It's a CPU bug and a software one. If it's supposed to be securing something and it fails to do so, it's the fault of the CPU itself, regardless of whether there's good code there or not. As for the code, yeah, they should've been doing it- but the CPU should've stood there and stopped it. Now I'm going to be leery of Intel parts (again...) because of things like this.
Which shouldn't be needed... Just because you have a workaround for bad silicon doesn't mean it's really "fixed".
No, but I'd buy a 12 core processor in my case because I WOULD do things with it that would absorb every one of them pretty well.
Actually, only compared to Intel's TOP-END. You know, that stuff that runs for about $600-1000 per CPU chip...
Only reason I bought Intel this last upgrade cycle was that Micro Center was running a sale on some of that top tier so it was priced competitively with AMD's top end. However, I'm getting the impression that part of the reason Intel's faster has more to do with shortcuts in their implementation of silicon- as is evidenced by this little boo-boo.
Blowing out a window's less dramatic than the movies make it out to be. Seriously.
Which is actually illegal. The terms of the deals are they extend this phone at ths price with this payment plan and you agree to not walk away from those terms for a time no less than two years- which you pay a penalty to them if you do.
The terms for payment and the services offered legally don't have an expiry. The way they get you to change contracts up is to "upgrade" your phone at a discount at the 1-2 year mark.
Sadly, this little price increase just made it more economical to not sign a new deal and just simply buy the phone at full price, keeping the old terms in place. You'll save $200-400 over the lock-in term of the agreement to do that so long as you can bear the brunt of the up-front price. I suggest saving up for it or using revolving credit on a short-term basis.
Well, one of the execs had jokingly called Verizon Wireless, "Bohica Communications" at the time of the Christmas party at Primeco the year the merger had come to pass.
Seems that it was strangely prophetic.
No, they're providing 50-grit for that...and then apparently charging you for it...
Well... How do you access the Internet? Some of us don't have the luxury of having a usable Landline link to it. I use my smartphone and the USB dongle I have for those purposes.
Pay full price for the phone. Save up for it. It's actually cheaper in the long run to do that and it reminds Verizon that we're their Customers, not "Consumers".
Here's a bit of a reality check: With unlimited voice, text, AND data, I am paying $120/mo for something that has 6Gb of data and the same feature set otherwise- it's not an improvement other than you can now share data. If I did that...heh...I'd end up spending more along the lines of what I do now for the 10Gb tier on the USB dongle plus the phone plan- and only have 6Gb of usage as opposed to 12-15 per month.
Save up for a new phone at full retail price. You'll be 200-600 dollars better off in the long run by doing that. Moreover, the pricing you have will be pinned at the old pricing for anything and everything on the line. They're going to jack things up a while it seems until they realize that they may well have priced themselves out poorly.
Riight. Want to have me move a Horse Farm operation in next door?
Oops... It's $720 - $450. It's not QUITE that nice with the Nexus, but it's that nice with a slightly cheaper phone.
What most people don't get is this: It's actually cheaper, even if it's slightly more painful up front, to buy the phone unsubsidized and keep the plan.
Cost per month of the pre bullshit tiers of 5Gb (what most power users will have...): $50
Cost per month of the unlimited plan: $30
Cost per month of the 6Gb tier under the "Share everything" plan: $60
Cost of an unsubsidized Galaxy Nexus: $649
Cost of subsidized: $199
So... $450 dollars divided by 24 months is $18.79 per month.
The move from unlimited to a 5Gb tier is $20 per month. The move to the "Share everything" equivalent is $30.
It'll cost you $720 more to take that subsidized device over it's "expected" lifespan with the new notion Verizon's got for you than if you bite the bullet and buy it up-front.
Take a wild guess what I intend on doing... If enough of the left over unlimited and 10Gb tier people do this to Verizon, they might even wise up because it'll cost them those profits they thought they were getting.
Either that or save up for a new one- you're still ahead in many cases if you're doing that; it's actually my current plan going forward.
Excuse me... If you think I'll come out ahead, you're smoking CRACK.
1 Galaxy Nexus. 2-3.5 Gb use per month. Grandfathered unlimited data.
1 LTE dongle as primary internet. I'm a consultant and "landline" internet isn't possible. ~10Gb per month.
You see a problem there? I'll end up spending approximately the same or more per month under the new plans. I'm not coming out ahead. There's others. YOU might come out ahead. About 1/3rd or so will come out ahead. But it's not this shiny thing you or Verizon make it out to be.
Heh... They tried to get me to buy into a "family" plan and their tiered data plans was going to "save me money" over my absolutely unlimited everything setup on my single phone. They faced the same reality that I was going to spend MORE doing it that way than anything else- needless to say, the wife stayed on her AT&T plan and I didn't move anyone onto my account that day.
They're constrained by what they can/can't do there by the law. Lacking a current contract, they're mainly limited to the terms of the prior agreement (i.e. the contract is still really in place, but they won't subsidize a phone for you if you don't sign up with a new contract with new terms).
Sadly, they've placed themselves in a bad position with the current plan. It's actually cheaper for many people to run with their current contract terms and buy the new phone if they'll save up the money for it or put it on a revolving credit plan and pay it off in a couple of months' time than take them up on these shared buckets. They've priced them too high. Seriously. It's $20 more for the 10Gb tier than before this bullshit- and while they weren't shared, I can assure you that I use that much data by myself fairly regularly on my dongle. It might work out "okay" (though more expensive...) for someone with a family and four smartphones with slightly lower than average to average use. It doesn't work out okay for road-warriors and remote people using their service. It just got more expensive is all it did.