Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
Good point. That would be a decent strategy - use the motor to conserve energy, fake/cause a flat when convenient, swap out the wheel and destroy the evidence...
Dairy farmers still exist, and milk isn't a particularly new product.
If people upgrade their phone every 2-3 years (and that has been the trend), there isn't a need for a "new product". Of course, Apple wants to grow and diversify so they will come up with new products, but that's not strictly necessary for a business to succeed.
Regenerate it on the downhills/flat pedaling. Of course you'd need a more complex motor (you wouldn't want to drain 100W to charge it, you'd want to charge slowly then use it when you most need it, i.e. to accelerate or go uphill).
Most children first exposure of computing is thru Android. Maybe this is not noticeable in the USA but there's like 7 billion people in the world and you can buy an Android phone for a few dollars.
Wow, you really just don't get Apple's business, do you? They don't care about consumers looking for a low end phone, their business is focused on huge profit margins selling at the high end of the market. A big part of Apple's continued growth is due to the fact that the iPhone's high price and reputation makes it a status symbol in Asia. Tarnishing that with ultra low-end products won't help them. They'd rather sell one iPhone at $200 profit than 10 Android phones at $10 profit.
(actually, this article claims LG's profit margin has dropped to $0.01 per Android phone. And HTC has lost so much money selling them they are on the verge of bankruptcy).
Market share doesn't really matter in this case, it's the portion of the market they control that matters. And even if that weren't the case, as long as the total market is increasing all companies can grow regardless of market share changes.
Yeah, seriously, it really doesn't matter what they put in the iPhone.
As long as they follow their current annual strategy of "even year, increment number, slightly redesign case, odd year, add an S, hype a bit more RAM and CPU in a live announcement in San Francisco" they are pretty much guaranteed to bring in $200B a year for the foreseeable future...
That would hurt Apple as much as Google, and maybe more.
Google pays Apple more than $1B a year to make it the default, as well as a share of ads served on iOS, estimated at being up to another billion. Looking it up, Google made about $9B on iOS ads, but only about $4-5B was from mobile Safari (the rest is from in-app ads, etc).
Even if the default was not Google, many users would just change it back to Google (I know I would - Yahoo and Bing suck ass), so say Google would lose $2-3B in revenue but then save $2B in payments to Apple. So it's a good deal for Google, but not a great deal. And, it's a also a good deal for Apple, because unless can find another ad provider who will pay more and generate more ad revenue, Apple would lose some amount that $2B a year they get from Google.
So, they are both making a reasonable return on the deal, and would both lose out if they cancelled it. Which makes sense, they are both very well run companies who don't throw around money without understanding their return on investment.
Actually, Apple is already seeing it. Their forecast for iPhone sales is way below last year. Probably partly because people are looking for cheaper phones, and early because they are keeping their old ones longer.
Of course a lot of this has to do with the fact you can't sustain the growth of a high end product like the iPhone once you have already reached all of those who can afford it; the new customers are going to have to start coming from countries and income classes that just can't afford a $600 phone.
I have another theory about this decrease in sales, though - now that all of the carries in US are switching from subsidized contracts to bring-your-own phone and/or a leasing model, people are finally starting to realize just how much they have been paying for their phone hardware over the years, and it's made them a lot more price-conscious about their phone purchases.
Woz made Apple a great company in 1983. Considering they aren't selling many Apple II's these days, I'm pretty sure even he would disagree with the statement that he had anything to do with Apple's current situation.
Not sure why I am bothering to reply to an AC, but ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
$76B in revenue and $18B in profit in the LAST QUARTER.
For a doomed company, that ain't bad. If you disagree, please point out another company that made more profit in 2016. Hint, that's rhetorical, there isn't one.
Apple may need "another killer device" to continue to grow to that predicted "1 trillion dollar company". But holy fuck, how is not going from the biggest market cap in the world to the even biggerest market cap in the world "doomed"?
image repositories (ie imgur) to ensure they don't host (eg images of child abuse)
As I said, if it's a *legal* responsibility (child porn, etc) then obviously the need to act.
Otherwise I totally disagree with your statement "just because Twitter is privately owned doesn't absolve them of public responsibility by any means." In fact, that totally absolves them of non-illegal "public responsibility". At that point their only legal responsibility is to their shareholders, which means they should decide purely on whether it gains or loses them customers. Do I hope they make the "moral" choice regardless of that responsibility? Of course. But is the moral choice their responsibility? No, it's really not...
Congress don't make State laws, individual States do.
Wait what? Are you now arguing with yourself? Didn't you previously say "it applies to State legislature as well, by extension to any public body"?
I wasn't arguing with that statement, I was pointing out that is was a pointless comment - assuming someone understands that the Bill of Rights applies to all levels of US government...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
It's called the Supremacy Clause. Federal law takes precedence over State law, so yes, Congress most definitely makes laws that apply to states.
It doesn't absolve them of *moral* responsibility, sure. And I'm sure we all hope they live up to that, but the only way to enforce that is via consumer choice.
But really, as a publicly traded company they have no *legal* responsibility. In fact, their only real legal responsibility in this regard is a *financial* one. Which may be sad, but true. And also why there is no way in hell they will take down Trump posts unless he somehow decides to become an independent terrorist organization.
Yes, obviously the US Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to all governmental bodies in the US. Your entire post was just to be pedantic and point out the obvious? Or were you unclear that US states and cities are in the US?
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
Really? Yeah. The idea that your singular experience somehow applies to everyone else's is the real bullshit. And what the hell does playing a *game* as "a man" vs "a woman" have to do with Twitter harassment?
And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
Oh... so you are a "gamergate" hater. Makes sense now. So then, I'll leave you with this. I assume from your post you assume it's all ok just because that woman on Twitter said... well, I'm at a loss... NOTHING ANYONE COULD SAY WARRANTS THIS.
If someone gets banned for tweeting "YOU STUPID CUNT IMA FUCKING RAPE YOU ALL THE WAY TO 2069" - well - I'm ok with that. And you blame the victim for "trolling" and deserving it. You're awesome!
Opposing Muslims or Mexicans isn't racist; neither of those terms is a race or correlates strongly with a race.
I suppose the proper term is "bigoted", but the distinction is fairly pointless in this case. The irony of your comment is most of the people who are supporting Trump's bigoted opinions don't make a distinction between Muslims and "brown people/arabs" or Mexicans and "latinos". For ample evidence of this see the many examples of random hatred and violence being perpetrated on Indians, Sikhs, and anyone else who "looks the part".
Trying to pedantically argue this is not technically "racism" as it's against a religion serves no useful purpose. And in fact, it's pretty strong evidence that your statement "neither of these terms correlates strongly with a race" is blatantly false, as these people are being targeted because they "look like Muslims". Which doesn't seem to make sense, but that isn't stopping them as there is clearly correlation in their minds.
he hasn't so much attacked those groups as attacked their illegal presence in the U.S
I'm pretty sure his suggestion that ALL MUSLIM AMERICANS might be required to register their religion with the government and carry id cards is attacking that group specifically, and has absolutely nothing to do with illegal presence or criminality.
Restricting "social welfare/opportunity", sure: lower taxes are the goal, reduced social programs are the result.
When restricting "social freedoms" (abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, religion in schools, etc) it's much more about personal beliefs and the government's role in applying those beliefs universally.
Besides that, though, I agree that most of the post is bullshit. First: slashdot, come on? Posting an article that is pure opinion and the only supporting links *are* from the submitter's blog? Give me a break.
Second: here's a gem from the blog: "You retweet someone else's tweet, you own that content just as if it was your tweet originally."
Oh, REALLY? That's awesome, I didn't know it was so easy to take over someone else's copyright! I think about a million comedians on Twitter are going to disagree with this absurd and totally incorrect statement...
And I loathe both Twitter and Trump. Twitter is a cesspool of narcissistic a-holes, and Trump is therefore their poster child. But of his racist and despicable posts, I haven't seen anything he has said that qualifies as harassment or actual "hate speech". Just good old fashioned bigotry...
If the account is held and tweets are posted from inside the United States then damn right I would be out raged by Twitter taking down ISIS accounts. If those tweets originated outside the Unites States then I have no problem with it. The US constitution doesn't apply outside of US borders.
What does Twitter's freedom to take down content or ban its users, citizens or not, have to do with the US Constitution?
CENSORSHIP has nothing to do with private companies, you uneducated fool. Twitter would be (and should be) enforcing their policies of no hate speech.
That's ridiculous. Nothing about the concept of censorship makes it exclusive to governments. Anyone can censor something.
You are thinking of the First Amendment, which (except for certain very notable exceptions) bans the government from censoring freedom of speech and the press. But that certainly doesn't mean "censorship has nothing to do with private companies". It just means it's not illegal for them to censor. As it shouldn't be - it's their company and the content on their site represents them, they should be able to take down whatever they feel is in their interest.
Anyway, I guess I agree with your sentiment, just not your statement.
Should there be a point at which a company becomes so powerful that they should be subject to the same restrictions on their actions as are placed upon government - including a requirement that they treat all speech over their services equally, without discrimination?
It's already the case. TV networks are required by law to provide equal time to all candidates. Of course, that only applies to broadcast TV networks, not cable, since the FCC generally does not regulate non-broadcast communication.
That said, Twitter does not license public airwaves, so the US government has no leverage over them. A specific law would have to be passed to allow regulation and censorship of Internet services, which is pretty unlikely... (though I'm sure some of the more back backasswards Congresspeople will try).
while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
Please provide any evidence this is actually true. The only examples I have ever seen where post made towards feminists resulted in a ban, those posts involved fairly blunt threats of rape, murder, or other explicit harassment.
If you could see the types of things that are spewed daily at women on Twitter, even you might be shocked. A friend of mine routinely gets comments like "you blue haired feminist bitch, you deserve to be raped and left for dead" (etc). I guess "drawing ire" is one way to describe that... if you are sociopath...
That said, I absolutely loathe Twitter. I signed up for an account in 2008, realized it's the very definition of narcissism and the dumbing down of conversation, and haven't used it since.
it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities
And right wing politics, Neo-nazis and racists, and terrorist groups. It's a pretty equal opportunity shitshow.
Slashdot Mirror
Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
Good point. That would be a decent strategy - use the motor to conserve energy, fake/cause a flat when convenient, swap out the wheel and destroy the evidence...
Dairy farmers still exist, and milk isn't a particularly new product.
If people upgrade their phone every 2-3 years (and that has been the trend), there isn't a need for a "new product". Of course, Apple wants to grow and diversify so they will come up with new products, but that's not strictly necessary for a business to succeed.
Regenerate it on the downhills/flat pedaling. Of course you'd need a more complex motor (you wouldn't want to drain 100W to charge it, you'd want to charge slowly then use it when you most need it, i.e. to accelerate or go uphill).
Otherwise the second profits dip an "activist" shareholder swoops in and they get Bained.
Except Apple has enough cash to take itself private if it wanted. Unless they blow through all of that it could never happen.
Most children first exposure of computing is thru Android. Maybe this is not noticeable in the USA but there's like 7 billion people in the world and you can buy an Android phone for a few dollars.
Wow, you really just don't get Apple's business, do you? They don't care about consumers looking for a low end phone, their business is focused on huge profit margins selling at the high end of the market. A big part of Apple's continued growth is due to the fact that the iPhone's high price and reputation makes it a status symbol in Asia. Tarnishing that with ultra low-end products won't help them. They'd rather sell one iPhone at $200 profit than 10 Android phones at $10 profit.
(actually, this article claims LG's profit margin has dropped to $0.01 per Android phone. And HTC has lost so much money selling them they are on the verge of bankruptcy).
Market share doesn't really matter in this case, it's the portion of the market they control that matters. And even if that weren't the case, as long as the total market is increasing all companies can grow regardless of market share changes.
Yeah, seriously, it really doesn't matter what they put in the iPhone.
As long as they follow their current annual strategy of "even year, increment number, slightly redesign case, odd year, add an S, hype a bit more RAM and CPU in a live announcement in San Francisco" they are pretty much guaranteed to bring in $200B a year for the foreseeable future...
That would hurt Apple as much as Google, and maybe more.
Google pays Apple more than $1B a year to make it the default, as well as a share of ads served on iOS, estimated at being up to another billion. Looking it up, Google made about $9B on iOS ads, but only about $4-5B was from mobile Safari (the rest is from in-app ads, etc).
Even if the default was not Google, many users would just change it back to Google (I know I would - Yahoo and Bing suck ass), so say Google would lose $2-3B in revenue but then save $2B in payments to Apple. So it's a good deal for Google, but not a great deal. And, it's a also a good deal for Apple, because unless can find another ad provider who will pay more and generate more ad revenue, Apple would lose some amount that $2B a year they get from Google.
So, they are both making a reasonable return on the deal, and would both lose out if they cancelled it. Which makes sense, they are both very well run companies who don't throw around money without understanding their return on investment.
Actually, Apple is already seeing it. Their forecast for iPhone sales is way below last year. Probably partly because people are looking for cheaper phones, and early because they are keeping their old ones longer.
Of course a lot of this has to do with the fact you can't sustain the growth of a high end product like the iPhone once you have already reached all of those who can afford it; the new customers are going to have to start coming from countries and income classes that just can't afford a $600 phone.
I have another theory about this decrease in sales, though - now that all of the carries in US are switching from subsidized contracts to bring-your-own phone and/or a leasing model, people are finally starting to realize just how much they have been paying for their phone hardware over the years, and it's made them a lot more price-conscious about their phone purchases.
Woz made Apple a great company in 1983. Considering they aren't selling many Apple II's these days, I'm pretty sure even he would disagree with the statement that he had anything to do with Apple's current situation.
Not sure why I am bothering to reply to an AC, but ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
$76B in revenue and $18B in profit in the LAST QUARTER.
For a doomed company, that ain't bad. If you disagree, please point out another company that made more profit in 2016. Hint, that's rhetorical, there isn't one.
Apple may need "another killer device" to continue to grow to that predicted "1 trillion dollar company". But holy fuck, how is not going from the biggest market cap in the world to the even biggerest market cap in the world "doomed"?
image repositories (ie imgur) to ensure they don't host (eg images of child abuse)
As I said, if it's a *legal* responsibility (child porn, etc) then obviously the need to act.
Otherwise I totally disagree with your statement "just because Twitter is privately owned doesn't absolve them of public responsibility by any means." In fact, that totally absolves them of non-illegal "public responsibility". At that point their only legal responsibility is to their shareholders, which means they should decide purely on whether it gains or loses them customers. Do I hope they make the "moral" choice regardless of that responsibility? Of course. But is the moral choice their responsibility? No, it's really not...
Congress don't make State laws, individual States do.
Wait what? Are you now arguing with yourself? Didn't you previously say "it applies to State legislature as well, by extension to any public body"?
I wasn't arguing with that statement, I was pointing out that is was a pointless comment - assuming someone understands that the Bill of Rights applies to all levels of US government...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
It's called the Supremacy Clause. Federal law takes precedence over State law, so yes, Congress most definitely makes laws that apply to states.
Eh, "public responsibility" means nothing...
It doesn't absolve them of *moral* responsibility, sure. And I'm sure we all hope they live up to that, but the only way to enforce that is via consumer choice.
But really, as a publicly traded company they have no *legal* responsibility. In fact, their only real legal responsibility in this regard is a *financial* one. Which may be sad, but true. And also why there is no way in hell they will take down Trump posts unless he somehow decides to become an independent terrorist organization.
Yes, obviously the US Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to all governmental bodies in the US. Your entire post was just to be pedantic and point out the obvious? Or were you unclear that US states and cities are in the US?
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
Really? Yeah. The idea that your singular experience somehow applies to everyone else's is the real bullshit. And what the hell does playing a *game* as "a man" vs "a woman" have to do with Twitter harassment?
And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
Oh... so you are a "gamergate" hater. Makes sense now. So then, I'll leave you with this. I assume from your post you assume it's all ok just because that woman on Twitter said... well, I'm at a loss... NOTHING ANYONE COULD SAY WARRANTS THIS.
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post...
If someone gets banned for tweeting "YOU STUPID CUNT IMA FUCKING RAPE YOU ALL THE WAY TO 2069" - well - I'm ok with that. And you blame the victim for "trolling" and deserving it. You're awesome!
Opposing Muslims or Mexicans isn't racist; neither of those terms is a race or correlates strongly with a race.
I suppose the proper term is "bigoted", but the distinction is fairly pointless in this case. The irony of your comment is most of the people who are supporting Trump's bigoted opinions don't make a distinction between Muslims and "brown people/arabs" or Mexicans and "latinos". For ample evidence of this see the many examples of random hatred and violence being perpetrated on Indians, Sikhs, and anyone else who "looks the part".
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Trying to pedantically argue this is not technically "racism" as it's against a religion serves no useful purpose. And in fact, it's pretty strong evidence that your statement "neither of these terms correlates strongly with a race" is blatantly false, as these people are being targeted because they "look like Muslims". Which doesn't seem to make sense, but that isn't stopping them as there is clearly correlation in their minds.
he hasn't so much attacked those groups as attacked their illegal presence in the U.S
I'm pretty sure his suggestion that ALL MUSLIM AMERICANS might be required to register their religion with the government and carry id cards is attacking that group specifically, and has absolutely nothing to do with illegal presence or criminality.
conservatives' desire to restrict social freedom
Restricting "social welfare/opportunity", sure: lower taxes are the goal, reduced social programs are the result.
When restricting "social freedoms" (abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, religion in schools, etc) it's much more about personal beliefs and the government's role in applying those beliefs universally.
New owners? It has absolutely nothing to do with the new owners. Timothy posted this.
And aberration? Again, Timothy posted this. As he posts stupid, irrelevant shit all the time.
If anything, you should be hoping the new owners clean house a bit and can find some real editors...
She writes a vague blog post
He. Lauren is a man.
Besides that, though, I agree that most of the post is bullshit. First: slashdot, come on? Posting an article that is pure opinion and the only supporting links *are* from the submitter's blog? Give me a break.
Second: here's a gem from the blog: "You retweet someone else's tweet, you own that content just as if it was your tweet originally."
Oh, REALLY? That's awesome, I didn't know it was so easy to take over someone else's copyright! I think about a million comedians on Twitter are going to disagree with this absurd and totally incorrect statement...
And I loathe both Twitter and Trump. Twitter is a cesspool of narcissistic a-holes, and Trump is therefore their poster child. But of his racist and despicable posts, I haven't seen anything he has said that qualifies as harassment or actual "hate speech". Just good old fashioned bigotry...
It's not a law, it's an Amendment. And as he said, it's only protected from government interference, not from corporations or private citizens.
Don't even bother arguing with him. Based on his post he still doesn't get the basic idea that the First Amendment only applies to the US government.
If the account is held and tweets are posted from inside the United States then damn right I would be out raged by Twitter taking down ISIS accounts. If those tweets originated outside the Unites States then I have no problem with it. The US constitution doesn't apply outside of US borders.
What does Twitter's freedom to take down content or ban its users, citizens or not, have to do with the US Constitution?
CENSORSHIP has nothing to do with private companies, you uneducated fool. Twitter would be (and should be) enforcing their policies of no hate speech.
That's ridiculous. Nothing about the concept of censorship makes it exclusive to governments. Anyone can censor something.
You are thinking of the First Amendment, which (except for certain very notable exceptions) bans the government from censoring freedom of speech and the press. But that certainly doesn't mean "censorship has nothing to do with private companies". It just means it's not illegal for them to censor. As it shouldn't be - it's their company and the content on their site represents them, they should be able to take down whatever they feel is in their interest.
Anyway, I guess I agree with your sentiment, just not your statement.
Should there be a point at which a company becomes so powerful that they should be subject to the same restrictions on their actions as are placed upon government - including a requirement that they treat all speech over their services equally, without discrimination?
It's already the case. TV networks are required by law to provide equal time to all candidates. Of course, that only applies to broadcast TV networks, not cable, since the FCC generally does not regulate non-broadcast communication.
That said, Twitter does not license public airwaves, so the US government has no leverage over them. A specific law would have to be passed to allow regulation and censorship of Internet services, which is pretty unlikely... (though I'm sure some of the more back backasswards Congresspeople will try).
while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
Please provide any evidence this is actually true. The only examples I have ever seen where post made towards feminists resulted in a ban, those posts involved fairly blunt threats of rape, murder, or other explicit harassment.
If you could see the types of things that are spewed daily at women on Twitter, even you might be shocked. A friend of mine routinely gets comments like "you blue haired feminist bitch, you deserve to be raped and left for dead" (etc). I guess "drawing ire" is one way to describe that... if you are sociopath...
That said, I absolutely loathe Twitter. I signed up for an account in 2008, realized it's the very definition of narcissism and the dumbing down of conversation, and haven't used it since.
it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities
And right wing politics, Neo-nazis and racists, and terrorist groups. It's a pretty equal opportunity shitshow.