Last I checked (Q1 2018), the mean revenue per user for paid apps and in-app purchases was so much larger on Apple's App Store than on Google Play Store that it outweighed Android's larger user base: "$5.08 was generated per device with the App Store during Q1 compared to only $0.47 with the Play Store."
With the exception of the market for tools to develop smart phone applications. If you develop such an application on any computer other than a Mac, it will be Android exclusive, and Android users tend to be less willing to pay for apps than iOS users.
So your logic is that Apple should be broken up because its users pay more for apps? Because Android people (disclaimer: I am one) are cheap fuckers, Apple should get broken up?
That some type of liberal logic?
Android has more users and more apps, but the users are freeloaders so we should break up Apple...
Seriously, their desktop market share is, what, 5-10%?
Smart phones? Last I heard Android outsells iPhones by 10-1, worldwide.
Maybe they charge an unreasonable amount for their hardware, but that hardly qualifies as a reason to butcher the company. You have alternatives in every market they are in.
There is a bit of truth to that statement, no doubt. But when you can use religion to whip the mob into a frenzy....
Nevertheless, the idea that religion is the reason we have medical care is moronic at best. Religion, generally, has blamed various afflictions on demons or angry gods. If a demon is the reason you have the sniffles, what the fuck would be the point of attempting to treat them with medicine? Better to go get a really big knife and let the demon out... Problem solved..
Chess programs have absolutely nothing to do with AI. Most chess programs are just brute force engines... The computer isn't "thinking" it just runs through millions of possible moves every second to arrive at a desired finish.
Ironically, from theology came medical care. Without God, the law survival of the fittest is taken to its most extreme interpretation, and there are no cripples, not for long anyway, until they are sacrificed or abandoned as unwanteds.
With God(s) thousands (millions?) of humans have been sacrificed over the millennia in various attempts to please various gods.
Ironically, up until recent times, most wars were the result of people fighting over who had the best god or, if they had the same god, the proper way to worship this god.
Without God there's less chance you'll be dragged out of your house and strapped to a stone altar to be mutilated.
But, since it's pretty obvious you're a typical theist, I'm not surprised you presented absolutely zero evidence for your statement.. I suppose that we're just supposed to accept your theory on... (wait for it)..... faith.
And chances are if you're a working schlub with a modest savings account, that account is with a local bank which means there's are least some benefit to the local economy as the bank lends that money to others. Even if that benefit isn't as effective, it still exists.
Well, it's not really a requirement for banks to have cash-on-hand to do loans.. Fractional reserve banking did away with that requirement a long time ago. I mean, technically, yeah they have to have _some_ cash, but seeing as they can loan out 9x what they have, even the smallest banks can write some pretty decent loans.. As long as they are fiscally sound, they can borrow cash from other banks and then loan out 9x that amount... It's all one giant ponzi scheme...
Seeing as how even the Swiss finally caved to US pressure and don't really have secret bank accounts any more, I suspect that at least some of the cash moved out of the US is done for fiscal safety.... i.e. Don't have all your eggs in one basket/economy.. I would guess there is at least some quid pro quo with rich Europeans having some of their cash in US banks..
I do not agree with government imposed welfare, but I am totally on board with government establishing a maximum total income.
You are a hypocrite.
You'd prevent any business from getting too large, if it was owned by one person, yes? So I'll be forced to spend more of my money on the goods I buy because I don't get to benefit from the economics of scale.
There would be no point in growing any business beyond a certain size because all profits, in excess of what you deem acceptable, would be subject to seizure.
Thus, no mega companies providing products at pennies over cost and profiting from billions of transactions to compensate for the tiny profit. Instead lots of small companies with far smaller volumes who have to charge larger markups to smaller customer groups.
The cost of goods in my neighborhood market are far higher than in the mega retailers. If I had to purchase everything from these tiny stores I'd have far less money left over after each paycheck.. There'd be far less to put in the savings account.
The neighborhood market exists only because, sometimes, people are willing to trade a bit more money for a small transaction than the cost in time and fuel to travel all the way to the big box store for a small amount of items to purchase.
But if we had to purchase everything from these low volume and (relatively) high markup establishments, we'd all be a lot fucking poorer.
No thanks. I like being able to source goods I need at the lowest possible price. I get to put more money in savings and thus give myself a fiscal safety net for lean times.
Should you attempt to do so, you will be coercively prevented by armed agents of the state, on the basis of private pooperty.
That is, unless you are a member of the vanishingly small group of self-sufficient farmers who post on Slashdot.
The fallacy of "because someone doesn't do something, they can't do something"
This person is perfectly able to purchase land in the country and raise sheep. They choose not to. Perhaps it's because their current employment is far more profitable than being a sheep farmer who raises sheep to produce wool for one pair of socks.
Once again, we are back to the economics of scale. It is wholly unprofitable to produce the wool to create socks for a single person. It's far more efficient if 1 guy produces the wool for ten thousand socks. Cost per unit drops through the floor when compared to the cost per unit in the former scenario.
Humans have been specializing for the last ten thousand years (at least). A fisherman fishes... He doesn't farm, he doesn't raise sheep. He fishes for the whole village.. Conversely, the wheat farmer grows wheat.. For everyone.. And so on and so forth.
The fisherman trades (or sells) a tiny bit of his catch to one person to obtain wheat.. Wheat that would cost him far more to grow on his own. He'd have to take time away from fishing to grow the wheat..
Just another example where people trade money or goods to obtain other money or goods in a transaction that is worth way more to them than to the other party.. The other party has to rely on the economics of scale to be profitable... Sell wheat to a whole lot of people.. Sell fish to a whole lot of people..
Except Amazon didn't shear the sheep either. It bought the socks, took your order and paid someone to deliver them to you. And you paid them more than it cost them to do that. That is called profit.
Doesn't matter. He didn't have to source the socks, negotiate a sale price for a quantity of 1 (pk), arrange delivery, etc.
Amazon handles all of this, for billions of transactions. Each person served pays a tiny bit of "markup" to save themselves time. It would take each person far more time to visit individual retailers for individual products than the value of the extra money they give to Amazon to do this for them.
Conversly, Amazon can only remain in business, by collecting this tiny markup, from millions of transactions. It specializes, in a sense.. It serves as a central distribution point. Same as any other general retailer.
There's a reason Farmer's Markets exist. It would be a huge pain in the ass to drive to Farm A for eggs, Farm B for bacon, and Farm C for milk. A central location is much preferred. Items A,B, & C can all be purchased within a few feet of each other. Reducing time and effort, on the part of the consumer, to obtain these items.
In exchange for access to a much larger target market, the farmers pay the distributor a percentage of their profit.
I guarantee you that the amount the farmer's pay is far less than the cost for them to distribute the products themselves. If it wasn't, they'd distribute the products themselves..
Nobody pays for anything that they think is worth less than the money they are handing over. Who, in their right mind, would do that?
It's when people take that extracted value and remove it from the economy that we have a problem...
Yeah, like in the form of savings accounts. It sucks when people behave in a fiscally responsible fashion..
And yes, savings accounts remove money from the economy in the exact same way that some fat cat billionaire removes the money from the economy by putting it in his bank account.
A million people saving a thousand dollars is no different than a billionaire adding another billion to his bank balance.
Except in the former example, people become much more financially secure and upwardly mobile. If you have a nice cushion built up you can risk leaving one job for another.
The people with no savings whatsoever are the most vulnerable. They'll put up with damn near anything to keep a job. Unfortunately our entire system, right now, is built on the majority of the people spending everything from every paycheck. A bunch of people who suddenly start saving will throw a wrench in the entire economy.
Yeah, and when it blows up at 50 miles altitude because of some shitty bolt, you can explain to everyone in a thousand mile radius why they're going to die of cancer.
Most special interests think their pet cause will be better for society.
Nobody actually sits down and thinks "how can i throw the world under the bus for my own gain". The closest you get is "what would make the world a better place for me to live in?" Where the possibility that what is good for you might not be good in the general case.
Jesus Christ.. All that b.s. to come to the exact conclusion I laid out... I said WE WILL HAVE CHEMICAL ENERGY FOR A WHILE LONGER.
A WHILE.. Not forever.. Not for a long time.. A WHILE..
Plus, you're delusional... Battery packs are HEAVY... For fuck's sake, the Tesla has a thousand pounds of batteries.. To go 300 miles... The same range in gasoline is 90 pounds... Pure EV vehicles, RIGHT NOW TODAY, are impractical where I live. Most people have a hybrid, if they have a green vehicle, because 300 miles might not cut it, and it's still A WHOLE LOT FASTER to fill the fuel tank up. Under your best scenario you laid out 30 minute recharge time.. FUCK THAT. Less than 5 mins to fuel up my truck and go..
Come back and talk to me when the weight is the same, the recharge times are the same.. And your whole "most people drive" blah blah blah.. Here in CA we drive A LOT. It's a big state.. ah fuck it.. I've already made my point.. You're just gonna keep up with the bullshit.. I give up..
Oh I see.. So, because it's possible to do one... It's not possible to do the other? Are you fucking kidding me?
It has a unique password for the wifi... Yeah, ok technically you're right.. The login/password is the same out of the box as the others, but if you can make one unique you sure as hell can make the other unique. I suspect suddenly it'll get real easy with the law taking effect....
And no, it's not the goddamn mac address... I see passwords like YellowBanana or GentleBreeze (yes, those are two real examples)
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked (Q1 2018), the mean revenue per user for paid apps and in-app purchases was so much larger on Apple's App Store than on Google Play Store that it outweighed Android's larger user base: "$5.08 was generated per device with the App Store during Q1 compared to only $0.47 with the Play Store."
With the exception of the market for tools to develop smart phone applications. If you develop such an application on any computer other than a Mac, it will be Android exclusive, and Android users tend to be less willing to pay for apps than iOS users.
So your logic is that Apple should be broken up because its users pay more for apps? Because Android people (disclaimer: I am one) are cheap fuckers, Apple should get broken up?
That some type of liberal logic?
Android has more users and more apps, but the users are freeloaders so we should break up Apple...
Okay there sparky............
Apple? I'm no fanboy, but why Apple?
Do they dominate the market in anything?
Seriously, their desktop market share is, what, 5-10%?
Smart phones? Last I heard Android outsells iPhones by 10-1, worldwide.
Maybe they charge an unreasonable amount for their hardware, but that hardly qualifies as a reason to butcher the company. You have alternatives in every market they are in.
Sad attempt at a comeback..... How original.
But there's an increased chance to be dragged out of your house and stood up next to a wall to be shot for wrong thinking.
Well... 6 of this, half a dozen of that....
There is a bit of truth to that statement, no doubt. But when you can use religion to whip the mob into a frenzy....
Nevertheless, the idea that religion is the reason we have medical care is moronic at best. Religion, generally, has blamed various afflictions on demons or angry gods. If a demon is the reason you have the sniffles, what the fuck would be the point of attempting to treat them with medicine? Better to go get a really big knife and let the demon out... Problem solved..
A cat video quip... How original..
Chess programs have absolutely nothing to do with AI. Most chess programs are just brute force engines... The computer isn't "thinking" it just runs through millions of possible moves every second to arrive at a desired finish.
Ironically, from theology came medical care. Without God, the law survival of the fittest is taken to its most extreme interpretation, and there are no cripples, not for long anyway, until they are sacrificed or abandoned as unwanteds.
With God(s) thousands (millions?) of humans have been sacrificed over the millennia in various attempts to please various gods.
Ironically, up until recent times, most wars were the result of people fighting over who had the best god or, if they had the same god, the proper way to worship this god.
Without God there's less chance you'll be dragged out of your house and strapped to a stone altar to be mutilated.
But, since it's pretty obvious you're a typical theist, I'm not surprised you presented absolutely zero evidence for your statement.. I suppose that we're just supposed to accept your theory on... (wait for it)..... faith.
Grow the fuck up..
And chances are if you're a working schlub with a modest savings account, that account is with a local bank which means there's are least some benefit to the local economy as the bank lends that money to others. Even if that benefit isn't as effective, it still exists.
Well, it's not really a requirement for banks to have cash-on-hand to do loans.. Fractional reserve banking did away with that requirement a long time ago. I mean, technically, yeah they have to have _some_ cash, but seeing as they can loan out 9x what they have, even the smallest banks can write some pretty decent loans.. As long as they are fiscally sound, they can borrow cash from other banks and then loan out 9x that amount... It's all one giant ponzi scheme...
Seeing as how even the Swiss finally caved to US pressure and don't really have secret bank accounts any more, I suspect that at least some of the cash moved out of the US is done for fiscal safety.... i.e. Don't have all your eggs in one basket/economy.. I would guess there is at least some quid pro quo with rich Europeans having some of their cash in US banks..
I do not agree with government imposed welfare, but I am totally on board with government establishing a maximum total income.
You are a hypocrite.
You'd prevent any business from getting too large, if it was owned by one person, yes? So I'll be forced to spend more of my money on the goods I buy because I don't get to benefit from the economics of scale.
There would be no point in growing any business beyond a certain size because all profits, in excess of what you deem acceptable, would be subject to seizure.
Thus, no mega companies providing products at pennies over cost and profiting from billions of transactions to compensate for the tiny profit. Instead lots of small companies with far smaller volumes who have to charge larger markups to smaller customer groups.
The cost of goods in my neighborhood market are far higher than in the mega retailers. If I had to purchase everything from these tiny stores I'd have far less money left over after each paycheck.. There'd be far less to put in the savings account.
The neighborhood market exists only because, sometimes, people are willing to trade a bit more money for a small transaction than the cost in time and fuel to travel all the way to the big box store for a small amount of items to purchase.
But if we had to purchase everything from these low volume and (relatively) high markup establishments, we'd all be a lot fucking poorer.
No thanks. I like being able to source goods I need at the lowest possible price. I get to put more money in savings and thus give myself a fiscal safety net for lean times.
You are right, instead we should reward them for being liars (PR) or sociopaths (CEOs) or just plain old gun dealers.
Your bias is blatant. Most businesses are small businesses. Most CEOs are not sociopaths. They're small business owners..
What the fuck do gun dealers have to do with anything? Are you using it as a negative?
Should you attempt to do so, you will be coercively prevented by armed agents of the state, on the basis of private pooperty.
That is, unless you are a member of the vanishingly small group of self-sufficient farmers who post on Slashdot.
The fallacy of "because someone doesn't do something, they can't do something"
This person is perfectly able to purchase land in the country and raise sheep. They choose not to. Perhaps it's because their current employment is far more profitable than being a sheep farmer who raises sheep to produce wool for one pair of socks.
Once again, we are back to the economics of scale. It is wholly unprofitable to produce the wool to create socks for a single person. It's far more efficient if 1 guy produces the wool for ten thousand socks. Cost per unit drops through the floor when compared to the cost per unit in the former scenario.
Humans have been specializing for the last ten thousand years (at least). A fisherman fishes... He doesn't farm, he doesn't raise sheep. He fishes for the whole village.. Conversely, the wheat farmer grows wheat.. For everyone.. And so on and so forth.
The fisherman trades (or sells) a tiny bit of his catch to one person to obtain wheat.. Wheat that would cost him far more to grow on his own. He'd have to take time away from fishing to grow the wheat..
Just another example where people trade money or goods to obtain other money or goods in a transaction that is worth way more to them than to the other party.. The other party has to rely on the economics of scale to be profitable... Sell wheat to a whole lot of people.. Sell fish to a whole lot of people..
Except Amazon didn't shear the sheep either. It bought the socks, took your order and paid someone to deliver them to you. And you paid them more than it cost them to do that. That is called profit.
Doesn't matter. He didn't have to source the socks, negotiate a sale price for a quantity of 1 (pk), arrange delivery, etc.
Amazon handles all of this, for billions of transactions. Each person served pays a tiny bit of "markup" to save themselves time. It would take each person far more time to visit individual retailers for individual products than the value of the extra money they give to Amazon to do this for them.
Conversly, Amazon can only remain in business, by collecting this tiny markup, from millions of transactions. It specializes, in a sense.. It serves as a central distribution point. Same as any other general retailer.
There's a reason Farmer's Markets exist. It would be a huge pain in the ass to drive to Farm A for eggs, Farm B for bacon, and Farm C for milk. A central location is much preferred. Items A,B, & C can all be purchased within a few feet of each other. Reducing time and effort, on the part of the consumer, to obtain these items.
In exchange for access to a much larger target market, the farmers pay the distributor a percentage of their profit.
I guarantee you that the amount the farmer's pay is far less than the cost for them to distribute the products themselves. If it wasn't, they'd distribute the products themselves.. Nobody pays for anything that they think is worth less than the money they are handing over. Who, in their right mind, would do that?
It's when people take that extracted value and remove it from the economy that we have a problem...
Yeah, like in the form of savings accounts. It sucks when people behave in a fiscally responsible fashion..
And yes, savings accounts remove money from the economy in the exact same way that some fat cat billionaire removes the money from the economy by putting it in his bank account.
A million people saving a thousand dollars is no different than a billionaire adding another billion to his bank balance.
Except in the former example, people become much more financially secure and upwardly mobile. If you have a nice cushion built up you can risk leaving one job for another.
The people with no savings whatsoever are the most vulnerable. They'll put up with damn near anything to keep a job. Unfortunately our entire system, right now, is built on the majority of the people spending everything from every paycheck. A bunch of people who suddenly start saving will throw a wrench in the entire economy.
Yeah, and when it blows up at 50 miles altitude because of some shitty bolt, you can explain to everyone in a thousand mile radius why they're going to die of cancer.
Yeah.. like that happens on Slashdot.
why the heck are you asking here?
>> Nobody actually sits down and thinks "how can i throw the world under the bus for my own gain"
LMAO! Are you that naive?
I think this person might be.. Holy hell......
I know I can be a bit pessimistic, but the level of optimism this guy has is..... unreal..
Most special interests think their pet cause will be better for society.
Nobody actually sits down and thinks "how can i throw the world under the bus for my own gain". The closest you get is "what would make the world a better place for me to live in?" Where the possibility that what is good for you might not be good in the general case.
Wow.... just.... wow..
Laws exist to protect the interests of society, not the interests of individual companies or people.
How big a hit did you take off your crack pipe this morning?
Are you familiar with the term pork barrel politics? What the fuck do YOU think that means?
MOST laws are passed to serve special interests.
It's unclear why they think they can enforce them across state lines
Playing Devil's advocate here, but if the company has a physical presence and a customer in the same state, the commerce clause doesn't apply.
The commerce clause also doesn't prevent states from having regulations when you do business there.. Even if you are headquartered elsewhere..
I don't know if Google has an actual presence in the two states in question, but if they do...
What the fuck? Federal laws says you MUST disclose data breaches.. Nothing in a EULA can override federal (or state) law.. End of story..
Tell your city council to approve a grocery store in your town.
aaaand, now you can go fuck yourself, hippy.
Will we still have gasoline and diesel? Yes.
Jesus Christ.. All that b.s. to come to the exact conclusion I laid out... I said WE WILL HAVE CHEMICAL ENERGY FOR A WHILE LONGER.
A WHILE.. Not forever.. Not for a long time.. A WHILE..
Plus, you're delusional... Battery packs are HEAVY... For fuck's sake, the Tesla has a thousand pounds of batteries.. To go 300 miles... The same range in gasoline is 90 pounds... Pure EV vehicles, RIGHT NOW TODAY, are impractical where I live. Most people have a hybrid, if they have a green vehicle, because 300 miles might not cut it, and it's still A WHOLE LOT FASTER to fill the fuel tank up. Under your best scenario you laid out 30 minute recharge time.. FUCK THAT. Less than 5 mins to fuel up my truck and go..
Come back and talk to me when the weight is the same, the recharge times are the same.. And your whole "most people drive" blah blah blah.. Here in CA we drive A LOT. It's a big state.. ah fuck it.. I've already made my point.. You're just gonna keep up with the bullshit.. I give up..
Oh I see.. So, because it's possible to do one... It's not possible to do the other? Are you fucking kidding me?
It has a unique password for the wifi... Yeah, ok technically you're right.. The login/password is the same out of the box as the others, but if you can make one unique you sure as hell can make the other unique. I suspect suddenly it'll get real easy with the law taking effect....
And no, it's not the goddamn mac address... I see passwords like YellowBanana or GentleBreeze (yes, those are two real examples)
How the hell is that based on the MAC?