China has done exceptionally well partly because they pegged their currency to be lower than ours a specific amount. This has been true for over 20 years. That makes it impossible for us to sell things to them at a competitive price, and impossible to make things here cheaper than they make them there. That is illegal currency manipulation, and is vastly different from what the Fed did.
A big part of the housing crisis was caused by China flooding the market with cheap dollars. They wanted their money invested (whether part of a nefarious plot or not), and Western loans against real estate is where it went. When all of the good borrowers had homes, the investors (China) lowered the standards that underwriters had to follow, and the underwriters were more than happy to write the new loans. When that tier of borrower dried up, they lowered their standards again. And so on. It got to the point where all you needed to buy a house was to sign a paper saying you could afford it.
Of course, the banks were more than happy to be the conduits because they shared no risk - all of the loans were sold.
We all bear responsibility for the crash - all of us that borrowed that cheap money, and all of us that buy things from China to save a buck or two.
Most application developers don't make any money *outside* the app store, either. Never have. Most fail. The thing with the app store is that many, many more get to try.
It's interesting that you surmise all this from your external view of the operation, even though the authors state that Siri is doing something quite different. Does your confident assessment require you to conclude that they are lying?
It's not just "voice with a search engine". You can speak to Siri casually, using phrases that can't have been hard-coded. It also understands context: you can say "do I need a raincoat in Seattle tomorrow?", and then "how about in Portland?" and Siri understands the reference.
But, just go on hating in ignorance, it's so much easier.
Apple has done voice for a long time, too. Lots of people have. Siri is different. Do yourself a favor and look into it before you make yourself look dumb.
It appears the poster made up the 100,000 number. It is not mentioned in the article. Based on the fact that Apple announced they had sold out of pre-orders at 1 million, and there is at least that many being sold in stores today, the number is probably closer to 1 million.
1) You can't buy *their* OS to put it on your own hardware.
2) You *can* put your own app on iOS devices. You can even distribute a limited number to your friends. You just can't sell it without going through iTunes.
3) You seem to be forgetting that iTunes led the charge to un-DRM music? Their entire catalog is now DRM-free.
Wrong. They control *their* property. You can't buy *their* OS to put it on your own hardware. You CAN put your own app on iOS devices - you can even distribute some copies for free. You just can't sell it. You also seem to forget that iTunes pushed and converted to DRM-free music.
All the stuff that you were expecting was pure speculation and rumor, nothing from Apple. It appears that the blogosphere and the rumor sites are responsible for your disappointment, not Apple.
Beyond that, it seems to me that a dual-core CPU (and GPU) is much more than just a "faster CPU". That, plus a dual-mode, spatial antenna, 8MP backlit sensor, 5-element lens, all in the same package with essentially the same battery life is pretty remarkable, especially at the same price. That plus iOS5 makes this a non-trivial update. It's at least as big an update as the 3GS was over the 3G.
AND, don't sell Apple's implementation of Siri short until you give it a good look. Cnet is a good place to start. It's WAY beyond voice recognition. It requires the A5 CPU.
I have noticed that bad news about Android devices in general either generates a lot of Apple hate posts or no posts at all. It's like slashdot folks avert their eyes whenever bad news pops up. Note the paucity of bad news about Android on slash in general - it just doesn't make the front page.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that Apple does not have a monopoly on phones - just what are Apple or Microsoft doing that is actually illegal? All stores take part of the retail - 30% is actually low for many categories.
Apple can't make theirs free: they make money on sales of the device. They use their software to differentiate their device from everyone else's; giving it away would destroy that differentiation. Google CAN give theirs away, because they make money on the ads, the more devices the merrier. That's why there's been discussion of whether Google is leveraging their monopoly on ads to enter another market - which would be illegal if it were true.
when you come up with your *own* iPhone-esque idea. Competition is *not* when you copy somebody else's idea. What we want is for more companies to create new, unique ideas, not just copies of someone else's. Also, it's kinda impossible for Apple and Android to duke it out on a fair battleground. Android is free to manufacturers. They can sell phones for less because they don't have to invest in the R&D to invent new ideas, which kinda proves the point that allowing and accepting copying as a way of competing is a disincentive to the guy that would spend $$ to create a whole new product.
You, sir, are exactly the guy they're selling these junk - but high powered - systems to. Any system that has small stand speakers and a sub sucks. Where's the midrange?
Everyone just buys to the "specs" without really knowing what they mean. A 100-watt amp must be better than a 50-watt amp, right? A PC with 3GHz must be better than one with 2.8GHz, right? Build quality, component quality, even motherboard quality don't come into play. Sound quality doesn't come into play when comparing two amps with a list of features. It just comes down to specs and price. Somehow, these days, we assume that everything is as good as everything else with the same specs, and paying more for something must be stupid, because it can't be any better.
But, of course, there is a real cost to better designs and better components. Since no one pays attention to these things or sound quality, it all comes down to specs and prices. So, amp manufacturers add stuff (more specs and features), but they have to keep the price the same. Something has to give, and it's the amplifier itself that suffers, since no one notices or cares - as long it is louder than the other box at the same price.
Coincidentally, I just hooked up my 30-year old Pioneer QX-949A quad amplifier that I've had in the basement for years to my 35-year-old Fisher XP-7K speakers, and the sound was not just better than my 5.1 system, it was jaw-droppingly better, even to my not-so-good ears. The Pioneer is 40 watts/channel, and the 5.1 system is 120. So.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I worry about. People buy check shit old-version Android tablets, find out they suck, and figure that the iPad is just the same.
Apple TV 2 does. Apple TV 1 does not.
Actually, there *is* a universal definition, whether we agree with it or not. We just don't know what that definition is.
How do you expect to get modded up with a sane and rational comment like that?
Shouldn't a quad core + "companion core" beat that A5 on *all* tests?
China has done exceptionally well partly because they pegged their currency to be lower than ours a specific amount. This has been true for over 20 years. That makes it impossible for us to sell things to them at a competitive price, and impossible to make things here cheaper than they make them there. That is illegal currency manipulation, and is vastly different from what the Fed did.
A big part of the housing crisis was caused by China flooding the market with cheap dollars. They wanted their money invested (whether part of a nefarious plot or not), and Western loans against real estate is where it went. When all of the good borrowers had homes, the investors (China) lowered the standards that underwriters had to follow, and the underwriters were more than happy to write the new loans. When that tier of borrower dried up, they lowered their standards again. And so on. It got to the point where all you needed to buy a house was to sign a paper saying you could afford it.
Of course, the banks were more than happy to be the conduits because they shared no risk - all of the loans were sold.
We all bear responsibility for the crash - all of us that borrowed that cheap money, and all of us that buy things from China to save a buck or two.
You have to say something inflammatory about someone or something.
Most application developers don't make any money *outside* the app store, either. Never have. Most fail. The thing with the app store is that many, many more get to try.
It's interesting that you surmise all this from your external view of the operation, even though the authors state that Siri is doing something quite different. Does your confident assessment require you to conclude that they are lying?
But, just go on hating in ignorance, it's so much easier.
Apple has done voice for a long time, too. Lots of people have. Siri is different. Do yourself a favor and look into it before you make yourself look dumb.
You probably gave the operator incorrect numbers.
It appears the poster made up the 100,000 number. It is not mentioned in the article. Based on the fact that Apple announced they had sold out of pre-orders at 1 million, and there is at least that many being sold in stores today, the number is probably closer to 1 million.
1) You can't buy *their* OS to put it on your own hardware.
2) You *can* put your own app on iOS devices. You can even distribute a limited number to your friends. You just can't sell it without going through iTunes.
3) You seem to be forgetting that iTunes led the charge to un-DRM music? Their entire catalog is now DRM-free.
Wrong. They control *their* property. You can't buy *their* OS to put it on your own hardware. You CAN put your own app on iOS devices - you can even distribute some copies for free. You just can't sell it. You also seem to forget that iTunes pushed and converted to DRM-free music.
Beyond that, it seems to me that a dual-core CPU (and GPU) is much more than just a "faster CPU". That, plus a dual-mode, spatial antenna, 8MP backlit sensor, 5-element lens, all in the same package with essentially the same battery life is pretty remarkable, especially at the same price. That plus iOS5 makes this a non-trivial update. It's at least as big an update as the 3GS was over the 3G.
AND, don't sell Apple's implementation of Siri short until you give it a good look. Cnet is a good place to start. It's WAY beyond voice recognition. It requires the A5 CPU.
I have noticed that bad news about Android devices in general either generates a lot of Apple hate posts or no posts at all. It's like slashdot folks avert their eyes whenever bad news pops up. Note the paucity of bad news about Android on slash in general - it just doesn't make the front page.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that Apple does not have a monopoly on phones - just what are Apple or Microsoft doing that is actually illegal? All stores take part of the retail - 30% is actually low for many categories.
Used to be $4, is now free for Lion users.
Maybe it's just to do a good deed and get some PR at the same time? Not everything has to be a nefarious plot, you know.
Really? You know this how? Cite, please. Make sure you're talking about *Apple's* program.
Apple can't make theirs free: they make money on sales of the device. They use their software to differentiate their device from everyone else's; giving it away would destroy that differentiation. Google CAN give theirs away, because they make money on the ads, the more devices the merrier. That's why there's been discussion of whether Google is leveraging their monopoly on ads to enter another market - which would be illegal if it were true.
when you come up with your *own* iPhone-esque idea. Competition is *not* when you copy somebody else's idea. What we want is for more companies to create new, unique ideas, not just copies of someone else's. Also, it's kinda impossible for Apple and Android to duke it out on a fair battleground. Android is free to manufacturers. They can sell phones for less because they don't have to invest in the R&D to invent new ideas, which kinda proves the point that allowing and accepting copying as a way of competing is a disincentive to the guy that would spend $$ to create a whole new product.
You, sir, are exactly the guy they're selling these junk - but high powered - systems to. Any system that has small stand speakers and a sub sucks. Where's the midrange?
But, of course, there is a real cost to better designs and better components. Since no one pays attention to these things or sound quality, it all comes down to specs and prices. So, amp manufacturers add stuff (more specs and features), but they have to keep the price the same. Something has to give, and it's the amplifier itself that suffers, since no one notices or cares - as long it is louder than the other box at the same price.
Coincidentally, I just hooked up my 30-year old Pioneer QX-949A quad amplifier that I've had in the basement for years to my 35-year-old Fisher XP-7K speakers, and the sound was not just better than my 5.1 system, it was jaw-droppingly better, even to my not-so-good ears. The Pioneer is 40 watts/channel, and the 5.1 system is 120. So.