Interestingly enough, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that say Hitler didn't die in that bunker. That he slipped the Russians grasp and ran off to Argentina or Brazil to live out a long life.
I would argue that you proved my point just by your post actually. I assume you are college educated and yet your post showed how valueless it is. Going to college may make the individual better educated and may increase the available pool of educated people for jobs but it doesn't have ANY impact on the existing workforce. Having more educated people doesn't automatically create jobs for those people. What you end up with is more educated people working at the GAP. So I guess you're right if your big concern is having college-educate people folding clothes.
Except it wouldn't be $1000 a year or 20 cents a gallon. It would be closer to $10K a year and $2 per gallon. It seems petty and small when you underestimate the impact.
And yes - corporations are raping society through tax breaks right now and there are MANY ways the money could be used wisely but that is a whole different discussion.
The question I ask is - does free college actually have any impact on the total education level of society? Are there that many people who aren't going to college strictly because of cost - even with scholarships, government subsidized student loans, etc.
Not saying it's the difference. I was pointing out that it isn't as illogical as he made it seem. For the morbid obese it wouldn't work but for people looking to lose 20 lbs it might be enough incentive to walk those 15 blocks to work instead of hopping on the bus.
Sending somebody to college doesn't instantly make them smarter or more logical. As somebody who went to a state university I can assure you that many, many people come in smarter than they leave.
I love the ad hominem attack that you start with - very pro.
How does providing free education make for a "better educated populace and workforce"? Would people all of a sudden be smarter and professors more talented?
You do realize that if public universities didn't charge tuition then the cost of education would come out of the taxpayers pockets. As somebody who has no college-age children I can tell you I don't want higher taxes so that I can subsidize the education of somebody whose parents had 10 kids.
I agree. They should charge more for majors that aren't likely to end up in getting a job in a related field after college. That would make Latin majors pretty much the most expensive.
You missed the "Major" developer part. Obviously small time freelancers aren't going to write for both if they don't think it will be profitable. I also would love to see stats on whether "droid-boys" don't buy. I know I've bought several apps.
Isn't the ad-based thing because Apple won't allow inline ads? I am not 100% sure on that, though.
But anwyay, all major companies are putting their apps out on both unless they have some exclusivity deal with Apple.
If Android missteps the manufacturers switch to Windows or something else. If Apple missteps then what?
And by misstep I mean something along the lines of OS6 through OS8. Years of putting out the most disastrously bad operating system that it would have driving Apple out of business if Microsoft didn't invest $150M in them in 97.
Since there are so many people responding to different threads with the same arguments and since I am leaving for the day. Here is my argument in summary:
- OP I responded to mentioned that it was laughable that Apple OS would ever be dented by Android or Microsoft. It obviously ISN'T even close to laughable because Android has overcome them in the SmartPhone OS market. While the tablet market is still all iPad that will inevitable change. A lot of what is out there now for Android was crap and rushed to market. More mature products are already getting ready to appear.
- The article is about Smartphones - not tablets and not souped up mp3 players. It is not "contrived" to compare Smartphone OS's against each other without including other products. Just like you wouldn't include XBox in desktop comparisons.
- Yes Apple has a greater profit than any of the manufacturers but profit speaks to a lot of other factors that really aren't part of this conversation.
- App developers don't care about who is winning. Droid has enough of a marketshare now that any major developer is writing for both. They'd be stupid not to. If Microsoft took off they write for them, too.
And yes it is trouncing when you consider where droid was just a year ago. If Apple all of a sudden had 51% market share to Microsofts 49% marketshare I would call that trouncing, too. It isn't the % at this point but the growth over the time period.
All of you are so in love with app developers but they don't care who is winning. It's not like any major developer is going to say - hm this week Apple is winning so I'll only write my App for iOS. They are going to write for both because they want to hit as many people as possible.
Now where it MAY differ is tablet specific apps. If I am developing an app only for the tablet market then I may not bother with Droid yet because it isn't significant.
It isn't blatant cherrypicking. There is a market called "Smartphones". It does not include Tablets or MP3 players. In the Smartphone category there are several major OS's - Android, iOS, RIM, and whatever crap Nokia has.
Like I said in another post - when you compare Desktop OS you have to count all the vendors because Microsoft doesn't sell desktops. And when you look at total desktops you don't add in something like XBox which uses a modified Windows OS.
I love the "fandroids" comment because people who call other people "fans" usually are trying to mask their own "fandom".
Again. You have to use an even comparison. To your really awful analogy - it would be more like saying Scotland has more mountains that Nepal when you add in bagpipes.
The point isn't about selling apps. This article isn't even about apps sales. We are talking about Smartphones and whatever you want to call iPods they aren't Smartphones. And I am pretty sure that most people buy an iPod to listen to music. I don't have a statistic but I would guess it's a pretty safe bet.
I don't buy that it is people wanting something like iPhone but cheaper because the cost difference is not that great. I mean I went with Droid not because of cost but because I wanted a keyboard and global readiness. iPhone doesn't offer that. There is just far more variety in the Droid market than in the iPhone market and almost no difference in apps at this point.
I guarantee you that the average consumer wouldn't even be able to tell the different between the two OS's side by side.
Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.
Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed? I mean you want comparables you have to look at Smartphones by OS. I mean even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that. Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?
When people compare Windows marketshare to Apple they don't break out Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. and they don't try to group XBox in with Desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that say Hitler didn't die in that bunker. That he slipped the Russians grasp and ran off to Argentina or Brazil to live out a long life.
I would argue that you proved my point just by your post actually. I assume you are college educated and yet your post showed how valueless it is. Going to college may make the individual better educated and may increase the available pool of educated people for jobs but it doesn't have ANY impact on the existing workforce. Having more educated people doesn't automatically create jobs for those people. What you end up with is more educated people working at the GAP. So I guess you're right if your big concern is having college-educate people folding clothes.
The reason universities compete so heavily for talented youth and issue scholarships is because college sports brings in boatloads of cash.
Where do we get these uniforms from so that we can get free posts?
Except it wouldn't be $1000 a year or 20 cents a gallon. It would be closer to $10K a year and $2 per gallon. It seems petty and small when you underestimate the impact.
And yes - corporations are raping society through tax breaks right now and there are MANY ways the money could be used wisely but that is a whole different discussion.
The question I ask is - does free college actually have any impact on the total education level of society? Are there that many people who aren't going to college strictly because of cost - even with scholarships, government subsidized student loans, etc.
Not saying it's the difference. I was pointing out that it isn't as illogical as he made it seem. For the morbid obese it wouldn't work but for people looking to lose 20 lbs it might be enough incentive to walk those 15 blocks to work instead of hopping on the bus.
Sending somebody to college doesn't instantly make them smarter or more logical. As somebody who went to a state university I can assure you that many, many people come in smarter than they leave.
I love the ad hominem attack that you start with - very pro.
How does providing free education make for a "better educated populace and workforce"? Would people all of a sudden be smarter and professors more talented?
The tuition is based on credit hours. So if you took an engineering class you would pay the engineering class rates.
Actually - it makes sense to charge fat people more to ride the bus. That would encourage them to walk more and lose weight, wouldn't it?
You do realize that if public universities didn't charge tuition then the cost of education would come out of the taxpayers pockets. As somebody who has no college-age children I can tell you I don't want higher taxes so that I can subsidize the education of somebody whose parents had 10 kids.
I agree. They should charge more for majors that aren't likely to end up in getting a job in a related field after college. That would make Latin majors pretty much the most expensive.
You missed the "Major" developer part. Obviously small time freelancers aren't going to write for both if they don't think it will be profitable. I also would love to see stats on whether "droid-boys" don't buy. I know I've bought several apps.
Isn't the ad-based thing because Apple won't allow inline ads? I am not 100% sure on that, though.
But anwyay, all major companies are putting their apps out on both unless they have some exclusivity deal with Apple.
How do you know it didn't? You are saying that all of Androids marketshare came out of RIM or Nokia. That seems highly unlikely.
If Android missteps the manufacturers switch to Windows or something else. If Apple missteps then what?
And by misstep I mean something along the lines of OS6 through OS8. Years of putting out the most disastrously bad operating system that it would have driving Apple out of business if Microsoft didn't invest $150M in them in 97.
Well it was a merger but AT&T was considered the "buyer".
Since there are so many people responding to different threads with the same arguments and since I am leaving for the day. Here is my argument in summary:
- OP I responded to mentioned that it was laughable that Apple OS would ever be dented by Android or Microsoft. It obviously ISN'T even close to laughable because Android has overcome them in the SmartPhone OS market. While the tablet market is still all iPad that will inevitable change. A lot of what is out there now for Android was crap and rushed to market. More mature products are already getting ready to appear.
- The article is about Smartphones - not tablets and not souped up mp3 players. It is not "contrived" to compare Smartphone OS's against each other without including other products. Just like you wouldn't include XBox in desktop comparisons.
- Yes Apple has a greater profit than any of the manufacturers but profit speaks to a lot of other factors that really aren't part of this conversation.
- App developers don't care about who is winning. Droid has enough of a marketshare now that any major developer is writing for both. They'd be stupid not to. If Microsoft took off they write for them, too.
All of your points are covered in other threads.
And yes it is trouncing when you consider where droid was just a year ago. If Apple all of a sudden had 51% market share to Microsofts 49% marketshare I would call that trouncing, too. It isn't the % at this point but the growth over the time period.
All of you are so in love with app developers but they don't care who is winning. It's not like any major developer is going to say - hm this week Apple is winning so I'll only write my App for iOS. They are going to write for both because they want to hit as many people as possible.
Now where it MAY differ is tablet specific apps. If I am developing an app only for the tablet market then I may not bother with Droid yet because it isn't significant.
It isn't blatant cherrypicking. There is a market called "Smartphones". It does not include Tablets or MP3 players. In the Smartphone category there are several major OS's - Android, iOS, RIM, and whatever crap Nokia has.
Like I said in another post - when you compare Desktop OS you have to count all the vendors because Microsoft doesn't sell desktops. And when you look at total desktops you don't add in something like XBox which uses a modified Windows OS.
I love the "fandroids" comment because people who call other people "fans" usually are trying to mask their own "fandom".
Again. You have to use an even comparison. To your really awful analogy - it would be more like saying Scotland has more mountains that Nepal when you add in bagpipes.
The point isn't about selling apps. This article isn't even about apps sales. We are talking about Smartphones and whatever you want to call iPods they aren't Smartphones. And I am pretty sure that most people buy an iPod to listen to music. I don't have a statistic but I would guess it's a pretty safe bet.
I don't buy that it is people wanting something like iPhone but cheaper because the cost difference is not that great. I mean I went with Droid not because of cost but because I wanted a keyboard and global readiness. iPhone doesn't offer that. There is just far more variety in the Droid market than in the iPhone market and almost no difference in apps at this point.
I guarantee you that the average consumer wouldn't even be able to tell the different between the two OS's side by side.
Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.
Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed? I mean you want comparables you have to look at Smartphones by OS. I mean even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that. Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?
When people compare Windows marketshare to Apple they don't break out Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. and they don't try to group XBox in with Desktops.