The difference here is that iOS has both the app quantity AND quality. It's superior in both ways.
How's your Google Navigation treating you on your iOS device? What was that? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my phone telling me I needed to turn right just now.
Remember when the Apple fanbois claimed that talking to your phone looked stupid, then when Siri comes out it's suddenly the most awesome thing ever?
Oh wait, those weren't the same people; it was two different subsets of morons.
Also, it's irrelevant. When the debate was Mac vs. Windows (they are both PCs, despite Apple's insistence otherwise), it came down to what types of software were available, and Windows won that hands down. Now that the debate is the iOS app store vs. Android's marketplace, both have pretty much the same sort of software available, so there's no clear winner, again despite Apple and its fanbois' insistence otherwise.
Unless, of course, you've already budgeted for the $70-$100/month (or whatever it is) for your phone subscription and don't have the additional $200 to shell out for a phone. There are plenty of people in exactly this situation.
Steve Jobs's reality distortion field also applied to himself, as you can see from his over-the-top remarks on a "thermonuclear war on Android" (ironic given how much iPhone rips off from the people who created Android).
It's ok though -- no irony or hypocrisy. Since Android ripped off iOS, then any innovations that Android came up with only came about because the whole system was ripped off from iOS first, so really Apple was basically the catalyst for all of the innovation and deserves to have access to them all. So technically, Apple innovated all of that stuff first, or would have, if Android hadn't gotten in the way.
It would still be a drop in the bucket compared to iPad sales, and Apple would put it down to a cost of doing business.
Sadly, true.
But can we assume that, even though you're an unapologetic Apple fanboi, you still think that it's an unreasonable thing for a company with deep pockets to try to beat its competitors in the courtroom, rather than in the marketplace?
The only real barriers to entry are created by the government
This statement is utterly idiotic, and the fact that so many libertarians believe it is the main reason a lot of people can't get behind libertarianism.
The hilarious thing is that you hate the US government and think it's completely corrupt and can do no right. But when someone airs the US government's dirty laundry, you call them an anti-American traitor.
The irony with people like you would be delicious if it weren't so frustrating to have to deal with on a regular basis.
It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?
Screw immoral. I don't want the liability involved with knowing things that I don't need to know. I had to fight to get my access to the production database *revoked* at my last job.
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Correct, irrelevant. An absolute free market has never, will never, and can never exist.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
Correct. We use the government to force the free market to meet standards we define. What's the problem here?
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose.
Opinion, noted.
In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs.
Rhetoric.
You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me.
Exaggerated rhetoric.
I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
Heavily exaggerated rhetoric.
You could have saved us a lot of time by just saying "unions bad." We'd have inferred all the rest of the drivel you just spouted.
Tell you what -- I'll try to get my people to stop calling these people "tea bagger morons" as soon as you try to get your people to stop calling my people libs, libtards, idiot progressives, anti-American, fascists, socialists, Muslims, communists, and any of the other myriad of derogative terms. It could just be confirmation bias, but I tend to see *far* more name calling directed against the "left" than I do against the "right."
As a bonus it would be nice if you'd ask them to stop threatening to kill liberals. It's tough to have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks you don't even deserve to live.
This is awesome. A few posts ago I got to read about how Obama is pro-AT&T and pro big business because they gave him so much money during the '08 campaign.
Could you dipshits make up your minds and at least keep your rhetoric consistent?
AT&T of the 1980s was busted up as a monopoly. If AT&T is allowed to have T-Mobile, what's stopping Verizon and Sprint from joining up? Less competitors always leads to higher prices. Anybody remember what cellphones cost in the early 1990s?
Look, I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't prevent a cell phone service monopoly, but using the cost of cellphones in the early 1990s as an argument against it isn't even remotely valid.
Computers cost upwards of $2k for a typical desktop in the early 1990s and there were *way* more PC manufacturers back then (remember Computer Shopper magazine?). One could just as easily say "More competitors lead to higher prices. Anybody remember what PCs cost in the early 1990s?" and be equally wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference here is that iOS has both the app quantity AND quality. It's superior in both ways.
How's your Google Navigation treating you on your iOS device? What was that? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my phone telling me I needed to turn right just now.
--Jeremy
Remember when the Apple fanbois claimed that talking to your phone looked stupid, then when Siri comes out it's suddenly the most awesome thing ever?
Oh wait, those weren't the same people; it was two different subsets of morons.
Also, it's irrelevant. When the debate was Mac vs. Windows (they are both PCs, despite Apple's insistence otherwise), it came down to what types of software were available, and Windows won that hands down. Now that the debate is the iOS app store vs. Android's marketplace, both have pretty much the same sort of software available, so there's no clear winner, again despite Apple and its fanbois' insistence otherwise.
--Jeremy
Unless, of course, you've already budgeted for the $70-$100/month (or whatever it is) for your phone subscription and don't have the additional $200 to shell out for a phone. There are plenty of people in exactly this situation.
--Jeremy
Maybe it is just because I am more used to the iPhone
Nailed it. Should have just stopped after this sentence.
--Jeremy
Steve Jobs's reality distortion field also applied to himself, as you can see from his over-the-top remarks on a "thermonuclear war on Android" (ironic given how much iPhone rips off from the people who created Android).
It's ok though -- no irony or hypocrisy. Since Android ripped off iOS, then any innovations that Android came up with only came about because the whole system was ripped off from iOS first, so really Apple was basically the catalyst for all of the innovation and deserves to have access to them all. So technically, Apple innovated all of that stuff first, or would have, if Android hadn't gotten in the way.
--Jeremy
It would still be a drop in the bucket compared to iPad sales, and Apple would put it down to a cost of doing business.
Sadly, true.
But can we assume that, even though you're an unapologetic Apple fanboi, you still think that it's an unreasonable thing for a company with deep pockets to try to beat its competitors in the courtroom, rather than in the marketplace?
--Jeremy
Ahh yes, another form of the "Apple invented everything!" fanboi argument.
--Jeremy
Things like a flat surface? Where is it? Do you guys still not understand how design patents work?
We do, actually. We think they're about as valid as software patents -- probably less, actually.
--Jeremy
Maybe some of us just aren't able to turn a blind eye to our own faults as easily as you are.
--Jeremy
It was an analogy of the initial reactions to the UIs, not the UIs themselves. Not difficult stuff.
--Jeremy
How do I edit a LaTeX file without a keyboard?
Are you new? onscreen keyboard.
Tablet discussions about doing real work make it easy to spot the real typists from the hunt-and-peckers.
--Jeremy
Imagine what could happen if all of that effort spent breaking down walls could accomplish instead if the walls weren't there to begin with.
--Jeremy
The only real barriers to entry are created by the government
This statement is utterly idiotic, and the fact that so many libertarians believe it is the main reason a lot of people can't get behind libertarianism.
--Jeremy
So if your iPad ever stops "just working" you'll go back to a PC or switch to your second iPad?
--Jeremy
The problem with your analogy is that all of those special tools were *better* at what they did than the drill with attachments was.
Other than portability, there is nothing that any of these devices do that is *better* than a PC. (note: computers running OSX are also PCs)
--Jeremy
There's a big difference between "is" and "will be" or, more accurately, "could be."
--Jeremy
The hilarious thing is that you hate the US government and think it's completely corrupt and can do no right. But when someone airs the US government's dirty laundry, you call them an anti-American traitor.
The irony with people like you would be delicious if it weren't so frustrating to have to deal with on a regular basis.
--Jeremy
Limecat, here's a tip for you:
It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?
--Jeremy
The whole fucking point of the free market is informed actors making rational decisions.
--Jeremy
Screw immoral. I don't want the liability involved with knowing things that I don't need to know. I had to fight to get my access to the production database *revoked* at my last job.
--Jeremy
Every iOS device introduced after June 2010 is supported with OS updates and security fixes from Apple. Can Android users say the same?
Nope. My Evo doesn't get *any* OS updates or security fixes from Apple.
--Jeremy
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Correct, irrelevant. An absolute free market has never, will never, and can never exist.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
Correct. We use the government to force the free market to meet standards we define. What's the problem here?
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose.
Opinion, noted.
In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs.
Rhetoric.
You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me.
Exaggerated rhetoric.
I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
Heavily exaggerated rhetoric.
You could have saved us a lot of time by just saying "unions bad." We'd have inferred all the rest of the drivel you just spouted.
--Jeremy
Tell you what -- I'll try to get my people to stop calling these people "tea bagger morons" as soon as you try to get your people to stop calling my people libs, libtards, idiot progressives, anti-American, fascists, socialists, Muslims, communists, and any of the other myriad of derogative terms. It could just be confirmation bias, but I tend to see *far* more name calling directed against the "left" than I do against the "right."
As a bonus it would be nice if you'd ask them to stop threatening to kill liberals. It's tough to have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks you don't even deserve to live.
--Jeremy
This is awesome. A few posts ago I got to read about how Obama is pro-AT&T and pro big business because they gave him so much money during the '08 campaign.
Could you dipshits make up your minds and at least keep your rhetoric consistent?
--Jeremy
AT&T of the 1980s was busted up as a monopoly. If AT&T is allowed to have T-Mobile, what's stopping Verizon and Sprint from joining up? Less competitors always leads to higher prices. Anybody remember what cellphones cost in the early 1990s?
Look, I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't prevent a cell phone service monopoly, but using the cost of cellphones in the early 1990s as an argument against it isn't even remotely valid.
Computers cost upwards of $2k for a typical desktop in the early 1990s and there were *way* more PC manufacturers back then (remember Computer Shopper magazine?). One could just as easily say "More competitors lead to higher prices. Anybody remember what PCs cost in the early 1990s?" and be equally wrong.
--Jeremy