At the top end, Android phones are just as expensive (up front costs and monthly plans) as the iPhone. At the bottom end, the iPhone 3GS is $1 with a contract.
I don't use auto-pay on my cell phone bill (not VZ but I can't imagine they're better) because they somehow manage to get it wrong every other month and it's easier to dispute it before they've received their money.
If they want to impose a late fee, they can impose a late fee.
Yep. Kind of like when you cut off your cock and balls, you have your choice of what size, shape, and color strap-on you wear. Who wants to be stuck with a default penis?
Re:How does "Go" relate to "Go Corp?"
on
HP TouchPad Go: $99?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It is absurd. Because nobody mistook it for charity. Before the deal was announced, there was speculation that Microsoft/Bing would try to make a deal. When the deal was announced, the price tag was kept secret and most speculation was that it was less than it was previously. A couple days later when the $300 million/year number was revealed, it was also revealed that Microsoft (and yahoo, straggly enough) had also made bids.
Avoiding anti-trust issues make no sense at all since Microsoft and Yahoo both made bids. Even worse, if $300 million/year isn't profitable for Google, that's anticompetitive (supra competitive pricing).
The actual quote is Our analysis [5] of the smartphone value chain showed that carriers in fact earn gross profits over the life of a typical 2-year contract several times those earned by handset vendors.
Keywords: gross profits. That's sale price ($199 + 24 months * $80/month) - cost of goods ($549). Notably absent are operating expenses.
FY 2010, AT&T had total revenue of $124 billion and gross profits of $72 billion (58%). But net income was only $20 billlion (16%). Apple (FY 2010) had total revenue of $65 billion, gross profit of $25 billion (38%). But net income was $14 billion (21%).
You're not following my logic correctly. Or at all. Microsoft was interested in a search deal with Firefox. Google tripled their offer to prevent that from happening. If (if) that's not profitable for Google, then it's anti-competitive to say the least.
Google didn't up the price from $100 million/year to $300 million per year because firefox keeps away the monopoly man. They upped the price to cock-block Microsoft/Bing. If they're losing money to block a competitor, that's a far worse monopoly issue than a poorly managed browser losing market share.
Why do people give money to their candidates? They haven opinions and views that they want codified into law, forcing everyone to thank and act in their preferred manner. Or perhaps on the flip side, they donate to prevent that.
Business and special interests do so for the same reasons but they also want special exemptions are carved out for themselves or government mandated rent seeking.
The problem is not money -- wouldn't businesses prefer to keep that money for themselves? -- but a government that is too powerful and has too much control. But congress would no sooner limit their own expanding power than they would write a campaign finance law that didn't protect incumbents.
Historically, SS ran a surplus and the extra money went in the general fund in exchange for magic treasury bonds. We'll soon be hitting the third year that SS ran a deficit, originally due to increases in unemployment, increases in retirement, and a generally shitty economy where people who are eligible to retire are unemployed and decide to retire rather than look for another job. Last year's 2% temporary reduction exacerbated that as will the extension (which will no doubt be extended).
Some people like to pretend social security has a lockbox or surplus sitting somewhere but that defies any sort of critical thinking. If you have $1000 in your retirement account, borrow that money to buy some meth and then proceed to smoke up said meth, that money is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's great that they improved the locking. I just hope they didn't compromise web scalability in the process.
But they're great at anal hygiene.
At the top end, Android phones are just as expensive (up front costs and monthly plans) as the iPhone. At the bottom end, the iPhone 3GS is $1 with a contract.
Apple releases one phone per year. Google doesn't release any phones at all.
They probably should go without. I don't have the disposable income to buy a private jet or a yacht so I don't own them.
I don't use auto-pay on my cell phone bill (not VZ but I can't imagine they're better) because they somehow manage to get it wrong every other month and it's easier to dispute it before they've received their money.
If they want to impose a late fee, they can impose a late fee.
No bleach, but I have it waxed to help manage the dingleberry population.
I have not canceled my offer for them to lick my asshole.
Yep. Kind of like when you cut off your cock and balls, you have your choice of what size, shape, and color strap-on you wear. Who wants to be stuck with a default penis?
trademarks expire if not used.
It is absurd. Because nobody mistook it for charity. Before the deal was announced, there was speculation that Microsoft/Bing would try to make a deal. When the deal was announced, the price tag was kept secret and most speculation was that it was less than it was previously. A couple days later when the $300 million/year number was revealed, it was also revealed that Microsoft (and yahoo, straggly enough) had also made bids.
Avoiding anti-trust issues make no sense at all since Microsoft and Yahoo both made bids. Even worse, if $300 million/year isn't profitable for Google, that's anticompetitive (supra competitive pricing).
HTML 5 canvas + javascript runs everywhere that matters. Old basic games (cards, gorillas, donkey, snakes, etc) should be a good target.
Proceedings of the IEEE, etc.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
The actual quote is Our analysis [5] of the smartphone value chain showed that carriers in fact earn gross profits over the life of a typical 2-year contract several times those earned by handset vendors.
Keywords: gross profits. That's sale price ($199 + 24 months * $80/month) - cost of goods ($549). Notably absent are operating expenses.
FY 2010, AT&T had total revenue of $124 billion and gross profits of $72 billion (58%). But net income was only $20 billlion (16%). Apple (FY 2010) had total revenue of $65 billion, gross profit of $25 billion (38%). But net income was $14 billion (21%).
You're not following my logic correctly. Or at all. Microsoft was interested in a search deal with Firefox. Google tripled their offer to prevent that from happening. If (if) that's not profitable for Google, then it's anti-competitive to say the least.
Google didn't up the price from $100 million/year to $300 million per year because firefox keeps away the monopoly man. They upped the price to cock-block Microsoft/Bing. If they're losing money to block a competitor, that's a far worse monopoly issue than a poorly managed browser losing market share.
Personally, I buy my coke with bitcoins, use a credit card to cut it into lines, then a rolled up $20 to snort it.
The FDIC limit was bumped to $250,000 in 2008. SIPC insures $500,000 of security investments.
Why do people give money to their candidates? They haven opinions and views that they want codified into law, forcing everyone to thank and act in their preferred manner. Or perhaps on the flip side, they donate to prevent that.
Business and special interests do so for the same reasons but they also want special exemptions are carved out for themselves or government mandated rent seeking.
The problem is not money -- wouldn't businesses prefer to keep that money for themselves? -- but a government that is too powerful and has too much control. But congress would no sooner limit their own expanding power than they would write a campaign finance law that didn't protect incumbents.
I've never touched my whiz while eating an ice cream sandwich. Is that some sort of Korean thing?
the best thing about Fire is that you barely feel it's an Android device.
Historically, SS ran a surplus and the extra money went in the general fund in exchange for magic treasury bonds. We'll soon be hitting the third year that SS ran a deficit, originally due to increases in unemployment, increases in retirement, and a generally shitty economy where people who are eligible to retire are unemployed and decide to retire rather than look for another job. Last year's 2% temporary reduction exacerbated that as will the extension (which will no doubt be extended).
Some people like to pretend social security has a lockbox or surplus sitting somewhere but that defies any sort of critical thinking. If you have $1000 in your retirement account, borrow that money to buy some meth and then proceed to smoke up said meth, that money is gone.
4 dime bags.
8 blow jobs (sucky sucky five dollah)
Next up on slashdot: do you really need your cock and balls?