That's what you get when you let people decide their own salaries, with no oversight whatsoever. At least politicians have to balance giving themselves raises and being reelected.
It should be illegal to pay board members, and board members should set executive salaries. I'm not sure how you deal with board members of one company being executives at another and the whole club doing each other favours, but there must be a way.
"I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave."
You're pretty fuzzy on what exactly slaves are, aren't you? Here's the key: a slave is property. Owned. You can do with it (yes, I chose that pronoun on purpose) what you like.
Chinese workers (not just at Foxconn) may work in poor conditions compared to what we've come to expect, but they are paid and are free to leave. They can't be hanged for refusing to work.
Apple at least monitors working conditions at their contractors. Do you think the company that imported that t-shirt you're wearing does the same?
Third world working conditions are a concern, absolutely, but not an Apple specific problem, and nothing like slavery in the 19th century (in the US) or earlier (the rest of the western world).
"I think one of the reasons behind Apple's success is the limited variance."
Someone else mentioned another factor - Samsung makes half a dozen different phones that are named with some variation of Samsung Galaxy. Only one of them is the high quality phone everybody wants... the others supposedly exist to give consumers choice, but the way the carriers use them is to fool people - advertising free a "Galaxy XX!" So people fall for it, eventually realize they're locked into a contract with an inferior phone, and aren't happy.
Apple gives you a few, clearly delineated choices. You know what you're getting. No tricks. And no tricks the carriers can play.
I was a Windows user until Linux showed up, when I used both for a while. When I started my PhD the lab used Macs (with OS 9). OS 9 was a pain. Coding for it was a bigger pain. Then we started playing with the new OS X. It was kind of interesting (a UNIX shell? Cool.) but also a pain because it was slow and crashed all the time. Then 10.1 came along and I was hooked.
My father is the kind of guy who tends to buy the cheapest thing that does what he needs it to. At one point he kept buying cheap MP3 players. He was always complaining about them and couldn't find one he was happy with. He couldn't find one that didn't frustrate him somehow. For his birthday one year I gave him an iPod Mini. I think he still uses it.
He has also bought cheap Dell notebooks since Dell started making them. When the last one died he decided to buy a Macbook Pro. He loves it. He also had a free dumb phone from 7-11. For Christmas he got a new Nokia. Didn't like it. So he bought an iPhone 3GS off eBay. Very happy.
Sometimes quality is worth paying for. For something I use as much as computing devices, it's definitely worth it.
"(1) a closed iOS ecosystem that encourages people to remain on their platform, and (2) Profitable multi-year contract arrangements with the telcos that allow them to market "$149" handsets with the true cost hidden in multi-thousand dollar contracts."
1) A closed ecosystem doesn't mean much when your distributors are locking people into multiyear contracts. 2) So do ALL other cell phone manufacturers. If you actually compare similar phones, the true cost of Apple's are similar to the true cost of everyone else's. ALL those costs are hidden from customer.
Okay. Exxon is gone. One of the bazillion other oil companies, big or small, steps in and continues pumping oil.
Exxon is a commodity supplier. They're a very large one, but provided the handoff was done smoothly they could be replaced by any number of others and nobody would even know the difference.
"Apple is mostly marketing, they rarely if ever do anything first and most of the time they way over price the items they sell"
Apple is mostly DESIGN. If they lose Sir Ive, I'll be worried. It IS worrisome that they've put the bean counter in charge, but he has been at Apple a long time and most of the rest of the company's leadership seems to be perfectionists just like Jobs.
Apple does not overprice their products. The iPad is apparently priced so aggressively that competitors claim they can't compete. Flagship Android phones are priced very similarly to flagship iPhones. Intel's attempts to compete with the Air aren't going so well. If you want a look at companies that actually DO depend on image, take a stroll into a store like Burberry sometime. The iPad cases cost more than iPads.
Only idiots invest on emotion. The majority of phone buyers don't care which big company is suing which. Apple products are priced fairly well in line with competitors - lower, in some cases, if you believe those competitors, who claim much of their failure to compete is due to Apple's supply chain dominance.
YOU don't like Apple. So don't invest in them - more people should demonstrate integrity in their investments. But don't pretend Apple is doomed because of your personal feelings.
"If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever."
The iPhone 3GS is free with most contracts now. It's the third best selling smart phone in the US, right behind the 4S and the 4.
Carriers love this. They can draw people in with advertisements of a "free Galaxy S!" Once you realize you've got the crappy model it's too late because you've signed a contract and realized that the carrier won't take your calls anymore.
"Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S."
Or, a simpler hypothesis, most people take whichever of the free options looks best at the store. Which would also explain why the 3GS is the third best selling smartphone.
Good Android phones aren't really cheaper than iPhones. So either the makers of good Android phones are making an Apple-like profit or Apple has got their supply line working well enough that they're more efficient. Judging by all the whining about how other companies can't compete with Apple on price in the tablet market, a good chunk of it is probably the latter.
You can make a lock pick with a pair of pliers. You can make a slim jim (the crowbar-like tool) with a pair of tin snips or even wire cutters. Micky mouse ears with scissors.
If you invent something you have a choice. You can patent it, which gives you exclusivity for a certain period of time in exchange for telling everyone exactly how it works, or you can keep it as a trade secret, which you're welcome to keep as long as you want but when someone else figures out how your invention works, or independently invents their own, you're SOL.
Trade secrets have no protection whatsoever except being secret.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice.
Might you be a little disappointed today if you went out and bought a Galaxy S when you were expecting to get a Galaxy Nexus?
That's what you get when you let people decide their own salaries, with no oversight whatsoever. At least politicians have to balance giving themselves raises and being reelected.
It should be illegal to pay board members, and board members should set executive salaries. I'm not sure how you deal with board members of one company being executives at another and the whole club doing each other favours, but there must be a way.
"I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave."
You're pretty fuzzy on what exactly slaves are, aren't you? Here's the key: a slave is property. Owned. You can do with it (yes, I chose that pronoun on purpose) what you like.
Chinese workers (not just at Foxconn) may work in poor conditions compared to what we've come to expect, but they are paid and are free to leave. They can't be hanged for refusing to work.
Apple at least monitors working conditions at their contractors. Do you think the company that imported that t-shirt you're wearing does the same?
Third world working conditions are a concern, absolutely, but not an Apple specific problem, and nothing like slavery in the 19th century (in the US) or earlier (the rest of the western world).
"I think one of the reasons behind Apple's success is the limited variance."
Someone else mentioned another factor - Samsung makes half a dozen different phones that are named with some variation of Samsung Galaxy. Only one of them is the high quality phone everybody wants... the others supposedly exist to give consumers choice, but the way the carriers use them is to fool people - advertising free a "Galaxy XX!" So people fall for it, eventually realize they're locked into a contract with an inferior phone, and aren't happy.
Apple gives you a few, clearly delineated choices. You know what you're getting. No tricks. And no tricks the carriers can play.
I was a Windows user until Linux showed up, when I used both for a while. When I started my PhD the lab used Macs (with OS 9). OS 9 was a pain. Coding for it was a bigger pain. Then we started playing with the new OS X. It was kind of interesting (a UNIX shell? Cool.) but also a pain because it was slow and crashed all the time. Then 10.1 came along and I was hooked.
My father is the kind of guy who tends to buy the cheapest thing that does what he needs it to. At one point he kept buying cheap MP3 players. He was always complaining about them and couldn't find one he was happy with. He couldn't find one that didn't frustrate him somehow. For his birthday one year I gave him an iPod Mini. I think he still uses it.
He has also bought cheap Dell notebooks since Dell started making them. When the last one died he decided to buy a Macbook Pro. He loves it. He also had a free dumb phone from 7-11. For Christmas he got a new Nokia. Didn't like it. So he bought an iPhone 3GS off eBay. Very happy.
Sometimes quality is worth paying for. For something I use as much as computing devices, it's definitely worth it.
"Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is..."
Um, you express RIM's growth as a year over year percentage. Would you do the same with Apple? Are you sure YOU know what exponential growth is?
"(1) a closed iOS ecosystem that encourages people to remain on their platform, and (2) Profitable multi-year contract arrangements with the telcos that allow them to market "$149" handsets with the true cost hidden in multi-thousand dollar contracts."
1) A closed ecosystem doesn't mean much when your distributors are locking people into multiyear contracts.
2) So do ALL other cell phone manufacturers. If you actually compare similar phones, the true cost of Apple's are similar to the true cost of everyone else's. ALL those costs are hidden from customer.
"imagine if Exxon vanished overnight"
Okay. Exxon is gone. One of the bazillion other oil companies, big or small, steps in and continues pumping oil.
Exxon is a commodity supplier. They're a very large one, but provided the handoff was done smoothly they could be replaced by any number of others and nobody would even know the difference.
"Apple is mostly marketing, they rarely if ever do anything first and most of the time they way over price the items they sell"
Apple is mostly DESIGN. If they lose Sir Ive, I'll be worried. It IS worrisome that they've put the bean counter in charge, but he has been at Apple a long time and most of the rest of the company's leadership seems to be perfectionists just like Jobs.
Apple does not overprice their products. The iPad is apparently priced so aggressively that competitors claim they can't compete. Flagship Android phones are priced very similarly to flagship iPhones. Intel's attempts to compete with the Air aren't going so well. If you want a look at companies that actually DO depend on image, take a stroll into a store like Burberry sometime. The iPad cases cost more than iPads.
Only idiots invest on emotion. The majority of phone buyers don't care which big company is suing which. Apple products are priced fairly well in line with competitors - lower, in some cases, if you believe those competitors, who claim much of their failure to compete is due to Apple's supply chain dominance.
YOU don't like Apple. So don't invest in them - more people should demonstrate integrity in their investments. But don't pretend Apple is doomed because of your personal feelings.
Google is a juggernaut. 10 billion in revenue is a LOT for an advertising company.
"If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something
else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever."
The iPhone 3GS is free with most contracts now. It's the third best selling smart phone in the US, right behind the 4S and the 4.
Sure. It's already happening to the iPod.
Except they're ditching their iPods for iPhones. Which is probably why Apple keeps so much cash on hand... so they can invent the iNeXT.
Do you really think a few million Americans would be up for a tedious electronics assembly line job?
Carriers love this. They can draw people in with advertisements of a "free Galaxy S!" Once you realize you've got the crappy model it's too late because you've signed a contract and realized that the carrier won't take your calls anymore.
"Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S."
Or, a simpler hypothesis, most people take whichever of the free options looks best at the store. Which would also explain why the 3GS is the third best selling smartphone.
Good Android phones aren't really cheaper than iPhones. So either the makers of good Android phones are making an Apple-like profit or Apple has got their supply line working well enough that they're more efficient. Judging by all the whining about how other companies can't compete with Apple on price in the tablet market, a good chunk of it is probably the latter.
Haven't checked the optimization, but Clang compiles a hell of a lot faster than gcc. Not just a little bit faster, a hell of a lot faster.
Sounds pretentious already. And boring. Like a hypothetical Oprah miniseries on politics.
You can make a lock pick with a pair of pliers. You can make a slim jim (the crowbar-like tool) with a pair of tin snips or even wire cutters. Micky mouse ears with scissors.
The others are silly.
Ha, the rant was almost as funny as the comic. I guess he hasn't seen any of the penis enlargement ads with the animated GIF of a penis growing....
Wedding rings are anti-sex toys. You mean engagement rings.
"Oh dear skies alive, having the TOY lawyers playing with the media lawyers? *Cringe*"
You meant the adult toy lawyers, right?
If you invent something you have a choice. You can patent it, which gives you exclusivity for a certain period of time in exchange for telling everyone exactly how it works, or you can keep it as a trade secret, which you're welcome to keep as long as you want but when someone else figures out how your invention works, or independently invents their own, you're SOL.
Trade secrets have no protection whatsoever except being secret.
I believe it's related to limits on unlimited accounts.