I recently signed up for a Vonage account. It has very cool features, but the audio quality has been dismal to mediocre so far. I thought there might be a problem with my uplink speed, so I took the adapter and a phone to an ISP to see what 100Mbps might do. Voice quality was slightly better, but not much. Now I have noticed the delay between phone activation and dial-tone is so long, the auto-dialer on the phone dials most of the number before I get a dial tone. I'll probably cancel the account soon. I estimate the successful calls I have made so far cost about $10/minute, given the startup fees and disconnect fees.
Too bad, I really liked a lot of the features they offer.
Who is the PHB that came up with this idea? I have a Sanyo phone that includes a media player. I also have iTunes. If I want music on the phone, I pick some MP3s made from the iTunes tracks I have purchased and load them into the phone. (It can accommodate a 1Gb miniSD card which allows the phone to serve as a USB drive.)
It seems a bit odd that the marketing PHBs might think there is a demographic out there willing to pay $2.50 for tunes they can easily get for $0.99. People pay for ringtones because they are actually more difficult to acquire. (I'm guessing. I make my own so I've never bought one.)
It certainly will be interesting to see if people are so lazy they will pay 2.5x for songs. I have my doubts.
Today's Wall Street Journal Online also has an article. It discusses the attempts US domestic carriers are making to block third party services, as well as limiting file sharing and other "hi bandwidth" uses. Fortunately the FCC has prevented the major carriers from blocking independent VOIP providers, but Europeans evidently have a different view, which is weird since our consumer internet connectivity sucks compared to theirs, let alone Asia.
Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now.
One thing you will discover when contracting, as compared to being an employee is that the political environment changes in a beneficial way. When you are an employee, frequently your boss will dangle or suggest that working a lot of OT will be reflected in your next review. Maybe, maybe the story changes by the time of the review. When you are contracting, your rate is negotiated up front - no ambiguous incentives.
I found this greatly improves the dialog between you the contractor and the people who hired you. They become much more objective, since promising benefits in the future for extras today is not part of the equation. If you are doing good work, you will stay and will be able to get an increased rate. If you are not, they will just end your contract. The employer doesn't have to worry about having an unhappy employee around, so in both cases they tend to be more honest about everything.
The other benefit I found is that some supervisors are always trying to figure out how to stay on top. If you are an employee and do a good job, someone above your boss may think someday *you* should be in that spot. If your boss is of the underhanded variety, he or she will begin to disparage you just to make sure the org chart has the same taxonomy, to be polite... Once again, if you are a contractor, you are not as likely to be interested in taking he supervisor job, so the person in that position will be more honest with you as well.
As for the "lack of job security" attribute, compare to being an employee. I don't know anyone in this business who has job security. I work as an employee now, but I always keep in touch with the people in the contracting world. Ultimately your success depends on your ability, technical and personal. Contractors generally has to have more social skills than an employee, because they have to sell their capabilities more frequently. I would summarize the situation like this: If you find a good employer with interesting work, stay there. If you don't want to be a FT employee (maybe you want to take off two months every year or something), or your current job isn't that great, be a contractor but make sure you are taking jobs that add relevant experience
Google's founders and top execs are a few kids. Innocence.
You sure need to read this Wall Street Journal article. Here's the essence of it:
Before the August 2004 IPO, demand for shares was less than anticipated so Google cut the price range. Insiders who had large stakes in the business and seats on its board decided to cut the number of shares they planned to sell, or not sell any shares.
Some Google investors didn't get this same opportunity to reduce their share sales. In fact, several were told they had to make an even bigger share sale than Google had scheduled them for, at the diminished price to make up the total number of shares offered. That is, they had to cover for those who decided not to sell.
The more I learn about Google management, the more they look like they are from the Enron school, unfortunately. Gates never pulled this kind of crap. Let's not forget the preferred shares they gave themselves either. Innocence is the absolute last word I would use to describe Google management. They are quite ruthless.
"The promotion of Ozzie, who will report directly to Chairman Bill Gates..."
"Rudder will take on a new role focusing on the company's overall technical strategy. He'll report directly to Gates..."
The others report to the CEO (Ballmer). Sounds to me as though the next CEO will be Rudder or Ozzie, but I'm on the record suggesting Ballmer was never the right person for the CEO spot in the first place. Maybe the Vista delays were the final straw for the board, so the directors are setting up for the inevitable succession.
Also, the emerging competition from Linux is not like you had with DR-DOS, OS/2 or anything like that. This is the one competitor Microsoft has ever had which is both serious and cannot be destroyed by targetting the vendor
But Linux has the same problems the commercial unixes did in the 80s/early 90s. (Fragmentation) Microsoft had to compete with *much* better OSs (Unix, OS2) then and succeeded. The threat from Linux to Microsoft is overrated, IMHO, though this may be a controversial opinion...;-). But it doesn't matter - Google is a threat, Apple is a threat, IBM is a threat, etc. Nothing new there. Dealing effectively with the challenges and opportunities is what makes good management. I think Microsoft has stagnated much more than it would have with a better CEO.
That was fun. You'd think one of us would get some mod points!
That things were going well under Gates was an accident of the market
I disagree with you here. I think Gates is a better businessman than that, and his competitors were not his equal.
I think that most investors are likely to simply say "Hmm... I think it is time to take my money elsewhere."
They already have, That's why the stock is at a low PE. I think of MSFT as a call option on the unrealized potential of the company. A new, effective CEO could make all sorts of changes - spinoffs, new product lines in hardware (an area where Microsoft has a very good reputation), and other forms of restructuring. I think Gates is also buddies with Jack Welch. No idea if Gates listens to him. Of course Ballmer is supposedly a student of Welch, but he must not be turning in his homework.
No doubt what you say is true. But ultimately it will come down to the quantity of unhappy institutional investors. If enough of them begin to complain loudly enough, Warren Buffett will say to Gates, "Well Bill, MSFT did pretty well when you were CEO. I'm not saying you should take that job again, but it's time to start looking..."
A side thought: I think Ballmer would be an excellent CEO for a company like Nike, Carl's Junior, maybe even a car company *cough*GM boring designs*cough*. They offer totally marketing driven products, which SB is very good at promoting.
I've never thought Ballmer was the right person for the job. But that makes Microsoft pretty interesting right now from a business perspective. I'm still guessing we will one day hear SB is "moving on for personal reasons" (AKA, the institutional investors said "Get someone new.") If this happens, who will replace him? That's a very interesting question.
If Microsoft had the right CEO, I think it highly likely the company would begin introducing some very compelling products again. Their technical products are still good (Yukon, VStudio, etc.), but public has a bad view of the company now due to IE/Windows vulnerabilities. People may scoff, but Apple was in rapid decent until Jobs came back. It may be hard to believe, but a CEO can make a huge difference for a company, even one the size of Microsoft.
I bought one of these a few months ago. I put a 512M MiniSD chip in it - instant MP3 player. Also serves as a temp drive when I need it. I guess branding is worth something, but not that much. The ultra-lame "feature" of the Sanyo phone is that it restricts the amount of storage available for ringers. I can fill the phone up with megs of MP3s, but ringers? Maybe 1M of space is available. Oh, and you can't load them directly from the PC. Ringers have to come over the Internet connection via relay.
Clearly some marketing PHB wants to make money selling me ringers (which will never happen, I make my own), and forcing me to add the Internet service. At least that has some utility. Don't expect much in terms of flexibility when it comes mobile phones.
China has made the most of the 20th century. The rise of Communism and Socialism has allowed China untold opportunity to provide its people with an environment in which they naturally thrive.
You might be interested in this, especially the "Effect" section.
Note also that during the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, China was not able to provide any seaborne support. China is not a superpower at this time. The country still has a lot to do to claim that title.
Re:Microsoft getting old and slow? Nah, Ballmer is
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft doesn't seem to play catch-up too well anymore
Right, and I'll take this opportunity to say once again that Ballmer is the wrong person for the CEO job.
Recently Ballmer was the featured speaker during a Wall Street analyst day. This is unusual; normally the CFO has this role. Ballmer dealt the usual hand, "We have great potential! The future is ours!", etc. Why was he the speaker instead of the CFO? Common sense and small tin foil hat tell me the institutional investors are getting restless, so he now has to sell himself to Wall Street.
Microsoft can continue for quite a while on the basis of market momentum, but I'm guessing the pressure on the board to find a new CEO is increasing. Stories on/. about Microsoft tech (good or bad) are a subtheme to the larger matter of the suitability of the person in the CEO spot.
I tell ya, when I see Ballmer quoted, I cringe first, read the quote second. I've been conditioned that way by now. But there's an important point the commentary so far has missed: Ballmer is speaking as the CEO of a company, from his understanding of how that co. works and how it fits in the marketplace.
It's been my contention that Ballmer was a bad choice for the CEO position. He's a good marketeer, a good poker player, and, um... a motivational speaker... I suppose.
But IMHO, he's a dismal CEO.
Microsoft has innovated, otherwise they wouldn't be in the dominant market position they are in. (No I don't buy the monopoly argument. They didn't start as one, and I don't believe they are a monopoly today, but that's a different discussion.) Ultimately my point is that Microsoft could and ultimately will become a very different company when it hires a new CEO. Hopefully for Microsoft, it will be someone good for the company and consumers. People don't seem to realize a company can change substantially just from a change at the top. Apple is a perfect example, and there are many others. Too many people think Ballmer = Microsoft, and Microsoft = Ballmer. Things don't work that way. When Ballmer retires or is forced out, then it will be interesting to talk about Microsoft, the company.
But we are talking business track record here. During his watch, Google conquered search, Apple grabbed portable and downloaded music dominance, and Mozilla/Firefox exploited the lack of attention to IE. These are the sorts of oversights that are ultimately the responsibility of the CEO. He is also constantly saying things that are reactionary, not visionary. Today's quote is another example. All of this indicates to me he isn't the person for the position.
Your post was modded funny, but I think you point out a serious fact: Ballmer just isn't up to the job of being Microsoft CEO. That doesn't mean he isn't a smart individual, or very capable in some ways.
Think about Apple, Oracle, maybe even Linux development as managed by Torvalds - What would happen to any of these organizations/efforts without the people who were central to their creation and success? (We know what happened to Apple.) Getting back to the corporate example, as big as these organizations are, one person at the top can make a huge difference, for good or bad. Look what happened to DEC, Wang Labs, IBM, AT&T when the chief exec went pear-shaped.
It's also quite possible to go from bad or mediocre to good - Note Yahoo! before Terry Semel, GE before Jack Welch, Chrysler before Iaccoca. Of course/. is focused on technology, so the tendency is to believe the success or failure of a company is almost completely dependent on the quality of its product technology. I think it is much more dependent on the leadership of the company (like anything else, sports teams, politics, military, etc.)/.-ers post about the various OSS personalities, but discuss Microsoft and Apple almost exclusively in terms of their tech. Gates is a brilliant guy, Jobs is a brilliant guy. Ballmer was never the right choice as Microsoft CEO IMHO, but I don't know who is. I don't know who could replace Jobs, either. I'm sure there are people who would be great CEOs of both companies. I'm guessing Ballmer is on his way out. The big question - What will Microsoft do when it does have the right CEO?
and that seems to be the primary difference right there
True enough if that's all you use it for. I bought a Creative Nomand Jukebox for use with my home stereo. It has a mediocre design, but it does what I want and was a lot cheaper than the iPod.
Now I want to get rid of the factory CD player in the car and switch to an MP3 player. But, I want to keep the factory stereo and not lose the integration with the steering wheel controls. The only way to do this is with an iPod, as the adapter vendors have chosen to adopt the iPod "command set" as a standard. This means I will get an iPod because they are the "standard" for the accessory market. Looks like Jobs took a page out of the Gates book.
At that point, you'll buy your PC from Google, use Google as your ISP, surf an Internet that is really the Google cache,
(A) Right about here the DOJ decides to take action...
be fed ads and sold content from Google servers. Its a GoogleWorld that requires no AOL, no Microsoft, no Intel, no HP or Dell -- only Google, cable companies, telephone companies, users, and of course advertisers and web page producers.
Doubtful because of (A).
It's surprising to me that he didn't mention the comment of the week; that from Gates about mobile phone making iPods obsolete. It was an important observation, since it is already happening. My phone serves as an MP3 player already. While it doesn't have the capacity of the iPod (yet), who cares... It has an antenna, has considerably more functionality, and I Always-Have-It-With-Me(TM)
By the time of Dunquerqe evacuation, Chamberlain had come around to Churchill's thinking. Lord Halifax was still trying to make a deal, however. Fortunately for the rest of the world, Halifax declined to run for PM, allowing Churchill to become PM.
Interesting that Halifax ultimately trusted Churchill, yet continued to try to negotiate an agreement with Nazi Germany.
I looked at the Mini, thinking it would be a great box for music recording/editing apps. After I priced all of the upgrades it required, its price far exceeded that of a PC. I was looking forward to using the Mac too, but not that much.
A Corvette is more expensive than a regular Chevy for a reason;-)
I sold my Vette a few years ago. Maybe I should have talked the dealer into throwing in a Mac when I bought the Vette. I probably would have kept the Mac.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I recently signed up for a Vonage account. It has very cool features, but the audio quality has been dismal to mediocre so far. I thought there might be a problem with my uplink speed, so I took the adapter and a phone to an ISP to see what 100Mbps might do. Voice quality was slightly better, but not much. Now I have noticed the delay between phone activation and dial-tone is so long, the auto-dialer on the phone dials most of the number before I get a dial tone. I'll probably cancel the account soon. I estimate the successful calls I have made so far cost about $10/minute, given the startup fees and disconnect fees.
Too bad, I really liked a lot of the features they offer.
An example of similar thinking.
Doesn't appear to work.
Who is the PHB that came up with this idea? I have a Sanyo phone that includes a media player. I also have iTunes. If I want music on the phone, I pick some MP3s made from the iTunes tracks I have purchased and load them into the phone. (It can accommodate a 1Gb miniSD card which allows the phone to serve as a USB drive.)
It seems a bit odd that the marketing PHBs might think there is a demographic out there willing to pay $2.50 for tunes they can easily get for $0.99. People pay for ringtones because they are actually more difficult to acquire. (I'm guessing. I make my own so I've never bought one.)
It certainly will be interesting to see if people are so lazy they will pay 2.5x for songs. I have my doubts.
Today's Wall Street Journal Online also has an article. It discusses the attempts US domestic carriers are making to block third party services, as well as limiting file sharing and other "hi bandwidth" uses. Fortunately the FCC has prevented the major carriers from blocking independent VOIP providers, but Europeans evidently have a different view, which is weird since our consumer internet connectivity sucks compared to theirs, let alone Asia.
Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now.
One thing you will discover when contracting, as compared to being an employee is that the political environment changes in a beneficial way. When you are an employee, frequently your boss will dangle or suggest that working a lot of OT will be reflected in your next review. Maybe, maybe the story changes by the time of the review. When you are contracting, your rate is negotiated up front - no ambiguous incentives.
I found this greatly improves the dialog between you the contractor and the people who hired you. They become much more objective, since promising benefits in the future for extras today is not part of the equation. If you are doing good work, you will stay and will be able to get an increased rate. If you are not, they will just end your contract. The employer doesn't have to worry about having an unhappy employee around, so in both cases they tend to be more honest about everything.
The other benefit I found is that some supervisors are always trying to figure out how to stay on top. If you are an employee and do a good job, someone above your boss may think someday *you* should be in that spot. If your boss is of the underhanded variety, he or she will begin to disparage you just to make sure the org chart has the same taxonomy, to be polite... Once again, if you are a contractor, you are not as likely to be interested in taking he supervisor job, so the person in that position will be more honest with you as well.
As for the "lack of job security" attribute, compare to being an employee. I don't know anyone in this business who has job security. I work as an employee now, but I always keep in touch with the people in the contracting world. Ultimately your success depends on your ability, technical and personal. Contractors generally has to have more social skills than an employee, because they have to sell their capabilities more frequently. I would summarize the situation like this: If you find a good employer with interesting work, stay there. If you don't want to be a FT employee (maybe you want to take off two months every year or something), or your current job isn't that great, be a contractor but make sure you are taking jobs that add relevant experience
Google's founders and top execs are a few kids. Innocence.
You sure need to read this Wall Street Journal article. Here's the essence of it:
Before the August 2004 IPO, demand for shares was less than anticipated so Google cut the price range. Insiders who had large stakes in the business and seats on its board decided to cut the number of shares they planned to sell, or not sell any shares.
Some Google investors didn't get this same opportunity to reduce their share sales. In fact, several were told they had to make an even bigger share sale than Google had scheduled them for, at the diminished price to make up the total number of shares offered. That is, they had to cover for those who decided not to sell.
The more I learn about Google management, the more they look like they are from the Enron school, unfortunately. Gates never pulled this kind of crap. Let's not forget the preferred shares they gave themselves either. Innocence is the absolute last word I would use to describe Google management. They are quite ruthless.
Indulge my conspiracy theory for a sec:
"The promotion of Ozzie, who will report directly to Chairman Bill Gates..."
"Rudder will take on a new role focusing on the company's overall technical strategy. He'll report directly to Gates..."
The others report to the CEO (Ballmer). Sounds to me as though the next CEO will be Rudder or Ozzie, but I'm on the record suggesting Ballmer was never the right person for the CEO spot in the first place. Maybe the Vista delays were the final straw for the board, so the directors are setting up for the inevitable succession.
Also, the emerging competition from Linux is not like you had with DR-DOS, OS/2 or anything like that. This is the one competitor Microsoft has ever had which is both serious and cannot be destroyed by targetting the vendor
But Linux has the same problems the commercial unixes did in the 80s/early 90s. (Fragmentation) Microsoft had to compete with *much* better OSs (Unix, OS2) then and succeeded. The threat from Linux to Microsoft is overrated, IMHO, though this may be a controversial opinion... ;-). But it doesn't matter - Google is a threat, Apple is a threat, IBM is a threat, etc. Nothing new there. Dealing effectively with the challenges and opportunities is what makes good management. I think Microsoft has stagnated much more than it would have with a better CEO.
That was fun. You'd think one of us would get some mod points!
That things were going well under Gates was an accident of the market
I disagree with you here. I think Gates is a better businessman than that, and his competitors were not his equal.
I think that most investors are likely to simply say "Hmm... I think it is time to take my money elsewhere."
They already have, That's why the stock is at a low PE. I think of MSFT as a call option on the unrealized potential of the company. A new, effective CEO could make all sorts of changes - spinoffs, new product lines in hardware (an area where Microsoft has a very good reputation), and other forms of restructuring. I think Gates is also buddies with Jack Welch. No idea if Gates listens to him. Of course Ballmer is supposedly a student of Welch, but he must not be turning in his homework.
No doubt what you say is true. But ultimately it will come down to the quantity of unhappy institutional investors. If enough of them begin to complain loudly enough, Warren Buffett will say to Gates, "Well Bill, MSFT did pretty well when you were CEO. I'm not saying you should take that job again, but it's time to start looking..."
A side thought: I think Ballmer would be an excellent CEO for a company like Nike, Carl's Junior, maybe even a car company *cough*GM boring designs*cough*. They offer totally marketing driven products, which SB is very good at promoting.
I've never thought Ballmer was the right person for the job. But that makes Microsoft pretty interesting right now from a business perspective. I'm still guessing we will one day hear SB is "moving on for personal reasons" (AKA, the institutional investors said "Get someone new.") If this happens, who will replace him? That's a very interesting question.
If Microsoft had the right CEO, I think it highly likely the company would begin introducing some very compelling products again. Their technical products are still good (Yukon, VStudio, etc.), but public has a bad view of the company now due to IE/Windows vulnerabilities. People may scoff, but Apple was in rapid decent until Jobs came back. It may be hard to believe, but a CEO can make a huge difference for a company, even one the size of Microsoft.
I bought one of these a few months ago. I put a 512M MiniSD chip in it - instant MP3 player. Also serves as a temp drive when I need it. I guess branding is worth something, but not that much. The ultra-lame "feature" of the Sanyo phone is that it restricts the amount of storage available for ringers. I can fill the phone up with megs of MP3s, but ringers? Maybe 1M of space is available. Oh, and you can't load them directly from the PC. Ringers have to come over the Internet connection via relay.
Clearly some marketing PHB wants to make money selling me ringers (which will never happen, I make my own), and forcing me to add the Internet service. At least that has some utility. Don't expect much in terms of flexibility when it comes mobile phones.
China has made the most of the 20th century. The rise of Communism and Socialism has allowed China untold opportunity to provide its people with an environment in which they naturally thrive.
You might be interested in this, especially the "Effect" section.
Note also that during the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, China was not able to provide any seaborne support. China is not a superpower at this time. The country still has a lot to do to claim that title.
Now, this doesn't mean there aren't some seriously crack-smocking right-wing jesus-nuts whose actions and words don't match.
Who could you possibly be thinking of? They are all pro-life, right?
The Dawn of the Replicant approaches...
Microsoft doesn't seem to play catch-up too well anymore
Right, and I'll take this opportunity to say once again that Ballmer is the wrong person for the CEO job.
Recently Ballmer was the featured speaker during a Wall Street analyst day. This is unusual; normally the CFO has this role. Ballmer dealt the usual hand, "We have great potential! The future is ours!", etc. Why was he the speaker instead of the CFO? Common sense and small tin foil hat tell me the institutional investors are getting restless, so he now has to sell himself to Wall Street.
Microsoft can continue for quite a while on the basis of market momentum, but I'm guessing the pressure on the board to find a new CEO is increasing. Stories on /. about Microsoft tech (good or bad) are a subtheme to the larger matter of the suitability of the person in the CEO spot.
When I read the Ballmer quotes...
I tell ya, when I see Ballmer quoted, I cringe first, read the quote second. I've been conditioned that way by now. But there's an important point the commentary so far has missed: Ballmer is speaking as the CEO of a company, from his understanding of how that co. works and how it fits in the marketplace.
It's been my contention that Ballmer was a bad choice for the CEO position. He's a good marketeer, a good poker player, and, um... a motivational speaker... I suppose.
But IMHO, he's a dismal CEO.
Microsoft has innovated, otherwise they wouldn't be in the dominant market position they are in. (No I don't buy the monopoly argument. They didn't start as one, and I don't believe they are a monopoly today, but that's a different discussion.) Ultimately my point is that Microsoft could and ultimately will become a very different company when it hires a new CEO. Hopefully for Microsoft, it will be someone good for the company and consumers. People don't seem to realize a company can change substantially just from a change at the top. Apple is a perfect example, and there are many others. Too many people think Ballmer = Microsoft, and Microsoft = Ballmer. Things don't work that way. When Ballmer retires or is forced out, then it will be interesting to talk about Microsoft, the company.
He is no doubt a fine person.
But we are talking business track record here. During his watch, Google conquered search, Apple grabbed portable and downloaded music dominance, and Mozilla/Firefox exploited the lack of attention to IE. These are the sorts of oversights that are ultimately the responsibility of the CEO. He is also constantly saying things that are reactionary, not visionary. Today's quote is another example. All of this indicates to me he isn't the person for the position.
Your post was modded funny, but I think you point out a serious fact: Ballmer just isn't up to the job of being Microsoft CEO. That doesn't mean he isn't a smart individual, or very capable in some ways.
Think about Apple, Oracle, maybe even Linux development as managed by Torvalds - What would happen to any of these organizations/efforts without the people who were central to their creation and success? (We know what happened to Apple.) Getting back to the corporate example, as big as these organizations are, one person at the top can make a huge difference, for good or bad. Look what happened to DEC, Wang Labs, IBM, AT&T when the chief exec went pear-shaped.
It's also quite possible to go from bad or mediocre to good - Note Yahoo! before Terry Semel, GE before Jack Welch, Chrysler before Iaccoca. Of course /. is focused on technology, so the tendency is to believe the success or failure of a company is almost completely dependent on the quality of its product technology. I think it is much more dependent on the leadership of the company (like anything else, sports teams, politics, military, etc.) /.-ers post about the various OSS personalities, but discuss Microsoft and Apple almost exclusively in terms of their tech. Gates is a brilliant guy, Jobs is a brilliant guy. Ballmer was never the right choice as Microsoft CEO IMHO, but I don't know who is. I don't know who could replace Jobs, either. I'm sure there are people who would be great CEOs of both companies. I'm guessing Ballmer is on his way out. The big question - What will Microsoft do when it does have the right CEO?
and that seems to be the primary difference right there
True enough if that's all you use it for. I bought a Creative Nomand Jukebox for use with my home stereo. It has a mediocre design, but it does what I want and was a lot cheaper than the iPod.
Now I want to get rid of the factory CD player in the car and switch to an MP3 player. But, I want to keep the factory stereo and not lose the integration with the steering wheel controls. The only way to do this is with an iPod, as the adapter vendors have chosen to adopt the iPod "command set" as a standard. This means I will get an iPod because they are the "standard" for the accessory market. Looks like Jobs took a page out of the Gates book.
At that point, you'll buy your PC from Google, use Google as your ISP, surf an Internet that is really the Google cache,
(A) Right about here the DOJ decides to take action...
be fed ads and sold content from Google servers. Its a GoogleWorld that requires no AOL, no Microsoft, no Intel, no HP or Dell -- only Google, cable companies, telephone companies, users, and of course advertisers and web page producers.
Doubtful because of (A).
It's surprising to me that he didn't mention the comment of the week; that from Gates about mobile phone making iPods obsolete. It was an important observation, since it is already happening. My phone serves as an MP3 player already. While it doesn't have the capacity of the iPod (yet), who cares... It has an antenna, has considerably more functionality, and I Always-Have-It-With-Me(TM)
By the time of Dunquerqe evacuation, Chamberlain had come around to Churchill's thinking. Lord Halifax was still trying to make a deal, however. Fortunately for the rest of the world, Halifax declined to run for PM, allowing Churchill to become PM.
Interesting that Halifax ultimately trusted Churchill, yet continued to try to negotiate an agreement with Nazi Germany.
I looked at the Mini, thinking it would be a great box for music recording/editing apps. After I priced all of the upgrades it required, its price far exceeded that of a PC. I was looking forward to using the Mac too, but not that much.
A Corvette is more expensive than a regular Chevy for a reason ;-)
I sold my Vette a few years ago. Maybe I should have talked the dealer into throwing in a Mac when I bought the Vette. I probably would have kept the Mac. ;-)
Oh, I think Apple stockholders think Apple "gets it" when it comes to price.
Enron
Not that AAPL = ENE, but never judge a company by its share price.
Apple 'gets it'.
Except when it comes to price, which is why I have never personally owned a single Apple product.
I like Apple, but their products are too expensive. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple, which is what Apple marketshare confirms.