At least some of them are kept away from voting, either by creation of laws designed to limit turnout, by creating long lines in certain districts by only delivering a small number of voting machines there (compared to many, many more for the rich, predominantly white, Republican districts), by mailing out flyers that deliberately told people the wrong date, or the wrong address (or pointed them to polling stations that were far away from their home, ignoring closer ones), and from ensuring that polling day is during a workday, which some people are unable to take time off from.
Alternatively, you end up in situations where a diebold voting machines will simply record more votes for the Republican candidate in a particular district than there are people living in that district in total, but somehow this is just left to stand for some reason. Diebold blames it on "software glitches" yet somehow manages to make ATMs that can effortlessly keep track of money.
Then of course, you have people who are just apathetic - there are certainly many of those in the 99%.
It's a crime when the people doing the lending know ahead of time that you cannot afford to repay it, yet give it to you anyway. They're supposed to lend responsibly, yet instead they loaned a lot of money they knew was extremely risky, and then traded that debt.
So the positions on the spectrum are not just "tight as a duck's ass" or "criminally irresponsible" - there's a middle ground there.
So, the total payment to developers over the three years that the App Store has been open is 2.5 billion dollars - that's the 70% side of that 70/30 split.
So, I guess the 30% makes up the 7 billion in profit Apple made in Q2 2011 alone?
What if I, as a hypothetical user of an iPad (I don't own one), don't need an HDMI port or a full sized USB? I mean, the iPad has those ports using adapters if you really want them.
You seem to be basing the worth of your own tablet on the things that it does relative to the iPad, but why? Is your tablet not good enough to stand on its own? Why should you care that it "does everything an iPad does" if the iPad doesn't meet your criteria?
Interesting that you already identified one of the things the Thrive does not do, but you have forbidden me from mentioning that (some people like the one-stop-shop syncing and management, some people hate it).
So, in the absence of being allowed to respond accurately, I'll say "one thing the iPad can do that the Thrive can't is run iOS".
But if your argument is "I won't buy Apple because they outsource their manufacturing to the third world" then using an Android tablet is hardly taking the high ground.
Your arguments were not based on moral issues though - you were purely talking about the function of the device (unless we go down the road that Free Software is a moral issue, but assuming it's one of a couple of choices for a moment), so conflating this with the issues of globalisation and worker and environmental exploitation seems disingenuous, since in that respect there's not much to choose between any electronics manufacturer (that's not to say it's ok, or that we shouldn't continue to push for a better situation).
Your initial argument essentially boiled down to "people who bought iPads should care that the iPad is not like the Thrive", but I have to wonder why, given that both products are available, serving very different demographics.
Of course, but tell me, given that they made 16 billion in profit in 2010, there or thereabouts, and that over the 3 year life of the iOS App Store Apple have paid 2.5 billion dollars to developers (their 70% cut), how does that magically translate to such a nice profit for Apple, *especially* if (as claimed by the OP) that the iPad is sold at a loss so that Apple can make hay on the App Store.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who automatically assume the opposite of anything a company says? It's hip to be that cynical, but it's not always accurate. Don't you get tired of there being conspiracies everywhere?
Apple paid 2.5 billion dollars to developers based on the 30/70 split since the opening of the iOS app store, so that's over three years. In three years the 70% side of that split adds up to about 2.5 billion.
Apple made 7 billion in quarter 2 of 2011 *alone* - there's just no way that App Store profits feature heavily in that makeup. It's certainly a profitable enterprise - they have indicated it runs in profit, but it's really not the moneymaker for them. The iTunes Store itself (movies and music etc) is similar. In the 7 years it has been running it has served up 10 billion songs. Let's assume that every one of those songs cost $1, and that to be conservative and to add in the movies and TV shows and so on that we triple the figure - $3 for each song. That's $30 billion over 7 years, less 70% that goes to the content owners, leaving you with about $9 billion for the 30% cut over 7 years.
Again, Apple made 7 billion in a single quarter this year alone, so 9 billion over 7 years is a nice chunk (and still an estimate from me based on an average $3 per song since I don;t know how many movies and TV shows have been downloaded), but it's still only even with a single quarter of Apple's profits.
So, when Apple says "iTunes Store and the App Store are not a significant source of profit for us", especially in their filed, legally binding financial statements, I tend to believe that it's accurate. Hardware is where they make their money.
Apple made 7 billion in profit in the second quarter of 2011 alone - 500 million over the course of a year (or over the course of 3 ish years, give or take a bit up or down - the app store has been open for three years and has paid 2.5 billion to developers [that's the 70%]). It's certainly not coming from the App Store if they do a 30/70 split (as famously derided on here often) and the 70% side of that split adds up to 2.5 billion.
Like I said, the store does turn a profit, but it is *enormously* dwarfed by the profits from hardware sales - ie, my point was to refute the GP's argument that not only are Apple making their 16 billion in annual profit mainly from "iTunes/app store content sales by skimming off the top", but that they're also selling the iPad at a loss which is why no one else can make a cheaper tablet.
In other words, his arguments are total nonsense. The iTunes Store and the App Store exist to drive hardware sales, not the other way around.
The list goes on and on, but all the people who ask the question don't care at all about any of that. Pity, they should.
Why should they? That's a serious question, I'm not trying to troll here or be flamebait.
The demographic for the iPad is completely divorced from the features you have listed as the main reasons you went for a non-iPad tablet, and given that you can get those other types of tablets, and the users getting iPads are also getting what they want, why should they care?
If they want to program on it, or run Python apps, or install custom firmwares and so on, then there's a market that already caters to that. If they want what the iPad does, then they have the iPad.
Just because the iPad doesn't fit your use case doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't want to do the things you do with computing equipment is somehow wrong, or that they should care about what you care about.
I don't just remember 60mpg cars, I drive one; a 2 litre diesel. Ok, so it's not quite 60mpg, more like 54 (that's 45 US mpg) - not bad for a minivan.
Kia is selling a Rio in the UK now that does 88mpg (73.3 US mpg). Efficiency is going up all the time, in tandem with cleaner emissions.
US makers don't really have to look much further than Europe for a large number of engines that would give an immediate boost in fuel economy (with good emissions figures - the new diesel regulations meet or exceed the ones in the states, and we've been using low suplfur fuel for years).
Some of the big US makers have even contributed - Ford has collaborated with european makers and has an excellent line of turbo diesel engines here. The expertise is there, but I don't think the will is - the US public doesn't see the value in a 2 litre 4 cylinder engine when they could have a 6 cylinder 3 litre engine! Bigger must mean better! Diesels, and even petrol engines, have come a long way in the last 2 decades.
Interesting reframing of your original argument there. You said they were "heavier, not lighter" due to adding a "whole other crankshaft".
I'm sorry, you can't escape from that.
Good to see you've actually looked up some information, so you're now more informed. You won't say something erroneous about opposed piston engines next time based on an off-the-cuff "common sense" assumption which we all know is what you did.
There are actually still some Deltic engines in service in the UK Navy but no new ones being brought into service. There are also preserved locomotives that are still being hired for use on UK railways because they are (can you guess?) very powerful for their axle weight.
Like I've pointed out to other posters, this is not new technology.
The Deltic engine was in use in the 60s, and it had *three* crankshafts, and despite this was considerably lighter than equivalent "normal" engines - their power to weight ratio is extremely good, which is why they were built in the first place (they have their roots as aircraft engine prototypes).
The Deltic engines also don't use valves in the conventional sense, and are also very smooth with low vibration - a feature that made them excellent for minesweeping craft.
The disadvantage of the extra crankshafts is one of engine complexity - you add complexity but decrease weight. You can make these types of engines very efficient though, by nature of the way the cycle works, but I'm not sure it will be 25% more efficient. Their big advantage is power to weight, at the expense of being more sensitive to mechanical tolerance etc.
This is not new technology - these engines were in use in the 60s in ships and locomotives for *exactly* this reason - they are very light and small for their size - an equivalent power V-engine on a Class 23 diesel loco [when a move to more 'normal' engines was considered] would have added an extra 8 tons to the mass. Their power to weight ratio is very good, despite having "a whole other crankshaft" (two extra crankshafts in the case of a Deltic engine, for a total of three).
The designs for these engines came out of the prototype ideas for aircraft engines, where reduced weight was a primary concern, along with increased power.
I suggest you actually do some research before trying to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. It usually helps, otherwise you just look silly.
Nothing really, but the engineering challenges that face aircraft and sub engines (low weight/small size above all), is not really as pressing in a car, so the advantages can be more "cheaply" obtained by building bigger engines since the weight penalty is not so severe.
They've not just "been tried" - they've been used very successfully in trains and ships. They are much lighter and smaller than "normal" engines of the same power - this is not a fact that is in doubt. The weight savings are real, even with all the "added extras" - you still come out net positive. Their downside was increased complexity, but with regular maintenance this can be overcome.
The two crankshafts have to be connected together - the pistons need to stay in phase, so you only need one output since what one crank does, the other must match it.
Like the Deltic engine I linked above, you can get awesome power to weight ratio and power to size ratio out of them (although the Deltic was an opposed 2 stroke diesel), but they are somewhat temperamental - something that would likely be less of an issue in the modern era with finer machining tolerances etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Predatory lending is what it is. There is legal protection for it in many states (albeit not specific to predatory lending exactly).
Specifically misrepresenting the ability to replay the loan, knowing that they can sell these debts on, which was the ultimate aim.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but iLink *is* Firewire, it's just Sony's name for it.
At least some of them are kept away from voting, either by creation of laws designed to limit turnout, by creating long lines in certain districts by only delivering a small number of voting machines there (compared to many, many more for the rich, predominantly white, Republican districts), by mailing out flyers that deliberately told people the wrong date, or the wrong address (or pointed them to polling stations that were far away from their home, ignoring closer ones), and from ensuring that polling day is during a workday, which some people are unable to take time off from.
Alternatively, you end up in situations where a diebold voting machines will simply record more votes for the Republican candidate in a particular district than there are people living in that district in total, but somehow this is just left to stand for some reason. Diebold blames it on "software glitches" yet somehow manages to make ATMs that can effortlessly keep track of money.
Then of course, you have people who are just apathetic - there are certainly many of those in the 99%.
It's a crime when the people doing the lending know ahead of time that you cannot afford to repay it, yet give it to you anyway. They're supposed to lend responsibly, yet instead they loaned a lot of money they knew was extremely risky, and then traded that debt.
So the positions on the spectrum are not just "tight as a duck's ass" or "criminally irresponsible" - there's a middle ground there.
You think they're all unemployed college grads because someone on slashdot said so?
You might want to look at the demographic first.
As opposed to those who get their "facts" from talk radio and Fox News?
Amusing.
That photo of GWB with the tag line "I fucked it all up, thanks for blaming it on the black guy" is extremely appropriate here.
Obama did not bail out AIG, Citigroup, Bear Stearns.... etc etc
So, the total payment to developers over the three years that the App Store has been open is 2.5 billion dollars - that's the 70% side of that 70/30 split.
So, I guess the 30% makes up the 7 billion in profit Apple made in Q2 2011 alone?
What if I, as a hypothetical user of an iPad (I don't own one), don't need an HDMI port or a full sized USB? I mean, the iPad has those ports using adapters if you really want them.
You seem to be basing the worth of your own tablet on the things that it does relative to the iPad, but why? Is your tablet not good enough to stand on its own? Why should you care that it "does everything an iPad does" if the iPad doesn't meet your criteria?
Interesting that you already identified one of the things the Thrive does not do, but you have forbidden me from mentioning that (some people like the one-stop-shop syncing and management, some people hate it).
So, in the absence of being allowed to respond accurately, I'll say "one thing the iPad can do that the Thrive can't is run iOS".
But if your argument is "I won't buy Apple because they outsource their manufacturing to the third world" then using an Android tablet is hardly taking the high ground.
Your arguments were not based on moral issues though - you were purely talking about the function of the device (unless we go down the road that Free Software is a moral issue, but assuming it's one of a couple of choices for a moment), so conflating this with the issues of globalisation and worker and environmental exploitation seems disingenuous, since in that respect there's not much to choose between any electronics manufacturer (that's not to say it's ok, or that we shouldn't continue to push for a better situation).
Your initial argument essentially boiled down to "people who bought iPads should care that the iPad is not like the Thrive", but I have to wonder why, given that both products are available, serving very different demographics.
Of course, but tell me, given that they made 16 billion in profit in 2010, there or thereabouts, and that over the 3 year life of the iOS App Store Apple have paid 2.5 billion dollars to developers (their 70% cut), how does that magically translate to such a nice profit for Apple, *especially* if (as claimed by the OP) that the iPad is sold at a loss so that Apple can make hay on the App Store.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who automatically assume the opposite of anything a company says? It's hip to be that cynical, but it's not always accurate. Don't you get tired of there being conspiracies everywhere?
Look at it this way.
Apple paid 2.5 billion dollars to developers based on the 30/70 split since the opening of the iOS app store, so that's over three years. In three years the 70% side of that split adds up to about 2.5 billion.
Apple made 7 billion in quarter 2 of 2011 *alone* - there's just no way that App Store profits feature heavily in that makeup. It's certainly a profitable enterprise - they have indicated it runs in profit, but it's really not the moneymaker for them. The iTunes Store itself (movies and music etc) is similar. In the 7 years it has been running it has served up 10 billion songs. Let's assume that every one of those songs cost $1, and that to be conservative and to add in the movies and TV shows and so on that we triple the figure - $3 for each song. That's $30 billion over 7 years, less 70% that goes to the content owners, leaving you with about $9 billion for the 30% cut over 7 years.
Again, Apple made 7 billion in a single quarter this year alone, so 9 billion over 7 years is a nice chunk (and still an estimate from me based on an average $3 per song since I don;t know how many movies and TV shows have been downloaded), but it's still only even with a single quarter of Apple's profits.
So, when Apple says "iTunes Store and the App Store are not a significant source of profit for us", especially in their filed, legally binding financial statements, I tend to believe that it's accurate. Hardware is where they make their money.
Apple made 7 billion in profit in the second quarter of 2011 alone - 500 million over the course of a year (or over the course of 3 ish years, give or take a bit up or down - the app store has been open for three years and has paid 2.5 billion to developers [that's the 70%]). It's certainly not coming from the App Store if they do a 30/70 split (as famously derided on here often) and the 70% side of that split adds up to 2.5 billion.
Like I said, the store does turn a profit, but it is *enormously* dwarfed by the profits from hardware sales - ie, my point was to refute the GP's argument that not only are Apple making their 16 billion in annual profit mainly from "iTunes/app store content sales by skimming off the top", but that they're also selling the iPad at a loss which is why no one else can make a cheaper tablet.
In other words, his arguments are total nonsense. The iTunes Store and the App Store exist to drive hardware sales, not the other way around.
I'll buy that bridge, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Go and have a look at Apple's published financial statements. I'll wait.
(oh, and if you think they're falsifying them, report them)
I thought about getting an Android phone, but I don't live in my mom's basement any more, so that rules it out.
I can't buy an iPhone because you tell me it will simply be a status symbol, not something I actually want.
What else is there? Blackberry? I'm not a teenage girl, nor am I a corporate drone.
I'm simply out of viable choices!
I guess I'll stick to my current phone. I'd tell you what it is, but I fear for my generalisation.
The list goes on and on, but all the people who ask the question don't care at all about any of that. Pity, they should.
Why should they? That's a serious question, I'm not trying to troll here or be flamebait.
The demographic for the iPad is completely divorced from the features you have listed as the main reasons you went for a non-iPad tablet, and given that you can get those other types of tablets, and the users getting iPads are also getting what they want, why should they care?
If they want to program on it, or run Python apps, or install custom firmwares and so on, then there's a market that already caters to that. If they want what the iPad does, then they have the iPad.
Just because the iPad doesn't fit your use case doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't want to do the things you do with computing equipment is somehow wrong, or that they should care about what you care about.
1) iPad most definitely *not* sold at a loss - nowhere close.
2) iTunes Store/App Store run at very minimal profit. It is over break even, but not by much.
*sources, Apple's officially filed financial statements, every year since the launch of the iTunes Store.
This was filed in 2010.
What was your point again?
I don't just remember 60mpg cars, I drive one; a 2 litre diesel. Ok, so it's not quite 60mpg, more like 54 (that's 45 US mpg) - not bad for a minivan.
Kia is selling a Rio in the UK now that does 88mpg (73.3 US mpg). Efficiency is going up all the time, in tandem with cleaner emissions.
US makers don't really have to look much further than Europe for a large number of engines that would give an immediate boost in fuel economy (with good emissions figures - the new diesel regulations meet or exceed the ones in the states, and we've been using low suplfur fuel for years).
Some of the big US makers have even contributed - Ford has collaborated with european makers and has an excellent line of turbo diesel engines here. The expertise is there, but I don't think the will is - the US public doesn't see the value in a 2 litre 4 cylinder engine when they could have a 6 cylinder 3 litre engine! Bigger must mean better! Diesels, and even petrol engines, have come a long way in the last 2 decades.
Interesting reframing of your original argument there. You said they were "heavier, not lighter" due to adding a "whole other crankshaft".
I'm sorry, you can't escape from that.
Good to see you've actually looked up some information, so you're now more informed. You won't say something erroneous about opposed piston engines next time based on an off-the-cuff "common sense" assumption which we all know is what you did.
There are actually still some Deltic engines in service in the UK Navy but no new ones being brought into service. There are also preserved locomotives that are still being hired for use on UK railways because they are (can you guess?) very powerful for their axle weight.
Like I've pointed out to other posters, this is not new technology.
The Deltic engine was in use in the 60s, and it had *three* crankshafts, and despite this was considerably lighter than equivalent "normal" engines - their power to weight ratio is extremely good, which is why they were built in the first place (they have their roots as aircraft engine prototypes).
The Deltic engines also don't use valves in the conventional sense, and are also very smooth with low vibration - a feature that made them excellent for minesweeping craft.
The disadvantage of the extra crankshafts is one of engine complexity - you add complexity but decrease weight. You can make these types of engines very efficient though, by nature of the way the cycle works, but I'm not sure it will be 25% more efficient. Their big advantage is power to weight, at the expense of being more sensitive to mechanical tolerance etc.
No, definitely lighter, not heavier.
This is not new technology - these engines were in use in the 60s in ships and locomotives for *exactly* this reason - they are very light and small for their size - an equivalent power V-engine on a Class 23 diesel loco [when a move to more 'normal' engines was considered] would have added an extra 8 tons to the mass. Their power to weight ratio is very good, despite having "a whole other crankshaft" (two extra crankshafts in the case of a Deltic engine, for a total of three).
The designs for these engines came out of the prototype ideas for aircraft engines, where reduced weight was a primary concern, along with increased power.
I suggest you actually do some research before trying to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. It usually helps, otherwise you just look silly.
Nothing really, but the engineering challenges that face aircraft and sub engines (low weight/small size above all), is not really as pressing in a car, so the advantages can be more "cheaply" obtained by building bigger engines since the weight penalty is not so severe.
They've not just "been tried" - they've been used very successfully in trains and ships. They are much lighter and smaller than "normal" engines of the same power - this is not a fact that is in doubt. The weight savings are real, even with all the "added extras" - you still come out net positive. Their downside was increased complexity, but with regular maintenance this can be overcome.
The two crankshafts have to be connected together - the pistons need to stay in phase, so you only need one output since what one crank does, the other must match it.
Like the Deltic engine I linked above, you can get awesome power to weight ratio and power to size ratio out of them (although the Deltic was an opposed 2 stroke diesel), but they are somewhat temperamental - something that would likely be less of an issue in the modern era with finer machining tolerances etc.