Recent bill of materials puts the iPhone 5 at around $200, and it starts at $650 without contract from AT&T. So the iPhone profit margins start at 325%.
AT&T sells the Samsung Galaxy S3 for $550 without contract. Don't kid yourself, there is no way the material cost is $530, the only way you'd get $20 profit per device. And we're excluding all their cheaper phones, since the S3 by itself outsold the iPhone in many markets the previous quarter or two.
The S3 bill of materials is hard to find, but let's say the S3 also costs $200 in materials, then its profit margin is 275%. If material cost is $150, profit margin is now 367%--higher than Apple's, even if the dollar amount is $50 less.
China Labour Watch has already said that Samsung's labour violations are much worse than Apple's suppliers. Foxconn also pays workers better (relatively speaking) than Samsung and its suppliers does theirs.
It all balances out. So we'd better see the pitchforks come out against Samsung as they did for Apple, otherwise those slamming Apple for their supplier's violations prove that they don't actually care so much about worker's rights, they just want an excuse to hate on Apple.
Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.
CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.
Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.
Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.
Didn't think to call the NRA? Not much sympathy then.
Sure, the ACLU is supposed to represent all civil liberties. But the NRA focuses on a specific one, so in reality it's the NRA that should be up in arms (figuratively) over stuff like this, which has broad implications on their membership. If they aren't, then something's missing from this story.
They did--the capital ships like Omegas, anyway. Fore and aft of the rotating section were gun emplacements along the top and bottom, 12 in total, with 360 rotation and about 90 elevation.
Granted we didn't see these in action often, but they were shown best in the episode "Between the Darkness and the Light"--at the start there's a battle scene showing these pulse cannons in action, to contrast against the more advanced Omegas later on that had been merged with Shadow tech, and all the guns had been replaced with high-power laser cannons.
As for why the heavy weapons face forward, those are the probable starting positions when battle starts--facing the enemy from a great distance. It also exposes the least amount of surface area to the enemy. The mid-section cannons were probably defensive in nature, to protect against smaller, more manoeuvrable ships trying to outflank the Omega.
So the cylons could jump to three light minutes out, shoot beam weapons for 2:59 and then jump away before the Colonials even know they've arrived.
They could have... if either side had beam or other light-speed weapons. The Cylons had missiles on basestars and on a few raiders (usually nuclear missiles for the latter). Their raiders' main weapons were energy-based but were not light-speed, nor were they very powerful--no better in fact than the solid cannon rounds used by the human Vipers.
Don't forget lightning and thunder. According to Hollywood, they *always* happen at the same time. This is something literally anyone can tell doesn't happen in real life unless it's practically on top of you, but the producers keep insisting that it happen that way.
Speaking of Firefly: it wasn't established in the series, but according to the movie all the worlds we see in the series and movie are planets and moons in a single solar system. I wonder if this was done explicitly to address the question of FTL or lack thereof, even though it introduces a whackload of other issues and need to suspend disbelief, chief among them that celestial mechanics wouldn't easily allow so many worlds to be in the habitable zone... which then needed its *own* off-screen explanation, a multiple-star system with planets around each sun. It's a very brief mention at the start of the movie, and I see it as Firefly's version of Star Wars' midichlorians--a background detail that did NOT need explaining. Firefly was never about the technology, but the characters and story. It's why I've managed to hook four people onto the series in the last two months, three just in the last two weeks (10th anniversary viewing marathon).
It was indeed rare, but they explicitly did this once in the 4th season episode "No Surrender, No Retreat." An enemy Omega-class destroyer is firing at something far into the distance, technically not off-screen, while being pummelled by return fire from that same place. The return fire was coming from two White Stars closing at high speed, one of which then has its nav and stabilizer systems blown away and it careens into the Omega, destroying both.
It's still not "perfectly realistic"--the range is only hundreds of kilometres not thousands, why would any White Star attack head on when their far greater manoeuvrability could outflank the Omegas, etc. But it at least made a very good attempt, unlike the massive fleets of starships clustered together in a ball, seen in later seasons of Deep Space Nine; or the Voyager episode "Year of Hell part 2" where ships were so close that a just-disabled one *drifts* into Voyager.
Apple just threw a fit when Google asked for better branding in their app, got pigheaded and figured "We're Apple, we can do it BETTER! This shouldn't take long!"
Since the very first iPhone Apple has denied the big players from getting their branding on the phone in any significant way. That's why you don't see AT&T, Verizon, or any other carrier's logo on either the physical phone or startup screens, like you did on most phones at the time.
Interesting how you paint Apple as a kid (threw a fit / pigheaded / melodramatic whining) while Google "asked" for better branding. It's not asking, it's negotiating 101, and if the the other side's demands are unacceptable for whatever reason, you walk away.
Apple's reasoning had a lot of business logic behind it. Their decision to release Maps in this state without slapping a beta label on it, did not. Add it to the recent "Genius" ads disaster, and you have to wonder if Apple's marketing and PR managers all took summer vacation at the same time.
This isn't hypothetical. I remember a news article a few years back (can't find it online, so my memory here might be slightly off) about a little girl who drowned in a river or lake near a road in the UK. The girl had wandered off from the parent's cottage or something. A man had been driving by and thought it unsafe that the child was alone in the field, so close to water.
He drove on without reporting it right away (might not have had a cell phone). After the story broke that the girl had drowned he came forward and said he didn't stop precisely because he feared his life could be ruined by a hysterical accusation of child abduction or molestation.
After this admission, public opinion basically ripped him apart for not stopping to prevent a tragic death.
Basically, the only thing he did differently from what you'd do, is that he didn't keep quiet after learning of the drowning. He may have been a decent human being and felt guilty about not helping, but being a decent human would've screwed him over regardless.
Had a thought about that, and I wonder if that really helps much.
Consider that after the "paperwork" is done, you touch all the same things (pants, belt, zipper, button, etc) before getting to the sink to wash your hands, as when you "start" the next throne session. Some of the stuff that make us go "ick!" have obviously worn off, but still...
Except one has a posting record where you can see if it's a new throwaway account, whether they're likely to be shilling based on previous comments and writing styles, etc.
Apple's been writing and maintaining their maps app for several years, so I'm not so sure about Google writing the original back in 2007. Even if they did, that doesn't help them much. There was no SDK at the time so they would've been using private APIs. GPS and compass functionality and even Street View has been added--all apparently by Apple.
So, Google had since mid-June (when the world found out for sure Google was going to be kicked out of the core iOS6) to whip up something. According to Google's own CEO, as of a few days ago they haven't even submitted an app yet, so there's nothing for Apple to block or "review" at this point.
I haven't upgraded to iOS6 yet (specifically because of the Maps issue), but a "report problem" link does exist. It's just (unfortunately) stuck behind the page curl:
People have short memories, as politics shows. If Apple can improve things quickly, this'll be a distant memory for some when it's time to replace their phone. If Apple *doesn't* fix things fast, then they deserve to lose customers.
You were fine up til the "probably by Android partisan."
Negative stories about Apple are not "mostly" driven by Android partisans, any more than positive stories about Apple are "mostly" driven by Apple fanbois. There's a huge and fickle middle ground that just follows the trend.
It boggles my mind that Google was supposedly caught flat-footed, and was unable, after several months (since iOS6 was previewed), to either develop and submit a maps app, nor have a mobile web version with a key feature that Apple's maps lacks: Street View. Initially Apple was accused of deliberately holding up or denying approval of an actual app, but word from Google's top exec is that they're far from even being ready to submit an app.
It's a lost opportunity for Google, not being able to grab angry iOS users right away. After a few weeks, many issues will probably be fixed, or iOS users will have learned to live with others.
Worse for Google, a lot of iOS users were totally unaware that the old Maps app even had Street View, so to them it's not a lost feature at all.
You pretty much hit on why Apple probably decided *not* to continue using GMaps. As part of its long-term strategy Apple is trying to remove from the core iOS and apps, anything that might help Google. This includes search terms to improve Google's systems (information denial), as well as any ad click-throughs on map search results (revenue denial).
Odds are cliffs do not move often and any automated car will have access to maps with topo data.
Given the last directions I got from Google Maps concluded with 'now drive through the barrier at the side of the highway and fall forty feet into the parking lot of the hotel below you', that does not give me warm fuzzies.
Wait, you mean maybe iOS6 replacing Google Maps might actually have been a *good* thing???
Safari on my home Mac doesn't have Flash, and often displays the "Install Flash" message, especially on Youtube. But on several occasions it has inexplicably been able to go to Street View, with navigation and other controls working as expected. Right-clicking on the Street View confirms that it's not using Flash. There must be some trigger or URL parameter that makes it offer the non-Flash version, but I haven't looked too closely into it.
I don't drink beer myself, but I thought that was partly due to percentage of alcohol the big breweries used.
Might not apply anymore, but there's an old joke that goes, "What do American beer and making love in a canoe have in common? They're both fucking close to water."
We are starting to see that to a lesser extreme in the west, as the right-wing extremists are trying to label "progressive" and "moderate" as as terms no better than "liberal" (which they've already been allowed to tie to "socialist" and "communist"). In one non-political discussion I agreed with someone that moderates were better than extremists because moderates are far more willing to evaluate information from both multiples sides, and the response I got was that those in the middle of the road deserved to be roadkill.
As far as I've seen there's no equivalent left-wing attempt to marginalize centrists or moderate right political labels (facists and nazis are already extreme labels and don't count, nor do made-up words). I'm willing to see any labels offered as example.
Slashdot Mirror
Recent bill of materials puts the iPhone 5 at around $200, and it starts at $650 without contract from AT&T. So the iPhone profit margins start at 325%.
AT&T sells the Samsung Galaxy S3 for $550 without contract. Don't kid yourself, there is no way the material cost is $530, the only way you'd get $20 profit per device. And we're excluding all their cheaper phones, since the S3 by itself outsold the iPhone in many markets the previous quarter or two.
The S3 bill of materials is hard to find, but let's say the S3 also costs $200 in materials, then its profit margin is 275%. If material cost is $150, profit margin is now 367%--higher than Apple's, even if the dollar amount is $50 less.
China Labour Watch has already said that Samsung's labour violations are much worse than Apple's suppliers. Foxconn also pays workers better (relatively speaking) than Samsung and its suppliers does theirs.
It all balances out. So we'd better see the pitchforks come out against Samsung as they did for Apple, otherwise those slamming Apple for their supplier's violations prove that they don't actually care so much about worker's rights, they just want an excuse to hate on Apple.
Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.
CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.
Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.
Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.
As another example, the public legacy of the "kissing sailor" photo has taken a dark turn.
Didn't think to call the NRA? Not much sympathy then.
Sure, the ACLU is supposed to represent all civil liberties. But the NRA focuses on a specific one, so in reality it's the NRA that should be up in arms (figuratively) over stuff like this, which has broad implications on their membership. If they aren't, then something's missing from this story.
Or insult our beer!
They did--the capital ships like Omegas, anyway. Fore and aft of the rotating section were gun emplacements along the top and bottom, 12 in total, with 360 rotation and about 90 elevation.
Granted we didn't see these in action often, but they were shown best in the episode "Between the Darkness and the Light"--at the start there's a battle scene showing these pulse cannons in action, to contrast against the more advanced Omegas later on that had been merged with Shadow tech, and all the guns had been replaced with high-power laser cannons.
As for why the heavy weapons face forward, those are the probable starting positions when battle starts--facing the enemy from a great distance. It also exposes the least amount of surface area to the enemy. The mid-section cannons were probably defensive in nature, to protect against smaller, more manoeuvrable ships trying to outflank the Omega.
So the cylons could jump to three light minutes out, shoot beam weapons for 2:59 and then jump away before the Colonials even know they've arrived.
They could have... if either side had beam or other light-speed weapons. The Cylons had missiles on basestars and on a few raiders (usually nuclear missiles for the latter). Their raiders' main weapons were energy-based but were not light-speed, nor were they very powerful--no better in fact than the solid cannon rounds used by the human Vipers.
Don't forget lightning and thunder. According to Hollywood, they *always* happen at the same time. This is something literally anyone can tell doesn't happen in real life unless it's practically on top of you, but the producers keep insisting that it happen that way.
Speaking of Firefly: it wasn't established in the series, but according to the movie all the worlds we see in the series and movie are planets and moons in a single solar system. I wonder if this was done explicitly to address the question of FTL or lack thereof, even though it introduces a whackload of other issues and need to suspend disbelief, chief among them that celestial mechanics wouldn't easily allow so many worlds to be in the habitable zone... which then needed its *own* off-screen explanation, a multiple-star system with planets around each sun. It's a very brief mention at the start of the movie, and I see it as Firefly's version of Star Wars' midichlorians--a background detail that did NOT need explaining. Firefly was never about the technology, but the characters and story. It's why I've managed to hook four people onto the series in the last two months, three just in the last two weeks (10th anniversary viewing marathon).
It was indeed rare, but they explicitly did this once in the 4th season episode "No Surrender, No Retreat." An enemy Omega-class destroyer is firing at something far into the distance, technically not off-screen, while being pummelled by return fire from that same place. The return fire was coming from two White Stars closing at high speed, one of which then has its nav and stabilizer systems blown away and it careens into the Omega, destroying both.
It's still not "perfectly realistic"--the range is only hundreds of kilometres not thousands, why would any White Star attack head on when their far greater manoeuvrability could outflank the Omegas, etc. But it at least made a very good attempt, unlike the massive fleets of starships clustered together in a ball, seen in later seasons of Deep Space Nine; or the Voyager episode "Year of Hell part 2" where ships were so close that a just-disabled one *drifts* into Voyager.
By cosmic coincidence, the B5 star passed away on the 25th anniversary of Star Trek: The Next Generation's first broadcast.
Apple just threw a fit when Google asked for better branding in their app, got pigheaded and figured "We're Apple, we can do it BETTER! This shouldn't take long!"
Since the very first iPhone Apple has denied the big players from getting their branding on the phone in any significant way. That's why you don't see AT&T, Verizon, or any other carrier's logo on either the physical phone or startup screens, like you did on most phones at the time.
Interesting how you paint Apple as a kid (threw a fit / pigheaded / melodramatic whining) while Google "asked" for better branding. It's not asking, it's negotiating 101, and if the the other side's demands are unacceptable for whatever reason, you walk away.
Apple's reasoning had a lot of business logic behind it. Their decision to release Maps in this state without slapping a beta label on it, did not. Add it to the recent "Genius" ads disaster, and you have to wonder if Apple's marketing and PR managers all took summer vacation at the same time.
This isn't hypothetical. I remember a news article a few years back (can't find it online, so my memory here might be slightly off) about a little girl who drowned in a river or lake near a road in the UK. The girl had wandered off from the parent's cottage or something. A man had been driving by and thought it unsafe that the child was alone in the field, so close to water.
He drove on without reporting it right away (might not have had a cell phone). After the story broke that the girl had drowned he came forward and said he didn't stop precisely because he feared his life could be ruined by a hysterical accusation of child abduction or molestation.
After this admission, public opinion basically ripped him apart for not stopping to prevent a tragic death.
Basically, the only thing he did differently from what you'd do, is that he didn't keep quiet after learning of the drowning. He may have been a decent human being and felt guilty about not helping, but being a decent human would've screwed him over regardless.
Had a thought about that, and I wonder if that really helps much.
Consider that after the "paperwork" is done, you touch all the same things (pants, belt, zipper, button, etc) before getting to the sink to wash your hands, as when you "start" the next throne session. Some of the stuff that make us go "ick!" have obviously worn off, but still...
Except one has a posting record where you can see if it's a new throwaway account, whether they're likely to be shilling based on previous comments and writing styles, etc.
Apple's been writing and maintaining their maps app for several years, so I'm not so sure about Google writing the original back in 2007. Even if they did, that doesn't help them much. There was no SDK at the time so they would've been using private APIs. GPS and compass functionality and even Street View has been added--all apparently by Apple.
So, Google had since mid-June (when the world found out for sure Google was going to be kicked out of the core iOS6) to whip up something. According to Google's own CEO, as of a few days ago they haven't even submitted an app yet, so there's nothing for Apple to block or "review" at this point.
Anonymous coward demands proof that they're not hiding intentions or anything. That's a hoot.
I haven't upgraded to iOS6 yet (specifically because of the Maps issue), but a "report problem" link does exist. It's just (unfortunately) stuck behind the page curl:
http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/tips-tricks/how-to-report-a-problem-with-ios-6-maps/
People have short memories, as politics shows. If Apple can improve things quickly, this'll be a distant memory for some when it's time to replace their phone. If Apple *doesn't* fix things fast, then they deserve to lose customers.
You were fine up til the "probably by Android partisan."
Negative stories about Apple are not "mostly" driven by Android partisans, any more than positive stories about Apple are "mostly" driven by Apple fanbois. There's a huge and fickle middle ground that just follows the trend.
It boggles my mind that Google was supposedly caught flat-footed, and was unable, after several months (since iOS6 was previewed), to either develop and submit a maps app, nor have a mobile web version with a key feature that Apple's maps lacks: Street View. Initially Apple was accused of deliberately holding up or denying approval of an actual app, but word from Google's top exec is that they're far from even being ready to submit an app.
It's a lost opportunity for Google, not being able to grab angry iOS users right away. After a few weeks, many issues will probably be fixed, or iOS users will have learned to live with others.
Worse for Google, a lot of iOS users were totally unaware that the old Maps app even had Street View, so to them it's not a lost feature at all.
You pretty much hit on why Apple probably decided *not* to continue using GMaps. As part of its long-term strategy Apple is trying to remove from the core iOS and apps, anything that might help Google. This includes search terms to improve Google's systems (information denial), as well as any ad click-throughs on map search results (revenue denial).
Odds are cliffs do not move often and any automated car will have access to maps with topo data.
Given the last directions I got from Google Maps concluded with 'now drive through the barrier at the side of the highway and fall forty feet into the parking lot of the hotel below you', that does not give me warm fuzzies.
Wait, you mean maybe iOS6 replacing Google Maps might actually have been a *good* thing???
Safari on my home Mac doesn't have Flash, and often displays the "Install Flash" message, especially on Youtube. But on several occasions it has inexplicably been able to go to Street View, with navigation and other controls working as expected. Right-clicking on the Street View confirms that it's not using Flash. There must be some trigger or URL parameter that makes it offer the non-Flash version, but I haven't looked too closely into it.
I don't drink beer myself, but I thought that was partly due to percentage of alcohol the big breweries used.
Might not apply anymore, but there's an old joke that goes, "What do American beer and making love in a canoe have in common? They're both fucking close to water."
We are starting to see that to a lesser extreme in the west, as the right-wing extremists are trying to label "progressive" and "moderate" as as terms no better than "liberal" (which they've already been allowed to tie to "socialist" and "communist"). In one non-political discussion I agreed with someone that moderates were better than extremists because moderates are far more willing to evaluate information from both multiples sides, and the response I got was that those in the middle of the road deserved to be roadkill.
As far as I've seen there's no equivalent left-wing attempt to marginalize centrists or moderate right political labels (facists and nazis are already extreme labels and don't count, nor do made-up words). I'm willing to see any labels offered as example.