Not quite an apples-to-Apple Inc. comparison there.
Apple effectively has two very similar packages in "smartphones", would you like the 3GS in 16GB or 32GB. Some non-S 3G phones are still in inventory and selling at a discount. And let's not forget Apple has the bigger App Store, and developers who target the iPhone also get to see their apps run on the iPod Touch which isn't considered a "smartphone" for lack of a phone.
Development for Nokia's line of phones is much harder, because there's more than one screen size and a much wider range of capabilities.
It's a little more than just product moved that matters. Nokia's App Store is nothing compared to the iTunes App Store, and we know 30% of all money that goes through that goes straight to Apple.
It won't be long before somebody comes up with a "farmvile-filtered" view of Facebook/MySpace/Twiter/whatever's next. Spam from your buddies is still spam.
Hmm... you seem to have come to the wrong place for advice.
Why is somebody going to learn your framework and let you host it and maybe send them profits when somebody can learn a real web scripting language or two, and then host on one of the many hosting companies out there?
Think of yourself as a contestant on Shark Tank (called Dragon's Den on the BBC)... why are people who have money willing to give you money when you have such a hard time convincing people to partner with you?
T-Mobile started life as VoiceStream doing GSM before Cingular decided that was cool and they'd join in. This lead to an awkward phase where they were distributing dual-protocol phones and had different rate tiers on the different networks. Yet again, when Cingular got the assets of the failed AT&T Wireless, they had to do another round of hardware swaps for those incoming customers.
Verizon has announced their LTE network with enough advance notice that they should be able to avoid such a costly rush change.
Right now, in the USA, there's only one provider (T-Mobile) willing to discount your service if you decline the hardware subsidy. If you want to use anybody else, you pay the same rate even if you decline the upfront money.
Either T-Mobile subscriptions will go through the roof, or we've got proof that the public just doesn't care. People with money seldom understand math, see also: Las Vegas.
Nokia took a big turn a few years ago, dropping the "free after service provider subsidy" models in favor of going very geek. I had one of their recent phones earlier this year while I was waiting for my subsidy to get an iPhone to come available.
The initial failures of the Ovi App Store were annoying, and with only the built in apps available to me it needed some work. They're racing in the same division as much bigger fish called Apple and Google, but they seem to have a neat device in the Booklet 3G... just a plain Windows netbook with a $300 provider discount making it $299.99, and Best Buy was kicking in another $100 to make it $199.99 over the holidays. The killer feature on this one is a solid battery.
They're really going for the geeks... but are there enough geeks who will pass on both Apple on AT&T and Google on Verizon and T-Mobile?
It's feature-locked. It only has the hardware to work fully on T-Mobile. Like the article says, take it to AT&T and you can't reach the frequencies they do 3G data on.
It's not a bad design trade-off... why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need, when a majority of customers with an unlocked device would take it to T-Mobile because of their "unsubsidized hardware, cheaper service" pricing?
Nah, we've got a better solution in the pipeline. Phone companies are actively re-wiring their service areas with new networks capable of delivering phone, TV, and 'net. It'll take some time for them to fully deploy, but everywhere they have hit, Comcast has been forced to update their network to compete.
Regulation is nothing compared to a solid competitor.
There's some people who don't have access to the proper angle of southern sky to get a DBS signal, are in a location too lacking in population density for cable to be profitable, or don't control the building they live in so they must subscribe to the only provider available or none at all.
Hollywood is a divided town politically. The actors tend to be liberal because they're artists, the execs tend to be conservative because they're in business.
If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.
You forgot your history. Disney Channel launched as a pay-for-like-HBO scrambled premium channel. So did most of the sports networks that show local games.
What these content baskets realized was that it was more profitable to take a few cents for every subscriber (even the ones that don't care about you) instead of getting a few bucks from everybody willing to pay just for you. That's why everybody's cable bills started going up faster than inflation, the cable operators were paying more for the same content.
Now, the premiums are movie channels and out-of-town sports packages... and those are secured by digital encryption rather than the pathetically-easy to decode analog schemes.
Nope. The FCC is ahead of you on this one. All of the major cable companies offer CableCARD devices that handle the decryption, and that's a standard that allows you to purchase any compliant TV or settop box. TiVo's main product is now based on this technology.
Comcast's days as a monopoly-by-default are over. There are two DBS companies that offer almost the same lineup of channels nationally.
Also, AT&T and Verizon both are actively wiring their areas with a new network that's capable of delivering TV content too. Look out... challenges ahead!
The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.
That's why TV stations are allowed to make money under the condition that they serve the public good (and agree to censorship limits) on the public resource. If you want to do content that doesn't fit the rules of broadcast TV, go to cable. Howard Stern found his act wasn't tolerated very well on the FM frequencies, and he's making more money than he ever has before on satellite. Sirius/XM didn't isn't making enough money from his show, so he'll likely wind up as a pay-for podcaster on the Internet.
You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to an amplifier or even a microphone connected to anything. You've got to pay for or earn those.
Yep, there is. Cable networks that need to be distributed via satellite feed must be offered to all pay TV providers under reasonable terms, and broadcast TV stations have to either require they must be carried by all pay TV carriers in the area, or can collect reasonable retransmission rates. They can't exist on only the provider that owns them... there's only limited local sports and news channels that can afford to distribute via landline to stay cable-only.
The only place where we're seeing national provider-specific content deals are on the Internet. Things like ESPN360 and ABC News Now are accessible only if your ISP has agreed to host a server on their network and pay for the content. That's against the principles of net neutrality, but there's no regulation yet to stop them.
Seems to me like they could get around this simply by setting up a mirror for the source they downloaded that was covered by GPL, and requiring that their licensees that sell the end product include a paragraph in the user manual letting them know what the URL of the download server is.
That's all TiVo does to cover their use...
Have some care for whomever is paying for the upbound bandwidth... if you ball out midway through, having each item on separate pages means they don't have to send what you don't look at.
No, they'd take the FTP log and go after you, or at least blame the owner of domain name or at least whomever had the IP address leased out. The problem with P2P networks is that there's no way to tell who started this leak. Most non-P2P network protocols leave behind logs or Carnivore records.
Google has done this before... searching Google for "Yahoo!" resulted in a "Did you mean Google?" response. It's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Could somebody explain why the little E disappeared from my iPhone last month to be replaced with a "3G"... yeah, Verizon's map ads need an update.
Not quite an apples-to-Apple Inc. comparison there.
Apple effectively has two very similar packages in "smartphones", would you like the 3GS in 16GB or 32GB. Some non-S 3G phones are still in inventory and selling at a discount. And let's not forget Apple has the bigger App Store, and developers who target the iPhone also get to see their apps run on the iPod Touch which isn't considered a "smartphone" for lack of a phone.
Development for Nokia's line of phones is much harder, because there's more than one screen size and a much wider range of capabilities.
It's a little more than just product moved that matters. Nokia's App Store is nothing compared to the iTunes App Store, and we know 30% of all money that goes through that goes straight to Apple.
It won't be long before somebody comes up with a "farmvile-filtered" view of Facebook/MySpace/Twiter/whatever's next. Spam from your buddies is still spam.
Hmm... you seem to have come to the wrong place for advice.
Why is somebody going to learn your framework and let you host it and maybe send them profits when somebody can learn a real web scripting language or two, and then host on one of the many hosting companies out there?
Think of yourself as a contestant on Shark Tank (called Dragon's Den on the BBC)... why are people who have money willing to give you money when you have such a hard time convincing people to partner with you?
Funny, I had little trouble building a game site off of Slashdot... I just put a link to it into posts I was going to write anyway.
Your prior hits have worn out, and you can't find the staff to make your "Next Big Thing (tm)" so you want to sell what again?
I'm in a true fringe area... there's two farm's fields within eyesight of where I sit.
T-Mobile started life as VoiceStream doing GSM before Cingular decided that was cool and they'd join in. This lead to an awkward phase where they were distributing dual-protocol phones and had different rate tiers on the different networks. Yet again, when Cingular got the assets of the failed AT&T Wireless, they had to do another round of hardware swaps for those incoming customers.
Verizon has announced their LTE network with enough advance notice that they should be able to avoid such a costly rush change.
Right now, in the USA, there's only one provider (T-Mobile) willing to discount your service if you decline the hardware subsidy. If you want to use anybody else, you pay the same rate even if you decline the upfront money.
Either T-Mobile subscriptions will go through the roof, or we've got proof that the public just doesn't care. People with money seldom understand math, see also: Las Vegas.
Nokia took a big turn a few years ago, dropping the "free after service provider subsidy" models in favor of going very geek. I had one of their recent phones earlier this year while I was waiting for my subsidy to get an iPhone to come available.
The initial failures of the Ovi App Store were annoying, and with only the built in apps available to me it needed some work. They're racing in the same division as much bigger fish called Apple and Google, but they seem to have a neat device in the Booklet 3G... just a plain Windows netbook with a $300 provider discount making it $299.99, and Best Buy was kicking in another $100 to make it $199.99 over the holidays. The killer feature on this one is a solid battery.
They're really going for the geeks... but are there enough geeks who will pass on both Apple on AT&T and Google on Verizon and T-Mobile?
It's feature-locked. It only has the hardware to work fully on T-Mobile. Like the article says, take it to AT&T and you can't reach the frequencies they do 3G data on. It's not a bad design trade-off... why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need, when a majority of customers with an unlocked device would take it to T-Mobile because of their "unsubsidized hardware, cheaper service" pricing?
And Skype all this time was claiming wiretaps were an undue burden that they didn't have to comply with!
Nah, we've got a better solution in the pipeline. Phone companies are actively re-wiring their service areas with new networks capable of delivering phone, TV, and 'net. It'll take some time for them to fully deploy, but everywhere they have hit, Comcast has been forced to update their network to compete.
Regulation is nothing compared to a solid competitor.
There's some people who don't have access to the proper angle of southern sky to get a DBS signal, are in a location too lacking in population density for cable to be profitable, or don't control the building they live in so they must subscribe to the only provider available or none at all.
Hollywood is a divided town politically. The actors tend to be liberal because they're artists, the execs tend to be conservative because they're in business.
If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.
You forgot your history. Disney Channel launched as a pay-for-like-HBO scrambled premium channel. So did most of the sports networks that show local games.
What these content baskets realized was that it was more profitable to take a few cents for every subscriber (even the ones that don't care about you) instead of getting a few bucks from everybody willing to pay just for you. That's why everybody's cable bills started going up faster than inflation, the cable operators were paying more for the same content.
Now, the premiums are movie channels and out-of-town sports packages... and those are secured by digital encryption rather than the pathetically-easy to decode analog schemes.
Nope. The FCC is ahead of you on this one. All of the major cable companies offer CableCARD devices that handle the decryption, and that's a standard that allows you to purchase any compliant TV or settop box. TiVo's main product is now based on this technology.
Comcast's days as a monopoly-by-default are over. There are two DBS companies that offer almost the same lineup of channels nationally. Also, AT&T and Verizon both are actively wiring their areas with a new network that's capable of delivering TV content too. Look out... challenges ahead!
BS.
The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.
That's why TV stations are allowed to make money under the condition that they serve the public good (and agree to censorship limits) on the public resource. If you want to do content that doesn't fit the rules of broadcast TV, go to cable. Howard Stern found his act wasn't tolerated very well on the FM frequencies, and he's making more money than he ever has before on satellite. Sirius/XM didn't isn't making enough money from his show, so he'll likely wind up as a pay-for podcaster on the Internet.
You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to an amplifier or even a microphone connected to anything. You've got to pay for or earn those.
Yep, there is. Cable networks that need to be distributed via satellite feed must be offered to all pay TV providers under reasonable terms, and broadcast TV stations have to either require they must be carried by all pay TV carriers in the area, or can collect reasonable retransmission rates. They can't exist on only the provider that owns them... there's only limited local sports and news channels that can afford to distribute via landline to stay cable-only.
The only place where we're seeing national provider-specific content deals are on the Internet. Things like ESPN360 and ABC News Now are accessible only if your ISP has agreed to host a server on their network and pay for the content. That's against the principles of net neutrality, but there's no regulation yet to stop them.
Seems to me like they could get around this simply by setting up a mirror for the source they downloaded that was covered by GPL, and requiring that their licensees that sell the end product include a paragraph in the user manual letting them know what the URL of the download server is. That's all TiVo does to cover their use...
Hate to break it to you, but the link the summary is pointing to is actually the 7th, not first result returned.
Have some care for whomever is paying for the upbound bandwidth... if you ball out midway through, having each item on separate pages means they don't have to send what you don't look at.
No, they'd take the FTP log and go after you, or at least blame the owner of domain name or at least whomever had the IP address leased out. The problem with P2P networks is that there's no way to tell who started this leak. Most non-P2P network protocols leave behind logs or Carnivore records.
Google has done this before... searching Google for "Yahoo!" resulted in a "Did you mean Google?" response. It's a practice new to search marketing where you specify your competitor's name to trigger your ad... effectively mounting a sign for yourself on the way to that competitor.