I note that you can't provide a citation, because you checked and found you remembered it wrongly. The recent news of the Galaxy X series passing 100 million units might be impressive from Samsung's point of view, but it's a fraction of what iPhone has shipped in the same time frame.
Still, at least you've stopped trying to argue that iPhone had an advantage in US carrier agreements.
Samsung has surpassed iPhone sales Worldwide with its S line alone.
Citation please, because that doesn't appear to be true.
In US it is different. Apple is a lot more popular there than it is in average in the world, mainly because its early deals with AT&T and other carriers.
And that's the opposite of the truth. In reality the iPhone market share was held back in the US because AT&T (then under the name Cingular) had a contract to be the exclusive network that iPhones were on for years. From June 2007 till January 2011, ONLY AT&T had iPhone. It's only since than that Verizon and the other networks
It may well be one of the reasons that the iPhone's market share is still growing in the US, in it's 6th year. Because it wasn't even available to all Americans till relatively recently.
Touchscreen devices were perceived as a novelty early on too
No they weren't. I worked in the mobile industry right through the years when touch screens were introduced. They were widely praised, not treated as a novelty.
They're treated as a novelty on PCs. But that's because they are.
the iphone and ipad were received in the same way by many people with terms like 'toy' and 'fondleslab' being thrown around, as though if it's not what we have now it must just be a gimmick.
That some people were wrong about the iPhone and iPad doesn't mean I'm wrong about Google Glasses.
No, Samsung get it's market share with a variety of Android phones, including cheap ones. The Samsung Galaxy Ace for example costs about 170UKP contract free, whereas the iPhone is 500UKP.
A lot of what Samsung sells are these rather than the Galaxy SIII end.
If you look at America, where more people can afford to buy whatever they want, Apple has greater market share than Samsung, and it's rising.
Simpsons and NCIS do make appearances on the list for the commercial (non BBC) channels, but they are way down the list. The most popular programs by far are British.
Yeah right. I'm sure people who followed Apple in the 1990s are gutted that Apple are so successful now, and have returned to having the best devices on the market.
So what you're saying is that Slashdot specializes in presenting the useless ideas that shouldn't be patented, and doesn't ever cover any of the ones that cover interesting and novel technology.
You might be right. Slashdot might have sunk that low.
It certainly does in some areas. CO2 causes warming, which causes some areas to get wetter and some to get dryer. If they become dry enough they become desert.
Your equating AGW and ice ages has a number of problems, not least the speed of which each makes changes is orders of magnitude different.
1. Things spread. Just today in the article about warming in the north. It was pointed out that earthworms are now making an appearance where previously permafrost prevented them. The earthworms are sightless, and needed no advertising.
2. Word of mouth was happening on the internet before Facebook, and before any commercial entities were there.
3. Advertising only serves those who are placing the ads and those that are paid to place them. They are not a public good, and we should do precisely nothing to enable them. Some forward thinking cities have banned billboard advertising. It hasn't damaged the economy, it's just made the places more pleasant.
Learning about a product's existence by seeing it in use in public is limited to the physical places that one typically goes in a day. In the horse-drawn era, that wasn't very far.
You didn't have to go and see horseless carriages, horseless carriages came trundling past you.
Because they are granted, challenged and upheld in a court of law.
You might think that there shouldn't be patents at all. But that's a very different argument from particular patents being invalid under current patent law.
Nonsense. The mafia is an example of a corporation that works as far as possible outside of the bounds that governments set on corporations. Plenty of power in the mafia. (And drug dealing outfits and other forms of organised crime.)
If government control was reduced, the mafia would have more power, and corporations would become more like the mafia.
hat do you mean when you say power? Because when I say power, I mean legal power to force an individual to do things that the individual does not want to do.
Weasel words. You've created your own personal definition for the word power, that includes an adjective that can only be applied to governmental power.
That's not any kind of commonly accepted use of the word power. It's the work of someone who frames the world to fit his preconceived notions, rather than the other way around.
Somebody's claiming more than 30% every time you buy a tyre. There's one or more levels of middlemen between the type leaving the factory, and you buying it from the merchant.
There's nothing wrong with 30% being taken by the merchant/distribution chain. Indeed that's quite low, in the days before the Apple App Store it was usual for the developer to get less than half the retail price on apps. And on shrink wrap? The developer would generally end up with 5% at most.
If it's the monopoly itself you're whinging about... printers, razors, games consoles - there's all manner of precedent for the manufacturer of the base device being in control of the items that fit it.
jebus, almost $20 / month subscription to a crappy channel that has things I dont want to watch, like period dramas and science programs?
The BBC provide not one, but 10 channels. And they are certainly the best channels in Britain, and amongst the best in the world, possibly the very best. They certainly aren't crappy. If you can't find anything you want to watch in that lot, the problem is yours, not the quality of the channels.
Given your lack of knowledge of the channels the BBC provides, it appears you're an American, who's speaking from ignorance. Probably one of those stupid libertarians given the nature of the argument and the lack of literacy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a bad loser. We both know you failed to find a link for your claim. So who are you playing to? No one else is reading at this stage.
That meant everything had to be especially written for the palmpilot and it was difficult to include support in a cross-platform programs.
I see that as an advantage. Cross platform apps tend to be poor. They don't tend to match the user expectations for individual platforms.
The only problem was if you let the battery go really flat, you lost all your data. Storing persistent data in battery backed RAM is a risky.strategy.
I note that you can't provide a citation, because you checked and found you remembered it wrongly. The recent news of the Galaxy X series passing 100 million units might be impressive from Samsung's point of view, but it's a fraction of what iPhone has shipped in the same time frame.
Still, at least you've stopped trying to argue that iPhone had an advantage in US carrier agreements.
Samsung has surpassed iPhone sales Worldwide with its S line alone.
Citation please, because that doesn't appear to be true.
In US it is different. Apple is a lot more popular there than it is in average in the world, mainly because its early deals with AT&T and other carriers.
And that's the opposite of the truth. In reality the iPhone market share was held back in the US because AT&T (then under the name Cingular) had a contract to be the exclusive network that iPhones were on for years. From June 2007 till January 2011, ONLY AT&T had iPhone. It's only since than that Verizon and the other networks
It may well be one of the reasons that the iPhone's market share is still growing in the US, in it's 6th year. Because it wasn't even available to all Americans till relatively recently.
Samus from Metroid Prime.
Van I have Vanellope von Schweetz from Sugar Rush in Wreck-it Ralph? Bit of a cheat I know.
Touchscreen devices were perceived as a novelty early on too
No they weren't. I worked in the mobile industry right through the years when touch screens were introduced. They were widely praised, not treated as a novelty.
They're treated as a novelty on PCs. But that's because they are.
the iphone and ipad were received in the same way by many people with terms like 'toy' and 'fondleslab' being thrown around, as though if it's not what we have now it must just be a gimmick.
That some people were wrong about the iPhone and iPad doesn't mean I'm wrong about Google Glasses.
No, Samsung get it's market share with a variety of Android phones, including cheap ones. The Samsung Galaxy Ace for example costs about 170UKP contract free, whereas the iPhone is 500UKP.
A lot of what Samsung sells are these rather than the Galaxy SIII end.
If you look at America, where more people can afford to buy whatever they want, Apple has greater market share than Samsung, and it's rising.
The figures show that they do watch. BBC1 is by far the most popular channel.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-total-viewing-summary?_s=4
And endless comedies where the joke is, they think some guy is homosexual!
What are you taking about?
Meanwhile, the most popular shows are American.
No they're not.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4
Simpsons and NCIS do make appearances on the list for the commercial (non BBC) channels, but they are way down the list. The most popular programs by far are British.
Yeah right. I'm sure people who followed Apple in the 1990s are gutted that Apple are so successful now, and have returned to having the best devices on the market.
Microsoft used their market power to create a monopoly, instead of creating better products.
Apple has followed the MS model.
Except for the fact that Apple don't have a monopoly on anything. Jesus, don't you people realise how dumb your arguments are?
Most of those people buying Androids do so because there are cheap models available. Apple doesn't serve that market.
Your constant questions bore me. It's like you have no opinion of your own.
So what you're saying is that Slashdot specializes in presenting the useless ideas that shouldn't be patented, and doesn't ever cover any of the ones that cover interesting and novel technology.
You might be right. Slashdot might have sunk that low.
Increased CO2 doesn't lead to desertification.
It certainly does in some areas. CO2 causes warming, which causes some areas to get wetter and some to get dryer. If they become dry enough they become desert.
Your equating AGW and ice ages has a number of problems, not least the speed of which each makes changes is orders of magnitude different.
1. Things spread. Just today in the article about warming in the north. It was pointed out that earthworms are now making an appearance where previously permafrost prevented them. The earthworms are sightless, and needed no advertising.
2. Word of mouth was happening on the internet before Facebook, and before any commercial entities were there.
3. Advertising only serves those who are placing the ads and those that are paid to place them. They are not a public good, and we should do precisely nothing to enable them. Some forward thinking cities have banned billboard advertising. It hasn't damaged the economy, it's just made the places more pleasant.
Learning about a product's existence by seeing it in use in public is limited to the physical places that one typically goes in a day. In the horse-drawn era, that wasn't very far.
You didn't have to go and see horseless carriages, horseless carriages came trundling past you.
Because they are granted, challenged and upheld in a court of law.
You might think that there shouldn't be patents at all. But that's a very different argument from particular patents being invalid under current patent law.
Nonsense. The mafia is an example of a corporation that works as far as possible outside of the bounds that governments set on corporations. Plenty of power in the mafia. (And drug dealing outfits and other forms of organised crime.)
If government control was reduced, the mafia would have more power, and corporations would become more like the mafia.
Pretty much. I was just trying to cover the fact that not all Europe is included. I suppose I could have said Northern and central Europe.
hat do you mean when you say power? Because when I say power, I mean legal power to force an individual to do things that the individual does not want to do.
Weasel words. You've created your own personal definition for the word power, that includes an adjective that can only be applied to governmental power.
That's not any kind of commonly accepted use of the word power. It's the work of someone who frames the world to fit his preconceived notions, rather than the other way around.
You are irrational.
except the value system set up by the site owner who pays his writers to post
That's not a value system, it's a business model. And without anything to make it happen, possibly a flawed one.
Somebody's claiming more than 30% every time you buy a tyre. There's one or more levels of middlemen between the type leaving the factory, and you buying it from the merchant.
There's nothing wrong with 30% being taken by the merchant/distribution chain. Indeed that's quite low, in the days before the Apple App Store it was usual for the developer to get less than half the retail price on apps. And on shrink wrap? The developer would generally end up with 5% at most.
If it's the monopoly itself you're whinging about... printers, razors, games consoles - there's all manner of precedent for the manufacturer of the base device being in control of the items that fit it.
jebus, almost $20 / month subscription to a crappy channel that has things I dont want to watch, like period dramas and science programs?
The BBC provide not one, but 10 channels. And they are certainly the best channels in Britain, and amongst the best in the world, possibly the very best. They certainly aren't crappy. If you can't find anything you want to watch in that lot, the problem is yours, not the quality of the channels.
Given your lack of knowledge of the channels the BBC provides, it appears you're an American, who's speaking from ignorance. Probably one of those stupid libertarians given the nature of the argument and the lack of literacy.