Apple is basically a software company. (Those are Steve Jobs' words, not mine)
He said a lot of things in his time, but I don't recall that one. What he definitely did say is "We make the whole widget". And that's evidenced in their products. They make the hardware and the firmware/OS than runs them. (The outsourcing of the manufacturing doesn't change that. Most western product companies outsource manufacturing.)
They almost completely outsource their manufacturing.
Right, and that's also also an option here. You can get Chinese car manufacturers to manufacture a car just as you can get Chinese electronic manufacturers to manufacture a phone.
Yes, but manufacturing a car with 75% gross margins will be a bit tricky, since typical auto gross margins are less than 20% with large volume.
Apple doesn't have to have the same margin for all products.
There are no car foundries or car part vendors that Apple can impose one-sided manufacturing or sourcing agreements with.
Says who? The parallels of car parts and computer parts are certainly there.
And Apple would have to contend with the same logistic and legal distribution hurdles that Tesla is facing.
Apple has a reseller network for it's computers and phones. If they do the same for cars, then there are no Tesla like distribution hurdles. They just couldn't sell them in Apple Stores. But then Apple Stores are in malls, they are not the place for physically having cars anyway, so if they want to do the Tesla model of showroom and on-line deliveries that's quite logical and business as usual for them too. They don't even have to create the showrooms as Tesla did.
And if you did a poll of the British people about what happened back then would 50% of them say any of that?
No, because they believe what the papers tell them. And the papers are owned by the neo-liberals. Even the supposedly left wing Guardian.
She went into power saying that shit was going to suck before she could fix it, and shit did indeed suck. For a year or two.
No I don't think that's true. I don't think she did say that. That's revisionism.
Then it turned around, at roughly the same time the Falklands War was happening.
Also not true. Falklands happened in the middle of 1982. Thatcher called the general election in the middle of 1983 when unemployment was still rising. It wasn't till late 1983 when unemployment peaked and began to fall. And it didn't fall below 3 million till 1987. (Remember the supposedly failed Labour government had 1 million unemployed.)
Her win was entirely due to the jingoism surrounding the Falklands victory.
For her next term she busted the unions.
That she did. And many other damaging things.
I sincerely doubt "I will undo the legacy of that lucky incompetent Margeret Thatcher" is gonna get a plurality in England.
Depends where in England. It's notable that they cremated her even though she had a state funeral (unusual) the reason surely being that many wanted to desecrate her grave, such was the hatred she inspired. They did though manage to get "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" to number one in the official national music charts the week she died. Hard to say whether those that admire her outnumber those that hate her. Over Britain in total - and that's the country that Westminster and the PM overs, I'm sure more hated than admired.
(In UK politics the winning party doesn't get more than 50%. Thatcher's peak was 43.9% after the Falklands.)
How that's even legal when they have a monopoly over software distribution to untampered devices... well, money.
For the umpteenth time, a company's own platform is not a market for the purposes of competition laws.
Although I think the walled garden is actually a good idea It isn't.
You don't even use the platform. The walled garden is an extremely attractive security and ease of use feature of iOS. Regardless of what Android fans say.
People automatically click yes when they perceive their is no alternative. If you get a dialog that says "Yes"/"Cancel", then they'll click yes, because they do actually want the action that they asked for performed.
Likewise with classic Android permissions, refusing permission meant you couldn't install the app. So people were trained to accept them regardless.
With iOS requests for permission at the time of first use of a resource, the question is a significant one, Both Yes and No still allow the app to continue, to the extent that it's possible to without the resource being requested. For example a maps app will still function if you reply no to a location request. It just won't centre the map where you are.
Yes I didn't take into account the fact that you might just be "old and set in your ways" and that is the reason you just say it is "irrational" despite the fact that there is no reason to say that.
I won't tell you what the specific App I'm working on is. But today I'm programming iOS with Swift and Xcode 7, and last week I was programming Android in Android Studio.
I've lost count of how many languages and platforms I've worked on over the years. Stuck in my ways? You don't know what you're talking about.
Well it obviously isn't because despite your assertions a tablet with a keyboard is just fine for development in terms of the input mechanism and it certainly isn't lacking computational power, yet you still just say it is "irrational".
If your level of coding is "Hello World", it's fine. For a professional programmer it's woefully inadequate. That fact suggests what your experience is.
What you're missing is the reason they became the Establishment is previous Labour-dominated Establishment was so ineffective the country suffered an economic collapse,
The previous Labour dominated establishment was Blair/Brown. But I get the feeling you're going all the way back to 1979. The 60s and 70s were see-saw years. Labour had only been in for one term at that point. And the crisis dated back to the previous Tory administration. Tory Heath couldn't keep the lights on. There were rolling power cuts and a 3 day week under him.
As to Argentina the only reason it was invaded was that Thatcher cut the navy ship that was protecting it. A ship which had been there under Labour. She really lucked out that a crisis she herself caused, brought her nationalistic popularity, Because economically she had failed. She's run on a platform of "Labour isn't working, but she turned 1 million unemployed into 3 million. She was on track to lose the next election as a deeply unpopular leader but for the falklands farce.
Thatcherism wasn't a success because everyone suddenly realised neo-liberalism was a good thing at all.
As to the supposed "economic success" that came along later in the 1980s, that was due to the windfall of North Sea Oil - which Thatcher was not responsible for. And for selling off national assets such as council houses and the privatisations. It wasn't neo-liberal success.
Your idea that left-wing alternatives to neo-liberalism failed is just not correct.
Always remember: Neo-Liberalism was our idea
Ha. No it wasn't. It's not called the Austrian School for nothing. That's where Thatcher got it, and Regan got it from Thatcher.
There's a natural fit with the American Dream and with American's ideas of freedom. But Neo-liberalism wasn't American.
Still, I'm mostly nit picking here. What you write is more politically insightful than 99% of the stuff on Slashdot. Enjoyed it.
Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it either), the consensus of the people world-wide is that Neo-Liberalism is the way to go.
I don't agree with your analysis. People are constantly fed neo-liberal propaganda. The neo-liberals have been winning a cultural war, by buying as much of the media as they can. Look at the hostility there has been towards Corbyn. That's an establishment that's worried.
Re the poll, I refer you to a Newsnight focus group where they interviewed about Corbyn at the start. The Mostly negative. Then they viewed PMQs, and a number of the previously negative people said very positive things about him. Initial views (which the polls mostly measure) are based on a hostile media. When people actually listen to Corbyn himself, they become more positive. We've got 5 years to go. That's a long time for both the propaganda against and also for people to actually hear from Corbyn himself. Maybe people will begin to see that the media are not being unbiased here.
As to Bernie Sanders, it's good that there's someone saying this stuff there. But the neo-liberal propaganda is much stronger there, and he has no chance.
Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.
And it says something about the problem with democracy as it's practiced is that Merkel and Cameron don't represent the views of most of their respective countries. Merkel's party got 41%. Cameron got 36%. Only Socialist Hollande got 51%.
Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?
No, I went to one of Corbyn's Rallies. It was packed. As were all the other ones. The Labour party has grown to it's biggest ever from a low point, purely down to Corbyn. There's no lonely dreaming, this is the biggest mass party political movement in Britain in living memory. That's why your establishment is so worried.
For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.
Actually that has a quarter in favour of replacing with something equivalent, a quarter with replacing it with nothing, and a third interested in somewhere between the two. You couldn't get more balanced than that.
My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost.
What it does is answers your "you must have no experience of coding". Clearly you made a mistake in your argument. Everything else I said in a previous post, and nothing in your reply changes it.
And no, I'm not all set in my ways, that's just silly stereotyping.
but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing;
What the EU is doing has nothing to do with the people's will.
meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.
Observation of Corbyn's huge rallies indicates that his supporters are of all ages and types.
Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur.
Just because your favoured policies are different from Corbyn's doesn't make Corbyn wrong, let along "a dinosaur". Neither nuclear weapon nor EU arguments belong in the past. They are very important issues of the past, present and future. People who talk of political dinosaurs are simply demonstrating their own political blinkers.
The idea that British nuclear weapons are a "bargaining chip" against Russia is nonsense. Russia only does these trade offs with America, not Britain. We're too insignificant a nuclear power to bother with.
But his understanding of foreign affairs is firmly grounded in the 1960s
Corbyn has been an MP from 1983 to the present. And actually visits those countries that you only see on the TV news. The idea that you are in a position to say he doesn't know about foreign policy is ridiculous, and even more so that his understanding of those affairs dates back to 20 years before he was an MP.
The concept of the EU is good. And in years gone by it was a positive force. But these days it's been assimilated by the neo-liberal machine. Their appalling treatment of the Greek economic crisis and their total inability to deal with the refugee crisis is the result. That's the ambivalence towards the EU. Great to be a part of if it can be turned back to a progressive institution. But as it is right now, it's counterproductive.
3 random links to right-wing web sites does not an argument make. Either right wingers ARE claiming trickle down is true, OR they are taking more of the money for themselves. That's the fact of the matter.
You are definitely wrong, because I used to be one of the people drinking the Budvar 20 years ago. It was Czech Budvar, not America Budweiser, nor a licensed brew. It was available widely.
American Budweiser was and is also still available, but the shape of the bottle is completely different, as well as the label. Only the Budweiser logo bears a similarity.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest that Apple wants to create it's own car, not modify Tesla's.
Note that they didn't buy a phone company in order to create the iPhone.
Apple is basically a software company. (Those are Steve Jobs' words, not mine)
He said a lot of things in his time, but I don't recall that one. What he definitely did say is "We make the whole widget". And that's evidenced in their products. They make the hardware and the firmware/OS than runs them. (The outsourcing of the manufacturing doesn't change that. Most western product companies outsource manufacturing.)
They almost completely outsource their manufacturing.
Right, and that's also also an option here. You can get Chinese car manufacturers to manufacture a car just as you can get Chinese electronic manufacturers to manufacture a phone.
Yes, but manufacturing a car with 75% gross margins will be a bit tricky, since typical auto gross margins are less than 20% with large volume.
Apple doesn't have to have the same margin for all products.
There are no car foundries or car part vendors that Apple can impose one-sided manufacturing or sourcing agreements with.
Says who? The parallels of car parts and computer parts are certainly there.
And Apple would have to contend with the same logistic and legal distribution hurdles that Tesla is facing.
Apple has a reseller network for it's computers and phones. If they do the same for cars, then there are no Tesla like distribution hurdles. They just couldn't sell them in Apple Stores. But then Apple Stores are in malls, they are not the place for physically having cars anyway, so if they want to do the Tesla model of showroom and on-line deliveries that's quite logical and business as usual for them too. They don't even have to create the showrooms as Tesla did.
i.e. Not a problem.
I don't see Main Street lining up to buy the iWatch.
Yet. All Apple products start with early adopters and build from there.
Oh fuck off. I already told you why. I'm not repeating every fucking argument in every fucking post for the benefit of a forgetful moron.
And if you did a poll of the British people about what happened back then would 50% of them say any of that?
No, because they believe what the papers tell them. And the papers are owned by the neo-liberals. Even the supposedly left wing Guardian.
She went into power saying that shit was going to suck before she could fix it, and shit did indeed suck. For a year or two.
No I don't think that's true. I don't think she did say that. That's revisionism.
Then it turned around, at roughly the same time the Falklands War was happening.
Also not true. Falklands happened in the middle of 1982. Thatcher called the general election in the middle of 1983 when unemployment was still rising. It wasn't till late 1983 when unemployment peaked and began to fall. And it didn't fall below 3 million till 1987. (Remember the supposedly failed Labour government had 1 million unemployed.)
Her win was entirely due to the jingoism surrounding the Falklands victory.
For her next term she busted the unions.
That she did. And many other damaging things.
I sincerely doubt "I will undo the legacy of that lucky incompetent Margeret Thatcher" is gonna get a plurality in England.
Depends where in England. It's notable that they cremated her even though she had a state funeral (unusual) the reason surely being that many wanted to desecrate her grave, such was the hatred she inspired. They did though manage to get "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" to number one in the official national music charts the week she died. Hard to say whether those that admire her outnumber those that hate her. Over Britain in total - and that's the country that Westminster and the PM overs, I'm sure more hated than admired.
(In UK politics the winning party doesn't get more than 50%. Thatcher's peak was 43.9% after the Falklands.)
Guess why?
Because you have no taste. Or possibly you can't afford it.
How that's even legal when they have a monopoly over software distribution to untampered devices... well, money.
For the umpteenth time, a company's own platform is not a market for the purposes of competition laws.
Although I think the walled garden is actually a good idea
It isn't.
You don't even use the platform. The walled garden is an extremely attractive security and ease of use feature of iOS. Regardless of what Android fans say.
People automatically click yes when they perceive their is no alternative. If you get a dialog that says "Yes"/"Cancel", then they'll click yes, because they do actually want the action that they asked for performed.
Likewise with classic Android permissions, refusing permission meant you couldn't install the app. So people were trained to accept them regardless.
With iOS requests for permission at the time of first use of a resource, the question is a significant one, Both Yes and No still allow the app to continue, to the extent that it's possible to without the resource being requested. For example a maps app will still function if you reply no to a location request. It just won't centre the map where you are.
Yes I didn't take into account the fact that you might just be "old and set in your ways" and that is the reason you just say it is "irrational" despite the fact that there is no reason to say that.
I won't tell you what the specific App I'm working on is. But today I'm programming iOS with Swift and Xcode 7, and last week I was programming Android in Android Studio.
I've lost count of how many languages and platforms I've worked on over the years. Stuck in my ways? You don't know what you're talking about.
Well it obviously isn't because despite your assertions a tablet with a keyboard is just fine for development in terms of the input mechanism and it certainly isn't lacking computational power, yet you still just say it is "irrational".
If your level of coding is "Hello World", it's fine. For a professional programmer it's woefully inadequate. That fact suggests what your experience is.
What you're missing is the reason they became the Establishment is previous Labour-dominated Establishment was so ineffective the country suffered an economic collapse,
The previous Labour dominated establishment was Blair/Brown. But I get the feeling you're going all the way back to 1979. The 60s and 70s were see-saw years. Labour had only been in for one term at that point. And the crisis dated back to the previous Tory administration. Tory Heath couldn't keep the lights on. There were rolling power cuts and a 3 day week under him.
As to Argentina the only reason it was invaded was that Thatcher cut the navy ship that was protecting it. A ship which had been there under Labour. She really lucked out that a crisis she herself caused, brought her nationalistic popularity, Because economically she had failed. She's run on a platform of "Labour isn't working, but she turned 1 million unemployed into 3 million. She was on track to lose the next election as a deeply unpopular leader but for the falklands farce.
Thatcherism wasn't a success because everyone suddenly realised neo-liberalism was a good thing at all.
As to the supposed "economic success" that came along later in the 1980s, that was due to the windfall of North Sea Oil - which Thatcher was not responsible for. And for selling off national assets such as council houses and the privatisations. It wasn't neo-liberal success.
Your idea that left-wing alternatives to neo-liberalism failed is just not correct.
Always remember: Neo-Liberalism was our idea
Ha. No it wasn't. It's not called the Austrian School for nothing. That's where Thatcher got it, and Regan got it from Thatcher.
There's a natural fit with the American Dream and with American's ideas of freedom. But Neo-liberalism wasn't American.
Still, I'm mostly nit picking here. What you write is more politically insightful than 99% of the stuff on Slashdot. Enjoyed it.
Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it either), the consensus of the people world-wide is that Neo-Liberalism is the way to go.
I don't agree with your analysis. People are constantly fed neo-liberal propaganda. The neo-liberals have been winning a cultural war, by buying as much of the media as they can. Look at the hostility there has been towards Corbyn. That's an establishment that's worried.
Re the poll, I refer you to a Newsnight focus group where they interviewed about Corbyn at the start. The Mostly negative. Then they viewed PMQs, and a number of the previously negative people said very positive things about him. Initial views (which the polls mostly measure) are based on a hostile media. When people actually listen to Corbyn himself, they become more positive. We've got 5 years to go. That's a long time for both the propaganda against and also for people to actually hear from Corbyn himself. Maybe people will begin to see that the media are not being unbiased here.
As to Bernie Sanders, it's good that there's someone saying this stuff there. But the neo-liberal propaganda is much stronger there, and he has no chance.
Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.
And it says something about the problem with democracy as it's practiced is that Merkel and Cameron don't represent the views of most of their respective countries. Merkel's party got 41%. Cameron got 36%. Only Socialist Hollande got 51%.
Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?
No, I went to one of Corbyn's Rallies. It was packed. As were all the other ones. The Labour party has grown to it's biggest ever from a low point, purely down to Corbyn. There's no lonely dreaming, this is the biggest mass party political movement in Britain in living memory. That's why your establishment is so worried.
For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.
Actually that has a quarter in favour of replacing with something equivalent, a quarter with replacing it with nothing, and a third interested in somewhere between the two. You couldn't get more balanced than that.
My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost.
Perhaps you ought to listen to your parents.
What it does is answers your "you must have no experience of coding". Clearly you made a mistake in your argument. Everything else I said in a previous post, and nothing in your reply changes it.
And no, I'm not all set in my ways, that's just silly stereotyping.
It's no. We enjoy a bit of S&M.
What was your point?
The chances are zero because Apple doesn't allow apps that reference Android. And because it wouldn't have any users anyway.
Mentally ill people seldom recognise it in themselves. Go get help.
but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing;
What the EU is doing has nothing to do with the people's will.
meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.
Observation of Corbyn's huge rallies indicates that his supporters are of all ages and types.
Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur.
Just because your favoured policies are different from Corbyn's doesn't make Corbyn wrong, let along "a dinosaur". Neither nuclear weapon nor EU arguments belong in the past. They are very important issues of the past, present and future. People who talk of political dinosaurs are simply demonstrating their own political blinkers.
The idea that British nuclear weapons are a "bargaining chip" against Russia is nonsense. Russia only does these trade offs with America, not Britain. We're too insignificant a nuclear power to bother with.
You're saying nothing.
Either right wingers ARE claiming trickle down is true, OR they are taking more of the money for themselves. Which is it?
Which is the trickle down economics theory. So it's not a straw man.
It's not a question of you being right or wrong, It's a question of your mental ill-health.
But his understanding of foreign affairs is firmly grounded in the 1960s
Corbyn has been an MP from 1983 to the present. And actually visits those countries that you only see on the TV news. The idea that you are in a position to say he doesn't know about foreign policy is ridiculous, and even more so that his understanding of those affairs dates back to 20 years before he was an MP.
The concept of the EU is good. And in years gone by it was a positive force. But these days it's been assimilated by the neo-liberal machine. Their appalling treatment of the Greek economic crisis and their total inability to deal with the refugee crisis is the result. That's the ambivalence towards the EU. Great to be a part of if it can be turned back to a progressive institution. But as it is right now, it's counterproductive.
Lib Dems are a spent force.
3 random links to right-wing web sites does not an argument make. Either right wingers ARE claiming trickle down is true, OR they are taking more of the money for themselves. That's the fact of the matter.
You are definitely wrong, because I used to be one of the people drinking the Budvar 20 years ago. It was Czech Budvar, not America Budweiser, nor a licensed brew. It was available widely.
American Budweiser was and is also still available, but the shape of the bottle is completely different, as well as the label. Only the Budweiser logo bears a similarity.
Unfortunately, the alternative SoylentNews is even more infiltrated by partizan right wing editors.