Not OP, but I agree that it's ridiculous to mention News Corp. and especially Rupert Murdoch. The only motivation I see for doing so is out of dislike. When ESPN does something, you don't say "A Disney subsidiary . .." Rupert didn't do this, and no one from News Corp. (outside of the tabloid) had anything to do with it either.
Come on, guys. It's just a SLA. You get a full refund if it's more than 5% downtime (18.25 days). You get half off for 99% to 95% uptime , and 25% off for 99.9% to 99%. Do you really think they're expecting to give these refunds? No. But it's there in a contract just in case. I doubt many people will even get the 25% refund. 99.9% isn't by any means terrible.
Write an article when it actually goes down. The mindless/. MS bashing needs to stop.
I wasn't GP, but he probably means long as in much more than what you'd normally use to shoot a normal picture in daylight. Perhaps it was only a second or two. Long enough to make things brighter than your eyes can see, but not enough to see streaks.
Whether or not "app store" was widely used is irrelevant. The fact is that "app" was widely used years and years before this to refer to programs/software/applications. Where does one sell "apps?" An app store. If that isn't obvious, I don't know what is.
Unstable Windows installations *these days* are almost always the fault of 3rd party software. I've had unstable Linux installs because of third party software. We're talking about virtualization, which does not require a great deal of third party software to mess things up.
You don't need to patch IE, you don't need to patch Office, you don't really need to patch very much at all if all you're running is the virtualization software (which one would be doing if uptime of the guests is important).
Based on the way amazon's appstore is set up, it's clear that they hope to offer apps on other platforms in the future (naming assets includes abbreviations for android. If they planned to only ever do android, that would not be the case).
sell mobile applications
sell... applications... store for applications... store for apps... app store. How is that such a stretch for you?
Apple did not by any means come up with this general design. In fact Samsung has much more of a reason to sue Apple for stealing *their* design. http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg
"It won't get popular because it's $500." There is no other way to read that. If English is your first language, you should understand that this sentence implies that if the conditions change, the outcome might also change.
He has no vision? Just because he said "they are charging $600 so it won't take off" ? Generally it's implied when someone states something like that that their prediction is no longer valid when their reasoning is no longer there.
You got it for $599 even with a contract. Now you get it for $299 with a contract. How is that not lowering the price? People don't pay less per month just because they got an unsubsidized phone.
His reasoning ended because Apple changed the price. He made it very clear that his prediction was based on that, and that if the price changed his prediction would no longer be valid.
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
They are indeed related. The reason people feel the need to bash it so much is because Steve Jobs told them that they don't need flash. It's so obvious to anyone on the outside of iWorld. There are zero surprises about the functionality of flash on mobile devices. Yes, there are issues since the majority of content was produced to work with a mouse, but that's expected! The fact that people are still writing articles about how it's useless because of this issue (it isn't useless--I use it all the time) shows that they are all fanboys.
I formed that assumption based on the review itself. I've used Android, and I happen to love that I can view flash on websites. It doesn't get in the way. You can disable it. You can set it to only load when you tell it to (by tapping on a flash element). I've never met a non-apple fanboy who didn't love the fact that you have a choice to use flash on your phone, or who didn't care one way or the other because it's *simply an option* that you don't have to enable, and can uninstall.
He was "testing it out." That hardly makes him a user. I'd bet money that this guy is an iPhone and/or iPad user, even though statistics would be against me.
Flash works very well on my android phone. Steve jobs was wrong 4 years ago, and he's still wrong today, no matter how many apple fanboys write articles about how bad flash on android is.
Fair enough, but surely there could have just been one article.
"Well, apparently if you actually RTFA and the sources for TFA, there is this other important bit of information that we left out of the summary in which we jumped to all the wrong conclusions..." (I know this won't quiet down the conspiracy theorists, but the fact that MS was open about this from the beginning makes them a bit more believable than coming out with a new story a few days later).
There were people who RTFA and sources (unlike the/. editor who accepted it) the first time around who posted this information in the comments section. There never should have been a story in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not OP, but I agree that it's ridiculous to mention News Corp. and especially Rupert Murdoch. The only motivation I see for doing so is out of dislike. When ESPN does something, you don't say "A Disney subsidiary . . ." Rupert didn't do this, and no one from News Corp. (outside of the tabloid) had anything to do with it either.
Come on, guys. It's just a SLA. You get a full refund if it's more than 5% downtime (18.25 days). You get half off for 99% to 95% uptime , and 25% off for 99.9% to 99%. Do you really think they're expecting to give these refunds? No. But it's there in a contract just in case. I doubt many people will even get the 25% refund. 99.9% isn't by any means terrible.
Write an article when it actually goes down. The mindless /. MS bashing needs to stop.
And if it weren't a "faked demo," how exactly would the images be presented to you?
I wasn't GP, but he probably means long as in much more than what you'd normally use to shoot a normal picture in daylight. Perhaps it was only a second or two. Long enough to make things brighter than your eyes can see, but not enough to see streaks.
Whether or not "app store" was widely used is irrelevant. The fact is that "app" was widely used years and years before this to refer to programs/software/applications. Where does one sell "apps?" An app store. If that isn't obvious, I don't know what is.
Unstable Windows installations *these days* are almost always the fault of 3rd party software. I've had unstable Linux installs because of third party software. We're talking about virtualization, which does not require a great deal of third party software to mess things up.
You don't need to patch IE, you don't need to patch Office, you don't really need to patch very much at all if all you're running is the virtualization software (which one would be doing if uptime of the guests is important).
I don't think anyone actually runs VMs under Windows
Are you kidding?
Based on the way amazon's appstore is set up, it's clear that they hope to offer apps on other platforms in the future (naming assets includes abbreviations for android. If they planned to only ever do android, that would not be the case).
sell mobile applications
sell... applications... store for applications... store for apps... app store. How is that such a stretch for you?
Apple did not by any means come up with this general design. In fact Samsung has much more of a reason to sue Apple for stealing *their* design. http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg
Here's how a sane person interprets his statements:
"The iPhone won't be popular because it costs $500."
"The iPhone won't be popular because X."
In 2007, X was true.
Now, X is false.
Ballmer's statement no longer means anything. It's as if he never said it. He wasn't wrong.
"It won't get popular because it's $500." There is no other way to read that. If English is your first language, you should understand that this sentence implies that if the conditions change, the outcome might also change.
It was implied that if the situation were to change that his prediction would no longer be valid.
When he said "fully subsidized," he meant "even if you get a contract." For all intents and purposes it's the same thing.
He has no vision? Just because he said "they are charging $600 so it won't take off" ? Generally it's implied when someone states something like that that their prediction is no longer valid when their reasoning is no longer there.
You got it for $599 even with a contract. Now you get it for $299 with a contract. How is that not lowering the price? People don't pay less per month just because they got an unsubsidized phone.
His reasoning ended because Apple changed the price. He made it very clear that his prediction was based on that, and that if the price changed his prediction would no longer be valid.
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
They are indeed related. The reason people feel the need to bash it so much is because Steve Jobs told them that they don't need flash. It's so obvious to anyone on the outside of iWorld. There are zero surprises about the functionality of flash on mobile devices. Yes, there are issues since the majority of content was produced to work with a mouse, but that's expected! The fact that people are still writing articles about how it's useless because of this issue (it isn't useless--I use it all the time) shows that they are all fanboys.
I formed that assumption based on the review itself. I've used Android, and I happen to love that I can view flash on websites. It doesn't get in the way. You can disable it. You can set it to only load when you tell it to (by tapping on a flash element). I've never met a non-apple fanboy who didn't love the fact that you have a choice to use flash on your phone, or who didn't care one way or the other because it's *simply an option* that you don't have to enable, and can uninstall.
Yes, instead of my own experience I should just trust "evidence" given by an apple fanboy.
He was "testing it out." That hardly makes him a user. I'd bet money that this guy is an iPhone and/or iPad user, even though statistics would be against me.
Flash works very well on my android phone. Steve jobs was wrong 4 years ago, and he's still wrong today, no matter how many apple fanboys write articles about how bad flash on android is.
Fair enough, but surely there could have just been one article.
"Well, apparently if you actually RTFA and the sources for TFA, there is this other important bit of information that we left out of the summary in which we jumped to all the wrong conclusions..." (I know this won't quiet down the conspiracy theorists, but the fact that MS was open about this from the beginning makes them a bit more believable than coming out with a new story a few days later).
There were people who RTFA and sources (unlike the /. editor who accepted it) the first time around who posted this information in the comments section. There never should have been a story in the first place.
Kalkalash! Get your kalkalash!
No bowl, stick, stick.