That is easily one of the most negative and idiotic summaries I've ever seen. When you write a summary that focuses on the smaller number of people, it clearly denotes your bias. After all, most intelligent people would focus on the positive numbers. Let's see:
----- The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are: in-vehicle concierge (43%) - that means that 57% do use it mobile routers (38%) - that means that 62% do use it automatic parking systems (35%) - that means that 65% do use it heads-up display (33%) - that means that 67% do use it and built-in apps (32%) - and 68% do use it -----
In other words, in all instances, a majority of people _DO_ use the feature.
And next: ----- Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. - alternatively, it can be viewed as approximately 80% of owners want it in their next vehicle -----
Focus on the smaller (to say the least) number of people with the negative stance rather than the (significantly) higher number of people who have a positive view. But, hey, those larger numbers and positive stance doesn't allow someone to paint a negative picture. After all, positive facts aren't negative.
Flash was on its way out when Steve Jobs decided that Apple wouldn't permit Flash to operate on iPod Touches and iPhones and iPads. Lots of people disagreed with him back then, most vocally anyone connected to Adobe, but he knew what the future held and boldly took that first step.
While it's nice that other companies have finally clued in and are following suit, let's not attribute the insight to them - they wanted almost a decade before finally following Jobs' insightful decision.
Could you point out where I said "If we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of ALL HUMANITY...."
I bet you can't. You added words to alter a point and changed text to all caps to alter the intensity of the message and ignored significant portions of the sentence to facilitate a fabricated point you're attempting to make.
How about you reply to what I actually said and not misquote me to facilitate a rant. If you're going to quote someone, use copy paste or don't bother with the quotes.
Look, "climate change" may be the hot discussion topic right now - but it's crazy thinking we can put a serious dent in it and "turn it around" simply by shutting down a bunch of our nation's power generation plants!
That's the most infuriating, idiotic thing that is continually said in this sort of discussion.
Here, let me spell it out for you - why do you think the global temperature has _DRAMATICALLY_ spiked in recent years? Explain to me, in an intelligent way, how and why the temperature of the entire planet has increased faster and more radically than it normally does.
If you need some help, here, let me help you: It's because of us.
We are releasing so much garbage into the air that we are causing the temperature of the entire planet to radically increase at an alarming and dangerous rate.
And here's the important part that nimrods like you fail to understand (or possibly chose to ignore because it goes against your profession) - if we don't change and change radically, soon, the temperature is going to continue to rise, ice caps are going to melt, water levels are going to rise, plants and animals are going to undergo massive and dangerous changes, and we're going to put the lives of every person on the planet, even you, in serious, serious, serious danger. Most likely, if we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of humanity that will kill a massive majority of the human population (along with a lot of other races along the way).
So, yes, shutting down the power plants responsible for the temperature _increase_ will help slow things down or possibly even set things back to a normal rate if we're radical but I know we won't be.
Or we could do nothing and the majority of us die as you suggest.
I don;t mind if they say they don't like it and back it with intelligent commentary. It does happen and I'm fine with that. I may disagree with a great deal of it but it's an opinion based on intelligent information.
I just find it idiotic when they voice their dislike of it and back it with nothing of value other than insulting and idiotic commentary.
And, for the record, that opinion applies to pretty much any item, not just an Apple item. If you like something, back it with an informative post. If you dislike something, do the same thing. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
Wouldn't it be much better to deploy a helicopter, drone...
And, as soon as they deploy a drone, you'll be raging about the police flying big brother over your head.
No. Seriously. Do you honestly think people's reaction would be "hey, that's a smart idea" or do you think people would lose their shit? I know which one I would expect.
Said like someone who has absolutely no understanding of what addiction is and how it might come about and a complete lack of compassion for those that suffer it.
You're addicted to something? Hey, just stop being addicted! See, problem solved!
Moron.
You make it sound like these people just need to make a choice and change their diets and the way they live. You fail to understand that, in their heads, they don't have a choice. For a whole myriad and complex collection of possible reasons, they eat and live the way they do because that's what they believe is their only choice.
That is addiction - a compulsion to act a certain way or do a certain thing with no sense of choice of being able to stop.
Sorry, but we don't live in your simplistic world.
I'm surprised that no law firm nor the SEC has taken action against Samsung for lying to their investors. I don't know for certain but I would assume that lying to one's shareholders is both illegal and worthy of a class action lawsuit. When I first saw the news that they'd lied - let's call it "misreported" - to shareholders, I assumed that was going to quickly lead to very bad things for them. So far, nothing. I'm surprised about that.
People still put any trust in what Strategy Analytics has to say? Seriously?
Their numbers are routinely discredited, in the extreme. They aren't making slight errors - they are overtly fabricating numbers seemingly out of thin air all with an eye on, as they say on their own website, "improving competitive positioning" for their clients. They aren't a market analyst firm. They have clients and they serve the interest of those clients, up to and including creating the impression that their clients are performing in the market better than they actually are.
Even when confronted with hard numbers that show their figures are off by several million, they stand firm and do not correct their data. We're not talking about being off by slight degrees - we're talking about figures large enough to engulf the entire reported sales figures of major manufacturers. We're talking about things like figures including phantom product categories that nobody - nobody - can verify.
They are making shit up.
Come on - they aren't reliable even as one set of data points to be viewed alongside other analysts firms' data. I could make up numbers and be as reliable as they are. If we want to be taken seriously as knowledgable nerds, we have to stop putting any stock into anything that comes out of companies like Strategy Analytics.
Not allowed. If an in app purchase is offered and the same purchase is available on an external source, the price of the in app purchase cannot be higher.
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Sorry - you were attempting to imply that Apple was akin to the Mafia because they charge the same rate as everyone else for the same service. As you were.
In app purchases pay a 30% fee to Apple to payment processing, etc. Purchases made outside the app (ie: at a developer's website such as amazon.com) do not incur the 30% fee.
It's up to each developer to decide if the 30% fee is worth the ease of use and Apple handling all the payment processing or not. The vast, vast, vast majority of developers happily pay that fee. Amazon is the one high profile developer to buck that trend, first with Kindle and now with Comixology.
'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''
Suck it up princess!
I know you're going to fight tooth and nail to get legislators to protect your business model but the writing is on the wall. Feel free to look up buggy whip manufacturers if you want to see how this story is going to end in the long run.
Oh, and if you think we, the public, are going to feel any sympathy for you as your business model gets replaced by newer and better technology, trust me when I say you're wrong. No sympathy. Adapt or die.
I know you think legislate or die are the options on the table but I assure you, it's adapt or die.
You're comparing a phone operating system to a computer operating system. Aside from both having the words "operating system" in their descriptors, they are damn near nothing alike.
How about you compare OSX and Windows? Oh. That's right. You're not doing that because then your attempt to paint Apple in a negative light would fall apart.
5, Insightful indeed... More like 5, Troll that we agree with.
Like every other company with a non-brain-dead accounting team.
No. Really. EVERY company does their best to reduce their taxes. Why aren't you vilifying all the other companies who tax advantage of legal tax deductions to reduce their tax burden?
And I'm willing to bet you, as an individual, did too. I bet you took advantage of some sort of tax break when you filed your taxes. Why should you be allowed to do so but not Apple?
No. Really. Answer that please. Why should you be allowed to benefit from any tax breaks but you vilify Apple for taking advantage of _LEGAL_ tax breaks to reduce their tax burden?
Don't worry. I know you won't answer because we both know what the answer is.
And yet the climate change deniers will CLING to that 1% and continue to stick their ignorant heads in the sand and pretend that we aren't messing up our climate.
I have largely given up any remaining hope that Slashdot can provide intelligent and informative discussion on most topics, especially any topic related to Apple.
Thank you for proving me wrong. That was an excellent and highly informative post. It makes me wistfully pine for the glory days of Slashdot...
Since when did:) mean _EVIL_ smiley? When did this change happen? Last I heard it just mean "smile" and I've been on the internet a LONG time so you'd think I'd have heard that it had changed.
Oh. Wait. I see. You're trying to make Jobs sound more malicious by adding that little descriptor (while omitting any such ominous descriptors for Schmidt nor any Google people).
I understand the point you're trying to make but, in this case, it's not accurate. What you referenced were different things. What we were discussing are not different things.
I've corrected several people in this thread who have confused DPI and LPI because one is image resolution and the other is halftone print resolution. The two are different things. They are related in so much as they are involved in the quality of a final printed piece but they are different things.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are the same thing all measures of image resolution. They mean dots, pixels or samples per inch but that all is the same thing. They are a measure of how many units per inch are used to make up a digital image. They all mean image resolution.
A better computer example would be to discuss how RAM and Memory are two terms used to describe the same thing. It isn't quite the same thing but it's close enough to use as a parallel.
The rule of thumb is 300 dpi for colour images, 600 dpi for greyscale, and 1200 dpi for bitmap. The less information per dot means more dots per inch are required to maintain the same effective resolution.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are common terms for the same thing. Only the pedantic nitpick over any one of them being right or any being wrong when referring to image resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
That is easily one of the most negative and idiotic summaries I've ever seen. When you write a summary that focuses on the smaller number of people, it clearly denotes your bias. After all, most intelligent people would focus on the positive numbers. Let's see:
-----
The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are:
in-vehicle concierge (43%) - that means that 57% do use it
mobile routers (38%) - that means that 62% do use it
automatic parking systems (35%) - that means that 65% do use it
heads-up display (33%) - that means that 67% do use it
and built-in apps (32%) - and 68% do use it
-----
In other words, in all instances, a majority of people _DO_ use the feature.
And next:
-----
Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. - alternatively, it can be viewed as approximately 80% of owners want it in their next vehicle
-----
Focus on the smaller (to say the least) number of people with the negative stance rather than the (significantly) higher number of people who have a positive view. But, hey, those larger numbers and positive stance doesn't allow someone to paint a negative picture. After all, positive facts aren't negative.
Flash was on its way out when Steve Jobs decided that Apple wouldn't permit Flash to operate on iPod Touches and iPhones and iPads. Lots of people disagreed with him back then, most vocally anyone connected to Adobe, but he knew what the future held and boldly took that first step.
While it's nice that other companies have finally clued in and are following suit, let's not attribute the insight to them - they wanted almost a decade before finally following Jobs' insightful decision.
Could you point out where I said "If we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of ALL HUMANITY...."
I bet you can't. You added words to alter a point and changed text to all caps to alter the intensity of the message and ignored significant portions of the sentence to facilitate a fabricated point you're attempting to make.
How about you reply to what I actually said and not misquote me to facilitate a rant. If you're going to quote someone, use copy paste or don't bother with the quotes.
Look, "climate change" may be the hot discussion topic right now - but it's crazy thinking we can put a serious dent in it and "turn it around" simply by shutting down a bunch of our nation's power generation plants!
That's the most infuriating, idiotic thing that is continually said in this sort of discussion.
Here, let me spell it out for you - why do you think the global temperature has _DRAMATICALLY_ spiked in recent years? Explain to me, in an intelligent way, how and why the temperature of the entire planet has increased faster and more radically than it normally does.
If you need some help, here, let me help you: It's because of us.
We are releasing so much garbage into the air that we are causing the temperature of the entire planet to radically increase at an alarming and dangerous rate.
And here's the important part that nimrods like you fail to understand (or possibly chose to ignore because it goes against your profession) - if we don't change and change radically, soon, the temperature is going to continue to rise, ice caps are going to melt, water levels are going to rise, plants and animals are going to undergo massive and dangerous changes, and we're going to put the lives of every person on the planet, even you, in serious, serious, serious danger. Most likely, if we keep up at the rate we're going, we're going to cause a global wipeout of humanity that will kill a massive majority of the human population (along with a lot of other races along the way).
So, yes, shutting down the power plants responsible for the temperature _increase_ will help slow things down or possibly even set things back to a normal rate if we're radical but I know we won't be.
Or we could do nothing and the majority of us die as you suggest.
Take your pick.
I don;t mind if they say they don't like it and back it with intelligent commentary. It does happen and I'm fine with that. I may disagree with a great deal of it but it's an opinion based on intelligent information.
I just find it idiotic when they voice their dislike of it and back it with nothing of value other than insulting and idiotic commentary.
And, for the record, that opinion applies to pretty much any item, not just an Apple item. If you like something, back it with an informative post. If you dislike something, do the same thing. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
Stop being lazy and advertise.
If you want to get your product in front of consumers, market it and put some effort into generating awareness. Stop expecting Apple to do it for you.
And stop blaming Apple for your failure due to your laziness.
Wouldn't it be much better to deploy a helicopter, drone...
And, as soon as they deploy a drone, you'll be raging about the police flying big brother over your head.
No. Seriously. Do you honestly think people's reaction would be "hey, that's a smart idea" or do you think people would lose their shit? I know which one I would expect.
But the founding and initial success of Apple would not have happened without Wozniak.
And you never, ever would have heard of Wozniak without Jobs.
Ever.
Wozniak needed what Jobs brought to the table as much as Jobs needed what Woz brought. Each, without the other, would have been nothing.
Said like someone who has absolutely no understanding of what addiction is and how it might come about and a complete lack of compassion for those that suffer it.
You're addicted to something? Hey, just stop being addicted! See, problem solved!
Moron.
You make it sound like these people just need to make a choice and change their diets and the way they live. You fail to understand that, in their heads, they don't have a choice. For a whole myriad and complex collection of possible reasons, they eat and live the way they do because that's what they believe is their only choice.
That is addiction - a compulsion to act a certain way or do a certain thing with no sense of choice of being able to stop.
Sorry, but we don't live in your simplistic world.
I'm surprised that no law firm nor the SEC has taken action against Samsung for lying to their investors. I don't know for certain but I would assume that lying to one's shareholders is both illegal and worthy of a class action lawsuit. When I first saw the news that they'd lied - let's call it "misreported" - to shareholders, I assumed that was going to quickly lead to very bad things for them. So far, nothing. I'm surprised about that.
People still put any trust in what Strategy Analytics has to say? Seriously?
Their numbers are routinely discredited, in the extreme. They aren't making slight errors - they are overtly fabricating numbers seemingly out of thin air all with an eye on, as they say on their own website, "improving competitive positioning" for their clients. They aren't a market analyst firm. They have clients and they serve the interest of those clients, up to and including creating the impression that their clients are performing in the market better than they actually are.
Even when confronted with hard numbers that show their figures are off by several million, they stand firm and do not correct their data. We're not talking about being off by slight degrees - we're talking about figures large enough to engulf the entire reported sales figures of major manufacturers. We're talking about things like figures including phantom product categories that nobody - nobody - can verify.
They are making shit up.
Come on - they aren't reliable even as one set of data points to be viewed alongside other analysts firms' data. I could make up numbers and be as reliable as they are. If we want to be taken seriously as knowledgable nerds, we have to stop putting any stock into anything that comes out of companies like Strategy Analytics.
Not allowed. If an in app purchase is offered and the same purchase is available on an external source, the price of the in app purchase cannot be higher.
Or Google. https://support.google.com/goo...
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Sorry - you were attempting to imply that Apple was akin to the Mafia because they charge the same rate as everyone else for the same service. As you were.
In app purchases pay a 30% fee to Apple to payment processing, etc. Purchases made outside the app (ie: at a developer's website such as amazon.com) do not incur the 30% fee.
It's up to each developer to decide if the 30% fee is worth the ease of use and Apple handling all the payment processing or not. The vast, vast, vast majority of developers happily pay that fee. Amazon is the one high profile developer to buck that trend, first with Kindle and now with Comixology.
'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''
Suck it up princess!
I know you're going to fight tooth and nail to get legislators to protect your business model but the writing is on the wall. Feel free to look up buggy whip manufacturers if you want to see how this story is going to end in the long run.
Oh, and if you think we, the public, are going to feel any sympathy for you as your business model gets replaced by newer and better technology, trust me when I say you're wrong. No sympathy. Adapt or die.
I know you think legislate or die are the options on the table but I assure you, it's adapt or die.
You're comparing a phone operating system to a computer operating system. Aside from both having the words "operating system" in their descriptors, they are damn near nothing alike.
How about you compare OSX and Windows? Oh. That's right. You're not doing that because then your attempt to paint Apple in a negative light would fall apart.
5, Insightful indeed... More like 5, Troll that we agree with.
Like every other company with a non-brain-dead accounting team.
No. Really. EVERY company does their best to reduce their taxes. Why aren't you vilifying all the other companies who tax advantage of legal tax deductions to reduce their tax burden?
And I'm willing to bet you, as an individual, did too. I bet you took advantage of some sort of tax break when you filed your taxes. Why should you be allowed to do so but not Apple?
No. Really. Answer that please. Why should you be allowed to benefit from any tax breaks but you vilify Apple for taking advantage of _LEGAL_ tax breaks to reduce their tax burden?
Don't worry. I know you won't answer because we both know what the answer is.
And yet the climate change deniers will CLING to that 1% and continue to stick their ignorant heads in the sand and pretend that we aren't messing up our climate.
I have largely given up any remaining hope that Slashdot can provide intelligent and informative discussion on most topics, especially any topic related to Apple.
Thank you for proving me wrong. That was an excellent and highly informative post. It makes me wistfully pine for the glory days of Slashdot...
Please consider this post a +1 Informative mod.
Really? :) now equals "evil smiley"?
Since when did :) mean _EVIL_ smiley? When did this change happen? Last I heard it just mean "smile" and I've been on the internet a LONG time so you'd think I'd have heard that it had changed.
Oh. Wait. I see. You're trying to make Jobs sound more malicious by adding that little descriptor (while omitting any such ominous descriptors for Schmidt nor any Google people).
Biased much? :)
If Facebook has access to 3d virtual social contact, what do you think most users will use it for?
Hint: porn
I understand the point you're trying to make but, in this case, it's not accurate. What you referenced were different things. What we were discussing are not different things.
I've corrected several people in this thread who have confused DPI and LPI because one is image resolution and the other is halftone print resolution. The two are different things. They are related in so much as they are involved in the quality of a final printed piece but they are different things.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are the same thing all measures of image resolution. They mean dots, pixels or samples per inch but that all is the same thing. They are a measure of how many units per inch are used to make up a digital image. They all mean image resolution.
A better computer example would be to discuss how RAM and Memory are two terms used to describe the same thing. It isn't quite the same thing but it's close enough to use as a parallel.
LPI is lines per inch, and is used only when talking about text.
No, it isn't. It's also used to denote the resolution of a halftone screen.
Printer resolution and image resolution (DPI -- dots per inch) are the exact same thing.
Your desktop printer and the press that I send jobs to are not the same thing. Don't confuse the two.
The rule of thumb is 300 dpi for colour images, 600 dpi for greyscale, and 1200 dpi for bitmap. The less information per dot means more dots per inch are required to maintain the same effective resolution.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are common terms for the same thing. Only the pedantic nitpick over any one of them being right or any being wrong when referring to image resolution.