Said like someone who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Giving up just 30% - keeping 70% - is insanely awesome. On the physical side, work for a publisher and find out how much it costs to print, warehouse, and ship a publication, not to mention that you only get a percentage of the price (typically around 40%-ish of cover) through the distribution channel (after all, stores need to make money so they get a cut of the price...). I won't bother pointing out how your complaint doesn't hold water on the digital side either since someone else already pointed that out.
30% is a sweet deal and the only people who complain about it are people who are utterly ignorant of the costs of doing business.
You're seriously trying to claim that Jobs hasn't revolutionized entire industries? Seriously? You might want to look into what he's accomplished and how entire industries have been shaped by his work. And I say "industries", in the plural, intentionally.
He's right - Gates probably will be remembered fondly in time. Gates is using his vast fortune to do a lot of good things now and it will make an already-memorable man more so.
He is, however, entirely wrong that Jobs will be forgotten. Jobs is, simply put, the most successful CEO in history. I don't think that can even vaguely be debated (at least not intelligently). Some could even argue that his success as a CEO makes him also the most successful _leader_ of all time. Of course, some will argue against that theory. Regardless of your thoughts on it, however, you will be discussing him and thus he will not be forgotten, at least not for many, many generations.
And, no, I didn't read the article - I refuse to read any article that so obviously utilizes inane controversy to generate page views and bump of ad revenue.
You know, in the general sense, I agree with your thesis but, in practice, you're 100% wrong. When the CEO of a company announces to the world something that highlights how utterly clueless and/or off-course they are, that should serve as a sign to investors that they need to get their money out of the company as fast as possible and start shorting the stock because bad times are coming. And, quite frankly, any CEO that claims that they're not afraid of Apple entering their market is an idiot.
Apple now has a strong track record of disrupting markets and flipping things on their head. Need an immensely obvious example (out of many possible choices)? Take a look at RIM. When the iPhone came out, some phone makers scrambled to change their products to follow Apple's lead (some more glaringly than others) while RIM steadfastly claimed they had nothing to fear from Apple - they knew the market better than Apple did. Now? RIM is in absolute free fall with their market share vanishing and their profits gone and their cash reserves about to be devoured. At the rate they're going, they'll be on the verge of bankrupt in 2 to 3 years, max. Because they didn't address the entrance of Apple into their market until it was way, way, way too late (and I could easily make the argument that they still haven't addressed Apple's entrance into the smartphone market...).
DirecTV is either terrified of Apple coming to play in their sandbox or they're absolute morons. Either way, when the CEO stands up and says that he's not afraid of Apple, that tells me he's either clueless or a off-course. Either way, as an investor, I'd be getting my money out of the company DAMN fast and I'd start shorting the stock.
No, I'm not suggesting he stand up and say he's terrified of what Apple's going to do to his business - that would be stupid too. What I suggest is either say nothing at all or stand up and say you already have a plan to ensure that you remain a leader in your market even with Apple entering the fray and you're confident in your team to adapt and evolve to any new innovations that may enter the market. Make it clear that you recognize what is about to happen and you're prepared for it because I assure you everyone else with a vague hint of a clue knows what's about to happen... Most importantly, however, do not say you're not worried - that's either a lie or you're stupid.
Ignoring the fact that I don't know who this guy is and why I should care about his opinion on Facebook or mobile phones, I'm not going to read the article because of this choice quote:
...spark a battle for the low end of the phone market, with each company offering ever-cheaper devices...
Cheaper? Cheaper than free? The low end of the mobile market is dominated by _FREE_ phones. And we're not talking about garbage throw-away phones - you can get an iPhone 4, which is far from a piece of garbage, for free on many carriers. Of course Android has a wide selection of phones that are available for free from all carriers out there as well. The two dominant smartphone platforms have free offerings - are they going to start paying people to take their phones now?
Sorry, but if someone doesn't get such a basic concept of how the mobile market works - namely that the cheapest phones (notice the plural there) on the market are $0.00 and there's nothing really cheaper than free - then I am pretty certain I don't care one iota what he has to say in regards to anything.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question. 1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons.
You're idea is going to fail on the first question because I guarantee that most media execs who have a hard on for the rights of Big Media are pissed about libraries but that's largely book publishing's problem - the movie and music industry will get around to it eventually.
I mean, come on - we just had a story on Slashdot about how the Canadian music industry is now going to be charging a fee if music is played at a wedding (does the wedding march count?...). AND they're going to charge double the fee if people dance to the music!! The music somehow costs more if people do something while it's playing!! And you think these people are ok with libraries??
You underestimate just how much Kool Aid these people have knocked back...
I say until We, The People actually have a say at the bargaining table that ALL copyrights should frankly be ignored. The current laws were bought by treasonous bribery against the will of the people and like all laws brought about by bribes and backroom deals they should be treated as the illegal acts they are and promptly ignored.
Until we, the people, can frame our discussion and opinions in ways that don't make us sound like raving lunatics and utter morons, we, the people, will be ignored as lunatic morons. You can't garner support when people who actually agree that copyrights are out of hand think that you're off your rocker.
I'm just sayin'. When you throw around words like "treasonous" in casual conversation about copyright, you demonstrate an utterly extremist view that is easy to ignore.
According to this article, they've released 37 models since 2007. Averaged out, that means they're sitting on just over $27 million inventory per model. The problem is, when you make 37 models, that turns into insanity.
Someone elsewhere in the discussion pointed out that RIM is making the same mistake Apple made back in their dark days - releasing product after product and flooding the market. The first thing RIM needs to do is pick four or five phone models that they want to support and kill all others. That would be a good starting point. 37 models is just stupid.
Except that's not remotely true. Facebook may fade away (eventually) but some form of social network or another will take its place. The internet has been one form of social network or another from the very beginning. I remember in the early days logging into a BBS waaaaay back in the day. What was that? It was basically the internet _and_ a social network in one. Then when I got the real thing, there were use groups and various forums. Again, social networks. And then came things like MySpace and social networks took on a whole new meaning. And MySpace faltered and faded and was replaced by Facebook. And odds are that Facebook will stumble at some point and be replaced by something else but social networks are not done. They've been here from the very beginning and they will be here when the entire internet is closed down and the lights get turned off.
I've been called by these morons five (yes, FIVE) times so far. Lately, they've taken to calling me at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning. Now, getting a call from a scammer is annoying - getting a call from a scammer in the middle of the night when you're sound asleep makes you want to stab someone in the throat. Or maybe that's just me...
Samsung licensed the patents to Qualcomm who sold the chips to Apple. Apple is arguing that Samsung is attempting to double-dip - Apple already paid the license fee by purchasing the chips from a company who paid Samsung for the license.
When a company offers an invention for inclusion in an industry standard they are (almost always) required to agree to offer that patent under FRAND terms. If accepted into the industry standard, they are then _required_ to offer a license to the patent at Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory terms. They _cannot_ deny the patent license to anyone (Non Discriminatory).
In almost all circumstances, this means that they earn a lower rate than non-FRAND patents but they make up for it in volume since anyone wishing to use the industry standard must license the technology. And the company with the patent _MUST_ license it at a Fair and Reasonable rate.
Your understanding of FRAND licensing is entirely wrong.
Is there something that FORCES you to sell to your competitor?
Yes. Non Discriminatory. Anyone offering a FRAND patent (typically a patent that has been accepted into an industry standard) _MUST_ license the patent to anyone and everyone who is interested in licensing it at a Fair and Reasonable rate. Almost always this means that the license rate is lower than a non-FRAND patent would garner but the idea is that you make up the money due to the fact that everyone who wants to participate in that industry standard must license from you - you make it up in volume. But, yes, they MUST license to anyone and everyone, even if they don't want to.
Yes, because Samsung wants to erase several billion dollars worth of income from their balance sheet. That's a very simple solution. It's also very stupid.
If Samsung was so stupid as to cut off their largest customer, that would truly be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Samsung has a bottom line to watch out for as well and the billions of dollars that Apple directs their way is a significant portion of Samsung's balance sheet. No sane company is going to throw that away out of spite.
Because Samsung's patents are FRAND, and by taking it away, it means everyone who implements a cellphone (ANY cellphone) no longer has to negotiate with Samsung on those patents.
The fact that the patents are FRAND patents means there should be zero negotiations involved in licensing the patents. It should simply be "the price we charge everyone is x% - that's your price too." Done. That's it. That's the point of a FRAND patent. That is Fair, Reasonable, And Non Discriminatory - FRAND. Any attempt to negotiate a different rate with different companies is the exact opposite of FRAND terms,
And that's why Samsung is in the wrong - they are attempting to get more from Apple than they do from other companies. That is not Fair, Reasonable, and certainly not Non Discriminatory.
'If 10 cops who know a neighborhood can't find an iPhone that's broadcasting its location, that shouldn't give you a lot of confidence in your own vigilante recovery of a stolen iProduct
Uh, no. That gives me no confidence in those cops. Sorry, but that doesn't speak to the effectiveness of Find My iPhone - it speaks to the effectiveness of _10_ cops...
As a Canadian, where 100GB data caps are insanely high and most run between 30 and 60-ish, the thought of having 250 or 300 GB to play with _PER MONTH_ boggles my mind. I literally don't know how I'd come close to tapping that out without making a concerted effort to do so. As it is, I typically run under 30-ish per month and I use the internet quite extensively. Ah, it amuses me how some people see a problem when others see glorious unlimited freedom...
(Not trying to be a smartass, though I often am one - I literally mean it - I truly don't know how I'd burn 300 GB a month)
Get rid of business process and software patents. They are proving to be a detriment to the software industry.
Get rid of automotive patents. They are proving to be a detriment to the auto industry. Shall I continue or was that car analogy sufficient to communicate the point already? The patents exist in all industries and they manage to function just fine. The solution is simple - license the patent or innovate around the patent. Other industries do it so why should the software industry be different?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's what virtually everyone (except law enforcement...) wants. It's called due process. It's also called "working as intended".
Slashdot Mirror
Thirty percent is absurd.
Said like someone who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Giving up just 30% - keeping 70% - is insanely awesome. On the physical side, work for a publisher and find out how much it costs to print, warehouse, and ship a publication, not to mention that you only get a percentage of the price (typically around 40%-ish of cover) through the distribution channel (after all, stores need to make money so they get a cut of the price...). I won't bother pointing out how your complaint doesn't hold water on the digital side either since someone else already pointed that out.
30% is a sweet deal and the only people who complain about it are people who are utterly ignorant of the costs of doing business.
They tend to cost >2x as much as a comparable (or better) laptop...
Prove it. I bet you can't. Build a truly comparable machine and I bet you can't get it to half the price of a Mac (nor even close to half the price).
Or just keep spouting that lie because I'm sure some people believe you but anyone with a clue knows it's a lie.
You're seriously trying to claim that Jobs hasn't revolutionized entire industries? Seriously? You might want to look into what he's accomplished and how entire industries have been shaped by his work. And I say "industries", in the plural, intentionally.
He's right - Gates probably will be remembered fondly in time. Gates is using his vast fortune to do a lot of good things now and it will make an already-memorable man more so.
He is, however, entirely wrong that Jobs will be forgotten. Jobs is, simply put, the most successful CEO in history. I don't think that can even vaguely be debated (at least not intelligently). Some could even argue that his success as a CEO makes him also the most successful _leader_ of all time. Of course, some will argue against that theory. Regardless of your thoughts on it, however, you will be discussing him and thus he will not be forgotten, at least not for many, many generations.
And, no, I didn't read the article - I refuse to read any article that so obviously utilizes inane controversy to generate page views and bump of ad revenue.
A $1,500 50" TV is not likely to sell like hotcakes. If Apple holds to their current pattern he's got time to react.
Some people thought the same thing in regards to the iPhone. Ask a couple companies, RIM first among them, how that worked out.
If they aren't already reacting in some way or another, it's already too late.
You know, in the general sense, I agree with your thesis but, in practice, you're 100% wrong. When the CEO of a company announces to the world something that highlights how utterly clueless and/or off-course they are, that should serve as a sign to investors that they need to get their money out of the company as fast as possible and start shorting the stock because bad times are coming. And, quite frankly, any CEO that claims that they're not afraid of Apple entering their market is an idiot.
Apple now has a strong track record of disrupting markets and flipping things on their head. Need an immensely obvious example (out of many possible choices)? Take a look at RIM. When the iPhone came out, some phone makers scrambled to change their products to follow Apple's lead (some more glaringly than others) while RIM steadfastly claimed they had nothing to fear from Apple - they knew the market better than Apple did. Now? RIM is in absolute free fall with their market share vanishing and their profits gone and their cash reserves about to be devoured. At the rate they're going, they'll be on the verge of bankrupt in 2 to 3 years, max. Because they didn't address the entrance of Apple into their market until it was way, way, way too late (and I could easily make the argument that they still haven't addressed Apple's entrance into the smartphone market...).
DirecTV is either terrified of Apple coming to play in their sandbox or they're absolute morons. Either way, when the CEO stands up and says that he's not afraid of Apple, that tells me he's either clueless or a off-course. Either way, as an investor, I'd be getting my money out of the company DAMN fast and I'd start shorting the stock.
No, I'm not suggesting he stand up and say he's terrified of what Apple's going to do to his business - that would be stupid too. What I suggest is either say nothing at all or stand up and say you already have a plan to ensure that you remain a leader in your market even with Apple entering the fray and you're confident in your team to adapt and evolve to any new innovations that may enter the market. Make it clear that you recognize what is about to happen and you're prepared for it because I assure you everyone else with a vague hint of a clue knows what's about to happen... Most importantly, however, do not say you're not worried - that's either a lie or you're stupid.
Ignoring the fact that I don't know who this guy is and why I should care about his opinion on Facebook or mobile phones, I'm not going to read the article because of this choice quote:
...spark a battle for the low end of the phone market, with each company offering ever-cheaper devices...
Cheaper? Cheaper than free? The low end of the mobile market is dominated by _FREE_ phones. And we're not talking about garbage throw-away phones - you can get an iPhone 4, which is far from a piece of garbage, for free on many carriers. Of course Android has a wide selection of phones that are available for free from all carriers out there as well. The two dominant smartphone platforms have free offerings - are they going to start paying people to take their phones now?
Sorry, but if someone doesn't get such a basic concept of how the mobile market works - namely that the cheapest phones (notice the plural there) on the market are $0.00 and there's nothing really cheaper than free - then I am pretty certain I don't care one iota what he has to say in regards to anything.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons.
You're idea is going to fail on the first question because I guarantee that most media execs who have a hard on for the rights of Big Media are pissed about libraries but that's largely book publishing's problem - the movie and music industry will get around to it eventually.
I mean, come on - we just had a story on Slashdot about how the Canadian music industry is now going to be charging a fee if music is played at a wedding (does the wedding march count?...). AND they're going to charge double the fee if people dance to the music!! The music somehow costs more if people do something while it's playing!! And you think these people are ok with libraries??
You underestimate just how much Kool Aid these people have knocked back...
I say until We, The People actually have a say at the bargaining table that ALL copyrights should frankly be ignored. The current laws were bought by treasonous bribery against the will of the people and like all laws brought about by bribes and backroom deals they should be treated as the illegal acts they are and promptly ignored.
Until we, the people, can frame our discussion and opinions in ways that don't make us sound like raving lunatics and utter morons, we, the people, will be ignored as lunatic morons. You can't garner support when people who actually agree that copyrights are out of hand think that you're off your rocker.
I'm just sayin'. When you throw around words like "treasonous" in casual conversation about copyright, you demonstrate an utterly extremist view that is easy to ignore.
This just in - Fox News is related to Terrorism in that both use the english language to communicate.
See what I did there Fox? Yeah. We saw what you did there too.
According to this article, they've released 37 models since 2007. Averaged out, that means they're sitting on just over $27 million inventory per model. The problem is, when you make 37 models, that turns into insanity.
Someone elsewhere in the discussion pointed out that RIM is making the same mistake Apple made back in their dark days - releasing product after product and flooding the market. The first thing RIM needs to do is pick four or five phone models that they want to support and kill all others. That would be a good starting point. 37 models is just stupid.
This Social network fad is done.
Except that's not remotely true. Facebook may fade away (eventually) but some form of social network or another will take its place. The internet has been one form of social network or another from the very beginning. I remember in the early days logging into a BBS waaaaay back in the day. What was that? It was basically the internet _and_ a social network in one. Then when I got the real thing, there were use groups and various forums. Again, social networks. And then came things like MySpace and social networks took on a whole new meaning. And MySpace faltered and faded and was replaced by Facebook. And odds are that Facebook will stumble at some point and be replaced by something else but social networks are not done. They've been here from the very beginning and they will be here when the entire internet is closed down and the lights get turned off.
Not a fad. Not done.
I've been called by these morons five (yes, FIVE) times so far. Lately, they've taken to calling me at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning. Now, getting a call from a scammer is annoying - getting a call from a scammer in the middle of the night when you're sound asleep makes you want to stab someone in the throat. Or maybe that's just me...
I hope these pricks die in a fire.
Samsung licensed the patents to Qualcomm who sold the chips to Apple. Apple is arguing that Samsung is attempting to double-dip - Apple already paid the license fee by purchasing the chips from a company who paid Samsung for the license.
That is not how FRAND works.
When a company offers an invention for inclusion in an industry standard they are (almost always) required to agree to offer that patent under FRAND terms. If accepted into the industry standard, they are then _required_ to offer a license to the patent at Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory terms. They _cannot_ deny the patent license to anyone (Non Discriminatory).
In almost all circumstances, this means that they earn a lower rate than non-FRAND patents but they make up for it in volume since anyone wishing to use the industry standard must license the technology. And the company with the patent _MUST_ license it at a Fair and Reasonable rate.
Your understanding of FRAND licensing is entirely wrong.
Is there something that FORCES you to sell to your competitor?
Yes. Non Discriminatory. Anyone offering a FRAND patent (typically a patent that has been accepted into an industry standard) _MUST_ license the patent to anyone and everyone who is interested in licensing it at a Fair and Reasonable rate. Almost always this means that the license rate is lower than a non-FRAND patent would garner but the idea is that you make up the money due to the fact that everyone who wants to participate in that industry standard must license from you - you make it up in volume. But, yes, they MUST license to anyone and everyone, even if they don't want to.
Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. FRAND.
Yes, because Samsung wants to erase several billion dollars worth of income from their balance sheet. That's a very simple solution. It's also very stupid.
If Samsung was so stupid as to cut off their largest customer, that would truly be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Samsung has a bottom line to watch out for as well and the billions of dollars that Apple directs their way is a significant portion of Samsung's balance sheet. No sane company is going to throw that away out of spite.
Because Samsung's patents are FRAND, and by taking it away, it means everyone who implements a cellphone (ANY cellphone) no longer has to negotiate with Samsung on those patents.
The fact that the patents are FRAND patents means there should be zero negotiations involved in licensing the patents. It should simply be "the price we charge everyone is x% - that's your price too." Done. That's it. That's the point of a FRAND patent. That is Fair, Reasonable, And Non Discriminatory - FRAND. Any attempt to negotiate a different rate with different companies is the exact opposite of FRAND terms,
And that's why Samsung is in the wrong - they are attempting to get more from Apple than they do from other companies. That is not Fair, Reasonable, and certainly not Non Discriminatory.
'If 10 cops who know a neighborhood can't find an iPhone that's broadcasting its location, that shouldn't give you a lot of confidence in your own vigilante recovery of a stolen iProduct
Uh, no. That gives me no confidence in those cops. Sorry, but that doesn't speak to the effectiveness of Find My iPhone - it speaks to the effectiveness of _10_ cops...
As a Canadian, where 100GB data caps are insanely high and most run between 30 and 60-ish, the thought of having 250 or 300 GB to play with _PER MONTH_ boggles my mind. I literally don't know how I'd come close to tapping that out without making a concerted effort to do so. As it is, I typically run under 30-ish per month and I use the internet quite extensively. Ah, it amuses me how some people see a problem when others see glorious unlimited freedom...
(Not trying to be a smartass, though I often am one - I literally mean it - I truly don't know how I'd burn 300 GB a month)
2) No one has a trillion dollars to spend on this.
Wrong. The money is there - it's just currently going to killing people for oil.
http://costofwar.com/en/
Is 24% close enough? http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2842145&cid=39958777
Get rid of business process and software patents. They are proving to be a detriment to the software industry.
Get rid of automotive patents. They are proving to be a detriment to the auto industry.
Shall I continue or was that car analogy sufficient to communicate the point already? The patents exist in all industries and they manage to function just fine. The solution is simple - license the patent or innovate around the patent. Other industries do it so why should the software industry be different?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's what virtually everyone (except law enforcement...) wants. It's called due process. It's also called "working as intended".