I would love for Facebook to do this - anything that further opens the door for a competitor to swoop in and steal Facebook's thunder is a good thing.
And lest anyone think that's impossible, please do try to remember Facebook's own origin story. Myspace was _THE_ social networking website but everyone hated it. People used it because people used it but nobody liked it. Then Facebook came along with a clean, simple site that allowed people to do what they wanted most - stay in touch with their friends and family. Almost overnight, Myspace was dead and Facebook was beginning a meteoric rise.
Now, if you don't think it's possible for that to happen again, then you're not paying attention to the history of the internet nor the history of social networking sites of which Facebook is a player. People use Facebook because people use Facebook. Create enough scenarios that stop people from using Facebook or, more importantly, to start using something else and guess what happens...
So, please Facebook, go the freemium route and push users towards a $10/month fee. Please do it. It'll be wonderful for your balance sheet for a short while and you'll make a fortune. And you'll open the door for a competitor who is willing to offer users what they want because, increasingly, Facebook is less and less what people want any more.
I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?
While "need" might be subjective, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the internet continues to believe that Samsung doesn't care about Apple as a customer.
Even accounting for the fact that these articles are a bit dated (and I do mean a bit - one is months old and the other is less than a year old), it's clear that Apple is a SIGNIFICANT part of Samsung's finances.
I don't know too many companies that are happy about cutting out 9-ish% of their revenue just to spite a rival. That is a HUGE portion of a company's bottom line. I don't know of any company that is willing to lose 83% of a divisions revenue.
So, no, Samsung may not literally _NEED_ Apple - they probably won't fall into bankruptcy if Apple cuts all ties - but it would be foolish to think that Samsung doesn't care about Apple's money that is stuffing their coffers. It would be silly to think that Samsung is happy that Apple is shifting their supply chain away from them. Say whatever you want about Samsung (and there certainly is a lot that can be said about them) but I have to assume their upper management is smart enough to know that losing Apple as a customer is a very bad thing.
How the talking heads on the internet haven't figured that out is beyond me. I guess their hatred of Apple is blinding them to the facts of the business world, namely that companies like having customers that bring in a lot of money and dislike losing customers that bring in a lot of money.
This line of thinking is some of the absolute DUMBEST bullshit still floating around on the internet. Pull your head out of your ass and recognize that iPads are used in a LOT of industries as incredibly viable tools that increase productivity.
Furthermore, do you think, maybe, possibly, some of these kids might get excited about programming and decide, just possibly, to learn more about programming for iOS because of the iPads. You know, sorta like how all the old time geeks learned programming because of their piece of crap computers at their schools.
And what was untrue about that statement? The majority (I would dare say vast majority) of Android phones _NEVER_ see a system update. A few do and even fewer get OS updates in anything vaguely approaching a timely manner. People may be able to update their OS on their own but they rarely get that update pushed to them.
Please feel free to point out the factual inaccuracy there.
Ok, first, claiming that older devices don't get "most of the new features" ignores just how many new features there are in each new version of iOS. Anyone who pays a hint of attention knows that the feature list for each new version is quite long. Just because Apple only focuses on ten or 12 of them for marketing material does not mean those are the only new features. (And missing out on one or two features of ten or 12 still doesn't constitute "most", but that's a separate issue.)
Second, those graphics are targeted at developers. The feature list _FOR DEVELOPERS_ of each new version of iOS includes _HUNDREDS_ of new APIs, the vast, vast, vast majority of which run on all devices supported by the OS.
So, _FOR DEVELOPERS_, they can develop, with some degree of confidence, targeting the latest version of the OS with knowledge that they are hitting the majority of the iOS market and will function on devices up to three years old. _FOR DEVELOPERS_, this is incredibly helpful.
The fact that you, as a consumer, didn't get Siri because your device is two or three years old sucks but there are hundreds and hundreds of other new features in the operating system update that you got updated for free.
Meanwhile your buddy, with a two or three year old Android phone has never seen an OS update unless they tore into the device to install it on their own...
I don't think anyone with a hint of awareness thought that Android sounded like a crazy project when they announced it. I think everyone who had a clue recognized it as a bold move into a new market that would make a big difference. And, lo and behold, it was.
Also, quite frankly, I find it amusing when people describe Android as "owning the market for mobile operating systems" because it's a narrowly defined definition of "owning the market".
Are they owning marketshare for the larger mobile market? Yes.
Smartphones (no, not feature phones disguised as smartphones - I'm talking actual smartphones)? That's debatable and hard to accurately measure (since so many Android manufacturers sell "smartphones" that are really feature phones running a smartphone OS). Entirely likely this one is pretty much a draw.
Tablets? Not at all. Getting crushed.
Are they owning the market dollars for the mobile market? Nope. That's iOS's crown. And, for many, this is what "owning the market" might mean which makes your claim incorrect.
The mobile market is actually quite complex with various facets and layers and "owning the market" is a claim that no operating system (well, neither Android nor iOS - the others don't matter any more) can make. You have to be much more specific in what you're talking about before you can say anything is being owned. Otherwise it's simply too vague a claim to be taken seriously.
But, back to the original point - I think the only people who thought Google was crazy for creating Android were blog writers looking to generate page views and controversy. Anyone with a clue saw it as anything but crazy.
Given your complaints (seriously? Worried about spilling a drink _ON_ your computer and it going straight into the machine?), I seriously question your assertion that you are a Pro.
And others have already pointed out the failures in your specific complaints.
Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits...
Even assuming the numbers in these two articles are off a bit and slightly dated, I don't think "relatively small" is an accurate representation of Apple's impact on Samsung's revenue. Feel free to cite contradicting numbers if you can find any but I seriously doubt you will - Apple is a massive client for Samsung.
That said, Samsung may have still decided to go for the short term direct profit route of increasing their device sales at the cost of their long term relationship with a massive client, but don't think for a second that Apple is a small part of Samsung's revenue stream.
Apparently, in Europe, you have competition whereas those of us who live in North America (well, Canada and the US - not sure about Mexico) have collusion. The big telcos don't actually attempt to compete on price - they just offer the same things with different names. Thus, there is no attempt to drive price down because they know they don't need to get into a price war with their "competition".
It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do.
Other companies need Apple to come up with new ideas.
When you run from police and ENGAGE IN A FIREFIGHT AND LOB EXPLOSIVES AT THE POLICE, I'm willing to drop the "suspect" description and assume the police have the right guys. Thanks.
why does Apple require a credit card to download free apps or update apps that you've already paid for?
They don't. They certainly don't make it easy to proceed without a credit card but you _can_ set up an iTunes account and download and update free apps without a credit card. My apologies for not having a step-by-step available (it's been a while since I had to set up a CC-free account) but you can find the details with a little google-fu. But, it is possible.
Apple should make it _easier_, but it is possible.
Forget that - what about games like Injustice: Gods Among Us which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to continue playing unless you use a consumable to refresh your energy pool (or to stop playing entirely for an hour or more)? And, when I say impossible to continue, I'm not exaggerating - you cannot fight if your characters' energy level is too low and that happens _VERY_ fast (you can find yourself unable to play in ten or fifteen minutes, even with "smart" energy management). It's an awesome game that I enjoy a great deal (*), so I'm sorry I'm slagging on it right now but I find the fight energy mechanic unforgivable - it outright makes it impossible to play the game after a very short period of time.
*There is a work around (I won't say hack or cheat - it's more of a trick). If not for that trick, I wouldn't still be playing the game - I'd have deleted it from my iPad. The trick simply involves changing your device's time setting to make the game think time has passed when it has, in fact, not.
If they go to Apple _WITH_ a warrant, Apple can surely provide them with the information (well, I'd be shocked if they couldn't comply with a warrant).
That's not what the DEA wants, however - they want to be able to read the messages _WITHOUT_ a warrant. I imagine that is where they are having difficulties intercepting and reading iMessages.
When a Kickstarter project for a bold and ambitious project from Green Ronin, a publisher with a proven track record for making great products, is struggling to meet a reasonable target, I'm left wondering the same thing. Even more so when it's Freeport for Pathfinder ( http://kck.st/Z3Gu3l ), a product with a decade of background for the now de facto D&D game setting. How does that struggle to meet its pledge goal? It should be a slam dunk, IMHO.
I'm sure Kickstarter will still have significant successes but I think it's entering a new era where worthy projects struggle. I hope I'm wrong, however. Projects like Freeport are damn cool and wouldn't be possible without something like Kickstarter so it'd be nice for it to work out for them.
I cannot for the life of me imagine how you believe any of that when the facts show you're wrong. The MPAA are not going to slow down with their lawsuits. Until judges start awarding lawyer fees in their losses, they will view this as another victory proving, to their decision makers, that their strategy is working.
I am no apple fanbois, it's just that if the defective part came from LG, why not home in to the manufacturer, instead of the seller?
Because LG doesn't have a massive cash horde of billions and billions and billions of dollars that greedy lawyers plus moronic greedy citizens have their eyes on.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love for Facebook to do this - anything that further opens the door for a competitor to swoop in and steal Facebook's thunder is a good thing.
And lest anyone think that's impossible, please do try to remember Facebook's own origin story. Myspace was _THE_ social networking website but everyone hated it. People used it because people used it but nobody liked it. Then Facebook came along with a clean, simple site that allowed people to do what they wanted most - stay in touch with their friends and family. Almost overnight, Myspace was dead and Facebook was beginning a meteoric rise.
Now, if you don't think it's possible for that to happen again, then you're not paying attention to the history of the internet nor the history of social networking sites of which Facebook is a player. People use Facebook because people use Facebook. Create enough scenarios that stop people from using Facebook or, more importantly, to start using something else and guess what happens...
So, please Facebook, go the freemium route and push users towards a $10/month fee. Please do it. It'll be wonderful for your balance sheet for a short while and you'll make a fortune. And you'll open the door for a competitor who is willing to offer users what they want because, increasingly, Facebook is less and less what people want any more.
I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?
Um, no.
While "need" might be subjective, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the internet continues to believe that Samsung doesn't care about Apple as a customer.
Even accounting for the fact that these articles are a bit dated (and I do mean a bit - one is months old and the other is less than a year old), it's clear that Apple is a SIGNIFICANT part of Samsung's finances.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue
I don't know too many companies that are happy about cutting out 9-ish% of their revenue just to spite a rival. That is a HUGE portion of a company's bottom line. I don't know of any company that is willing to lose 83% of a divisions revenue.
So, no, Samsung may not literally _NEED_ Apple - they probably won't fall into bankruptcy if Apple cuts all ties - but it would be foolish to think that Samsung doesn't care about Apple's money that is stuffing their coffers. It would be silly to think that Samsung is happy that Apple is shifting their supply chain away from them. Say whatever you want about Samsung (and there certainly is a lot that can be said about them) but I have to assume their upper management is smart enough to know that losing Apple as a customer is a very bad thing.
How the talking heads on the internet haven't figured that out is beyond me. I guess their hatred of Apple is blinding them to the facts of the business world, namely that companies like having customers that bring in a lot of money and dislike losing customers that bring in a lot of money.
This line of thinking is some of the absolute DUMBEST bullshit still floating around on the internet. Pull your head out of your ass and recognize that iPads are used in a LOT of industries as incredibly viable tools that increase productivity.
Furthermore, do you think, maybe, possibly, some of these kids might get excited about programming and decide, just possibly, to learn more about programming for iOS because of the iPads. You know, sorta like how all the old time geeks learned programming because of their piece of crap computers at their schools.
Seriously, pull your head out of your ass.
Your device is running 4.2 Jelly Bean?
And what was untrue about that statement? The majority (I would dare say vast majority) of Android phones _NEVER_ see a system update. A few do and even fewer get OS updates in anything vaguely approaching a timely manner. People may be able to update their OS on their own but they rarely get that update pushed to them.
Please feel free to point out the factual inaccuracy there.
Ok, first, claiming that older devices don't get "most of the new features" ignores just how many new features there are in each new version of iOS. Anyone who pays a hint of attention knows that the feature list for each new version is quite long. Just because Apple only focuses on ten or 12 of them for marketing material does not mean those are the only new features. (And missing out on one or two features of ten or 12 still doesn't constitute "most", but that's a separate issue.)
Second, those graphics are targeted at developers. The feature list _FOR DEVELOPERS_ of each new version of iOS includes _HUNDREDS_ of new APIs, the vast, vast, vast majority of which run on all devices supported by the OS.
So, _FOR DEVELOPERS_, they can develop, with some degree of confidence, targeting the latest version of the OS with knowledge that they are hitting the majority of the iOS market and will function on devices up to three years old. _FOR DEVELOPERS_, this is incredibly helpful.
The fact that you, as a consumer, didn't get Siri because your device is two or three years old sucks but there are hundreds and hundreds of other new features in the operating system update that you got updated for free.
Meanwhile your buddy, with a two or three year old Android phone has never seen an OS update unless they tore into the device to install it on their own...
How is that modded insightful?
I don't think anyone with a hint of awareness thought that Android sounded like a crazy project when they announced it. I think everyone who had a clue recognized it as a bold move into a new market that would make a big difference. And, lo and behold, it was.
Also, quite frankly, I find it amusing when people describe Android as "owning the market for mobile operating systems" because it's a narrowly defined definition of "owning the market".
Are they owning marketshare for the larger mobile market? Yes.
Smartphones (no, not feature phones disguised as smartphones - I'm talking actual smartphones)? That's debatable and hard to accurately measure (since so many Android manufacturers sell "smartphones" that are really feature phones running a smartphone OS). Entirely likely this one is pretty much a draw.
Tablets? Not at all. Getting crushed.
Are they owning the market dollars for the mobile market? Nope. That's iOS's crown. And, for many, this is what "owning the market" might mean which makes your claim incorrect.
The mobile market is actually quite complex with various facets and layers and "owning the market" is a claim that no operating system (well, neither Android nor iOS - the others don't matter any more) can make. You have to be much more specific in what you're talking about before you can say anything is being owned. Otherwise it's simply too vague a claim to be taken seriously.
But, back to the original point - I think the only people who thought Google was crazy for creating Android were blog writers looking to generate page views and controversy. Anyone with a clue saw it as anything but crazy.
Not for sale yet. Available this fall.
Given your complaints (seriously? Worried about spilling a drink _ON_ your computer and it going straight into the machine?), I seriously question your assertion that you are a Pro.
And others have already pointed out the failures in your specific complaints.
Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits...
Even assuming the numbers in these two articles are off a bit and slightly dated, I don't think "relatively small" is an accurate representation of Apple's impact on Samsung's revenue. Feel free to cite contradicting numbers if you can find any but I seriously doubt you will - Apple is a massive client for Samsung.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue
That said, Samsung may have still decided to go for the short term direct profit route of increasing their device sales at the cost of their long term relationship with a massive client, but don't think for a second that Apple is a small part of Samsung's revenue stream.
Apparently, in Europe, you have competition whereas those of us who live in North America (well, Canada and the US - not sure about Mexico) have collusion. The big telcos don't actually attempt to compete on price - they just offer the same things with different names. Thus, there is no attempt to drive price down because they know they don't need to get into a price war with their "competition".
If they do away with the subsidy, you will have to pay full retail price for phones, but your monthly bill will be lower.
It's cute that you think that monthly bills will be lower if people are required to pay full price for their phones...
It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do.
Other companies need Apple to come up with new ideas.
I'll let you fill in the reason why...
I'm sure many people would have said similar things about RIM and Nokia. Look at them now.
When you run from police and ENGAGE IN A FIREFIGHT AND LOB EXPLOSIVES AT THE POLICE, I'm willing to drop the "suspect" description and assume the police have the right guys. Thanks.
why does Apple require a credit card to download free apps or update apps that you've already paid for?
They don't. They certainly don't make it easy to proceed without a credit card but you _can_ set up an iTunes account and download and update free apps without a credit card. My apologies for not having a step-by-step available (it's been a while since I had to set up a CC-free account) but you can find the details with a little google-fu. But, it is possible.
Apple should make it _easier_, but it is possible.
Forget that - what about games like Injustice: Gods Among Us which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to continue playing unless you use a consumable to refresh your energy pool (or to stop playing entirely for an hour or more)? And, when I say impossible to continue, I'm not exaggerating - you cannot fight if your characters' energy level is too low and that happens _VERY_ fast (you can find yourself unable to play in ten or fifteen minutes, even with "smart" energy management). It's an awesome game that I enjoy a great deal (*), so I'm sorry I'm slagging on it right now but I find the fight energy mechanic unforgivable - it outright makes it impossible to play the game after a very short period of time.
*There is a work around (I won't say hack or cheat - it's more of a trick). If not for that trick, I wouldn't still be playing the game - I'd have deleted it from my iPad. The trick simply involves changing your device's time setting to make the game think time has passed when it has, in fact, not.
You're right. Apple is reacting to Motorola's initial lawsuit.
No, I believe he's implying that Apple AND GOOGLE are using lawsuits as a business strategy against each other.
If they go to Apple _WITH_ a warrant, Apple can surely provide them with the information (well, I'd be shocked if they couldn't comply with a warrant).
That's not what the DEA wants, however - they want to be able to read the messages _WITHOUT_ a warrant. I imagine that is where they are having difficulties intercepting and reading iMessages.
When a Kickstarter project for a bold and ambitious project from Green Ronin, a publisher with a proven track record for making great products, is struggling to meet a reasonable target, I'm left wondering the same thing. Even more so when it's Freeport for Pathfinder ( http://kck.st/Z3Gu3l ), a product with a decade of background for the now de facto D&D game setting. How does that struggle to meet its pledge goal? It should be a slam dunk, IMHO.
I'm sure Kickstarter will still have significant successes but I think it's entering a new era where worthy projects struggle. I hope I'm wrong, however. Projects like Freeport are damn cool and wouldn't be possible without something like Kickstarter so it'd be nice for it to work out for them.
Wait! So Apple is enforcing their rules which they've openly and clearly published and that they hold all developers to?
Those bastards! /yawn_at_the_non-story...
I cannot for the life of me imagine how you believe any of that when the facts show you're wrong. The MPAA are not going to slow down with their lawsuits. Until judges start awarding lawyer fees in their losses, they will view this as another victory proving, to their decision makers, that their strategy is working.
I am no apple fanbois, it's just that if the defective part came from LG, why not home in to the manufacturer, instead of the seller?
Because LG doesn't have a massive cash horde of billions and billions and billions of dollars that greedy lawyers plus moronic greedy citizens have their eyes on.