Right. This sort of silliness reminds me of when I got my first computer--a commodore 64--and people who didn't understand computers asked, "What's it good for? I've heard you can play games on it and use it for storing recipes, and that's about it."
I'd say that what you suffer from is a simple lack of imagination, but that doesn't cover it because there are a wide array of productivity applications, including content creation applications. So you don't need to imagine, just look and listen and you'll see that it's more than a content creation device.
Want to mix music? You can do it on a tablet. Want to edit photos or draw? You can do it on a tablet. Want to trade stocks on line? You can do it with a tablet. Want to prototype website layouts? You can do it with a tablet.
Would I do any significant amount of coding on a tablet? Write a novel? Use it as an SSH terminal for configuring a Linux server? Probably not. These things are much easier with a keyboard. But there are a brazillian things that can be done without a keyboard that are not merely 'content consumption'.
An easy-to-hold object with a touch-screen interface might not matter to someone who is only focused on typing, but for athletic coaches who want to quickly review player footage, there is a huge difference between what a touch screen can do and what a laptop and with a physical keyboard and mousepad held in one hand and operated with the other can do.
Fixed that for you.
Dude, just because you don't see the benefits doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't own an iPad because for my purposes, my laptop works great, but based on the GP's description of what he's doing, it sounds like an absolutely justifiable purchase.
We'll see. My bet is that for some content providers, the Apple in-app purchasers will be people who wouldn't have bought the service otherwise, so they're pure profit. Netflix will, however, continue to make gazillions of dollars from people like me who subscribed on the web, have a card on file, and have no need to ever invoke an in-app purchase to continue using the service. Unless 100% of customers move over to only doing in-app purchases, they don't need to raise the costs for everyone 30%; they probably won't need to raise prices at all.
Of course, time will tell. If enough developers balk, it'll harm the ecosystem. Apple's pushing the envelope, assuredly. But if it's not working, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they'll adjust it as necessary. There's one thing about fees: it's better to start high and work your way down than to go the other way. You start at 30% and go to 15%, and people breathe a huge sigh of relief. Start at 10% and go to 15% and everyone freeeeeaks out just like they're doing now with the introduction of any fees.
Apple thinks that they're adding significant value by allowing developers to leverage their iTunes billing system with 1-click ease. Are they really? If they are, then Apple *and* all the developers in question are going to end up with the fattest. wallets. ever.
Nope. Again, for existing customers, like me, Netflix has my card on file, it's an evergreen renewal until I choose to cancel, and Apple doesn't get one red cent for my ability to watch Netflix on my iPod Touch. Ever.
Actually unless the vendor is greedy, that should read "up to 30%" instead of "at least".
If 100% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, then their costs are 30% higher and they'll need to pass that along to customers.
If 10% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, then their costs are 3% higher and they could pass that along to customers. However...
...if 10% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, and providing in-app purchasing actually increases the number of purchasers significantly, then the content vendor might determine that getting 70% of the additional purchases leaves them in a better position than they would be in if they raised their overall price to maintain the same average revenue per sale. Remember, this is digital content and the marginal cost per copy is a tiny fraction of a cent, so even if the additional option of in-app purchasing via Apple's system gives them a 3% bump in transactions against 7% of transactions moving from full price to -30%, that would be enough of a bump that it's in the vendor's best interest to just keep their prices as is.
Look at the numbers: Let's say you expect 100,000 customers to buy $6.00 worth of content over a year, that's be $600,000.00. If 7% move to the Apple purchase system and you lose 30% of their revenue, or a total of $12,600. If you also get a 3% bump in buyers, then 70% of their purchases equals $12,600 and everything is perfectly balanced.
As to whether or not Android will displace iOS, well, it seems to me that if it hasn't already, from a sheer numbers perspective, it already has. Whether that means anything is a different question. As long as the chicken-and-egg pairing of consumers and developers stick to iOS in high enough numbers--if one side flees, so will the other--then iOS devices will continue selling in solid numbers, and profits for Apple and for iOS developers will continue to be quite competitive with those for Android device manufacturers and developers.
Don't forget, Apple only requires that there be an option there, and that if the subscriber exists when they get the app, Apple doesn't expect a cut. I signed up for Netflix first and then downloaded the app much later. Under the terms as described, Apple won't get a cent of my subscription fee.
Well, even as an Apple fan, I've got to admit that the only programs worse on Windows than the Office suite are Safari and iTunes. I'm amazed that ANYONE puts up with them.
How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?
I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq, you have no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things you listed had not been believed by the general public.
Bullshit. At least in the UK the government would not have been able to justify invading Iraq to the British public without the wildly exaggerated WMD claims.
If America had carried on regardless, they would have been totally without allies.
Thank you. Like I said, people dying--anywhere between 100,000 and several hundred thousand, depending on who you believe--as a direct result of people believing in and supporting lies.
Garbage in, garbage out, right, even in realms other than science. How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?
No no, we don't scramble for ways to shut her down. We patiently point out the fallacies, misunderstanding and clear lack of education and compassion the things she says and does. She, on the other hand, blames the "lamestream media" when she can't figure out how to answer questions like, "what news publications do you read?"
As a left-winger, I respect her right to speech, but I feel it's important that people understand that they simply can not take what she says as if it carries with it any sort of intellectual weight.
Want another example beyond the Couric interviews? At one point, she ridiculed a federal government program studying, in her words, "the mating habits of fruit flies". Anyone who has taken high school biology--or at least anyone who passed it--should understand that there's a species of fruit fly (drosophilia?) which, for reasons I don't recall completely, has led to incredible breakthroughs in our understanding of how DNA works.
Of course, she doesn't believe in evolution, so I guess it makes sense that she'd block information like that.
Ooooh, SNAP! And let's not forget, "Don't retreat, reload!" (+ rifle site iconography) in association with how to deal with politicians whose political views are in opposition to her own.
Opposition. Hah. Who am I fooling? "Democrat" is not the opposite of "Republican". Maybe in concept, but in execution, today's Democrats look pretty much like Republicans from 30 years ago, and they're terrified of going any further lest the be called names.
I do applaud Obama's success with HCR, but it could have gone further. Now that the GOP's taken over the house, it's not time to start conceding everything; not every GOP rep or plan is fundamentally flawed... respect those that deserve it, and differentiate where it's appropriate. I think that if Obama runs the next 18 months as if he's got no chance of being re-elected anyway and pursues what he knows is right with the same vigor with which he pursued HCR, we'll at least have some positive change. And it'll actually increase his odds of being elected, as he'll be able to point to meaningful victories rather than meaningless concession.
Yeah, that's a new trop practically invented by Fox News, at least in the context of a news show. Reporters doing interviews and actually saying, "people are saying X" without any sort of citation. Lest someone accuse me of doing the same, the movie "Outfoxed" contains dozens of clips that show them using this technique to distribute lies without having to take responsibility. Reprehensible.
I'm still kind of amazed that iTunes, Amazon and Pandora basically killed Napster. All those stupid lawsuits, Metallica going after the fans who had made them mega-millionaires, and a few well-executed business plans later, and the problem basically goes away. Sure, people still do torrents and the like, but the actual cost to the industry is smaller than the cost to our economy of people counterfeiting $1.00 bills.
Reminds me of a movie--can't remember the title--but there's a guy who says that he's got a brilliant business plan. "You know the 5-minute abs videos they sell on infomercials?", he asks, "Well, I'm going to make a video that shows you how to get hard abs in four minutes!" The person he's talking to says, "Well, what if someone decides to sell a video telling people how to get good abs in just three minutes?" The angry, incredulous response? "Three minutes? That's ridiculous! Everybody knows you need at least four minutes a day to get hard abs!"
Betamax survived as a pro format. Mooo hooo hahahahahah!
Joking aside, thanks for the clarification. My information was simply from seeing news crews around town with their cams, inscribed with the 'Beta' word and insignia.
Not at all. They made a phone that clearly shouldn't be out in the rain, so in rainy weather I keep it safely in a pocket and use my headphones and voice dial.
The other phones supplied rain covers, but since they break off with any level of use, they are actually just an illusion of protection; in real-world usage, they're no more useful than no covers at all.
With the iPhone, I don't have the ugly broken covers poking out on all sides; I wish there were a better option for keeping the phone well sealed while still maintaining convenient access to charging, headphones, etc, but for the moment I'm happy with the decision Apple made.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. This sort of silliness reminds me of when I got my first computer--a commodore 64--and people who didn't understand computers asked, "What's it good for? I've heard you can play games on it and use it for storing recipes, and that's about it."
I'd say that what you suffer from is a simple lack of imagination, but that doesn't cover it because there are a wide array of productivity applications, including content creation applications. So you don't need to imagine, just look and listen and you'll see that it's more than a content creation device.
Want to mix music? You can do it on a tablet. Want to edit photos or draw? You can do it on a tablet. Want to trade stocks on line? You can do it with a tablet. Want to prototype website layouts? You can do it with a tablet.
Would I do any significant amount of coding on a tablet? Write a novel? Use it as an SSH terminal for configuring a Linux server? Probably not. These things are much easier with a keyboard. But there are a brazillian things that can be done without a keyboard that are not merely 'content consumption'.
An easy-to-hold object with a touch-screen interface might not matter to someone who is only focused on typing, but for athletic coaches who want to quickly review player footage, there is a huge difference between what a touch screen can do and what a laptop and with a physical keyboard and mousepad held in one hand and operated with the other can do.
Fixed that for you.
Dude, just because you don't see the benefits doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't own an iPad because for my purposes, my laptop works great, but based on the GP's description of what he's doing, it sounds like an absolutely justifiable purchase.
We'll see. My bet is that for some content providers, the Apple in-app purchasers will be people who wouldn't have bought the service otherwise, so they're pure profit. Netflix will, however, continue to make gazillions of dollars from people like me who subscribed on the web, have a card on file, and have no need to ever invoke an in-app purchase to continue using the service. Unless 100% of customers move over to only doing in-app purchases, they don't need to raise the costs for everyone 30%; they probably won't need to raise prices at all.
Of course, time will tell. If enough developers balk, it'll harm the ecosystem. Apple's pushing the envelope, assuredly. But if it's not working, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they'll adjust it as necessary. There's one thing about fees: it's better to start high and work your way down than to go the other way. You start at 30% and go to 15%, and people breathe a huge sigh of relief. Start at 10% and go to 15% and everyone freeeeeaks out just like they're doing now with the introduction of any fees.
Apple thinks that they're adding significant value by allowing developers to leverage their iTunes billing system with 1-click ease. Are they really? If they are, then Apple *and* all the developers in question are going to end up with the fattest. wallets. ever.
Nope. Again, for existing customers, like me, Netflix has my card on file, it's an evergreen renewal until I choose to cancel, and Apple doesn't get one red cent for my ability to watch Netflix on my iPod Touch. Ever.
Actually unless the vendor is greedy, that should read "up to 30%" instead of "at least".
...if 10% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, and providing in-app purchasing actually increases the number of purchasers significantly, then the content vendor might determine that getting 70% of the additional purchases leaves them in a better position than they would be in if they raised their overall price to maintain the same average revenue per sale. Remember, this is digital content and the marginal cost per copy is a tiny fraction of a cent, so even if the additional option of in-app purchasing via Apple's system gives them a 3% bump in transactions against 7% of transactions moving from full price to -30%, that would be enough of a bump that it's in the vendor's best interest to just keep their prices as is.
If 100% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, then their costs are 30% higher and they'll need to pass that along to customers.
If 10% of a vendor's content purchasers go through Apple's system, then their costs are 3% higher and they could pass that along to customers. However...
Look at the numbers: Let's say you expect 100,000 customers to buy $6.00 worth of content over a year, that's be $600,000.00. If 7% move to the Apple purchase system and you lose 30% of their revenue, or a total of $12,600. If you also get a 3% bump in buyers, then 70% of their purchases equals $12,600 and everything is perfectly balanced.
As to whether or not Android will displace iOS, well, it seems to me that if it hasn't already, from a sheer numbers perspective, it already has. Whether that means anything is a different question. As long as the chicken-and-egg pairing of consumers and developers stick to iOS in high enough numbers--if one side flees, so will the other--then iOS devices will continue selling in solid numbers, and profits for Apple and for iOS developers will continue to be quite competitive with those for Android device manufacturers and developers.
everybody != many
Don't forget, Apple only requires that there be an option there, and that if the subscriber exists when they get the app, Apple doesn't expect a cut. I signed up for Netflix first and then downloaded the app much later. Under the terms as described, Apple won't get a cent of my subscription fee.
Sorry, I just had to go Godwin before anyone else did.
Dude. Overreact much?
I don't have a problem with the article; I just find it less than interesting.
Well, even as an Apple fan, I've got to admit that the only programs worse on Windows than the Office suite are Safari and iTunes. I'm amazed that ANYONE puts up with them.
I rarely have to curse at my Mac, but my Windows machine locks up regularly for minutes at a time, during which I sound like a freakin' truck driver.
Certainly a first-world problem. Boo hoo.
How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?
I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq, you have no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things you listed had not been believed by the general public.
Bullshit. At least in the UK the government would not have been able to justify invading Iraq to the British public without the wildly exaggerated WMD claims.
If America had carried on regardless, they would have been totally without allies.
Thank you. Like I said, people dying--anywhere between 100,000 and several hundred thousand, depending on who you believe--as a direct result of people believing in and supporting lies.
Zero indeed. Pshaw.
[Citation Needed]
And no, Fox News and/or Sarah Palin do not count as citations when it comes to objective analysis on the outcomes of HCR.
Garbage in, garbage out, right, even in realms other than science. How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?
No no, we don't scramble for ways to shut her down. We patiently point out the fallacies, misunderstanding and clear lack of education and compassion the things she says and does. She, on the other hand, blames the "lamestream media" when she can't figure out how to answer questions like, "what news publications do you read?"
As a left-winger, I respect her right to speech, but I feel it's important that people understand that they simply can not take what she says as if it carries with it any sort of intellectual weight.
Want another example beyond the Couric interviews? At one point, she ridiculed a federal government program studying, in her words, "the mating habits of fruit flies". Anyone who has taken high school biology--or at least anyone who passed it--should understand that there's a species of fruit fly (drosophilia?) which, for reasons I don't recall completely, has led to incredible breakthroughs in our understanding of how DNA works.
Of course, she doesn't believe in evolution, so I guess it makes sense that she'd block information like that.
Hell, there are plenty of people on this site who, when they have mod points, will use "-1 Troll" as a replacement for "I disagree".
Ooooh, SNAP! And let's not forget, "Don't retreat, reload!" (+ rifle site iconography) in association with how to deal with politicians whose political views are in opposition to her own.
Opposition. Hah. Who am I fooling? "Democrat" is not the opposite of "Republican". Maybe in concept, but in execution, today's Democrats look pretty much like Republicans from 30 years ago, and they're terrified of going any further lest the be called names.
I do applaud Obama's success with HCR, but it could have gone further. Now that the GOP's taken over the house, it's not time to start conceding everything; not every GOP rep or plan is fundamentally flawed... respect those that deserve it, and differentiate where it's appropriate. I think that if Obama runs the next 18 months as if he's got no chance of being re-elected anyway and pursues what he knows is right with the same vigor with which he pursued HCR, we'll at least have some positive change. And it'll actually increase his odds of being elected, as he'll be able to point to meaningful victories rather than meaningless concession.
[end soapbox]
Yeah, that's a new trop practically invented by Fox News, at least in the context of a news show. Reporters doing interviews and actually saying, "people are saying X" without any sort of citation. Lest someone accuse me of doing the same, the movie "Outfoxed" contains dozens of clips that show them using this technique to distribute lies without having to take responsibility. Reprehensible.
I was thinking "Stupid Peon" which has the same scansion and uses the same initial letters.
I'm still kind of amazed that iTunes, Amazon and Pandora basically killed Napster. All those stupid lawsuits, Metallica going after the fans who had made them mega-millionaires, and a few well-executed business plans later, and the problem basically goes away. Sure, people still do torrents and the like, but the actual cost to the industry is smaller than the cost to our economy of people counterfeiting $1.00 bills.
Reminds me of a movie--can't remember the title--but there's a guy who says that he's got a brilliant business plan. "You know the 5-minute abs videos they sell on infomercials?", he asks, "Well, I'm going to make a video that shows you how to get hard abs in four minutes!" The person he's talking to says, "Well, what if someone decides to sell a video telling people how to get good abs in just three minutes?" The angry, incredulous response? "Three minutes? That's ridiculous! Everybody knows you need at least four minutes a day to get hard abs!"
I wish people would stop repeating this.
Betamax survived as a pro format. Mooo hooo hahahahahah!
Joking aside, thanks for the clarification. My information was simply from seeing news crews around town with their cams, inscribed with the 'Beta' word and insignia.
Not at all. They made a phone that clearly shouldn't be out in the rain, so in rainy weather I keep it safely in a pocket and use my headphones and voice dial.
The other phones supplied rain covers, but since they break off with any level of use, they are actually just an illusion of protection; in real-world usage, they're no more useful than no covers at all.
With the iPhone, I don't have the ugly broken covers poking out on all sides; I wish there were a better option for keeping the phone well sealed while still maintaining convenient access to charging, headphones, etc, but for the moment I'm happy with the decision Apple made.