Everything that makes use of Google's maps service says "powered by Google maps" in the lower left corner (as required by their terms and conditions), that included Apple's previous maps application. But Google was asking for increased branding within the app, which Apple declined. Indeed, this would have damaged Apple's brand, and it's understandable that they chose to make their own Maps instead.
Obviously, Apple spent a lot of money on their new 3D global mapping system, which isn't included in this cost estimate. They've also spent money developing other aspects of the new version of iOS. And they spent money designing the new version of the phone, and it's updated hardware. Of course, they're going to sell so many of these it'll wipe out those costs pretty soon. Still, any new development is risky. Look at all the bad press they're getting over maps! If they have to pull it, it will be a complete loss. Contrary to popular belief, about half of the new products Apple releases are actually flops. But a flop costs as much to develop as a success. Fortunately, Apple is able to charge enough of a markup on their successful products to make up the difference.
While its easy to imagine that almost everything must be totally wrong, I've been using the maps app since the iOS 6 beta came out, and I haven't noticed any error during my day-to-day use in that time. Nor did I notice any errors when I was just exploring around places I'd been before using the 3D feature. Of course, I didn't notice the Washington Monument's placement, since they don't have Washington DC in 3D, so it might be the case they've been more careful with their 3D coverage.
It doesn't need a unique UI. When you get directions in maps, it will automatically guide you as you're driving.
The claim that they've fucked up the rest of Maps' functionality is largely overblown. I'm a developer, and I've been using the maps application since the beta was released to developers. I haven't even noticed any errors in it, let alone been inconvenienced by them. On the other hand, I've found the 3D maps useful for finding hiking trails, as strange as that sounds, because the image quality in the national parks is amazing and it's easy to pick out trails, even ones that aren't on any map.
Also, when I was using Google maps, I got burned more than once on their "unverified" listings. Many of the restaurants and small businesses they list are no longer in business. I had taken to calling the numbers listed to make sure the listings in google maps were legitimate. I haven't noticed that with Apple maps, because they get their listings from Yelp. Though maybe as it matures it will become a problem.
If I was using public transit, I may feel differently. But then again, I found the google maps public transit directions to be flawed when I did live in the city. I was always having to tweak the start and end location because the directions it gave me didn't let me choose how far I was willing to walk before I started/after I finished. Even so, I hope Apple does add it in the future.
As far as who is responsible, that's hardly relevant. The fact is that there's no excuse for a modern phone not to have built in, free turn by turn directions. Apple really didn't have a choice but to switch. From a business perspective, it was also unwise for them to have a core feature of the phone provided by a competitor. It would put them in a precarious situation whether or not they were on good terms with Google.
Because they devalue the Facebook brand. They call into question the authenticity of Facebook add clicks, and they pollute a users news feed with irrelevant information.
There is no content on facebook.
I don't know what you mean by that. There is plenty of content on Facebook. It has pictures of friends, notes, links to web articles, events, company information and lots of other content, much of it is original content as well.
What do you get out of it?
It lets my friends share things with me without actively working to share them with me specifically. All they do is post it to Facebook, and I can see what they posted. It's incredibly useful for staying in touch with friends who live in other parts of the country or world, but it's also useful for sending invitations to events and sharing photos with my friends who are nearby.
No, you sit there and look at stupid fucking crap from people you might know, and run around the internet clicking like on shit because you are a sheep trained to peck at a button for pointless rewards.
It's largely up to the individual user how they use the site. I would suggest that simply because you see no value in it doesn't mean that it is useless for everyone.
I got a similar request asking if one of my female Facebook friends was really female. It's a strange question too, because she's not the kind of person you'd expect this question for. She's always posting pictures of cupcakes from Pinterest and pictures of her nephew and things like that. I wish I'd taken a screenshot of it, it was a lot like this question. I responded in the affirmative because I didn't see what kind of harm it could do. I've never heard of someone getting kicked out of Facebook for listing inaccurate personal information or anything like that.
I can understand why they'd want to get rid of "fake" users. I don't think their interest is in eliminating pseudonymity, but rather in eliminating spammers. I think they're thinking if they show you something like this for something they suspect is a fake account, it will you cause you to question whether or not you really know the person and to report them as a spammer if you don't know them. I'm thinking of those friend requests I get with pictures of attractive looking women I've never met. If you accidentally accepted one you may be unwittingly letting spammers abuse Facebook's system, so I can defiantly see why they'd want to get rid of those accounts.
Unlike some people, I don't feel compelled to parrot spacex.com
. ..Or look up any information of any kind. ..ever. You only seem compelled to pull information directly out of your ass. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it certainly doesn't give you good odds on being right. This is an ad-homonym attack at best.
Somebody need to get Lockheed & NASA to go through their spam folder to find the SpaceX memo, because they are obviously misguided in developing Orion/SLS when SpaceX is going to kick their ass.
I'd assume they know that already. That's why congress had to write a law forcing them to develop SLS.
BTW, I'm picking up my $40k Corvette ZR1 this weekend. Not waiting for the $120k SRT Viper (pffft, ripoff).
Sure, because it's literally impossible to make a car for much less than $120,000. I get it. No one makes a decent car you can buy for $54,000. You can only buy cars for $138,000. Because that's just how it is and you don't need any proof to the contrary. You just "know" because you're not just a mindless automaton who needs to do "research" or look up "facts" and "figures." You go from your gut.
The engine for instance, do they have a casting and forging facility to build the fuel pumps and valves? Do they build their own integrated circuits that goes into the control computers? Do they build their own sensors and servos from a delivery of beach sand and metal ingots? All these components come from subcontractors.
No, they don't. Those parts are purchased from vendors the same way you or I might purchase a valve or some screws from a hardware store.
Space X buys what they can "off the shelf". They make whatever else they can, and the subcontract out the rest. If you can't trust them about their business model, who can you trust?! You're basically speculating about how things must be with no guiding principle other than "their rockets must be more expensive than they claim."
Now II don't see Lockheed, Boeing, Arianespace exiting the launch business do you?
SpaceX has been winning contracts left and right. Of course, they've only ever launched 3 Falcon 9 rockets, and their capacity is still increasing to meet demand, so if you need something launched in the next few years you can't use SpaceX (they're all booked up). But in the future, if SpaceX is able to ramp up production and get a reasonable success rate with their rockets they most certainly will put all the other launchers out of business.
You are wrong about the subcontractors. Space X makes relatively little use of subcontractors compared to other aerospace companies.
In order to control quality and costs, SpaceX designs, tests and fabricates the majority of its components in-house, including the Merlin, Kestrel, and Draco rocket engines used on the Falcon launch vehicles and the Dragon spacecraft.
Besides, would you tell me that no-one could build a car for 1/3 the amount of a Mercedes Benz? The cheapest car they make is $35,350!
SpaceX quotes their launch price for the Falcon 9 at $54 Million. All the sources I can find for the Atlas V put the launch cost at $138 Million. Though I couldn't find a price listed on their website, which is really understandable if you think about it.
It's extremely unlikely this $300 B number represents all the targeted advertising companies and all their clients. There are very few companies that don't do some form of targeted advertising. If you were to add up the revenue of all the companies that use targeted advertising, it'd be tens of trillions of dollars.
No, a energy transfer can be measured in joules. Take heat of combustion for example. It is usually measured in J/mol or J/kg. You couldn't possibly measure it in watts because you have no idea how long combustion takes to occur. Nevertheless it is a transfer of energy:
The heat of combustion is the energy released as heat when a compound undergoes complete combustion with oxygen under standard conditions.
In reality, this argument is not really about whatever common definitions physicists use. It is a philosophical one. There is little reason to consider how much energy may exist in a system unless such energy is available to use. That being true, any meaningful use of the term "heat" will refer to it in the context of transferring it from one body to another, so there is little reason to define heat in any other context.
As a chemical engineer, I find your claim that most physicists use your definition appalling, given the amount of training in thermodynamics you must have had. In any case, all the authoritative sources I've consulted have agreed with my definition.
Why the fuck are companies allowed to take public funds to build private profit?
Because people who have a stake in what they're building have an incentive to do it right. For example, compare the cost a Falcon 9 launch to an Atlas V. Both were developed and built with public funds (admittedly, only a portion of Falcon 9 was publicly funded) and have similar capabilities, yet Falcon 9 costs 1/3 as much to build and launch. With no profit motive, ULA has no reason to look for ways to control costs with the Atlas 5. In fact, the more ULA spends, the more they make.
Apple doesn't really have a patent on "pinch to zoom," there was prior art for that. They have a patent relating to continuing a multi-touch event (which includes a zoom event in it's example), but was not a part of this case. I can see how double-tap to zoom could be considered a functional patent, but it's not required to make a functional device. Really, this case blurs the line between what's functional and what's decorative. With Apple clearly spinning it as decorative and Samsung not disagreeing, the court apparently saw no reason to disagree either.
In fact, if you look at it that way, the result was a foregone conclusion. Samsung was clearly trying to pursue a design that mimicked the iPhone, they even turned over internal documents indicating that during the discovery process. Samsung was essentially trying to convince the jury that design shouldn't be patentable (hence their rounded rectangle argument). The jury apparently did feel trade dress should be protected, and even it they hadn't they may well have found it wasn't their place to overturn hundreds of years of legal precedent.
Apple does not build LTE chips, they purchase them and then install them in their devices. Apple says that royalties are paid by the chip manufacturer (and they are) so it's not necessary for Apple to pay as well.
As for the claim that "every other manufacturer" pays, that is yet to be seen. Apple has begun the discovery process to determine what, if any, fees it's competitors are required to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe there is any requirement for soil to contain organic remains.
It's called soil. Dirt is the stuff stuck on the bottom of your shoes.
Everything that makes use of Google's maps service says "powered by Google maps" in the lower left corner (as required by their terms and conditions), that included Apple's previous maps application. But Google was asking for increased branding within the app, which Apple declined. Indeed, this would have damaged Apple's brand, and it's understandable that they chose to make their own Maps instead.
You don't think Google and Apple have competing products?
I don't know. Would it be bad for CocaCola to advertise Pepsi products on their cans?
I'm getting hungry just reading about it.
Obviously, Apple spent a lot of money on their new 3D global mapping system, which isn't included in this cost estimate. They've also spent money developing other aspects of the new version of iOS. And they spent money designing the new version of the phone, and it's updated hardware. Of course, they're going to sell so many of these it'll wipe out those costs pretty soon. Still, any new development is risky. Look at all the bad press they're getting over maps! If they have to pull it, it will be a complete loss. Contrary to popular belief, about half of the new products Apple releases are actually flops. But a flop costs as much to develop as a success. Fortunately, Apple is able to charge enough of a markup on their successful products to make up the difference.
Really?! Where do you live?
While its easy to imagine that almost everything must be totally wrong, I've been using the maps app since the iOS 6 beta came out, and I haven't noticed any error during my day-to-day use in that time. Nor did I notice any errors when I was just exploring around places I'd been before using the 3D feature. Of course, I didn't notice the Washington Monument's placement, since they don't have Washington DC in 3D, so it might be the case they've been more careful with their 3D coverage.
It doesn't need a unique UI. When you get directions in maps, it will automatically guide you as you're driving.
The claim that they've fucked up the rest of Maps' functionality is largely overblown. I'm a developer, and I've been using the maps application since the beta was released to developers. I haven't even noticed any errors in it, let alone been inconvenienced by them. On the other hand, I've found the 3D maps useful for finding hiking trails, as strange as that sounds, because the image quality in the national parks is amazing and it's easy to pick out trails, even ones that aren't on any map.
Also, when I was using Google maps, I got burned more than once on their "unverified" listings. Many of the restaurants and small businesses they list are no longer in business. I had taken to calling the numbers listed to make sure the listings in google maps were legitimate. I haven't noticed that with Apple maps, because they get their listings from Yelp. Though maybe as it matures it will become a problem.
If I was using public transit, I may feel differently. But then again, I found the google maps public transit directions to be flawed when I did live in the city. I was always having to tweak the start and end location because the directions it gave me didn't let me choose how far I was willing to walk before I started/after I finished. Even so, I hope Apple does add it in the future.
As far as who is responsible, that's hardly relevant. The fact is that there's no excuse for a modern phone not to have built in, free turn by turn directions. Apple really didn't have a choice but to switch. From a business perspective, it was also unwise for them to have a core feature of the phone provided by a competitor. It would put them in a precarious situation whether or not they were on good terms with Google.
I just searched for those two places, and it gave me the right locations. Maybe this is a problem that's not as hard to fix as you think?
Google maps for iPhone doesn't have turn by turn directions. Apple couldn't afford not to have that feature. It's as simple as that.
Because they devalue the Facebook brand. They call into question the authenticity of Facebook add clicks, and they pollute a users news feed with irrelevant information.
I don't know what you mean by that. There is plenty of content on Facebook. It has pictures of friends, notes, links to web articles, events, company information and lots of other content, much of it is original content as well.
It lets my friends share things with me without actively working to share them with me specifically. All they do is post it to Facebook, and I can see what they posted. It's incredibly useful for staying in touch with friends who live in other parts of the country or world, but it's also useful for sending invitations to events and sharing photos with my friends who are nearby.
It's largely up to the individual user how they use the site. I would suggest that simply because you see no value in it doesn't mean that it is useless for everyone.
I'm pretty sure that in russia it goes up to 140%
I got a similar request asking if one of my female Facebook friends was really female. It's a strange question too, because she's not the kind of person you'd expect this question for. She's always posting pictures of cupcakes from Pinterest and pictures of her nephew and things like that. I wish I'd taken a screenshot of it, it was a lot like this question. I responded in the affirmative because I didn't see what kind of harm it could do. I've never heard of someone getting kicked out of Facebook for listing inaccurate personal information or anything like that.
I can understand why they'd want to get rid of "fake" users. I don't think their interest is in eliminating pseudonymity, but rather in eliminating spammers. I think they're thinking if they show you something like this for something they suspect is a fake account, it will you cause you to question whether or not you really know the person and to report them as a spammer if you don't know them. I'm thinking of those friend requests I get with pictures of attractive looking women I've never met. If you accidentally accepted one you may be unwittingly letting spammers abuse Facebook's system, so I can defiantly see why they'd want to get rid of those accounts.
. . .Or look up any information of any kind. . .ever. You only seem compelled to pull information directly out of your ass. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it certainly doesn't give you good odds on being right. This is an ad-homonym attack at best.
I'd assume they know that already. That's why congress had to write a law forcing them to develop SLS.
Sure, because it's literally impossible to make a car for much less than $120,000. I get it. No one makes a decent car you can buy for $54,000. You can only buy cars for $138,000. Because that's just how it is and you don't need any proof to the contrary. You just "know" because you're not just a mindless automaton who needs to do "research" or look up "facts" and "figures." You go from your gut.
No, they don't. Those parts are purchased from vendors the same way you or I might purchase a valve or some screws from a hardware store.
Space X buys what they can "off the shelf". They make whatever else they can, and the subcontract out the rest. If you can't trust them about their business model, who can you trust?! You're basically speculating about how things must be with no guiding principle other than "their rockets must be more expensive than they claim."
SpaceX has been winning contracts left and right. Of course, they've only ever launched 3 Falcon 9 rockets, and their capacity is still increasing to meet demand, so if you need something launched in the next few years you can't use SpaceX (they're all booked up). But in the future, if SpaceX is able to ramp up production and get a reasonable success rate with their rockets they most certainly will put all the other launchers out of business.
You are wrong about the subcontractors. Space X makes relatively little use of subcontractors compared to other aerospace companies.
Besides, would you tell me that no-one could build a car for 1/3 the amount of a Mercedes Benz? The cheapest car they make is $35,350!
SpaceX quotes their launch price for the Falcon 9 at $54 Million. All the sources I can find for the Atlas V put the launch cost at $138 Million. Though I couldn't find a price listed on their website, which is really understandable if you think about it.
It's extremely unlikely this $300 B number represents all the targeted advertising companies and all their clients. There are very few companies that don't do some form of targeted advertising. If you were to add up the revenue of all the companies that use targeted advertising, it'd be tens of trillions of dollars.
The RD-180 engines have been driving up the costs lately. They've been getting more expensive in order to compensate for lower volume.
No, a energy transfer can be measured in joules. Take heat of combustion for example. It is usually measured in J/mol or J/kg. You couldn't possibly measure it in watts because you have no idea how long combustion takes to occur. Nevertheless it is a transfer of energy:
In reality, this argument is not really about whatever common definitions physicists use. It is a philosophical one. There is little reason to consider how much energy may exist in a system unless such energy is available to use. That being true, any meaningful use of the term "heat" will refer to it in the context of transferring it from one body to another, so there is little reason to define heat in any other context.
As a chemical engineer, I find your claim that most physicists use your definition appalling, given the amount of training in thermodynamics you must have had. In any case, all the authoritative sources I've consulted have agreed with my definition.
Because people who have a stake in what they're building have an incentive to do it right. For example, compare the cost a Falcon 9 launch to an Atlas V. Both were developed and built with public funds (admittedly, only a portion of Falcon 9 was publicly funded) and have similar capabilities, yet Falcon 9 costs 1/3 as much to build and launch. With no profit motive, ULA has no reason to look for ways to control costs with the Atlas 5. In fact, the more ULA spends, the more they make.
Apple doesn't really have a patent on "pinch to zoom," there was prior art for that. They have a patent relating to continuing a multi-touch event (which includes a zoom event in it's example), but was not a part of this case. I can see how double-tap to zoom could be considered a functional patent, but it's not required to make a functional device. Really, this case blurs the line between what's functional and what's decorative. With Apple clearly spinning it as decorative and Samsung not disagreeing, the court apparently saw no reason to disagree either.
In fact, if you look at it that way, the result was a foregone conclusion. Samsung was clearly trying to pursue a design that mimicked the iPhone, they even turned over internal documents indicating that during the discovery process. Samsung was essentially trying to convince the jury that design shouldn't be patentable (hence their rounded rectangle argument). The jury apparently did feel trade dress should be protected, and even it they hadn't they may well have found it wasn't their place to overturn hundreds of years of legal precedent.
Apple does not build LTE chips, they purchase them and then install them in their devices. Apple says that royalties are paid by the chip manufacturer (and they are) so it's not necessary for Apple to pay as well.
As for the claim that "every other manufacturer" pays, that is yet to be seen. Apple has begun the discovery process to determine what, if any, fees it's competitors are required to pay.