If you had read the links, you'd see that HP combines the printer financial statement line as printers, paper, ink, etc. So no idea how much they actually make on printers (ie semiconductors) vs other things.
Apple is larger than HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, HTC, RIM, etc. And not by just a little bit either.
Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot. Think how many phone models/tablet models HTC sells. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.
a) I said most, so why would you say all? b) Not sure you understand what an iPad is. It is a mobile phone, from an RF point of view. See your first sentence.
Huge gap? Not really. You don't know what the limits really are
Go get a good testing device. Get drunk to 0.11%. You'll have trouble finding your keys. It's scary, and why most states moved the limit down to 0.08%.
Bullshit on this: " The simple and quite honestly undeniable fact that some common electronic devices might interfere with the navigational systems of some planes...the risk inherent in using any wireless device on any is unacceptable."
More than 100,000 people per year die world wide in car crashes and we accept that risk just fine. The world is full of risk, and we all deal with it and accept it every day.
Until anyone can prove (ie test and verify) that there are ANY actual negative effects, and consequences from those effects, then there's no reason to stop using PEDs. As I've pointed out elsewhere, they don't need to test for every combination of plane & PED. Just start with one, ie a 747 with 500 iPhones, and use it as a baseline, then move forward testing other scenarios. They just need to get some damn facts. But the fact is that no plane yet has had an accident directly or indirectly attributed to PEDs, and they're running on every flight, of every plane, around the world. In other words, PASSENGERS ARE ALREADY DOING THIS TESTING AND ITS SHOWING NO INTERFERENCE ON 10,000+ FLIGHTS EVERY DAY, WITH EVERY TYPE OF PLANE AND EVERY TYPE OF PED.
Painting a plane weighs a few hundred pounds. It does not need to be taken into consideration on a 300,000 lb plane.
They do not remove the paint if "too much accumulates" while painting. Heck, they can put two full layers on before operational efficiency is impacted.
So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane. Heck, put all the currently shipping PED's on the plane and get actual proof one way or another. Or fill a plane with people, giving every person the highest radiative device currently shipping, and see if there's any interference. They don't have to do EVERY plane. But how about start with ONE plane, at a maximum conditions for PED radiation.
But when they only have anecdotal evidence - from the head of Boeing - it just comes off as FUD. It's not like Boeing does any other testing...
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok. Apple gets about $600 for every iPhone sold.
If you had read the links, you'd see that HP combines the printer financial statement line as printers, paper, ink, etc. So no idea how much they actually make on printers (ie semiconductors) vs other things.
I guess they weren't allowed on planes :-)
Go look at the actual numbers. I've posted them above.
BTW, there are a LOT more consumers buying computers than there are data centers buying computers.
You might want to go look at the actual numbers. And by the way, most ipods are computing devices - they run the same OS as the iPhone/iPad.
Apple - PCs,iPods, iPads, iPhones - $20Billion
HP - Servers&Network, PCs - $15Billion
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q211data_sum.pdf
http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1564466&highlight=
Compare last quarter's hardware sales of Apple vs HP:
Apple - PCs,iPods, iPads, iPhones - $20Billion
HP - Servers&Network, PCs, Printers - $21Billion
But really, the printer part includes software, paper, etc.
HP's hardware revenues are going down, Apple's are going up. Guess where it will be next quarter?
I didn't say revenue.
Count the number of iPhones/iPads/laptops/desktops that Apple sells - about 35M units.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q211data_sum.pdf
Count the number of tablets/laptops/desktops/servers that HP sells - about 25M units.
You're comparing wrong.
Apple is larger than HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, HTC, RIM, etc. And not by just a little bit either.
Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.
Think how many phone models/tablet models HTC sells. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.
You're going to have to justify this.
The pilot having an iPad does not mean I can turn on my mobile during the flight.
Even in airplane mode, it still has power running though it which can send out RF signals, especially when right next to the instrumentation.
a) I said most, so why would you say all?
b) Not sure you understand what an iPad is. It is a mobile phone, from an RF point of view. See your first sentence.
.11% used to be legally drunk (over .10) which is why I used it, and as an example of why they lowered it. You are drunk at that point.
You're only reading the charts that tell you that. Try it in real life.
Go get drunk to 0.11%. See if you'd feel safe driving a car.
Huge gap? Not really. You don't know what the limits really are
Go get a good testing device. Get drunk to 0.11%. You'll have trouble finding your keys. It's scary, and why most states moved the limit down to 0.08%.
For a 15,000 lb fighter it does matter, but not so much for a 300,000+ commercial jet. The percentages are *slightly* different.
Bullshit.
Bullshit on this: " The simple and quite honestly undeniable fact that some common electronic devices might interfere with the navigational systems of some planes...the risk inherent in using any wireless device on any is unacceptable."
More than 100,000 people per year die world wide in car crashes and we accept that risk just fine. The world is full of risk, and we all deal with it and accept it every day.
Until anyone can prove (ie test and verify) that there are ANY actual negative effects, and consequences from those effects, then there's no reason to stop using PEDs. As I've pointed out elsewhere, they don't need to test for every combination of plane & PED. Just start with one, ie a 747 with 500 iPhones, and use it as a baseline, then move forward testing other scenarios. They just need to get some damn facts. But the fact is that no plane yet has had an accident directly or indirectly attributed to PEDs, and they're running on every flight, of every plane, around the world. In other words, PASSENGERS ARE ALREADY DOING THIS TESTING AND ITS SHOWING NO INTERFERENCE ON 10,000+ FLIGHTS EVERY DAY, WITH EVERY TYPE OF PLANE AND EVERY TYPE OF PED.
Actually test the configuration.
At least then you'll have a data point.
Stop it with the what-ifs and do something. It won't prove everything, but it will show something.
So?
Get 10 each of the top 100 most popular PEDs.
Put them in a 747. Call it a baseline.
Now test it, see where it is and move forward. Instead of whining about what-ifs, actually start down the road of knowing if there are any effects.
How about a 747 with 500 iPhones. Call it the baseline.
Now test it, see where it is and move forward. Instead of whining about what-ifs, actually start down the road of knowing if there are any effects.
Not for weight-and-balance considerations, which was what I was refuting.
You have a valid point though. They also look at it in terms of cost of marketing. See Southwest's fully painted planes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#Special_Liveries
So require the pilots of commercial planes to have no electronic devices. They sit next to most of the equipment anyway.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/faa_approval_ipad_jeppesen_paper_chart_replacement_204145-1.html
How about they actually test one damn plane, instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.
There's no way the cost of testing electrical devices inside a plane is more than the cost of failure testing of a plane.
I'm sure hoping that planes are designed with a FEW more electrical considerations that a tickle me elmo doll. So that stuff like that DOESN'T happen.
Painting a plane weighs a few hundred pounds. It does not need to be taken into consideration on a 300,000 lb plane.
They do not remove the paint if "too much accumulates" while painting. Heck, they can put two full layers on before operational efficiency is impacted.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html
So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane. Heck, put all the currently shipping PED's on the plane and get actual proof one way or another. Or fill a plane with people, giving every person the highest radiative device currently shipping, and see if there's any interference. They don't have to do EVERY plane. But how about start with ONE plane, at a maximum conditions for PED radiation.
But when they only have anecdotal evidence - from the head of Boeing - it just comes off as FUD.
It's not like Boeing does any other testing...
Or Bill Gates:
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=528
"Existing cedar tree was determined by Gates to be in the wrong location and moved 6 inches."