I know Microsoft has alot of apologists but this is amazing.
Investors did not agree with the deal and the chickens are coming home to roost. EVERYONE knew the deal was bad.
1. No Windows phone for ONE YEAR. No product in one year is a lifetime in the smartphone market.
2. Killed off Symbian. Their existing lines of phones were selling. Their customer base starting jumping ship since those phones were being killed off for Windows phones that were yet to be seen.
Every analyst knew the timeline was extremely bad for Nokia. Nokia could have survived had they not made the deal and worked on their own products.
No that was the assessment of Wall Street Investors after the announcement of Nokia's deal with Microsoft. Their assessment was correct. You're just an ass.
What you actually meant to say is we need competition from more than two companies. Whether or not MS succeeds is irrelevant. The fact that Google could emerge as power player late in the mobile market is an example that other companies can compete.
Think again. Investors punished Nokia after the announcement of the Microsoft deal. Their stock took a massive hit. Then it took them ONE YEAR to bring a Windows phone to market and in the meantime they killed off their Symbian product.
All this was in direct relation to the Microsoft deal.
Which amounts to the same thing genius. It takes one update to break something and if you need an update to keep your device working properly you are going to update it. But yeah blame the consumer.
And what dip shits like you fail to understand is those updates may be necessary to keep the iPad device working properly. There in lies the problem. Given that no injunction has been issued preventing Apple from selling the app, Apple has no compelling reason for removing the app.
Except the company needs to ask for an injunction in order to legally prevent Apple from selling the app. Until then it's he says she says and as we have seen with Apple's other lawsuits, simply saying Samsung infringes on patents is not enough to stop them from selling their product a court would have to issue an injunction prevent Samsung from selling its products IF they believe Apple's claims have merit.
Way to be a douche bad and miss the big picture. No injunction has be issued baring Apple from selling the app. Until an injunction has been issued by the court Apple can tell PRC/SCS to fuck off.
I see so for an American to get an a job in America they should go to India and attend an Indian University in order to come back to American and get a job in America. Been a douche bag long have we.....
But they are temporary contract workers! If they were asking for more Green Cards allowing these people to become citizens then you have a point. Otherwise, it is just low wage slave workers.
Not at all. They can't compete. A job description can be written in such a way so that the person hired would only be an H-1B visa. Not too mention since they are contract workers there are no benefits to pay.
So basically you just pulled that out of your ass because there is no such thing as trickle down. What you are talking about is taxes. Some argue for low tax rates and some argue for high tax rates. Low and high are relative. The thing is, taxes are not an impediment to growth. Demand is. If there is no demand, no mater how low taxes are, you will not see growth. Eisenhower had the highest taxes and the economy grew. Clinton had higher taxes than today and the economy grew. Today the top 1% have the lowest taxes in history and have had low tax rates for 10 years and we have seen zero growth. Why? Demand. The majority of Americans have had flat wages and high unemployment, which means less Americans are buying. This means slow growth.
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
That's the point. Who are the "competitors" that aren't contributing.
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
He's saying that other don't do R&D. Which is curious, considering the amount of R&D that went into Android and how little Android needs Intel.
Slashdot Mirror
I know Microsoft has alot of apologists but this is amazing.
Investors did not agree with the deal and the chickens are coming home to roost. EVERYONE knew the deal was bad.
1. No Windows phone for ONE YEAR. No product in one year is a lifetime in the smartphone market. 2. Killed off Symbian. Their existing lines of phones were selling. Their customer base starting jumping ship since those phones were being killed off for Windows phones that were yet to be seen.
Every analyst knew the timeline was extremely bad for Nokia. Nokia could have survived had they not made the deal and worked on their own products.
No that was the assessment of Wall Street Investors after the announcement of Nokia's deal with Microsoft. Their assessment was correct. You're just an ass.
I love how you don't include RIM.
What you actually meant to say is we need competition from more than two companies. Whether or not MS succeeds is irrelevant. The fact that Google could emerge as power player late in the mobile market is an example that other companies can compete.
Think again. Investors punished Nokia after the announcement of the Microsoft deal. Their stock took a massive hit. Then it took them ONE YEAR to bring a Windows phone to market and in the meantime they killed off their Symbian product.
All this was in direct relation to the Microsoft deal.
Well it came out of your hole, so what does that make you...
Which amounts to the same thing genius. It takes one update to break something and if you need an update to keep your device working properly you are going to update it. But yeah blame the consumer.
And what dip shits like you fail to understand is those updates may be necessary to keep the iPad device working properly. There in lies the problem. Given that no injunction has been issued preventing Apple from selling the app, Apple has no compelling reason for removing the app.
Except the company needs to ask for an injunction in order to legally prevent Apple from selling the app. Until then it's he says she says and as we have seen with Apple's other lawsuits, simply saying Samsung infringes on patents is not enough to stop them from selling their product a court would have to issue an injunction prevent Samsung from selling its products IF they believe Apple's claims have merit.
See how that works....
And Apple could keep selling the app legally until the court issues an injunction.....see how that works....
Yeah optional unless it fixes a problem and software problems NEVER happen *eye roll*....
Seriously. Everyone should do what you do. What a wonderful world you live in....
Way to be a douche bad and miss the big picture. No injunction has be issued baring Apple from selling the app. Until an injunction has been issued by the court Apple can tell PRC/SCS to fuck off.
Yeah because OS software updates never break software *eye roll*
I see so for an American to get an a job in America they should go to India and attend an Indian University in order to come back to American and get a job in America. Been a douche bag long have we.....
But they are temporary contract workers! If they were asking for more Green Cards allowing these people to become citizens then you have a point. Otherwise, it is just low wage slave workers.
Not at all. They can't compete. A job description can be written in such a way so that the person hired would only be an H-1B visa. Not too mention since they are contract workers there are no benefits to pay.
And you're too much of a fucking coward so you have to post anonymously. Nicely done douche bad.
Oh Snap!
So basically you just pulled that out of your ass because there is no such thing as trickle down. What you are talking about is taxes. Some argue for low tax rates and some argue for high tax rates. Low and high are relative. The thing is, taxes are not an impediment to growth. Demand is. If there is no demand, no mater how low taxes are, you will not see growth. Eisenhower had the highest taxes and the economy grew. Clinton had higher taxes than today and the economy grew. Today the top 1% have the lowest taxes in history and have had low tax rates for 10 years and we have seen zero growth. Why? Demand. The majority of Americans have had flat wages and high unemployment, which means less Americans are buying. This means slow growth.
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
That's the point. Who are the "competitors" that aren't contributing.
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
The summary was correct. Read it again.
Not in the smartphone market, where Intel is irrelevant.
In the cell phone market? I think not.
Here's the quote:
'In cases where it's not required to be open source, I'm going to think about it. I don't like doing R&D for competitors if they're not going to contribute themselves,'
He's saying that other don't do R&D. Which is curious, considering the amount of R&D that went into Android and how little Android needs Intel.
And yet they use an open source product to promote their products.....so what Microsoft not working out for you Intel.......