The ads have to be relevant to some, and not all, people for google to make money out of you. Google is not interested in individuals, they are interested in having eyeballs of which they converts a small proportion into clicks on the ads.
Not that I am claiming that the Martin/Zimmerman case had anything to do with racism, but Zimmerman being Hispanic does not preclude him from being racist. There is a suggestion that he racially profiled a young man he had not met before, followed based on his hunch, and that hunch may have been rather racist.
First, they have $120bn in the bank, which they absolutely control. So you can knock that off their valuation.
Secondly, they are on an annual run rate of approximately 50bn in profits right now. They are adding 50bn to their bank every year. And sales are increasing, of all of their products except for the iPod range (which is completely understandable).
They are also one of the, if not _the_ best run large company in the world. They have a management team that demands responsibility, unlike for example, Microsoft. Their whole team is pulling in the same direction. That $120bn not only gives them the ability to take risks other companies just can't think of taking, if gives them the ability to launch products in a way that most other companies can only dream of. The speed from product announcement to widespread availability is unmatched, and maybe unmatchable.
Apple might be slightly overvalued, but no where near 3 times overvalued. Certainly not when their 3 main products are still growth products.
Unless you can prove that they are completely different, then you are just mistaken.
Microsoft provides windows 8 in different flavours. Does that make them different operating systems because some APIs and features are not available in the base edition?
I think he understands very well what non-discriminatory menas. What you are describing in the second sentence is the textbook definition of discrimination. Yes, that is what is not allowed. Companies may try tricks to get around it but essentially, everyone who licenses the patent should pay the same amount,volume discounts and the like notwithstanding.
Firstly, many patents are not essential in the sense that it couldn't be done without them. Wifi could have been done without Motorola's patent. Motorola just happened to have patented a method that works, and this was included in the standard.
I (sort of) agree that reasonable is difficult to clearly define. But I think everyone can agree that asking for 2.25% is not reasonable because if other patent holders ask for the same, then more than 100% of the price of the product would go to the wifi patent holders. That's before we start thinking of other patents. And it is also unreasonable because the more patented technology you add to the product, the less realistic it becomes. So if Microsoft had to pay for the wifi patents, in addition to 3G and 4G patents, touch screen patents, USB patents, compression patents and so on, it would make any product impossible.
Secondly, non-discriminatory means no discrimination. Everyone pays the same amount. Anything other than offering the same license terms to everyone is discriminatory by definition. Cross-licensing discriminates against those without any patents (e.g. startups).
Google has a lot to lose by pursuing this, and I am no Microsoft fan.
That is a _stupid_ way to measure the value of a feature. I could counter that without a screen, surface would be worth precisely nothing. Or without the flash storage. O h.264 codecs. So basically, without those features, you would have to pay me to accept the surface.
Cooking just allows us to be able to eat more types of food. We haven't half moved most of our digestive system into technology. We just process (i.e. cook) food that the body would find difficult to process by itself. Like raw meat. I am sure we can still digest raw meat, but rather inefficiently, and with great risk to our health.
We still pretty much have the same digestive processes we did millenia ago.
As soon as Apple does this, another poster will be on Slashdot claiming that Apple is using its financial muscle to suppress a small German game developer who is trying to assert their IP rights.
What would you rather have, Large companies intruding on IP cases between third parties in a way that serves their own purposes, or having said large companies staying out of it and letting the smaller companies duke it out. Make no mistake, Apple will only deploy their resources if they believe it serves their own goals, and I am not sure I am comfortable with companies using their $100bn+ war chests to trample on much smaller companies.
I guess it's a question of which devil you prefer.
A percentage of a device is discriminatory. If Microsoft, or Apple, wants to create a gold plated diamond encrusted phone that would retail for hundred of thousands, why should they have to give 2.25% of hundreds of thousands to license a patent on a wifi part?
Manufacturers other than Apple. Apple is sitting on crazy margins, and the can afford a small hike in component prices. Companies who are racing to the bottom, not so much. This is why Apple will have a 10% market share in smartphones in the future, and still be making more money than the rest of the industry combined.
Regular users just want something with reasonable storage space, and don't buy additional storage space. Even when they have micro-SD car slots on their devices, buyers of Android phones do not buy additional storage space.
Keynesianism makes sense. There are times when you need to short circuit the economy to get it moving again. The government needs to put money into people's hands, and rather than just handing it out, why not spend on some infrastructure projects to achieve the upgrading of critical national infrastructure and to get money in people's hands so they can spend.
Of course, there are limits to how much of it you must do before it becomes damaging, but you could say the same about anything really. They key is to make sure that you bank some in the good years (paying down the debt) so that in the bad times, you have good headroom to be able to stimulate the economy.
Guess what the Republicans did during the boom years? The Republican party is not the party of the responsible! They are the party of the tough talkers though!
iPad mini is estimated to have sold 1.5m in the first weekend. It appears Apple has redefined success. Anyone else sells that amount, it is an unqualified success. If it's Apple it's meh.
The $33bn number is "old news". Apple made $41bn in their just ended fiscal year. They are still seeing growth in 3 of their 4 main product lines (iPods are understandably seeing negative growth). Their product mix is still high value and high margin. I frankly do not see them taking an axe to their margins for market share. The bottom line is they sell in the high end of the market, where people spend money (App Store revenues are still ahead of Google Market/Google Play revenues), even with a much diminished market share/install base.
Yup. Let's all ignore Apple's real advantages here. That you get 275,000 apps that work ono the iPad mini. Or that the Nexus 7 that costs $199 is actually the 8GB version.
Oh, and lets just pretend that the bigger and more expensive iPad is not outselling the Nexus 7 right now, with a much larger price differential.
It's amazing how much iPhone buyers are accused of this. And some of hte intellectual gymnastics that must be performed to prove this are actually impressive.
Apple brings out an iPhone 3G, then a basically identical 3GS a year later. Oh, Apple fans are going to be so disappointed because the new one is so much like the old one. They will buy it anyway.
Apple brings out iPhone 4. Apple fanboys are going to be all over that bad boy because they love to be seen with the latest and greatest.
Apple brings out the iPhone 4S. Oh, Apple fans are going to be so disappointed because the new one is so much like the old one. They will buy it anyway.
Apple brings out the iPhone 5. Apple fanboys are going to be all over that bad boy because they love to be seen with the latest and greatest.
Fact is most iPhone sales are made to new buyers, or those upgrading at the end of their contracts.
And they don't get iPhones then. That is such a narrow use case that the market is not worth pandering to for the likes of Samsung, Apple and even RIM.
My biggest problem with AMD is that they are trying to compete on Intel's terms. AMD should have quit selling chips and started to design and sell their own consumer hardware. AMD is playing for pennies in trying to sell to Dell and the like, and they can only ever be used by Dell and HP as leverage to get Intel to keep prices down.
If they designed their own complete systems, they could extract an additional $5 from each buyer for example, and maybe they could be sure to turn a profit and have a bit of money to invest in their core business of developing processors. CPU's are not commodities, so AMD should stop trying to compete as if they were.
Yes, AMD wouldn't be making the top end systems, but that doesn't mean it couldn't make decent money.
You build infrastructure to handle peak demands. Yes, there will be empty trains at some times during the day, but at the peak, more capacity helps. By way of analogy, the M25 is the busiest motorway, or at least the most congested in the UK. However, there will be times when it will be relatively empty.
There are also quality of life issues involved. A lot of people live in Birmingham and work in London. Cutting their journey times by 30 minutes makes a measurable improvement in your life if you don't have to spend it sitting in a carriage instead of being home, or somewhere else where you would rather be.
The upgrade to allow 150mph running was probably expensive and not worth it precisely because it wouldn't have been a new line. The slower trains would constrain the capacity increase anyway. A new line allows you to move the fast trains to a new, faster line, and optimise schedules on the older line for the slower trains. It also allows for more services with multiple stops to be scheduled. At the moment you can do that because it will constrain the express or limited stop services that you can run.
Wrong on many levels. The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is forecast to hit capacity soon. In fact, they have had to reduce stops, remove stops etc, to keep the line running with any reasonable frequency. So a new line is needed. If you are building a new line, there is no good reason to not build HSR line. The costs will be fairly similar anyway. The high speed element is something nice, but not the main point of building a new line.
Slashdot Mirror
And what do you know about cars?
The ads have to be relevant to some, and not all, people for google to make money out of you. Google is not interested in individuals, they are interested in having eyeballs of which they converts a small proportion into clicks on the ads.
Not that I am claiming that the Martin/Zimmerman case had anything to do with racism, but Zimmerman being Hispanic does not preclude him from being racist. There is a suggestion that he racially profiled a young man he had not met before, followed based on his hunch, and that hunch may have been rather racist.
They came up with the iPad! Just saying.
They are not anywhere near 3 times overvalued.
First, they have $120bn in the bank, which they absolutely control. So you can knock that off their valuation.
Secondly, they are on an annual run rate of approximately 50bn in profits right now. They are adding 50bn to their bank every year. And sales are increasing, of all of their products except for the iPod range (which is completely understandable).
They are also one of the, if not _the_ best run large company in the world. They have a management team that demands responsibility, unlike for example, Microsoft. Their whole team is pulling in the same direction. That $120bn not only gives them the ability to take risks other companies just can't think of taking, if gives them the ability to launch products in a way that most other companies can only dream of. The speed from product announcement to widespread availability is unmatched, and maybe unmatchable.
Apple might be slightly overvalued, but no where near 3 times overvalued. Certainly not when their 3 main products are still growth products.
Unless you can prove that they are completely different, then you are just mistaken.
Microsoft provides windows 8 in different flavours. Does that make them different operating systems because some APIs and features are not available in the base edition?
I think he understands very well what non-discriminatory menas. What you are describing in the second sentence is the textbook definition of discrimination. Yes, that is what is not allowed. Companies may try tricks to get around it but essentially, everyone who licenses the patent should pay the same amount ,volume discounts and the like notwithstanding.
You are just making things up.
Firstly, many patents are not essential in the sense that it couldn't be done without them. Wifi could have been done without Motorola's patent. Motorola just happened to have patented a method that works, and this was included in the standard.
I (sort of) agree that reasonable is difficult to clearly define. But I think everyone can agree that asking for 2.25% is not reasonable because if other patent holders ask for the same, then more than 100% of the price of the product would go to the wifi patent holders. That's before we start thinking of other patents. And it is also unreasonable because the more patented technology you add to the product, the less realistic it becomes. So if Microsoft had to pay for the wifi patents, in addition to 3G and 4G patents, touch screen patents, USB patents, compression patents and so on, it would make any product impossible.
Secondly, non-discriminatory means no discrimination. Everyone pays the same amount. Anything other than offering the same license terms to everyone is discriminatory by definition. Cross-licensing discriminates against those without any patents (e.g. startups).
Google has a lot to lose by pursuing this, and I am no Microsoft fan.
That is a _stupid_ way to measure the value of a feature. I could counter that without a screen, surface would be worth precisely nothing. Or without the flash storage. O h.264 codecs. So basically, without those features, you would have to pay me to accept the surface.
Which is nonsensical.
This is about Microsoft vs Motorola, and has nothing to do with Apple.
Cooking just allows us to be able to eat more types of food. We haven't half moved most of our digestive system into technology. We just process (i.e. cook) food that the body would find difficult to process by itself. Like raw meat. I am sure we can still digest raw meat, but rather inefficiently, and with great risk to our health.
We still pretty much have the same digestive processes we did millenia ago.
As soon as Apple does this, another poster will be on Slashdot claiming that Apple is using its financial muscle to suppress a small German game developer who is trying to assert their IP rights.
What would you rather have, Large companies intruding on IP cases between third parties in a way that serves their own purposes, or having said large companies staying out of it and letting the smaller companies duke it out. Make no mistake, Apple will only deploy their resources if they believe it serves their own goals, and I am not sure I am comfortable with companies using their $100bn+ war chests to trample on much smaller companies.
I guess it's a question of which devil you prefer.
A percentage of a device is discriminatory. If Microsoft, or Apple, wants to create a gold plated diamond encrusted phone that would retail for hundred of thousands, why should they have to give 2.25% of hundreds of thousands to license a patent on a wifi part?
Price discrimination _is_ discrimination!
Manufacturers other than Apple. Apple is sitting on crazy margins, and the can afford a small hike in component prices. Companies who are racing to the bottom, not so much. This is why Apple will have a 10% market share in smartphones in the future, and still be making more money than the rest of the industry combined.
Maybe he is a republican!
No, it's a FAR more geek-friendly approach.
Regular users just want something with reasonable storage space, and don't buy additional storage space. Even when they have micro-SD car slots on their devices, buyers of Android phones do not buy additional storage space.
Keynesianism makes sense. There are times when you need to short circuit the economy to get it moving again. The government needs to put money into people's hands, and rather than just handing it out, why not spend on some infrastructure projects to achieve the upgrading of critical national infrastructure and to get money in people's hands so they can spend.
Of course, there are limits to how much of it you must do before it becomes damaging, but you could say the same about anything really. They key is to make sure that you bank some in the good years (paying down the debt) so that in the bad times, you have good headroom to be able to stimulate the economy.
Guess what the Republicans did during the boom years? The Republican party is not the party of the responsible! They are the party of the tough talkers though!
iPad mini is estimated to have sold 1.5m in the first weekend. It appears Apple has redefined success. Anyone else sells that amount, it is an unqualified success. If it's Apple it's meh.
Apple has no debt. Did you factor that in?
The $33bn number is "old news". Apple made $41bn in their just ended fiscal year. They are still seeing growth in 3 of their 4 main product lines (iPods are understandably seeing negative growth). Their product mix is still high value and high margin. I frankly do not see them taking an axe to their margins for market share. The bottom line is they sell in the high end of the market, where people spend money (App Store revenues are still ahead of Google Market/Google Play revenues), even with a much diminished market share/install base.
Yup. Let's all ignore Apple's real advantages here. That you get 275,000 apps that work ono the iPad mini. Or that the Nexus 7 that costs $199 is actually the 8GB version.
Oh, and lets just pretend that the bigger and more expensive iPad is not outselling the Nexus 7 right now, with a much larger price differential.
It's amazing how much iPhone buyers are accused of this. And some of hte intellectual gymnastics that must be performed to prove this are actually impressive.
Apple brings out an iPhone 3G, then a basically identical 3GS a year later. Oh, Apple fans are going to be so disappointed because the new one is so much like the old one. They will buy it anyway.
Apple brings out iPhone 4. Apple fanboys are going to be all over that bad boy because they love to be seen with the latest and greatest.
Apple brings out the iPhone 4S. Oh, Apple fans are going to be so disappointed because the new one is so much like the old one. They will buy it anyway.
Apple brings out the iPhone 5. Apple fanboys are going to be all over that bad boy because they love to be seen with the latest and greatest.
Fact is most iPhone sales are made to new buyers, or those upgrading at the end of their contracts.
And they don't get iPhones then. That is such a narrow use case that the market is not worth pandering to for the likes of Samsung, Apple and even RIM.
My biggest problem with AMD is that they are trying to compete on Intel's terms. AMD should have quit selling chips and started to design and sell their own consumer hardware. AMD is playing for pennies in trying to sell to Dell and the like, and they can only ever be used by Dell and HP as leverage to get Intel to keep prices down.
If they designed their own complete systems, they could extract an additional $5 from each buyer for example, and maybe they could be sure to turn a profit and have a bit of money to invest in their core business of developing processors. CPU's are not commodities, so AMD should stop trying to compete as if they were.
Yes, AMD wouldn't be making the top end systems, but that doesn't mean it couldn't make decent money.
You build infrastructure to handle peak demands. Yes, there will be empty trains at some times during the day, but at the peak, more capacity helps. By way of analogy, the M25 is the busiest motorway, or at least the most congested in the UK. However, there will be times when it will be relatively empty.
There are also quality of life issues involved. A lot of people live in Birmingham and work in London. Cutting their journey times by 30 minutes makes a measurable improvement in your life if you don't have to spend it sitting in a carriage instead of being home, or somewhere else where you would rather be.
The upgrade to allow 150mph running was probably expensive and not worth it precisely because it wouldn't have been a new line. The slower trains would constrain the capacity increase anyway. A new line allows you to move the fast trains to a new, faster line, and optimise schedules on the older line for the slower trains. It also allows for more services with multiple stops to be scheduled. At the moment you can do that because it will constrain the express or limited stop services that you can run.
Wrong on many levels. The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is forecast to hit capacity soon. In fact, they have had to reduce stops, remove stops etc, to keep the line running with any reasonable frequency. So a new line is needed. If you are building a new line, there is no good reason to not build HSR line. The costs will be fairly similar anyway. The high speed element is something nice, but not the main point of building a new line.