We are not talking about 1997 Apple here. This is 2012 Apple with more money than God. Well, than Microsoft at least.
Besides, if I was Apple, I would buy TomTom for the maps and Ericsson for the patents. Navteq might be better (arguable) but Tomtom is at least good enough.
No. There is nothing backwards about punishing low life scumbags like Raynaldo who are the reason companies need to secure their websites in the first place.
What sort of morality is it to suggest that a site being inadequately secured is an invitation to steal? Do you also subscribe to the view that a woman being drunk or dressing provocatively is an invitation for you to rape her?
If I had mod points, I would have certainly lavished some on your post. More specifically for the following sentence
Arguably, the iPhone was even easier to use than most feature phones, whereas all the alternatives were more and more complex as features were added.
The iPhone wasn't my first smartphone. That honour goes to the HTC Touch Dual, which had Windows Mobile. I returned the HTC. It was crap.
Many things that we now take for granted on smartphone were first done on an iPhone. Menus that were not too deep. A web browser that actually worked. An excellent music player (even better than the original iPod). The use of multitouch in a mass market device, including the creation of a consistent multi-touch "language" on a phone. (The LG Prada has a capacitative touch-screen, but no multi-touch).
But the biggest example of how revolutionary the iPhone was was the manual, or rather, the leaflet that it came with. A few pages, essentially telling you how to operate the phone. In comparison to the large manuals that comparable phones (in terms of functionality) came with, the iPhone was not daunting. This was technology re-imagined for the masses.
Again, difficult for many geeks to comprehend how the iPhone made things much simpler for non-geeks, and why this is important. The iPhone did what Microsoft, and Apple itself failed to do with desktop computers. Make computers that people didn't need to study to use.
Actually, they don't set the interest rate. They can set the coupon rate, and investors bid for the bonds. They do try to make sure that the bonds are priced at par, i.e. if the bond has a principal of £100, they will try to set the coupon so that investors pay £100 initially.
However, the actual interest rate is based entirely on what investors are willing to pay. So if the BOE issues a bond with a coupon of 1% per half year, and investors will only lend to the UK govt at 4% per annum, they will bid below £100 for each bond.
I can already see a Hollywood movie about someone who is killed so that a studio can release a movie based on his work without paying him.
I don't mind a drastically shortened copyright timeframe. I think 40-45 years should be enough (which is about the average working lifetime). Writers should save for their retirement like everyone else. And besides, if you wrote a book at 55, you could still collect royalties until you are 100!
How does that solve the problem of researching new drugs. New drugs cost billions to create (including billions spent running into dead ends). Once a drug is shown to work, everyone can make the drug at a really low cost. The upfront/marginal cost structure of big pharma is closer to the software industry than to anything else.
If I think a drug might have side effects that can cost me personally as the CEO, I would much rather not spend a billion dollars developing it in the first place, and just copy someone else's who has made the effort to make sure it has no side effects.
I take it you didn't watch, (or hear about) his speech at the UN then. Or any of the statements made in which they repeatedly said free speech was protected in America.
Or are you accusing him of not using your exact words?
To be fair, you don't see much of Apple's own branding on the device either! Yes, everything is Apple's visual identity, but they don't have Apple this and Apple that all over the place.
You go to Google's website, you get links to their properties right there. That is Google's real estate, and they put their best properties right there. The fact that the portal is usually empty doesn't change the fact that it is a portal.
Google isn't tying their maps or other services with search. Tying would be if they made it such that you had to use gmail and their maps for you to use their search.
I have an iPhone and a (work) Blackberry. I lost my BB charger a long time ago. I charge my BB using my iPhone wall plug and a micro-usb cable that I bought with a pair of bluetooth headphones. I charge the headphones using the same wall plug by the way.
No, that is not what they want. That is what _you_ want them to want.
If that is what they had wanted, they would have said so. How hard would it have been to say, "everyone phone should include a micro-usb port that you can use for charging and syncing"?
I agree with you that FRAND doesn't mean that you have to charge everyone the same amount to use the patents you contributed to a standard. If someone doesn't bring any patents to the table, they should be charged more than someone else who did contribute.
That is wrong. That would be a charter for incumbents to lock out challengers. A standard should have a patent pool. Everyone should pay the same amount to license the patents required to implement the standard. If you have contributed to the standard, you receive a proportion of that fee based on the relative value of your patent.
They haven't yet run mom & pop out of business. Amazon's market share for ebooks fell from 90% to 65% when Apple and others convinced publishers to go down the agency route.
Once Amazon has made other ebook suppliers unviable, it will be able to jack up prices because if you want you book read, you have to buy a Kindle.
It is amazing that the justice department took this on. One wonders whether Amazon has been donating some cash to someone's charity who wants to run for public office at some point.
Amazon is different. Amazon is essentially making a land grab and has huge revenues. If you are in Amazon's position, you build revenues first, then later focus on profitability. It also helps that this strategy also demolishes your competitors.
Facebook on the other hand, is not seeing revenue growth anywhere near what it needs to be to justify its valuation. It is finding it harder to monetize its user base. Amazon is already the world's largest online retailer, with revenues growing faster than Facebook's by some accounts.
P/E is not everything, but an investor can make a reasonable bet that Amazon's P/E will come down without the share price going down.
On the other hand, since drive-by shootings almost always involve a car slowing down enough for the shooter to be able to reliably hit the target, reducing the speed limit on the highways increases the odds of drive-by shootings on the highway, which will increase gun-related deaths on highways.
Besides do you really want bored gun carrying people on a highway in Texas. They might start spontaneously shooting, and that never ends well.
It's only pointless if you believe the original intention was to track every car's whereabouts at every point of every day.
The cameras catch uninsured drivers, and drivers who have not paid their road tax, or recently done their MOT. Being caught once every 5 days is probably enough to achieve those objectives.
Why should they? In what world does it make sense for Sweden to guarantee the non-extradition of Assange to anywhere in the world, whatever the circumstances. If Assange has committed serious crimes anywhere else in the world, then Sweden would be compelled, because it has signed those treaties, to hand him over after following the requisite process. If Assange wants a guarantee, he should get it from the US. The USA is the only country that can guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US.
However, if you were the US, and Assange has caused you such embarrassment, would you give him the guarantee even if you had no intention to request his extradition? They are probably taking advantage of his legal problems, of his own making, and of his own paranoia to create a situation in which he is well and truly stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft wants it that bad, then Apple would be stupid not to bid the price up. They win if they win, and they win if they lose.
Response from Apple to MSFT. Bring it on!
We are not talking about 1997 Apple here. This is 2012 Apple with more money than God. Well, than Microsoft at least.
Besides, if I was Apple, I would buy TomTom for the maps and Ericsson for the patents. Navteq might be better (arguable) but Tomtom is at least good enough.
No. There is nothing backwards about punishing low life scumbags like Raynaldo who are the reason companies need to secure their websites in the first place.
What sort of morality is it to suggest that a site being inadequately secured is an invitation to steal? Do you also subscribe to the view that a woman being drunk or dressing provocatively is an invitation for you to rape her?
If I had mod points, I would have certainly lavished some on your post. More specifically for the following sentence
Arguably, the iPhone was even easier to use than most feature phones, whereas all the alternatives were more and more complex as features were added.
The iPhone wasn't my first smartphone. That honour goes to the HTC Touch Dual, which had Windows Mobile. I returned the HTC. It was crap.
Many things that we now take for granted on smartphone were first done on an iPhone. Menus that were not too deep. A web browser that actually worked. An excellent music player (even better than the original iPod). The use of multitouch in a mass market device, including the creation of a consistent multi-touch "language" on a phone. (The LG Prada has a capacitative touch-screen, but no multi-touch).
But the biggest example of how revolutionary the iPhone was was the manual, or rather, the leaflet that it came with. A few pages, essentially telling you how to operate the phone. In comparison to the large manuals that comparable phones (in terms of functionality) came with, the iPhone was not daunting. This was technology re-imagined for the masses.
Again, difficult for many geeks to comprehend how the iPhone made things much simpler for non-geeks, and why this is important. The iPhone did what Microsoft, and Apple itself failed to do with desktop computers. Make computers that people didn't need to study to use.
Actually, they don't set the interest rate. They can set the coupon rate, and investors bid for the bonds. They do try to make sure that the bonds are priced at par, i.e. if the bond has a principal of £100, they will try to set the coupon so that investors pay £100 initially.
However, the actual interest rate is based entirely on what investors are willing to pay. So if the BOE issues a bond with a coupon of 1% per half year, and investors will only lend to the UK govt at 4% per annum, they will bid below £100 for each bond.
I can already see a Hollywood movie about someone who is killed so that a studio can release a movie based on his work without paying him.
I don't mind a drastically shortened copyright timeframe. I think 40-45 years should be enough (which is about the average working lifetime). Writers should save for their retirement like everyone else. And besides, if you wrote a book at 55, you could still collect royalties until you are 100!
How does that solve the problem of researching new drugs. New drugs cost billions to create (including billions spent running into dead ends). Once a drug is shown to work, everyone can make the drug at a really low cost. The upfront/marginal cost structure of big pharma is closer to the software industry than to anything else.
If I think a drug might have side effects that can cost me personally as the CEO, I would much rather not spend a billion dollars developing it in the first place, and just copy someone else's who has made the effort to make sure it has no side effects.
I take it you didn't watch, (or hear about) his speech at the UN then. Or any of the statements made in which they repeatedly said free speech was protected in America.
Or are you accusing him of not using your exact words?
To be fair, you don't see much of Apple's own branding on the device either! Yes, everything is Apple's visual identity, but they don't have Apple this and Apple that all over the place.
So Google is a portal then.
You go to Google's website, you get links to their properties right there. That is Google's real estate, and they put their best properties right there. The fact that the portal is usually empty doesn't change the fact that it is a portal.
Google isn't tying their maps or other services with search. Tying would be if they made it such that you had to use gmail and their maps for you to use their search.
You need to give them your name bro!
Who said the are going to stop selling iPhone 4's?
Pressing any of the physical buttons on an iPhone will silence it.
I have an iPhone and a (work) Blackberry. I lost my BB charger a long time ago. I charge my BB using my iPhone wall plug and a micro-usb cable that I bought with a pair of bluetooth headphones. I charge the headphones using the same wall plug by the way.
No, that is not what they want. That is what _you_ want them to want.
If that is what they had wanted, they would have said so. How hard would it have been to say, "everyone phone should include a micro-usb port that you can use for charging and syncing"?
I agree with you that FRAND doesn't mean that you have to charge everyone the same amount to use the patents you contributed to a standard. If someone doesn't bring any patents to the table, they should be charged more than someone else who did contribute.
That is wrong. That would be a charter for incumbents to lock out challengers. A standard should have a patent pool. Everyone should pay the same amount to license the patents required to implement the standard. If you have contributed to the standard, you receive a proportion of that fee based on the relative value of your patent.
They haven't yet run mom & pop out of business. Amazon's market share for ebooks fell from 90% to 65% when Apple and others convinced publishers to go down the agency route.
Once Amazon has made other ebook suppliers unviable, it will be able to jack up prices because if you want you book read, you have to buy a Kindle.
It is amazing that the justice department took this on. One wonders whether Amazon has been donating some cash to someone's charity who wants to run for public office at some point.
Amazon is different. Amazon is essentially making a land grab and has huge revenues. If you are in Amazon's position, you build revenues first, then later focus on profitability. It also helps that this strategy also demolishes your competitors.
Facebook on the other hand, is not seeing revenue growth anywhere near what it needs to be to justify its valuation. It is finding it harder to monetize its user base. Amazon is already the world's largest online retailer, with revenues growing faster than Facebook's by some accounts.
P/E is not everything, but an investor can make a reasonable bet that Amazon's P/E will come down without the share price going down.
On the other hand, since drive-by shootings almost always involve a car slowing down enough for the shooter to be able to reliably hit the target, reducing the speed limit on the highways increases the odds of drive-by shootings on the highway, which will increase gun-related deaths on highways.
Besides do you really want bored gun carrying people on a highway in Texas. They might start spontaneously shooting, and that never ends well.
Unless you were circumcised as an adult, how could you tell the difference?
It's only pointless if you believe the original intention was to track every car's whereabouts at every point of every day.
The cameras catch uninsured drivers, and drivers who have not paid their road tax, or recently done their MOT. Being caught once every 5 days is probably enough to achieve those objectives.
And the fact that you call it "mild" rape it disturbing!
Republican any chance?
Why should they? In what world does it make sense for Sweden to guarantee the non-extradition of Assange to anywhere in the world, whatever the circumstances. If Assange has committed serious crimes anywhere else in the world, then Sweden would be compelled, because it has signed those treaties, to hand him over after following the requisite process. If Assange wants a guarantee, he should get it from the US. The USA is the only country that can guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US.
However, if you were the US, and Assange has caused you such embarrassment, would you give him the guarantee even if you had no intention to request his extradition? They are probably taking advantage of his legal problems, of his own making, and of his own paranoia to create a situation in which he is well and truly stuck.
Because once a country requests extradition, you don't have the option to ignore it.