If I were the Dells and the HPs of this word, I would quit making desktop computers. If Microsoft will so brazenly compete with its partners, then maybe let them go the whole hog on the desktop front, which is far from a money spinner these days.
Not impossible. Don't forget that sales of Apple devices have exploded in the last few years. Apple sold more iPhones in the last quarter than it did in the first 3 years of selling iPhones. Easily 90%+ of their phones can run the latest and greatest!
In retrospect, it doesn't look like a success, because it went on to become a megahit. But it was a success, otherwise Apple would have stopped selling it.
Being laissez faire wasn't what helped Windows to win. It was Microsoft's savvy or luck to license their OS for IBM compatible computers. We should not forget that they were pretty much the only ones who did that. That PC builders put a lot of crapware on the PCs and that people could install anything under the sun.
Why Apple. Apple could argue, and quite rightly, that by buying Nokia, they are not really having an outsize impact on smartphones. Apple could even offer to buy Nokia and spin off the handset making business, whilst keeping the valuable patents. Nokia is not the 800 pound gorilla when it come to phones. Samsung now is.
No, parts of a car should crumple in a controlled way. You do not want the passenger section crumpling. You use airbag to absorb energy in those parts.
The death of most companies can be traced down to a single word...hubris.
Some of these are paraphrased quotations.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
"The one thing that Apple provides leadership in is colours"
"Right now we are selling millions and millions and millions of phones a year, and Apple is selling zero phones a year"
"I left RIM back in 2006 just months before the iPhone launched and I remember talking to friends from RIM and Microsoft about what their teams thought about it at the time. Everyone was utterly shocked. RIM was even in denial the day after the iPhone was announced with all hands meets claiming all manner of weird things about iPhone: it couldn’t do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc. Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was [a] battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it. It was ridiculous, it was brilliant."
"I don't think that what we have seen so far (from Apple) is something that would any way necessitate us changing our thinking when it comes to openness, our software and business approach," Nokia Chief Executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo told a conference call with analysts.
The reason companies fail is that they don't challenge their beliefs in their way of operating. They don't seem to realise that they are where they are with a large helping of luck, and that they could easily fall by the wayside. The list of mobile phone makers who fell by the wayside is 2000's who's who of the entire mobile phone industry. Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel etc. Only Nokia survives as an industry giant and it is struggling, attacked on all ends by the likes of Samsung, Apple, HTC and hordes of Chinese companies.
The motto is evolve or die. The Apple of today heeded that lesson. That is not to say hubris won't get them. It always does, sooner or later.
No one is barring the world. People are asking for people to give them the means to control certain aspects of their net experience, among these, the ability to block content they might find objectionable.
Not people who share our views, but people who think it is OK to kill people they disagree with. They bloody shot some nuclear executive. They are terrorists, and unless they renounce terror, they should be resisted with the full force of the law.
If you lost some F-22s in Iran, they would get China to help them build it. Or Russia.
If I was Iran, I would focus on two things. Figure out a way to take out the carriers, or hold a US friendly country hostage. The first is hard, the second is a bit easier. Which is why the US goes ape shit at the thought of a nuclear Iran. The calculus would change immediately.
But people _want_ their music curated. Why do you think it took Akon to launch Lady Gaga, or Usher to launch Bieber? Why do you think Simon Cowell exists? That is the power of the establishment. As long as that curated music is the mass market music, then the whole industry will be built to reflect that. Yes, once in a while a small artist makes it into the big time, but most times, 95% of the top 100 will be artists represented by the big labels because that is how people "discover" their music.
The terms are the same for everyone: put a patent in the pot for GSM radios, and you get a discount rate.
For ALL people wanting the patents, that's available. If you PAY the rate required, you get the rate offered.
If you can't pay the required rate, you don't get the offer.
Apple can't or won't pay the required rate.
Therefore they should not get the offered deal.
NOTE too that the chips they got from Qualcomm do not give Apple access to the FRAND patent pool under the same terms as Qualcomm (who have patents in the pool) got.
Here is what YOU are suggesting all patent owners do:
1) They pay R&D and registering costs to create patents. 2) They put the patents into a pool with others 3) People who HAVEN'T put a damn thing in the pool pay the same price as those who did
Now in what world is #3 fair? I haven't put any patents in, therefore costs to me would be LESS than Qualcomm, Nokia, Samsung et al, who had to put money into getting those patents.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
How much simpler does this have to be put before your love of apple lets it through?
It is fair because if you are in the patent pool you either get paid by every company implementing your patent. So if you don't make any actual product, you just say, no, I will have the cash please. If you do make products, you get to either pay others for their patents, or negotiate cross licensing deals. If someone doesn't have any patents to cross license, they pay cash. But you cannot discriminate against people who haven't contributed to the pool, or those who have only contributed little to the pool. That's the ND part of FRAND - Non Discriminatory!
There is no decision to make. If you are an insurance company, you must accept all applicants at the standard rates. The terms must be identical for Bill Gates as they are for someone drug dealer in Harlem. The concept of disallowing medical testing for medical insurance is not new. It is well established. Look up "Community Rating". It is practiced in very many countries, including in the USA!
This you are their product meme is ridiculous. We are not their product. We are one their customers, as are the merchants trying to sell to us. The whole, "you are the product" idea makes about as much sense as claiming that shoppers are the product in a shopping mall. It is not insightful!
And yes, the ability of users being able to change search engines is relevant. To contrast with Microsoft anti-trust issues, Microsoft refused to allow PC makers to install alternative browsers on their systems to push their product. Microsoft had power, as a de facto (and de jure) monopoly, to make them comply.
Google is hardly going to chase away advertisers into the hand of their competitors. Advertisers want Google because it has broad reach. In Europe, users have chosen Google so much Bing and Yahoo barely register. Short of demanding that Google shares advertising revenues with their competitors. Basically, I cannot see why Google should be forced to promote its competitor's products. It's antithetical to the free market. If Google promotes their own products ahead of competitors, well, that it why it is called advertising, and not education.
Then make laws disallowing the use of genetic testing, or any medical testing in general, for setting premium rates. Insurance companies won't mind. As long as there are no loopholes allowing other competitors to use such information. Hell, it might even reduce their costs. The issue with such blanket privacy laws is that they will always have unintended consequences, and the only people who benefit are lawyers, who get to sue and try the cases that will inevitably result.
On Facebook, you don't get messages from price comparison sites which will indicate that you have been looking for something. If I go to moneysupermarket.com looking for car insurance, and I give them my email address, they send the results to my Gmail account, and Google now knows that I am looking for car insurance, so they give me car insurance ads.
Google has much better contextual information to use to target ads. Facebook can't go by your likes. That is a huge disadvantage. Google ads work because they tend to be more relevant to things you are looking for at that time.
I have noticed that there are almost no 1st generation iPhones on ebay! All of the original iPhones mysteriously stopped working on the 1st of July in 2010.
People need to get some perspective. Mobile phones are one of the most handled devices ever. You take it everywhere with you. They will not last forever. It would be very costly to buy something that would last twice as long.
Well, if we are looking at his success as a marketer, then he was bloody successful whichever way you look at it. He was bloody great. The company he led right up until just before he died is now essentially printing money faster than the Fed.
If the proof of great marketing is in the results, then no question he was bloody great.
Steve Jobs was successful in founding Apple, incredibly successful in founding Pixar, and out of this world successful in restoring and elevating Apple.
Woz's last major contribution to the world of tech was co-creating the Apple ][. In 1977!
Without Jobs, there would be no company. Woz didn't even want to sell the damn computer he built. I hear Woz is worth $100m today. Well, he owes that to Jobs. Because Woz would still have to work today if it wasn't for Jobs.
Woz was a clever engineer, but I think geekdom views him with rose tinted spectacles. He was not that great. The people making the microprocessors he used. Now those were the really great guys.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were the Dells and the HPs of this word, I would quit making desktop computers. If Microsoft will so brazenly compete with its partners, then maybe let them go the whole hog on the desktop front, which is far from a money spinner these days.
Not impossible. Don't forget that sales of Apple devices have exploded in the last few years. Apple sold more iPhones in the last quarter than it did in the first 3 years of selling iPhones. Easily 90%+ of their phones can run the latest and greatest!
The Macintosh is so not a loss leader!
And yet they sell 30m iPhones every quarter. To actual customers! They obviously know something you don't.
In retrospect, it doesn't look like a success, because it went on to become a megahit. But it was a success, otherwise Apple would have stopped selling it.
Being laissez faire wasn't what helped Windows to win. It was Microsoft's savvy or luck to license their OS for IBM compatible computers. We should not forget that they were pretty much the only ones who did that. That PC builders put a lot of crapware on the PCs and that people could install anything under the sun.
Why Apple. Apple could argue, and quite rightly, that by buying Nokia, they are not really having an outsize impact on smartphones. Apple could even offer to buy Nokia and spin off the handset making business, whilst keeping the valuable patents. Nokia is not the 800 pound gorilla when it come to phones. Samsung now is.
No, parts of a car should crumple in a controlled way. You do not want the passenger section crumpling. You use airbag to absorb energy in those parts.
The death of most companies can be traced down to a single word...hubris.
Some of these are paraphrased quotations.
“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
"The one thing that Apple provides leadership in is colours"
"Right now we are selling millions and millions and millions of phones a year, and Apple is selling zero phones a year"
"I left RIM back in 2006 just months before the iPhone launched and I remember talking to friends from RIM and Microsoft about what their teams thought about it at the time. Everyone was utterly shocked. RIM was even in denial the day after the iPhone was announced with all hands meets claiming all manner of weird things about iPhone: it couldn’t do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc. Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was [a] battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it. It was ridiculous, it was brilliant."
"I don't think that what we have seen so far (from Apple) is something that would any way necessitate us changing our thinking when it comes to openness, our software and business approach," Nokia Chief Executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo told a conference call with analysts.
The reason companies fail is that they don't challenge their beliefs in their way of operating. They don't seem to realise that they are where they are with a large helping of luck, and that they could easily fall by the wayside. The list of mobile phone makers who fell by the wayside is 2000's who's who of the entire mobile phone industry. Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel etc. Only Nokia survives as an industry giant and it is struggling, attacked on all ends by the likes of Samsung, Apple, HTC and hordes of Chinese companies.
The motto is evolve or die. The Apple of today heeded that lesson. That is not to say hubris won't get them. It always does, sooner or later.
No one is barring the world. People are asking for people to give them the means to control certain aspects of their net experience, among these, the ability to block content they might find objectionable.
The whole OMG censorship is just a strawman.
Not people who share our views, but people who think it is OK to kill people they disagree with. They bloody shot some nuclear executive. They are terrorists, and unless they renounce terror, they should be resisted with the full force of the law.
If you lost some F-22s in Iran, they would get China to help them build it. Or Russia.
If I was Iran, I would focus on two things. Figure out a way to take out the carriers, or hold a US friendly country hostage. The first is hard, the second is a bit easier. Which is why the US goes ape shit at the thought of a nuclear Iran. The calculus would change immediately.
China is growing old fast. Which means workers are going to be in short supply soon. Which is good for workers.
China has had a surfeit of workers, and thus workers were competing for jobs. It's likely to be the other way soon.
Why not just headhunt them?
But people _want_ their music curated. Why do you think it took Akon to launch Lady Gaga, or Usher to launch Bieber? Why do you think Simon Cowell exists? That is the power of the establishment. As long as that curated music is the mass market music, then the whole industry will be built to reflect that. Yes, once in a while a small artist makes it into the big time, but most times, 95% of the top 100 will be artists represented by the big labels because that is how people "discover" their music.
The terms are the same for everyone: put a patent in the pot for GSM radios, and you get a discount rate.
For ALL people wanting the patents, that's available. If you PAY the rate required, you get the rate offered.
If you can't pay the required rate, you don't get the offer.
Apple can't or won't pay the required rate.
Therefore they should not get the offered deal.
NOTE too that the chips they got from Qualcomm do not give Apple access to the FRAND patent pool under the same terms as Qualcomm (who have patents in the pool) got.
Here is what YOU are suggesting all patent owners do:
1) They pay R&D and registering costs to create patents.
2) They put the patents into a pool with others
3) People who HAVEN'T put a damn thing in the pool pay the same price as those who did
Now in what world is #3 fair? I haven't put any patents in, therefore costs to me would be LESS than Qualcomm, Nokia, Samsung et al, who had to put money into getting those patents.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
How much simpler does this have to be put before your love of apple lets it through?
It is fair because if you are in the patent pool you either get paid by every company implementing your patent. So if you don't make any actual product, you just say, no, I will have the cash please. If you do make products, you get to either pay others for their patents, or negotiate cross licensing deals. If someone doesn't have any patents to cross license, they pay cash. But you cannot discriminate against people who haven't contributed to the pool, or those who have only contributed little to the pool. That's the ND part of FRAND - Non Discriminatory!
There is no decision to make. If you are an insurance company, you must accept all applicants at the standard rates. The terms must be identical for Bill Gates as they are for someone drug dealer in Harlem. The concept of disallowing medical testing for medical insurance is not new. It is well established. Look up "Community Rating". It is practiced in very many countries, including in the USA!
I could be mistaken, but I thought that was because they owned ITA. So they are using their own data, which they also provide to competitors.
This you are their product meme is ridiculous. We are not their product. We are one their customers, as are the merchants trying to sell to us. The whole, "you are the product" idea makes about as much sense as claiming that shoppers are the product in a shopping mall. It is not insightful!
And yes, the ability of users being able to change search engines is relevant. To contrast with Microsoft anti-trust issues, Microsoft refused to allow PC makers to install alternative browsers on their systems to push their product. Microsoft had power, as a de facto (and de jure) monopoly, to make them comply.
Google is hardly going to chase away advertisers into the hand of their competitors. Advertisers want Google because it has broad reach. In Europe, users have chosen Google so much Bing and Yahoo barely register. Short of demanding that Google shares advertising revenues with their competitors. Basically, I cannot see why Google should be forced to promote its competitor's products. It's antithetical to the free market. If Google promotes their own products ahead of competitors, well, that it why it is called advertising, and not education.
Some competitors are just cry babies.
Then make laws disallowing the use of genetic testing, or any medical testing in general, for setting premium rates. Insurance companies won't mind. As long as there are no loopholes allowing other competitors to use such information. Hell, it might even reduce their costs. The issue with such blanket privacy laws is that they will always have unintended consequences, and the only people who benefit are lawyers, who get to sue and try the cases that will inevitably result.
On Facebook, you don't get messages from price comparison sites which will indicate that you have been looking for something. If I go to moneysupermarket.com looking for car insurance, and I give them my email address, they send the results to my Gmail account, and Google now knows that I am looking for car insurance, so they give me car insurance ads.
Google has much better contextual information to use to target ads. Facebook can't go by your likes. That is a huge disadvantage. Google ads work because they tend to be more relevant to things you are looking for at that time.
I have noticed that there are almost no 1st generation iPhones on ebay! All of the original iPhones mysteriously stopped working on the 1st of July in 2010.
People need to get some perspective. Mobile phones are one of the most handled devices ever. You take it everywhere with you. They will not last forever. It would be very costly to buy something that would last twice as long.
Well, if we are looking at his success as a marketer, then he was bloody successful whichever way you look at it. He was bloody great. The company he led right up until just before he died is now essentially printing money faster than the Fed.
If the proof of great marketing is in the results, then no question he was bloody great.
Steve Jobs was successful in founding Apple, incredibly successful in founding Pixar, and out of this world successful in restoring and elevating Apple.
Woz's last major contribution to the world of tech was co-creating the Apple ][. In 1977!
Without Jobs, there would be no company. Woz didn't even want to sell the damn computer he built. I hear Woz is worth $100m today. Well, he owes that to Jobs. Because Woz would still have to work today if it wasn't for Jobs.
Woz was a clever engineer, but I think geekdom views him with rose tinted spectacles. He was not that great. The people making the microprocessors he used. Now those were the really great guys.
At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have one word for you. Hitler!