So, what do they do with the cars they have made? Just leave them to rot? Making the cars means they will sell them. Even if they sell the cars for the cost of a warranty, they would be better off selling the damn things than keeping them and incurring storage costs.
And secondly, they completely dominated the mp3 player market with their click wheel player.
Lastly, user interfaces moved on, and the click wheel has been superseded. It's called the march of progress, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the best in its time.
That's bad road design. You shouldn't have a roundabout at such a location.. You can also have traffic lights in a roundabout, although that seems to defeat the purpose, but as someone else has pointed out, the traffic lights could be turned on during peak traffic hours, and turned off when traffic is light to allow the roundabout to make traffic flow better.
I wasn't talking security when I referred to Apple. I was referring to their attention to their users. They don't expect users to change to fit their products, they make products that fit their users (death grip issue excepted).
I didn't clam that wireless could be made as secure as wired, but it can be secured appropriately for the required use. But it is also wishful thinking that we can just ignore that many devices being produced are made to be mobile, and expecting users to use a wired connection with inherently mobile devices is just silly.
Is it really rocket science to make WiFi work in a building that houses 10,000 employees. We have WiFi in one of the buildings in the company I work for, and when I go to meetings, the WiFi is really helpful. I don't need WiFi all the time, and if I am sitting at a desk, I plug in. But i don't want to plug in for every meeting I might attend, or when I go to sit in the atrium.
No one cares so much about the performance, yes, we want it to be fast, but we are not downloading gigabytes worth of data onto laptops all the time. If only has to be appropriately fast. If it is a bit slower, it might actually encourage people to use the WiFi in more appropriate ways, i.e., for convenience. Our WiFi is plenty fast though.
And your users are never losers. If you can't help them do their job, you know, the bit that actually brings in the money, then you are of no use to them.
And no, I do not piss off food servers and hotel maids, but I was responding to you taking the position that people who ask for things you are not willing to deliver are morons for wanting IT to deliver what they need. Why can't IT go to their bosses and say "the users are clamouring for this, why don't we find a way to make it happen".
This is the very reason Apple does well, and hardware companies run by engineering types fail. Technology should work for people (or users) and not the other way around. If you can't figure out how to make wireless (or any IT) work well for your customers (everyone who needs WiFi) then you are not very good at your job.
Don't know if public transport has had its day. Perhaps the American suburb has had its day. The reason public transport does not work in America is because people live in suburbs with a population/housing density that is too low to support a good public transport system. Maybe, in the future, suburbs will become less popular, particularly if energy costs continue to rise to such an extent that it becomes impossible to ignore the reality that cars are unsustainable, at least to the extent that they are used to commute to work.
Not that it will help your aunt, but this is one good reason to _not_ have a pension that is dependent on your company's survival. Not unless you are the CEO and/or wouldn't mind losing your pension.
The problem isn't that it is too much work. They can easily cover their costs for that. The problem is market are notoriously fickle, and producing your own OS is risky - differentiation can be a blessing or a curse. If Palm could afford to o so, then so could Blackberry.
Don't blame Blackberry's failings on the pace at which Android devices are coming out. Apple is doing very well without refreshing their phone every 3 months. The problem is that they are not making the right products for the market out there. The market is no longer captive, they can't just depend on being blackberry anymore as a marketing strategy. And they totally failed to _get_ apps.
This suit is mostly about Touchwiz, not Android. I have used a non Touchwiz Android phone and it's not a blatant copy. But Touchwiz is so blatant Samsung should be ashamed. They should be trying to make their products different and better, not aping Apple's design and UI. even Microsoft had the good sense to make WP7 different, as Google with stock Android.
What people need to get is that Apple wants to protect its market, which isn't incidentally, all would be smartphone buyers.
Apple's market consists of those who would buy premium products, possibly costing more than average, with a distinctive look and feel. If Apple lets other companies copy it's distinctive look and feel, then their customer may stop buying, not because Apple makes stuff worse than their competitors, but because the brand is diluted.
Put it this way (using a car analogy, this is Slashdot) Mercedes would go after anyone who copies it's sheet metal design and produces cars that could be passed off as Mercedes, even if they featured a 4 rather than 3 pointed star. Apple would have been just as protective of their iPod (classic) design, because they worked for years perfecting it and making it distinctive.
Thank God for Apple. Their efforts moved us streets ahead in user interface design, and they should legally be able to stop competitors from piggybacking on their innovations.
I could be wrong, but Sony most likely has a cross licensing agreement with Microsoft because they are a large WIndows (PC) OEM, and they probably have a deal because they compete in the video game industry, and have probably stepped on each others patents before and settled.
Sourcing of power is a complete red herring. Who do you think will be left to consume all the 'dirty' power. It (dirty power) is not going to go away, not with the kind of growth being experienced in places like China and India. I would never buy 'green' energy. Every kilowatt-hour of energy I decide to not use from 'non green' sources is a kilowatt-hour someone else shall be forced to use elsewhere. In essence, choosing power sources is a zero sum game. Whatever one person uses is not available for others to use.
The telcos want their own App Stores, but consumers want iPhones! Guess what, the telcos aren't stupid. At best, they can only hope that the iPhone is clipped in the market by other manufacturers and that the iPhone ceases to be a powerful brand. Then they can start dictating to the phone manufacturers again. But as long as only one of them is willing to deal with Apple, then all of them are.
And yes, Apple's suppliers profit when Apple sells, but Apple's customers are not clamouring for Samsung displays, or Marvell radios. Those guys are supplying commodities. The brand and the access to the customers is the reason Apple profits handsomely. Have you seen Apple's margins. Put it this way, Samsung has perhaps 3 times Apple's revenue, but only manages a third or so of Apple's profit.
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
Huh! What's the difference between fructose from corn, and fructose from other sources?
Apple charges off USB quite easily, as do most smartphones nowadays. IIRC, the standard is USB based, so all Apple needs is a way to connect their USB/Dock connector to s standard wall plug thingy, and they are good to go. The standard doesn't quite mandate what the connection on the phone looks like.
Think of privacy in the same way you think of free speech. Free speech means sometimes people will say hateful and hurtful things that cause people's lives to be demonstrably worse. But it's still protected because it goes to the very essence of freedom. Same as privacy. Privacy should be protected in the same way free speech is protected.
The truth is almost always desirable, but it doesn't trump privacy. Privacy is completely essential to freedom.
ISPs don't care about P2P except to the extent that it causes service to deteriorate for other users who want to watch their Youtube videos. Don't confuse them with the RIAA and the record labels. Their issues with P2P are technical more than anything else. ISPs want to spend as little as possible to deliver the service their users require for profit reason (and there is nothing wrong with that).
Besides the point is that speed is not necessarily about downloading more, but also about downloading quicker. So, multiple downloads from different sites is also a very valid point in my argument.So the fact tat single streams may not hit the cap speed is not terribly important.
Not everyone is downloading as much as you think. In fact, most people don't download that much. They stay within their caps. But the pipes are relatively free after the peak periods, and some ISPs, like Plus.net, don't really mind if the heavy users download a lot at times when the service would be impacted adversely for other users. It keeps broadband cheap.
And no, I didn't say I would really pay $150 extra to save 1 hour on my downloads. All other things equal (cost, etc) I would still find the faster speed useful. I don't necessarily have bandwidth needs exceeding 250GB a month.
ISPs do have the capability to provide the speeds advertised. They do not necessarily have the capacity to give everyone the maximum speed at the same time. To attempt to do so would be expensive and wasteful and would lead to higher broadband charges for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what do they do with the cars they have made? Just leave them to rot? Making the cars means they will sell them. Even if they sell the cars for the cost of a warranty, they would be better off selling the damn things than keeping them and incurring storage costs.
Critical mass is important here, but looking good.
Can someone say patents>
And secondly, they completely dominated the mp3 player market with their click wheel player.
Lastly, user interfaces moved on, and the click wheel has been superseded. It's called the march of progress, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the best in its time.
That's bad road design. You shouldn't have a roundabout at such a location.. You can also have traffic lights in a roundabout, although that seems to defeat the purpose, but as someone else has pointed out, the traffic lights could be turned on during peak traffic hours, and turned off when traffic is light to allow the roundabout to make traffic flow better.
No, for Apple, simplicity is a feature, and good aesthetics are also a feature. Seriously, featuritis is for geeks.
Yes, because the fact that iPhones are more expensive is not relevant at all.
I wasn't talking security when I referred to Apple. I was referring to their attention to their users. They don't expect users to change to fit their products, they make products that fit their users (death grip issue excepted).
I didn't clam that wireless could be made as secure as wired, but it can be secured appropriately for the required use. But it is also wishful thinking that we can just ignore that many devices being produced are made to be mobile, and expecting users to use a wired connection with inherently mobile devices is just silly.
Is it really rocket science to make WiFi work in a building that houses 10,000 employees. We have WiFi in one of the buildings in the company I work for, and when I go to meetings, the WiFi is really helpful. I don't need WiFi all the time, and if I am sitting at a desk, I plug in. But i don't want to plug in for every meeting I might attend, or when I go to sit in the atrium.
No one cares so much about the performance, yes, we want it to be fast, but we are not downloading gigabytes worth of data onto laptops all the time. If only has to be appropriately fast. If it is a bit slower, it might actually encourage people to use the WiFi in more appropriate ways, i.e., for convenience. Our WiFi is plenty fast though.
And your users are never losers. If you can't help them do their job, you know, the bit that actually brings in the money, then you are of no use to them.
And no, I do not piss off food servers and hotel maids, but I was responding to you taking the position that people who ask for things you are not willing to deliver are morons for wanting IT to deliver what they need. Why can't IT go to their bosses and say "the users are clamouring for this, why don't we find a way to make it happen".
This is the very reason Apple does well, and hardware companies run by engineering types fail. Technology should work for people (or users) and not the other way around. If you can't figure out how to make wireless (or any IT) work well for your customers (everyone who needs WiFi) then you are not very good at your job.
Don't know if public transport has had its day. Perhaps the American suburb has had its day. The reason public transport does not work in America is because people live in suburbs with a population/housing density that is too low to support a good public transport system. Maybe, in the future, suburbs will become less popular, particularly if energy costs continue to rise to such an extent that it becomes impossible to ignore the reality that cars are unsustainable, at least to the extent that they are used to commute to work.
Not that it will help your aunt, but this is one good reason to _not_ have a pension that is dependent on your company's survival. Not unless you are the CEO and/or wouldn't mind losing your pension.
But not as the same force they were before. Motorola used to be the clear no 2 in the mobile space.
The problem isn't that it is too much work. They can easily cover their costs for that. The problem is market are notoriously fickle, and producing your own OS is risky - differentiation can be a blessing or a curse. If Palm could afford to o so, then so could Blackberry.
Don't blame Blackberry's failings on the pace at which Android devices are coming out. Apple is doing very well without refreshing their phone every 3 months. The problem is that they are not making the right products for the market out there. The market is no longer captive, they can't just depend on being blackberry anymore as a marketing strategy. And they totally failed to _get_ apps.
This suit is mostly about Touchwiz, not Android. I have used a non Touchwiz Android phone and it's not a blatant copy. But Touchwiz is so blatant Samsung should be ashamed. They should be trying to make their products different and better, not aping Apple's design and UI. even Microsoft had the good sense to make WP7 different, as Google with stock Android.
What people need to get is that Apple wants to protect its market, which isn't incidentally, all would be smartphone buyers.
Apple's market consists of those who would buy premium products, possibly costing more than average, with a distinctive look and feel. If Apple lets other companies copy it's distinctive look and feel, then their customer may stop buying, not because Apple makes stuff worse than their competitors, but because the brand is diluted.
Put it this way (using a car analogy, this is Slashdot) Mercedes would go after anyone who copies it's sheet metal design and produces cars that could be passed off as Mercedes, even if they featured a 4 rather than 3 pointed star. Apple would have been just as protective of their iPod (classic) design, because they worked for years perfecting it and making it distinctive.
Thank God for Apple. Their efforts moved us streets ahead in user interface design, and they should legally be able to stop competitors from piggybacking on their innovations.
I could be wrong, but Sony most likely has a cross licensing agreement with Microsoft because they are a large WIndows (PC) OEM, and they probably have a deal because they compete in the video game industry, and have probably stepped on each others patents before and settled.
How do the police get the phone off you in the first place?
Sourcing of power is a complete red herring. Who do you think will be left to consume all the 'dirty' power. It (dirty power) is not going to go away, not with the kind of growth being experienced in places like China and India. I would never buy 'green' energy. Every kilowatt-hour of energy I decide to not use from 'non green' sources is a kilowatt-hour someone else shall be forced to use elsewhere. In essence, choosing power sources is a zero sum game. Whatever one person uses is not available for others to use.
The telcos want their own App Stores, but consumers want iPhones! Guess what, the telcos aren't stupid. At best, they can only hope that the iPhone is clipped in the market by other manufacturers and that the iPhone ceases to be a powerful brand. Then they can start dictating to the phone manufacturers again. But as long as only one of them is willing to deal with Apple, then all of them are.
And yes, Apple's suppliers profit when Apple sells, but Apple's customers are not clamouring for Samsung displays, or Marvell radios. Those guys are supplying commodities. The brand and the access to the customers is the reason Apple profits handsomely. Have you seen Apple's margins. Put it this way, Samsung has perhaps 3 times Apple's revenue, but only manages a third or so of Apple's profit.
Huh! What's the difference between fructose from corn, and fructose from other sources?
Apple charges off USB quite easily, as do most smartphones nowadays. IIRC, the standard is USB based, so all Apple needs is a way to connect their USB/Dock connector to s standard wall plug thingy, and they are good to go. The standard doesn't quite mandate what the connection on the phone looks like.
Think of privacy in the same way you think of free speech. Free speech means sometimes people will say hateful and hurtful things that cause people's lives to be demonstrably worse. But it's still protected because it goes to the very essence of freedom. Same as privacy. Privacy should be protected in the same way free speech is protected.
The truth is almost always desirable, but it doesn't trump privacy. Privacy is completely essential to freedom.
ISPs don't care about P2P except to the extent that it causes service to deteriorate for other users who want to watch their Youtube videos. Don't confuse them with the RIAA and the record labels. Their issues with P2P are technical more than anything else. ISPs want to spend as little as possible to deliver the service their users require for profit reason (and there is nothing wrong with that).
Besides the point is that speed is not necessarily about downloading more, but also about downloading quicker. So, multiple downloads from different sites is also a very valid point in my argument.So the fact tat single streams may not hit the cap speed is not terribly important.
Not everyone is downloading as much as you think. In fact, most people don't download that much. They stay within their caps. But the pipes are relatively free after the peak periods, and some ISPs, like Plus.net, don't really mind if the heavy users download a lot at times when the service would be impacted adversely for other users. It keeps broadband cheap.
And no, I didn't say I would really pay $150 extra to save 1 hour on my downloads. All other things equal (cost, etc) I would still find the faster speed useful. I don't necessarily have bandwidth needs exceeding 250GB a month.
ISPs do have the capability to provide the speeds advertised. They do not necessarily have the capacity to give everyone the maximum speed at the same time. To attempt to do so would be expensive and wasteful and would lead to higher broadband charges for everyone.