Great for Microsoft with no risk; big risk for Nokia for questionable gain.
I don't think it's quite that bad... the way I see it, Microsoft actually does havegreat risk - they desperately need Windows Phone to succeed. Their mobile phone strategy revolves around this, and they've already thrown away Windows CE and Kin.
Nokia does takes some risk, but their fallback plan is... Android and/or reviving Symbian/MeeGo/whatever (options 1 and 2 from Missing Matter's post). They'll lose some money, but if Windows Phone is doomed they should recognize the signs and prepare an exit strategy.
The only way I see this is the end of Nokia is if they ride Windows Phone all the down and don't do anything at all to prepare. Now that would be executive/management gross incompetence.
You can read it yourself and argue with the authors over their methodology.
But essentially they estimate 9 hours of labor to manufacture, at a Chinese rate of $1.11/hr vs a US rate of $32.53/hr. That's $10 (China) vs $292.77 (US).
The entire reason "cost of labour is a tiny part of the cost of the electronic devices" is BECAUSE they are manufactured overseas.
It's trendy to pile on the leader, or perceived leader.
I read an interesting article a few years ago, I think from the Economist, that stated it was often better to be #2 in a segment. #1 takes all the hits, even if #2 does basically the same thing. Examples sited were Walmart vs Target, Home Depot vs Lowes, and a few others. Here is happens to be Apple vs whoever else makes electronic gadgets. Apparently Apple's use of Chinese factories is the worst thing ever, while Google/Microsoft/Dell/Acer/Asus/etc on and on is totally fine, since they aren't Apple.
They estimate $1140... if they price at a level that retains the same gross margin. Whether or not people would buy it if it were that much is entirely another matter.
The article also estimates the iPad 2 would cost $617.77 using various averages for U.S. manufacturing/mining/construction compensation. That's still a profit (using $729 for the 32gb iPad 2 WiFi + 3g, just not as much of one.
On the other hand, I am contemplating purchasing my fourth tablet, as yet another gift. That's 2 ipads to family, and 1 Kindle Fire to a friend, so far... with another possible purchase in the near future. The recipients have all loved them so far.
Yes yes, you of course are so awesome that a room full of servers is barely adequate. Naturally you run dozens of high-end number crunching simulations and modeling programs, develop software using 3 other monitors and continuously stream tv/movies to yet another.
So meanwhile, the computer needs of a large number of people, perhaps even the majority of future users, are satisfied with a tablet. As has been pointed out many times, that's email, web surfing, social media apps/sites, light gaming, etc.
protip: if your sad tablet sits there unused, SELL it.
Agreed... one of my hobbies is running, and as a gizmo geek I dutifully wear my GPS watch and heart rate strap. For most exercise (essentially always unless I forget my watch and/or strap a few times a year) I collect data: map, mile splits at whatever course I'm running, heart rate, and then after I'm finished I can see distance, moving time, various averages, etc.
And after I upload the data into Garmin Connect and check it out for a few minutes, I almost never look at it again. The basic info I'm looking for is actual distance and moving time; all the rest I check out and then discard mentally. The handful of times I've studied the data have been for a specific reason - mapping an unknown route (trail running - sometimes it is tricky to find the right "path" so I'll collect data where I went, compare with a trail map, note the place I took a wrong turn for next time, etc.)
Wolfram's data collection is OCD on one hand, but at the same time, was fairly passive. He basically just saved all his email and keylogged himself - it seems like both are "setup and let it run" kind of data collection, not requiring a lot of ongoing maintenance. If we did it we could just let the data pile up and run a stats muncher script every few months/years/whatever to see various trends. I don't see myself interested enough doing that however; for one thing I use too many computers at work (many are out of my control) and home, and I have too many web email accounts to stitch together.;)
Sounds like the perfect spot for government to step in and address this free market failure (no company pursues the work due to concerns about profitability, etc.)
If the drug is so critical for saving lives, maybe it'll get spun as a "military" technology, and will be developed like the space program, internet, GPS, nuclear tech, etc. Or maybe it'll get funded like the US Interstate Highway system, seen as critical infrastructure (at least back then) and funded.
But yeah, the free market isn't some magic box that is guaranteed to crank out useful improvements. If it doesn't address something then a gov't will have to nudge (kick, drag it screaming) along.
That's my point too.;) Tablets don't need to compete with "office", most of their growth will/should come from people who don't have a computer right now and are getting by anyway.
I agree, I can't see businesses dropping PCs for office-work, but even still that level of cannibalization is small potatoes compared to the sheer numbers of potential customers that would be satisfied with a mobile device (phone or tablet of some sort). I don't have numbers, but as an underestimate, call that number or potential customers "half of the world's population" - people who don't have computers at all (not even for work) or have them at work but not at home.
The argument about input problems and competing with office kinda sound like somebody defending why everybody should drive pickup trucks - "trucks are more useful because you can haul stuff around". That may be true, but as it turns out, most people don't need to do that and are happy with cars.
I don't understand why everyone (including MS I guess) thinks tablets will eventually replace PCs.
I don't see it as people thinking the tablet will replace the PC... but I personally think tablets (and smartphones, so mobile computers in general) will eventually outsell PCs. Most anti-tablet folks seems to be arguing from the smug "I'm such a power user a tablet will NEVER satisfy my needs". Well as it turns out, the market didn't get that memo and doesn't give a crap.
I think of it like this: when computers were mainframes, there were thousands of customers. When computers were desktops, there were millions of customers. When computers are mobile (phones/tablets), there will be billions of customers. This is partly driven by price and partly driven by utility... it's just reality that the customer base for mobile computing will be larger than that of desktops which in turn were larger than that of mainframes.
I'm a software developer; I'll give up my notebooks (I left behind desktops at home in 2009, although I might get one again; work is naturally mostly desktops with one notebook available) after a major fight. But the usage needs of an AVERAGE person are massively different that those of even the typical person visiting this site. I've bought 3 tablets as gifts (2 ipads and 1 kindle fire) and the recipients have absolutely loved them. The bottom line is a lot of people really just do media consumption, light email and web browsing, and simple games.
There are 7 billion people in the world, across a huge disparity of income and education levels.
I don't get the Apple hate... well, I get part of it. It must feel good to trash some product/company, makes you feel superior (I guess). Since their success defies geek sensibilities (?) their customers must all be sheep or something.
But isn't this just the free market at work? It isn't as if they are like Microsoft* in the 90's, using their monopoly to rake users and customers over the proverbial barrel. They are selling into a very competitive market, doing the best thing of inventing stuff people want (not just pulling a Microsoft* and hanging out for ~4 years working on their copy), and raking in the money as stuff flies off the shelf to happy customers in record numbers. Selling the number of items they do, week after month after month after year, and maybe just maybe they've figured out the key component of the market: selling stuff customers want to buy.
If the only way you can rationalize their success is claiming the bulk of their sales is to fashion conscious wealthy hipsters chasing status symbols, you are deluded worse than the customer base that exists in your imagination. That explanation might fly for low numbers over a few quarters, but this is the same crap critics have been leveling for nearly 10 years of their gizmo selling. Time to grow up and deal with it. Or even better, do the "free market competition" thing and create better (better as in defined by the market) alternatives. Or, hang in the shadows crying about how the market isn't obeying your carefully constructed world view.
They're working constantly to keep ahead of Google/Android... customers and the industry benefit, right?
*Not trying to throw Microsoft under that bus, but that's just how its turned out over the last ~12 years or so.
I posted above in this thread, but YES read this novel (Lyonesse but in the Integral Edition the preferred title is Lyonesse: Suldrun's Garden). Highly recommended. This is my favorite fantasy novel of all time, and I've bought multiple editions of it (paperback, trade paperback, various hardcovers, etc).
I just mention this because it is one of Vance's books available in a ebook formats. I know there is a Kindle edition because I bought it;) and I just checked and it looks like B&N sells a Nook version.
Seconded. I'm a huge Jack Vance fan, ever since coming across "Mazirian the Magician" in a short story anthology when I was in high school. (That story is one of the ones in The Dying Earth and I believe is now the preferred book title). Of course I tracked down The Dying Earth and read right through it and was soon hunting for Eyes of the Overworld.
His earlier stuff is good too (Planet of Adventure series) but in the late 80's and early 90's he published Lyonesse: Suldrun's Garden and its two sequels, Araminta Station and its two sequels, Cugel's Saga (continuing the story from Eyes of the Overworld)... great stuff and I just ate it up. Then I started looking in the past at his earlier works from the 60's and 70's.
His characters are fascinating, all are generally quick-witted since they have to struggle against a hostile world out to trick/deceive them at every turn.
Or more precisely I didn't realize it was given a nickname. I remember people griping and dismissing posts as "oh gawd another freshman discovers USENET" or general bashing of AOL users... yeah.
I have never seen anyone that has an iPad and uses it for business, have only that iPad.
Of course you haven't - usable tablets (e.g. iPad, some upcoming Android devices) are very new so the people that have them have another computer. That might not be the case several years from now.
So where are you supposed to meet single women in that situation?
How about through shared interests, say a running club, hiking... basically anything but ideally something with wide general interest. But you are correct, I can't imagine meeting at a bar.
That's a good book, but one that I was only able to fully appreciate after reading Head First Design Patterns (yes, a somewhat-gimmicky-in-presentation Head First book, but honestly, it worked great for me. The presentation was entertaining and informative, and the examples are great). So I also recommend HFDP if Design Patterns is initially unapproachable.
WebOS failed where Apple succeeded because WebOS didn't have the cult following
I don't get constant references to Apple's "cult" following. To me that shows severe underestimation or misunderstanding of the actual customer base. A cult gets you an initial bump of excitement, a bunch of early adopters, etc. When you sell millions of units quarter after quarter after year after decade, that isn't a cult, that's producing stuff people want to buy, serving the actual existing marketplace; not some fantasy land that only exists in the minds of website critics. It comes across as some manifestation of jealousy or a raging inferiority complex.
Lack of "fanboy" support is why WebOS failed? Are you serious?
That's what I do too on my systems (Mac, Linux, Windows). But they are going further and using that kind of search for application menus... this is going to be one of those things I'll just have to try out to see how much I like/dislike it.
All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals.
I don't think this is true at all. Corporations maximize profits and one way to do that is decrease their cost(s) of production. This would have led to offshoring as a cost-savings measure eventually. What led to lower prices is competition with other corporations.
Perhaps if scientific research is worthwhile, someone will INVEST in it, rather than needing to steal tax dollars to fund the study of the mating strategies of violets?
The problem with this is a lot of scientific research doesn't pay off in Wall Street units of time (this quarter, next quarter, this fiscal year, anything longer isn't going to happen). Stuff that takes decades to do only gets funded through the government. Corporations aren't interested in long term payoff. Look at the energy industry, almost no technology progress in decades, why? Well it doesn't matter to the companies, they just pass their costs straight on to the consumer.
This idiotic bullshit of calling Apple (or any other company*) "evil" is one of the things that makes Slashdot seem childish and insignificant. Geeks are the ultimate drama queens.
Thank god, an intelligent response here.
I find it funny when so many posters appear to be internet libertarians, droning on about it, and yet the vast majority of those same posters appear to be unfamiliar with how a free market works. Or worse, react with disdain when the customers actually exercise their ability to chooseand pick something they wouldn't have - you see, that's a sign of evil, coercion, idiocy, being duped into paying more for perceived "cool" stuff, non-support of bullshit only nerds care about, and couldn't possibly be the simple fact most people just want functional stuff that meets their needs, and are easily able to weigh the cost-benefits for themselves.
But he isn't replaceable without considerable expense. If you read the article, it says he has the most knowledge, is an expert, and his resignation would leave a gaping hole.
Slashdot Mirror
Great for Microsoft with no risk; big risk for Nokia for questionable gain.
I don't think it's quite that bad... the way I see it, Microsoft actually does havegreat risk - they desperately need Windows Phone to succeed. Their mobile phone strategy revolves around this, and they've already thrown away Windows CE and Kin.
Nokia does takes some risk, but their fallback plan is... Android and/or reviving Symbian/MeeGo/whatever (options 1 and 2 from Missing Matter's post). They'll lose some money, but if Windows Phone is doomed they should recognize the signs and prepare an exit strategy.
The only way I see this is the end of Nokia is if they ride Windows Phone all the down and don't do anything at all to prepare. Now that would be executive/management gross incompetence.
It's funny too that no one ever publishes how they got those numbers.
Absolutely. Also, no one ever searches on Google, even for just 10 seconds, to find information like this article which details how they got the numbers, including links to iSupply teardowns and so on.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/how-much-would-the-ipad-2-cost-if-it-were-made-in-the-us-about-1-140/238508/
I posted below that I think he's referring to this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/how-much-would-the-ipad-2-cost-if-it-were-made-in-the-us-about-1-140/238508/
You can read it yourself and argue with the authors over their methodology.
But essentially they estimate 9 hours of labor to manufacture, at a Chinese rate of $1.11/hr vs a US rate of $32.53/hr. That's $10 (China) vs $292.77 (US).
The entire reason "cost of labour is a tiny part of the cost of the electronic devices" is BECAUSE they are manufactured overseas.
It's trendy to pile on the leader, or perceived leader.
I read an interesting article a few years ago, I think from the Economist, that stated it was often better to be #2 in a segment. #1 takes all the hits, even if #2 does basically the same thing. Examples sited were Walmart vs Target, Home Depot vs Lowes, and a few others. Here is happens to be Apple vs whoever else makes electronic gadgets. Apparently Apple's use of Chinese factories is the worst thing ever, while Google/Microsoft/Dell/Acer/Asus/etc on and on is totally fine, since they aren't Apple.
Perhaps you were thinking of this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/how-much-would-the-ipad-2-cost-if-it-were-made-in-the-us-about-1-140/238508/
They estimate $1140... if they price at a level that retains the same gross margin. Whether or not people would buy it if it were that much is entirely another matter.
The article also estimates the iPad 2 would cost $617.77 using various averages for U.S. manufacturing/mining/construction compensation. That's still a profit (using $729 for the 32gb iPad 2 WiFi + 3g, just not as much of one.
On the other hand, I am contemplating purchasing my fourth tablet, as yet another gift. That's 2 ipads to family, and 1 Kindle Fire to a friend, so far... with another possible purchase in the near future. The recipients have all loved them so far.
Yes yes, you of course are so awesome that a room full of servers is barely adequate. Naturally you run dozens of high-end number crunching simulations and modeling programs, develop software using 3 other monitors and continuously stream tv/movies to yet another.
So meanwhile, the computer needs of a large number of people, perhaps even the majority of future users, are satisfied with a tablet. As has been pointed out many times, that's email, web surfing, social media apps/sites, light gaming, etc.
protip: if your sad tablet sits there unused, SELL it.
Agreed... one of my hobbies is running, and as a gizmo geek I dutifully wear my GPS watch and heart rate strap. For most exercise (essentially always unless I forget my watch and/or strap a few times a year) I collect data: map, mile splits at whatever course I'm running, heart rate, and then after I'm finished I can see distance, moving time, various averages, etc.
And after I upload the data into Garmin Connect and check it out for a few minutes, I almost never look at it again. The basic info I'm looking for is actual distance and moving time; all the rest I check out and then discard mentally. The handful of times I've studied the data have been for a specific reason - mapping an unknown route (trail running - sometimes it is tricky to find the right "path" so I'll collect data where I went, compare with a trail map, note the place I took a wrong turn for next time, etc.)
Wolfram's data collection is OCD on one hand, but at the same time, was fairly passive. He basically just saved all his email and keylogged himself - it seems like both are "setup and let it run" kind of data collection, not requiring a lot of ongoing maintenance. If we did it we could just let the data pile up and run a stats muncher script every few months/years/whatever to see various trends. I don't see myself interested enough doing that however; for one thing I use too many computers at work (many are out of my control) and home, and I have too many web email accounts to stitch together. ;)
Sounds like the perfect spot for government to step in and address this free market failure (no company pursues the work due to concerns about profitability, etc.)
If the drug is so critical for saving lives, maybe it'll get spun as a "military" technology, and will be developed like the space program, internet, GPS, nuclear tech, etc. Or maybe it'll get funded like the US Interstate Highway system, seen as critical infrastructure (at least back then) and funded.
But yeah, the free market isn't some magic box that is guaranteed to crank out useful improvements. If it doesn't address something then a gov't will have to nudge (kick, drag it screaming) along.
That's my point too. ;) Tablets don't need to compete with "office", most of their growth will/should come from people who don't have a computer right now and are getting by anyway.
I agree, I can't see businesses dropping PCs for office-work, but even still that level of cannibalization is small potatoes compared to the sheer numbers of potential customers that would be satisfied with a mobile device (phone or tablet of some sort). I don't have numbers, but as an underestimate, call that number or potential customers "half of the world's population" - people who don't have computers at all (not even for work) or have them at work but not at home.
The argument about input problems and competing with office kinda sound like somebody defending why everybody should drive pickup trucks - "trucks are more useful because you can haul stuff around". That may be true, but as it turns out, most people don't need to do that and are happy with cars.
I don't understand why everyone (including MS I guess) thinks tablets will eventually replace PCs.
I don't see it as people thinking the tablet will replace the PC... but I personally think tablets (and smartphones, so mobile computers in general) will eventually outsell PCs. Most anti-tablet folks seems to be arguing from the smug "I'm such a power user a tablet will NEVER satisfy my needs". Well as it turns out, the market didn't get that memo and doesn't give a crap.
I think of it like this: when computers were mainframes, there were thousands of customers. When computers were desktops, there were millions of customers. When computers are mobile (phones/tablets), there will be billions of customers. This is partly driven by price and partly driven by utility... it's just reality that the customer base for mobile computing will be larger than that of desktops which in turn were larger than that of mainframes.
I'm a software developer; I'll give up my notebooks (I left behind desktops at home in 2009, although I might get one again; work is naturally mostly desktops with one notebook available) after a major fight. But the usage needs of an AVERAGE person are massively different that those of even the typical person visiting this site. I've bought 3 tablets as gifts (2 ipads and 1 kindle fire) and the recipients have absolutely loved them. The bottom line is a lot of people really just do media consumption, light email and web browsing, and simple games.
There are 7 billion people in the world, across a huge disparity of income and education levels.
I don't get the Apple hate... well, I get part of it. It must feel good to trash some product/company, makes you feel superior (I guess). Since their success defies geek sensibilities (?) their customers must all be sheep or something.
But isn't this just the free market at work? It isn't as if they are like Microsoft* in the 90's, using their monopoly to rake users and customers over the proverbial barrel. They are selling into a very competitive market, doing the best thing of inventing stuff people want (not just pulling a Microsoft* and hanging out for ~4 years working on their copy), and raking in the money as stuff flies off the shelf to happy customers in record numbers. Selling the number of items they do, week after month after month after year, and maybe just maybe they've figured out the key component of the market: selling stuff customers want to buy.
If the only way you can rationalize their success is claiming the bulk of their sales is to fashion conscious wealthy hipsters chasing status symbols, you are deluded worse than the customer base that exists in your imagination. That explanation might fly for low numbers over a few quarters, but this is the same crap critics have been leveling for nearly 10 years of their gizmo selling. Time to grow up and deal with it. Or even better, do the "free market competition" thing and create better (better as in defined by the market) alternatives. Or, hang in the shadows crying about how the market isn't obeying your carefully constructed world view.
They're working constantly to keep ahead of Google/Android... customers and the industry benefit, right?
*Not trying to throw Microsoft under that bus, but that's just how its turned out over the last ~12 years or so.
I posted above in this thread, but YES read this novel (Lyonesse but in the Integral Edition the preferred title is Lyonesse: Suldrun's Garden). Highly recommended. This is my favorite fantasy novel of all time, and I've bought multiple editions of it (paperback, trade paperback, various hardcovers, etc).
I just mention this because it is one of Vance's books available in a ebook formats. I know there is a Kindle edition because I bought it ;) and I just checked and it looks like B&N sells a Nook version.
Seconded. I'm a huge Jack Vance fan, ever since coming across "Mazirian the Magician" in a short story anthology when I was in high school. (That story is one of the ones in The Dying Earth and I believe is now the preferred book title). Of course I tracked down The Dying Earth and read right through it and was soon hunting for Eyes of the Overworld.
His earlier stuff is good too (Planet of Adventure series) but in the late 80's and early 90's he published Lyonesse: Suldrun's Garden and its two sequels, Araminta Station and its two sequels, Cugel's Saga (continuing the story from Eyes of the Overworld)... great stuff and I just ate it up. Then I started looking in the past at his earlier works from the 60's and 70's.
His characters are fascinating, all are generally quick-witted since they have to struggle against a hostile world out to trick/deceive them at every turn.
You have a four-digit UID and you don't know what the September that never ended is?
Me either... ;)
Or more precisely I didn't realize it was given a nickname. I remember people griping and dismissing posts as "oh gawd another freshman discovers USENET" or general bashing of AOL users... yeah.
I have never seen anyone that has an iPad and uses it for business, have only that iPad.
Of course you haven't - usable tablets (e.g. iPad, some upcoming Android devices) are very new so the people that have them have another computer. That might not be the case several years from now.
So where are you supposed to meet single women in that situation?
How about through shared interests, say a running club, hiking... basically anything but ideally something with wide general interest.
But you are correct, I can't imagine meeting at a bar.
That's a good book, but one that I was only able to fully appreciate after reading Head First Design Patterns (yes, a somewhat-gimmicky-in-presentation Head First book, but honestly, it worked great for me. The presentation was entertaining and informative, and the examples are great). So I also recommend HFDP if Design Patterns is initially unapproachable.
WebOS failed where Apple succeeded because WebOS didn't have the cult following
I don't get constant references to Apple's "cult" following. To me that shows severe underestimation or misunderstanding of the actual customer base. A cult gets you an initial bump of excitement, a bunch of early adopters, etc. When you sell millions of units quarter after quarter after year after decade, that isn't a cult, that's producing stuff people want to buy, serving the actual existing marketplace; not some fantasy land that only exists in the minds of website critics. It comes across as some manifestation of jealousy or a raging inferiority complex.
Lack of "fanboy" support is why WebOS failed? Are you serious?
That's what I do too on my systems (Mac, Linux, Windows). But they are going further and using that kind of search for application menus... this is going to be one of those things I'll just have to try out to see how much I like/dislike it.
All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals.
I don't think this is true at all. Corporations maximize profits and one way to do that is decrease their cost(s) of production. This would have led to offshoring as a cost-savings measure eventually. What led to lower prices is competition with other corporations.
It's all about what is valuable to you.
I have a smartphone, and cancelled cable TV which exceeds the data plan's cost delta. That tradeoff was very well worth it to me.
Perhaps if scientific research is worthwhile, someone will INVEST in it, rather than needing to steal tax dollars to fund the study of the mating strategies of violets?
The problem with this is a lot of scientific research doesn't pay off in Wall Street units of time (this quarter, next quarter, this fiscal year, anything longer isn't going to happen). Stuff that takes decades to do only gets funded through the government. Corporations aren't interested in long term payoff. Look at the energy industry, almost no technology progress in decades, why? Well it doesn't matter to the companies, they just pass their costs straight on to the consumer.
This idiotic bullshit of calling Apple (or any other company*) "evil" is one of the things that makes Slashdot seem childish and insignificant. Geeks are the ultimate drama queens.
Thank god, an intelligent response here.
I find it funny when so many posters appear to be internet libertarians, droning on about it, and yet the vast majority of those same posters appear to be unfamiliar with how a free market works. Or worse, react with disdain when the customers actually exercise their ability to chooseand pick something they wouldn't have - you see, that's a sign of evil, coercion, idiocy, being duped into paying more for perceived "cool" stuff, non-support of bullshit only nerds care about, and couldn't possibly be the simple fact most people just want functional stuff that meets their needs, and are easily able to weigh the cost-benefits for themselves.
But he isn't replaceable without considerable expense. If you read the article, it says he has the most knowledge, is an expert, and his resignation would leave a gaping hole.
How did the senior developer learn of the pay disparity?
He saw the position in an online job posting. Of course, since you read the article you knew that and your question was rhetorical.