If Google or Apple started acquiring locomotive manufacturers, medical device companies, stock brokerages and frozen yogurt chains, this would begin to be a comparison. Sony's a conglomerate, Apple and Google are quite specialized.
you don't have to look at every sony division. obviously the dog food division and the anal probe division don't need to collaborate. but i gave two perfectly good examples where the entertainment division and the divisions that make google TV and android tablets should have collaborated and failed epically for not doing so.
Your complaints about the tablet could just as easily be applied to ASUS or any old KIRF.
huh? obviously not, because asus doesn't own a massive music and movie and TV catalog.
and anyway, who cares? just because some other company fails epically in the same way as sony doesn't mean sony isn't failing.
As it is, it looks like they simply don't know how to run the company that actually makes things, and are letting it wither, loosing billions of dollars in the process.
it's common knowledge that they bought motorola for the patents. motorola was (and is) a commodity android device manufacturer in a sea of commodity android device manufacturers. unlike sony, they don't have an entertainment division to synergize with. and then there's the thinking that google doesn't want motorola to be successful anyway because they don't want scare every other android device manufacturer away.
well here in the US where apple lives, i've never seen an iphone clone. or maybe we should look at apple's financial troubles to see how those clones are hurting them... oh wait.
Looking at the shitty minecraft clones cashing on on the app store, I almost would cheer Notch on if he had patented "a program where blocks can be moved around to build structures" or something similar.
you are making the terribly naive assumption that the best implementation will own the patent. how would you like it if one of those shitty minecraft clones owned the patent, and kept you from having a copy of the real minecraft?
that's the crux of the problem. minecraft doesn't win by having the patent for block-building games. they win by being the best block building game. if you give them a piece of paper that says they still get all there money and they don't have to be the best to get it, they won't. that's competition 101.
Ever wonder why Foxcon didn't just grab android and make an iPhone clone?
because they're not idiots and they know there's more to creating a successful product than doing a superficial copy of the iphone? because they know they'll make more money as apple's manufacturing partner than producing one more crappy iphone knockoff?
Why be subject to Apple if there are no IP restrictions at all?
i think you are confused about the issue. there's a difference between developing a product from scratch that has similarities to another product, and stealing IP. i think folks are upset with patents largely because of things like Apple vs. Samsung. samsung didn't steal any IP. they produced a similar product from scratch. if samsung had taken code from apple, or stolen their product design documents, etc, that'd be a different issue. but that's not what happened.
it's like if i developed a pill to give erections from scratch in my garage, and phizer sued me saying they patented pills that give erections. while i agree phizer's formulation should be patentable, they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a pill that gives erections (and they can't either).
Again, the problem is that people are willing to fork over $60 for a game so where is the incentive to make them cheaper?
are they?
demand is driving incredible improvements in mobile devices. when people can get pretty good games on mobile devices, consoles will be relegated to selling into the niche market of hard core gamers that don't game on PCs. there's probably always going to be some $ to be had there, but they are leaving the larger casual gamer market cash on the table.
the power of having multiple areas of competence comes in being able to use them together to build something better. look at apple. they have a digital media store, and they have iOS devices. those two divisions sell each other. look at google. they have search and online services, and they have android. you bet that google services integrate well on android devices.
if you just treat that other division as any other company, there's no advantage to being big. actually it probably hurts, because while those divisions have some high level mandate to work together , their differing visions just make it a half-assed or completely failed effort. i'm not saying it's easy, but it's required to be successful.
without sony entertainment, sony electronics (or whatever they are called) is just another company that builds TVs, phones, etc. i own a sony google tv. it has a sony movies app on it. the movies are a dollar more than i can rent them in multiple other places. i mean, why the heck even bother making the app if you aren't going to compete? how about this? offer me a free movie rental a month to get me hooked into using their movie rental service, and offer an incentive to pick a sony TV over samsung. that's me, joe nobody, coming up with a way where two sony divisions can help sell each other. it wasn't hard.
i've used a sony android tablet. it came installed with an app for renting movies from sony, and an app for purchasing music from sony. when you went to access them, you got redirected to a crappy non-mobile optimized browser page that made you fill out a massive web form to register. after you registered by painfully filling out that form on a touchscreen, you had to sign in again. you had to do that for each sony app on the device because they didn't share auth. what kind of a company ships a solution like that?
The entertainment divisions are all distinct with regard to Sony Corp. There is no all-encompassing "Entertainment division."
which touches on another one of sony's problems: it's like 100 different companies. there should be some collaborative advantage for Sony Division A and Sony Division B both being part of Sony, but there isn't. they might as well be completely different companies.
christ, this isn't the definition of apology your mommy told you about when you were 7. what does it even more for a corporation to be "sorry" anyway?
the issue is that apple convicted samsung in the court of public opinion. they used the lawsuit to smear samsung before they were convicted of it. low and behold, they were NOT convicted. what the courts are asking is perfectly reasonable- publicly state the court's decision- use a bit of their PR machine to state the actual legal decision.
Rendering each of the tabs I've opened while encoding the video I'm ripping from a DVD or music from a new CD... I could definitely use more than the 4 cores I've got in my i7.
almost all end user computer tasks are IO bound. the core doesn't sit there idle when it's waiting for IO, it context switches to do something else. it's not like each running process on your computer is hogging an entire core.
Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.
not that simple. consider chrome users that care about being tracked....
1. google doesn't support "do not track". people that care use some other browser. 2. google supports "do not track". people that care continue to use chrome, and disable tracking.
in this simple scenario, they don't lose anything by supporting do no track. in reality, they gain, because,
a. it's better to have more people tied in to their browser, even if they aren't being tracked b. many people will reject the browser outright because of bad PR resulting from #1, even if they don't really care about being tracked
The unixes and unix-likes have become very, very good at using multiple cores.
for what application? a webserver? we're talking about end user applications. how will have 256 slow cores make my linux desktop faster than a blazing faster 4-core chip?
if you want to go beyond giving each process a core, the app has to be written to take advantage of multiple cores. for some applications this works well, but for most it doesn't, or if it does, requires extra development effort to make it work right.
Come back after you've walked a 60 year old, over the phone, through setting up their exchange email on an iPad vs an android tablet. I haven't played with the Fire HD yet, so I don't know how easy it was, but it wasn't possible on the first-gen Fire.
it's a drop dead simple wizard using the stock android email client that comes with almost every android device.
You can get 64 quad-core A9s for less power than a single Intel. 256 cores at over 1GHz will be much more processing power than the Intel solution.
sure, if you have a compute job that perfectly parallelizes across 256 cores... such a job doesn't exist in end user computing. the average PC struggles to find a way to use 4 cores let alone 256.
Simply not true for Android. You can install apps on the SD card of an Android device: I've been doing it for more than a year because I have had no choice.
no, you can't. you can allow some of the app's resources to be moved to the SD card, but the code and some or all of the data still lives off of the SD card.
What? Of course you can install apps onto the MicroSD in Android devices:s You've been able to do that since 2.2.
no, you can't. you can allow some of the app's resources to be moved to the SD card, but the code and some or all of the data still lives off of the SD card.
they sell the low-memory models at a proportionately lower profit margin than the high-memory models. that way the profits average out, and they get more buzz for having a really affordable entry level model.
And WTF do I need Office on a tablet for? That's why my notebook and PC are for, and in a pinch my netbook. As long as I can view Office documents and write out the odd note, I can't imagine any reason at all that I would want to use my tablet for that purpose.
if you look at the windows 8 offerings, many are convertible tablets that doc into keyboards. MSFT is trying to blur the lines between a tablet and a laptop... and get people to replace their laptops with convertible tablets.
it's a good idea and you have to give some credit to them for trying something different, but i don't think the tech is there yet. folks aren't going to pay $800 for a tablet that's slower than the laptop they bought 3 years ago and has a tenth of the storage.
that's fine for data files, but having to leave apps at home because they don't fit on the drive is not something that folks that are used to iOS and android are going to expect.
i agree, having a way to plug in a USB mass storage device is an awesome feature, but i'm not sure it can make up for being low on space in the first place.
Yes, he has. As you should. If someone is giving away money and they are willing to give it to you, take it. That doesn't mean he approves of the government taking money and redistributing it though.
yes, he has. and i'm sure he'll continue to milk the system to give himself and his wealthy friends perks when he's elected. because after all, that's the type of person we want for president- someone with the "if i can get away with it, i'll do it" attitude.
But Mr. Marx, I though you were dead, and your ideas too.
oh knows! the "M" word! yeah sorry, but i have enough common sense to not see the world in black and white terms.
that's am extremely simplistic view of how an economy works.
we the people paid with our taxes to build and environment that allow the wealthy to reap profits. you know, silly little things like the military, police, roads, bridges, and so on. so yeah, allowing those folks to make profits from those things *we* built for them, and not contribute back to society is a re-allocation. we've subsidized their profits.
Romney, for all his faults, have never advocated re-distribution.
his companies have *taken* govt bailout money. he was profited from it. oops. just because conservative rhetoric doesn't use the commie term "redistribution", doesn't mean they aren't advocating it. taking my tax dollars and building things that allow corporations, the wealthy to profit and not giving back? that's redistribution alright. my tax dollars were sure as hell redistributed to romney's pocket.
Don't forget, the top earners in the US pay the vast majority of the taxes (at a federal level)
the govt provides an environment to conduct business. we the people pay to build that environment. you know, silly little things like roads, fire depts, police. to let the wealthy, a company reap profits from the environment we the people built with our money without giving back... that's theft.
Taxation is the government confiscating money from citizens
Slashdot Mirror
If Google or Apple started acquiring locomotive manufacturers, medical device companies, stock brokerages and frozen yogurt chains, this would begin to be a comparison. Sony's a conglomerate, Apple and Google are quite specialized.
you don't have to look at every sony division. obviously the dog food division and the anal probe division don't need to collaborate. but i gave two perfectly good examples where the entertainment division and the divisions that make google TV and android tablets should have collaborated and failed epically for not doing so.
Your complaints about the tablet could just as easily be applied to ASUS or any old KIRF.
huh? obviously not, because asus doesn't own a massive music and movie and TV catalog.
and anyway, who cares? just because some other company fails epically in the same way as sony doesn't mean sony isn't failing.
As it is, it looks like they simply don't know how to run the company that actually makes things, and are letting it wither, loosing billions of dollars in the process.
it's common knowledge that they bought motorola for the patents. motorola was (and is) a commodity android device manufacturer in a sea of commodity android device manufacturers. unlike sony, they don't have an entertainment division to synergize with. and then there's the thinking that google doesn't want motorola to be successful anyway because they don't want scare every other android device manufacturer away.
look at the iphone clones from china
well here in the US where apple lives, i've never seen an iphone clone. or maybe we should look at apple's financial troubles to see how those clones are hurting them ... oh wait.
Looking at the shitty minecraft clones cashing on on the app store, I almost would cheer Notch on if he had patented "a program where blocks can be moved around to build structures" or something similar.
you are making the terribly naive assumption that the best implementation will own the patent. how would you like it if one of those shitty minecraft clones owned the patent, and kept you from having a copy of the real minecraft?
that's the crux of the problem. minecraft doesn't win by having the patent for block-building games. they win by being the best block building game. if you give them a piece of paper that says they still get all there money and they don't have to be the best to get it, they won't. that's competition 101.
Ever wonder why Foxcon didn't just grab android and make an iPhone clone?
because they're not idiots and they know there's more to creating a successful product than doing a superficial copy of the iphone? because they know they'll make more money as apple's manufacturing partner than producing one more crappy iphone knockoff?
Why be subject to Apple if there are no IP restrictions at all?
i think you are confused about the issue. there's a difference between developing a product from scratch that has similarities to another product, and stealing IP. i think folks are upset with patents largely because of things like Apple vs. Samsung. samsung didn't steal any IP. they produced a similar product from scratch. if samsung had taken code from apple, or stolen their product design documents, etc, that'd be a different issue. but that's not what happened.
it's like if i developed a pill to give erections from scratch in my garage, and phizer sued me saying they patented pills that give erections. while i agree phizer's formulation should be patentable, they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a pill that gives erections (and they can't either).
Again, the problem is that people are willing to fork over $60 for a game so where is the incentive to make them cheaper?
are they?
demand is driving incredible improvements in mobile devices. when people can get pretty good games on mobile devices, consoles will be relegated to selling into the niche market of hard core gamers that don't game on PCs. there's probably always going to be some $ to be had there, but they are leaving the larger casual gamer market cash on the table.
the power of having multiple areas of competence comes in being able to use them together to build something better. look at apple. they have a digital media store, and they have iOS devices. those two divisions sell each other. look at google. they have search and online services, and they have android. you bet that google services integrate well on android devices.
if you just treat that other division as any other company, there's no advantage to being big. actually it probably hurts, because while those divisions have some high level mandate to work together , their differing visions just make it a half-assed or completely failed effort. i'm not saying it's easy, but it's required to be successful.
without sony entertainment, sony electronics (or whatever they are called) is just another company that builds TVs, phones, etc. i own a sony google tv. it has a sony movies app on it. the movies are a dollar more than i can rent them in multiple other places. i mean, why the heck even bother making the app if you aren't going to compete? how about this? offer me a free movie rental a month to get me hooked into using their movie rental service, and offer an incentive to pick a sony TV over samsung. that's me, joe nobody, coming up with a way where two sony divisions can help sell each other. it wasn't hard.
i've used a sony android tablet. it came installed with an app for renting movies from sony, and an app for purchasing music from sony. when you went to access them, you got redirected to a crappy non-mobile optimized browser page that made you fill out a massive web form to register. after you registered by painfully filling out that form on a touchscreen, you had to sign in again. you had to do that for each sony app on the device because they didn't share auth. what kind of a company ships a solution like that?
The entertainment divisions are all distinct with regard to Sony Corp. There is no all-encompassing "Entertainment division."
which touches on another one of sony's problems: it's like 100 different companies. there should be some collaborative advantage for Sony Division A and Sony Division B both being part of Sony, but there isn't. they might as well be completely different companies.
christ, this isn't the definition of apology your mommy told you about when you were 7. what does it even more for a corporation to be "sorry" anyway?
the issue is that apple convicted samsung in the court of public opinion. they used the lawsuit to smear samsung before they were convicted of it. low and behold, they were NOT convicted. what the courts are asking is perfectly reasonable- publicly state the court's decision- use a bit of their PR machine to state the actual legal decision.
does it require root? does it require use of the "mount" command? then it's not "trivial" by the definition of any average user.
You'd likely have more than 20GB of apps on a tablet?
games.
Rendering each of the tabs I've opened while encoding the video I'm ripping from a DVD or music from a new CD... I could definitely use more than the 4 cores I've got in my i7.
almost all end user computer tasks are IO bound. the core doesn't sit there idle when it's waiting for IO, it context switches to do something else. it's not like each running process on your computer is hogging an entire core.
the difference between 1 ghz and 3 ghz per core (all other factors being equal) means that those tasks would be slowed by only 1/3rd
no, the tasks would be 1/3 as fast, or 3x slower. assuming clock speed is all that matters.
Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.
not that simple. consider chrome users that care about being tracked ....
1. google doesn't support "do not track". people that care use some other browser.
2. google supports "do not track". people that care continue to use chrome, and disable tracking.
in this simple scenario, they don't lose anything by supporting do no track. in reality, they gain, because,
a. it's better to have more people tied in to their browser, even if they aren't being tracked
b. many people will reject the browser outright because of bad PR resulting from #1, even if they don't really care about being tracked
The unixes and unix-likes have become very, very good at using multiple cores.
for what application? a webserver? we're talking about end user applications. how will have 256 slow cores make my linux desktop faster than a blazing faster 4-core chip?
if you want to go beyond giving each process a core, the app has to be written to take advantage of multiple cores. for some applications this works well, but for most it doesn't, or if it does, requires extra development effort to make it work right.
Come back after you've walked a 60 year old, over the phone, through setting up their exchange email on an iPad vs an android tablet. I haven't played with the Fire HD yet, so I don't know how easy it was, but it wasn't possible on the first-gen Fire.
it's a drop dead simple wizard using the stock android email client that comes with almost every android device.
it's not simply a matter of writing better software. some tasks simply do not parallelize well.
You can get 64 quad-core A9s for less power than a single Intel. 256 cores at over 1GHz will be much more processing power than the Intel solution.
sure, if you have a compute job that perfectly parallelizes across 256 cores ... such a job doesn't exist in end user computing. the average PC struggles to find a way to use 4 cores let alone 256.
Simply not true for Android. You can install apps on the SD card of an Android device: I've been doing it for more than a year because I have had no choice.
no, you can't. you can allow some of the app's resources to be moved to the SD card, but the code and some or all of the data still lives off of the SD card.
What? Of course you can install apps onto the MicroSD in Android devices :s You've been able to do that since 2.2.
no, you can't. you can allow some of the app's resources to be moved to the SD card, but the code and some or all of the data still lives off of the SD card.
they sell the low-memory models at a proportionately lower profit margin than the high-memory models. that way the profits average out, and they get more buzz for having a really affordable entry level model.
thank apple for this. huge success without SD card slots, which of course make the device more expensive.
And WTF do I need Office on a tablet for? That's why my notebook and PC are for, and in a pinch my netbook. As long as I can view Office documents and write out the odd note, I can't imagine any reason at all that I would want to use my tablet for that purpose.
if you look at the windows 8 offerings, many are convertible tablets that doc into keyboards. MSFT is trying to blur the lines between a tablet and a laptop ... and get people to replace their laptops with convertible tablets.
it's a good idea and you have to give some credit to them for trying something different, but i don't think the tech is there yet. folks aren't going to pay $800 for a tablet that's slower than the laptop they bought 3 years ago and has a tenth of the storage.
that's fine for data files, but having to leave apps at home because they don't fit on the drive is not something that folks that are used to iOS and android are going to expect.
i agree, having a way to plug in a USB mass storage device is an awesome feature, but i'm not sure it can make up for being low on space in the first place.
Yes, he has. As you should. If someone is giving away money and they are willing to give it to you, take it. That doesn't mean he approves of the government taking money and redistributing it though.
yes, he has. and i'm sure he'll continue to milk the system to give himself and his wealthy friends perks when he's elected. because after all, that's the type of person we want for president- someone with the "if i can get away with it, i'll do it" attitude.
But Mr. Marx, I though you were dead, and your ideas too.
oh knows! the "M" word! yeah sorry, but i have enough common sense to not see the world in black and white terms.
that's am extremely simplistic view of how an economy works.
we the people paid with our taxes to build and environment that allow the wealthy to reap profits. you know, silly little things like the military, police, roads, bridges, and so on. so yeah, allowing those folks to make profits from those things *we* built for them, and not contribute back to society is a re-allocation. we've subsidized their profits.
Romney, for all his faults, have never advocated re-distribution.
his companies have *taken* govt bailout money. he was profited from it. oops. just because conservative rhetoric doesn't use the commie term "redistribution", doesn't mean they aren't advocating it. taking my tax dollars and building things that allow corporations, the wealthy to profit and not giving back? that's redistribution alright. my tax dollars were sure as hell redistributed to romney's pocket.
Don't forget, the top earners in the US pay the vast majority of the taxes (at a federal level)
the govt provides an environment to conduct business. we the people pay to build that environment. you know, silly little things like roads, fire depts, police. to let the wealthy, a company reap profits from the environment we the people built with our money without giving back ... that's theft.
Taxation is the government confiscating money from citizens
whoooooooooooooooosh.