instead of asking that, ask if yourself if you would pay money to advertise somewhere if no one was seeing (pr paying attention to) your ad? nothing is the right answer. the advertisers don't have to guess if people are clicking through. they know, and they wouldn't continue to pay their $ if no one was clicking through.
where's the data to back that up? or did you really mean "some" as in at least 2?
really, i'm sure there are some "pirates" that mainly pirate as a try-before-by mechanism, but in lack of real data i think that's unlikely. it's human nature. if i've already stolen something, it's actually extra time AND money for me to go back and purchase it. that doesn't come naturally.
If I buy a record, lose it, and then download it, is that stealing too?
if you buy a shirt, lose it, then take another from the store without paying, is that stealing?
same thing, when you bought the shirt, and when you bought the record, there was no expectation or right granted that allowed you free copies of the product if the original was lost. i'm pretty sure you knew that when you bought the record.
and please, don't push the tired "i'm making a backup copy" argument. no one is going after you legally for making a backup copy of the music you purchased. it doesn't happen.
oh, and for the record, i own (or i should say, my work owns) an asus TF-201 transformer. it performs pretty poorly overall, and if anything, it's slower than my galaxy tab 10.1 from last year. there's also a lot of animosity right now because asus released a shoddy product in the TF-201 then very shortly abandoned it and announced the TF-700. the TF-201 owners feel cheated.
but better luck to you gambling your $600 on the infinity.
um, no. apple has content upsell also in the form of the entire itunes / appstore ecosystem. and at every turn you hear people talking that iOS users spend more on content than android. apple get a cut of all that.
it's well known that the kindle fire is the only tablet that's made any sort of dent in the ipad's dominance (it's a pretty small dent). then you have all the other vendors fighting over the remaning few precent of the market that isn't consumed by the ipad and the fire. when you split 5% across five vendors, you don't end up profitable.
considering the kindle's crippled android and lackluster hardware, you'd have to say the reason it's had some success is the price... as it came in hundreds of dollars less than other android tablets (discounting the chinese knockoffs). it was reported that the kindle actually cost over $200 to build, so amazon's angle on this deal is obvious.
if you get content from your antenna, it's not free... you are paying through advertising (you'd rather be subjected to 10 mins advertising / 30 min of content? okay then...). hulu isn't free. you either watch ads or you pay monthly. if you are getting content from torrents that otherwise costs money from other sources, that's called stealing (as far as the law is concerned... and okay, you'd rather steal things than pay for them).
if you aren't interested in paying for content (in one way or another), then no company gives a $?@! about you anyway. the upsell to itunes content, the upsell to google play content, and the upsell to amazon.com products is what makes a $200 android tablet possible. that's why companies without these upsells (samsung, acer, asus, motorola) are creating tablets that cost $500-$600 that nobody wants.
16GB is not going to cut it. I need removable media...
you are a niche market. manufacturers have found that while it adds considerable cost to the manufacturer of the device, removable media is a rarely used feature. many modern android devices are taking the iOS approach and not including removable media. you'd have to expect something like this in what is essentially a budget tablet.
at the same price, there's absolutely no reason to opt for a kindle. anything you can do with a kindle fire you can do on the N7... except on the N7, you also get all the google goodies, plus the google version of the all amazon services (play movies, apps, music, etc).
There IS something capturing about the games of 1990 era.
i find myself thinking that from time to time. i get nostalgic, and download and emulator and some ROMs. it doesn't take too long before i realize that my memories were deceiving me.
Portable devices have more or less supplemented laptops and desktops, they really haven't made any big dent towards replacing them
yes, but people aren't buying new laptops every year or two, they are sticking with the 5-10 year old clunkers that are good enough. the technology in the tablet / phone space is changing fast enough that consumers can warrant purchasing new devices at a much faster rate.
Microsoft thinks they're going to walk in with these things and get it right on the first try, because their OEM buds were dropping the ball? Not quite
hey, at least they are giving it a shot. i'd think lesser of the company if they just gave up.
a well put together windows 8 tablet could be quite compelling. i think it could even be a bit larger / have a bit less battery life than your average iPad / Android tablet, and still be a success. if it runs exchange / office there's a huge built-in user base for the things.
this discussion is about android tablets, not only nook and kindle. there's a staggering assortment of android tablets available. 5", 7", 8", 9", 10", single core, dual, quad, priced from sub-$100 to $600+, acer, asus, samsung, dell, amazon, motorola, sony, and many others.
but you are right. i guess that's no choice, especially compared to the ipad 1, 2, and 3.
... they do (possibly spiteful, crazy and dickish) things to try to stay afloat.
what, like building hardware that people actually want? either way, MSFT wins.
it's a pretty bold move actually. MSFT sees the writing on the wall. the average user is opting for tablets not the big, hot, humming, whirring clicking and flashing notebooks being produced by their partners. they see their partners (dell, et al.) not innovating to keep MSFT in this game. so they release their own hardware. assuming it's good, it will either sell well itself getting them into a sort of market where apple lives, or it will get their partners to step up their game.
google has done this several times with phones through the varios incarnations of the nexus line. they are doing it for the android tablet market shortly by releasing a cheap, powerful android tablet. it's working for them.
well... vendors has a special interest in not putting poorly written apps. if they hurt your battery life, it makes they phones look crappy... and they make money off the phones, not the software.
i don't dispute you can do some nice protection schemes on a rooted device, but you can also some nasty things. if you can get the user to grant you root access you can read data from anywhere on the device, read the state of memory, or snoop network traffic. so yeah, rooting is not for everyone.
Except it's not possible under Android to make such arrangements fine-grained enough to be both secure and useful. Either a program has full read and write privileges on the mass storage or it has none; there is no middle ground as I understand it.
it's well known and documented that android apps must never put secure data on the SD card (ext. storage) without taking other provisions to protect it like encryption. secure data should be stored in the app's "data" space. SD cards are FAT formatted and don't offer the facilities to protect the data.
android apps can never* simply read each other's data over the file system. one app needs to expose it through a special component called a content provider.
* unless they do something funny like run as the same user ID, which is not possible for non-system applications.
sandboxing can't protect you against phishing attacks, on any platform, no matter what the security. if i can get you to download my fake bank of america application and enter your user name and password, i've got you. if you can get a user to come to your 3rd party app store / web site and install malicious apps, there's not much any OS can do to help you.
i guess you could say iOS protects against this by not allowing apps to be installed outside of their appstore. i don't know about WP. personally i'd rather have the option.
you don't need an AV client on android. in fact, all they do is compare applications you install against a blacklist. all they can do is warn you about blacklisted apps. that's it.
the security model of android (and many other operating systems) sandboxes apps. an app can't access any other app's data unless some special arrangement is made between them.
every android app is required to state the permissions it requires to run (internet, location, etc). these are presented to the user before they install an application.
users must actively allow applications to be installed outside of the android market.
Sorry, but the best we've come up with in human history is to have the population of a country elect their own leaders, and then have laws based on what that populace believes is moral. If you don't like it, I challenge you to show a working example of a better system.
there are inalienable rights that can't (should not) be revokable regardless of what majority of the population think they should. there's at least some people here arguing that the right of an artist to control distribution of their work is provided in the US constitution.
you can dispute the constitution, you can believe it's being misinterpreted, or you can outright disagree with it. however, the fact is that the constitution provides inalienable rights that can't be infringed upon regardless of a majority vote.
i'm not an expert on the constitutions of other nations, but i'm fairy certain most of them have something similar. there are limits to what can be made legal by an angry mob of voters. and thank goodness for that.
A study that I read around the time of the SOPA blackout (Stanford, I believe, emulating one that had been done in The Netherlands) found that over 70% of the general public finds nothing wrong with sharing their media among friends and family.
yes, and...
what percent of germans found nothing wrong with the internment of jews? what percent of americans found nothing wrong with slavery prior to the US civil war? what percent of americans found nothing wrong with the internment of japanese during WW2? what percent of americans during the 1700 and 1800's found nothing wrong with the genocide of native americans?
first, there are many places in the world where rape, molestation, and slavery are commonplace and accepted. and even if you don't want to swallow that pill, try looking in the history of the world. but perhaps you'll argue that your morality only applies to modern culture, in say the last hundred years or so?
second, what argument are you making exactly? if rape and molestation were commonplace, should they be legal? oh wait, you did say that. never mind what the world is like beyond your rocking chair in anytown, USA.
your argument is recursive. as long as whatever the majority of society believes is good and right, it should be legal, as long as it's good and right. if you want to make your argument, you have to look at the extremes of what has been accepted practice in societies around the world, throughout the ages.
Slashdot Mirror
instead of asking that, ask if yourself if you would pay money to advertise somewhere if no one was seeing (pr paying attention to) your ad? nothing is the right answer. the advertisers don't have to guess if people are clicking through. they know, and they wouldn't continue to pay their $ if no one was clicking through.
Some of their biggest customers are pirates.
where's the data to back that up? or did you really mean "some" as in at least 2?
really, i'm sure there are some "pirates" that mainly pirate as a try-before-by mechanism, but in lack of real data i think that's unlikely. it's human nature. if i've already stolen something, it's actually extra time AND money for me to go back and purchase it. that doesn't come naturally.
If I buy a record, lose it, and then download it, is that stealing too?
if you buy a shirt, lose it, then take another from the store without paying, is that stealing?
same thing, when you bought the shirt, and when you bought the record, there was no expectation or right granted that allowed you free copies of the product if the original was lost. i'm pretty sure you knew that when you bought the record.
and please, don't push the tired "i'm making a backup copy" argument. no one is going after you legally for making a backup copy of the music you purchased. it doesn't happen.
oh, and for the record, i own (or i should say, my work owns) an asus TF-201 transformer. it performs pretty poorly overall, and if anything, it's slower than my galaxy tab 10.1 from last year. there's also a lot of animosity right now because asus released a shoddy product in the TF-201 then very shortly abandoned it and announced the TF-700. the TF-201 owners feel cheated.
but better luck to you gambling your $600 on the infinity.
um, no. apple has content upsell also in the form of the entire itunes / appstore ecosystem. and at every turn you hear people talking that iOS users spend more on content than android. apple get a cut of all that.
it's well known that the kindle fire is the only tablet that's made any sort of dent in the ipad's dominance (it's a pretty small dent). then you have all the other vendors fighting over the remaning few precent of the market that isn't consumed by the ipad and the fire. when you split 5% across five vendors, you don't end up profitable.
considering the kindle's crippled android and lackluster hardware, you'd have to say the reason it's had some success is the price ... as it came in hundreds of dollars less than other android tablets (discounting the chinese knockoffs). it was reported that the kindle actually cost over $200 to build, so amazon's angle on this deal is obvious.
if you get content from your antenna, it's not free ... you are paying through advertising (you'd rather be subjected to 10 mins advertising / 30 min of content? okay then ...). hulu isn't free. you either watch ads or you pay monthly. if you are getting content from torrents that otherwise costs money from other sources, that's called stealing (as far as the law is concerned ... and okay, you'd rather steal things than pay for them).
if you aren't interested in paying for content (in one way or another), then no company gives a $?@! about you anyway. the upsell to itunes content, the upsell to google play content, and the upsell to amazon.com products is what makes a $200 android tablet possible. that's why companies without these upsells (samsung, acer, asus, motorola) are creating tablets that cost $500-$600 that nobody wants.
16GB is not going to cut it. I need removable media...
you are a niche market. manufacturers have found that while it adds considerable cost to the manufacturer of the device, removable media is a rarely used feature. many modern android devices are taking the iOS approach and not including removable media. you'd have to expect something like this in what is essentially a budget tablet.
if you want all the bells and whistles, buy up.
i'll take the Kindle
at the same price, there's absolutely no reason to opt for a kindle. anything you can do with a kindle fire you can do on the N7 ... except on the N7, you also get all the google goodies, plus the google version of the all amazon services (play movies, apps, music, etc).
not to mention that the N7 is superior hardware.
There IS something capturing about the games of 1990 era.
i find myself thinking that from time to time. i get nostalgic, and download and emulator and some ROMs. it doesn't take too long before i realize that my memories were deceiving me.
a nuclear bomb hidden in a suitcase detonated in Washington could leave a headless government
wouldn't lying unconscious and alone in your car protect you from such an attack?
sorry, 8 logical cores.
Even laptops didn't kill desktops.
tell that to my 8-core macbook pro w/ 16GB of ram.
Portable devices have more or less supplemented laptops and desktops, they really haven't made any big dent towards replacing them
yes, but people aren't buying new laptops every year or two, they are sticking with the 5-10 year old clunkers that are good enough. the technology in the tablet / phone space is changing fast enough that consumers can warrant purchasing new devices at a much faster rate.
Microsoft thinks they're going to walk in with these things and get it right on the first try, because their OEM buds were dropping the ball? Not quite
hey, at least they are giving it a shot. i'd think lesser of the company if they just gave up.
a well put together windows 8 tablet could be quite compelling. i think it could even be a bit larger / have a bit less battery life than your average iPad / Android tablet, and still be a success. if it runs exchange / office there's a huge built-in user base for the things.
this discussion is about android tablets, not only nook and kindle. there's a staggering assortment of android tablets available. 5", 7", 8", 9", 10", single core, dual, quad, priced from sub-$100 to $600+, acer, asus, samsung, dell, amazon, motorola, sony, and many others.
but you are right. i guess that's no choice, especially compared to the ipad 1, 2, and 3.
that anticompetive (notice, no quotes) iOS device doesn't let you purchase books from within the kindle or nook apps. android? no problem.
... they do (possibly spiteful, crazy and dickish) things to try to stay afloat.
what, like building hardware that people actually want? either way, MSFT wins.
it's a pretty bold move actually. MSFT sees the writing on the wall. the average user is opting for tablets not the big, hot, humming, whirring clicking and flashing notebooks being produced by their partners. they see their partners (dell, et al.) not innovating to keep MSFT in this game. so they release their own hardware. assuming it's good, it will either sell well itself getting them into a sort of market where apple lives, or it will get their partners to step up their game.
google has done this several times with phones through the varios incarnations of the nexus line. they are doing it for the android tablet market shortly by releasing a cheap, powerful android tablet. it's working for them.
To claim that there is something inherently evil about corporations is just silly.
that's not what the OP said. it said a corporation is not good or evil, it acts in whatever way will,
1. increase profits
2. avoid legal penalties (unless the sales outweigh the penalties, then screw the law)
now, most often 1 and 2 are what real living, breathing humans consider evil.
well ... vendors has a special interest in not putting poorly written apps. if they hurt your battery life, it makes they phones look crappy ... and they make money off the phones, not the software.
i don't dispute you can do some nice protection schemes on a rooted device, but you can also some nasty things. if you can get the user to grant you root access you can read data from anywhere on the device, read the state of memory, or snoop network traffic. so yeah, rooting is not for everyone.
Except it's not possible under Android to make such arrangements fine-grained enough to be both secure and useful. Either a program has full read and write privileges on the mass storage or it has none; there is no middle ground as I understand it.
it's well known and documented that android apps must never put secure data on the SD card (ext. storage) without taking other provisions to protect it like encryption. secure data should be stored in the app's "data" space. SD cards are FAT formatted and don't offer the facilities to protect the data.
android apps can never* simply read each other's data over the file system. one app needs to expose it through a special component called a content provider.
* unless they do something funny like run as the same user ID, which is not possible for non-system applications.
dear confused,
sandboxing can't protect you against phishing attacks, on any platform, no matter what the security. if i can get you to download my fake bank of america application and enter your user name and password, i've got you. if you can get a user to come to your 3rd party app store / web site and install malicious apps, there's not much any OS can do to help you.
i guess you could say iOS protects against this by not allowing apps to be installed outside of their appstore. i don't know about WP. personally i'd rather have the option.
you don't need an AV client on android. in fact, all they do is compare applications you install against a blacklist. all they can do is warn you about blacklisted apps. that's it.
the security model of android (and many other operating systems) sandboxes apps. an app can't access any other app's data unless some special arrangement is made between them.
every android app is required to state the permissions it requires to run (internet, location, etc). these are presented to the user before they install an application.
users must actively allow applications to be installed outside of the android market.
Sorry, but the best we've come up with in human history is to have the population of a country elect their own leaders, and then have laws based on what that populace believes is moral. If you don't like it, I challenge you to show a working example of a better system.
there are inalienable rights that can't (should not) be revokable regardless of what majority of the population think they should. there's at least some people here arguing that the right of an artist to control distribution of their work is provided in the US constitution.
you can dispute the constitution, you can believe it's being misinterpreted, or you can outright disagree with it. however, the fact is that the constitution provides inalienable rights that can't be infringed upon regardless of a majority vote.
i'm not an expert on the constitutions of other nations, but i'm fairy certain most of them have something similar. there are limits to what can be made legal by an angry mob of voters. and thank goodness for that.
A study that I read around the time of the SOPA blackout (Stanford, I believe, emulating one that had been done in The Netherlands) found that over 70% of the general public finds nothing wrong with sharing their media among friends and family.
yes, and ...
what percent of germans found nothing wrong with the internment of jews?
what percent of americans found nothing wrong with slavery prior to the US civil war?
what percent of americans found nothing wrong with the internment of japanese during WW2?
what percent of americans during the 1700 and 1800's found nothing wrong with the genocide of native americans?
really, what's your point?
first, there are many places in the world where rape, molestation, and slavery are commonplace and accepted. and even if you don't want to swallow that pill, try looking in the history of the world. but perhaps you'll argue that your morality only applies to modern culture, in say the last hundred years or so?
second, what argument are you making exactly? if rape and molestation were commonplace, should they be legal? oh wait, you did say that. never mind what the world is like beyond your rocking chair in anytown, USA.
your argument is recursive. as long as whatever the majority of society believes is good and right, it should be legal, as long as it's good and right. if you want to make your argument, you have to look at the extremes of what has been accepted practice in societies around the world, throughout the ages.