yup, and get back to me when we see samsung's android phones selling at a discount, in a "fire sale". they are arguably the best, and most popular android devices produced. i guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem likely.
they sell a less powerful phone at a discounted price. it's the same thing. i think the fact that it wasn't designed from scratch as a low-cost option is moot.
If they were getting $500 of hardware for $500, the TouchPad would not have sold so poorly. The fact is that it lacked a number of fairly significant bullet-point features that the iPad had for the same price. Therefore, if the iPad is $500 worth of hardware, then the TouchPad wasn't. Period.
i like this analogy: ipad is the mercedes (or whatever) of tablets. sure people buy lots of hondas, they are good cars. but they they don't pay mercedes prices for them.
pure hardware companies aren't interested in selling their hardware at a loss, or even at break-even. they might as well not put the effort into making it in the first place
Ship and sold mean the same thing, uh? So, devices sitting in a warehouse somewhere, waiting to be sold, count as much as those in consumer's hands?
either they end up being "sold" eventually, or they get buried in the desert somewhere. i doubt it's the latter. the idea that samsung builds massive numbers of devices that they can't even sell just to be able to press release that they "shipped" more than apple does not seem likely. samsung is a hardware company and if they aren't making $ on that, then can't be reporting profits.
No. Apple easily sells every single unit the make (also, they release SALES numbers, not shipped numbers). I suspect there's a reason Samsung doesn't release sales numbers.
right, they are burying all those unsold phones in the desert somewhere.
sure companies build more than they can sell at times, but they don't continue to do this from quarter to quarter... and not die a quick death anyway.
apple is different, because they have a large devoted user base that's locked into apple hardware, and hence locked in to the itunes distribution model.
Hulu? Nextflix is (was) not much more per month, and Hulu still forces ads on you and has asinine and frustrating device playback restrictions on certain content, mainly because they're run by the media companies. Netflix should have all the muscle needed to force their way around the studios.
quite the opposite. those same media companies that run hulu are asking themselves why they are licensing content to their would-be competitor, netflix. netflix is entirely reliant of them to survive. content is king, and netflix has none of it's own. it's in a terrible business situation, where it relies on soon to be competitors for it's own survival.
Higher quality professors tend to get recruited by the more expensive schools
high-quality profs != high quality education. the "in demand" profs are the ones that spend all of their time in research and not in educating. seriously, i had profs that would show up once a week and give some unintelligible mess that their TAs spent the next week trying to decipher for everyone during regular lectures and office hours.
sure prices would go down, because of REDUCED DEMAND. in what universe do you live where reduced demand for education is a good thing?
Supply and demand. Schools will either go out of business or lower prices to increase demand.
and unfortunately, the actual economy never follows theory. you might be right in the long run, but there'd be a time (probably decades) in between where generations of americans would not be able to afford college... it's really questionable if america would *ever* recover from that.
sir, please do not ever turn to a life of crime, your post shows you will be quite bad at it.
So I can, for instance, sell an iPhone on Craigslist, cash deal, and then report it stolen?
yeah i suppose, just like you can today. if you are trying to have someone pay you for a phone and then have the police get your phone back, having "find my iphone" isn't giving you much as you already have the person's email and phone number, name, a physical description, and maybe other things as well. all of those things are worth more to the police than a blinking dot on a map.
anyway, if you are willing to file a fake police report thereby committing a crime yourself, and you made sure the buyer didn't get a receipt and didn't pay by a check and didn't correspond with you in any way that could be traced like oh, the phone, email, voicemail, texts, or anything else... then you might be able to make that work.
My local cafe finds an iPhone, calls the numbers in it, holds it for a month, tries to sell it (hey, they're not a high-revenue operation) and finds that the owner has reported it "stolen" because they took the insurance upgrade from the carrier? Nice.
wow that's confusing. am i suppose to be looking at this from the businesses' point of view? the business that is being deprived of the "privilege" of illegally selling lost merchandise that was left at their place of business? do you recall the whole iphone 4 prototype fiasco? where the guy found an iphone proto and sold it? it was on the news again recently, he was convicted (he only got community svc, but none the less).
and if you are looking to collect on the insurance, why would you leave it in a cafe? why not just dispose of it such that it'd never be found? heck, if you are going to commit insurance fraud, you'd better not have it on record that the place that was trying to return your phone was calling and emailing you.
As for finding it, the little dot on the map is over my bedroom, so it's maybe 25 feet of from the real location.
that's by coincidence. you don't get that accuracy from a wifi database. worse, it can be misleading. people see a definite dot on a map when in reality it could be someone within 200 feet of that dot.
If you believe it's accurate, there are essentially only two apartments to check.
anyway, even if it had a GPS lock, it's +/- 5 meters theoretical. in practice it can be off by quite a lot (100 feet or more), so that isn't even enough to say for sure.
while find-wipe-lock tech has been around for a long time, apple is making it standard issue. it will be interesting to see how law enforcement handles this. where for the most part iphone thefts have gone unpoliced, you are now going to have almost every user reporting the theft with enough evidence to find the perp. will law enforcement respond with an army of high-tech detectives to chase down these thieves? not likely.
i don't understand why apple / at&t / verizon don't just band together to squash this. if an IMEI and a police report are submitted, simply do not allow the phone to be used on any carrier and do not let it connect to any apple server. well, i do understand. this would require apple et. al to spend resources to make this happen. now, a stolen iphone is really just another sale when the stolen item is replaced. not a lot of incentive.
it would have given you and the police a good idea where the computer was
what then? they spend the day going around the neighborhood interviewing people. unless someone breaks down and admits to the crime, you are SOL. that is of course in a fairy dream land where the police would actually put any effort at all into the problem.
Translation: You're a nobody, and we're not going to spend our precious resources tracking down and prosecuting a small-time thief. Come back when you've got a friend in politics or the media.
so true. the presence of a police force definitely discourages crime, but once a crime has occurred, as an individual, you are pretty much on your own nowadays unless you have friends in high places or make it into the agenda of some politician. the police exist to provide and environment conducive to corporate profits.
even if he could run a script and take a picture, he will still have a hard time getting the police to care. your best bet is to use logmein to wipe your personal data and then brick (to the extent possible) the system out of general principle.
Even if NASA found dinosaur bones in the dirt on Mars, or whatever other proof that there has been life on Mars millions of years ago, who will benefit from that other than a few scientists who will publish the discovery in Science?
there is so much wrong with that statement i don't know where to begin.
the problem is the belief that we NEED that $375k home and the $30k car in the garage and fancy clothes the ipad. people just take all of those things as a given and go after them regardless of whether they can afford them or not.
if you paid for ivy league or private, and you couldn't afford it, then shame on you. as for $50k for a state school, you could have paid that off by working over the course of your schooling. that's never easy, but a lot of people do it. or, pay half of it off and come out with a reasonable $25k in school loans. there's also this thing called community college that can reduce your costs further.
Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space.
ultimately astronauts would be relying on manual, hand-held versions of the the same sensors present on robots to do their "life detection". every "sensor" on a human is outperformed by the non-bio version that can be carried by robots.
But that they have a payment model, DRM, and give the app distributor absolute control.
and this
It's all about screwing the end user.
go together?
having a payment model doesn't screw the user, it gives the developer a way to feed their family. as to the user, it's up to them if they want to pay or not. nobody is screwed.
at least on android, there's nothing special in the platform that forwards DRM. android does have a "license verification" API that allows developers to validate that users actually purchased the app. see point above about feeding the family.
on android, the "distributor", by which i guess you mean google, doesn't have control. anyone can build a market (see: amazon app store), and anyone can side-load apps, unless your operator has disallowed that, and you were naive enough to purchase the phone anyway.
sure they can. they can be trusted to always act in a way that maximizes their profits. in fact, that's all any corporation will ever do, by definition. if you can't stand that, stop using any OSS project that consumes corporate resources in some way or another. that would rule out so many of the OSS projects that you'd be forced to start using non-OSS software in its place.
Why don't they go back to the source, learn the mistakes that Java made... and create a language initially based on C++ with the good bits of that included.
Writing stuff that will work an order of magnitude slower on JS browsers could seem like a sensible lazy solution to many
well, that's possible if they happen to do a terrible implementation of the compiler, but the intent would that it's faster as it can output optimized JS code.
If I was close to where the large areas are I'd be there tearing up my $900/month student loan bills too.
sorry but that smacks of self interest more than anything else. you borrowed the money. why don't you think you need to pay it back? if the answer is something like "corps borrow money and don't pay it back / get bailed out", your thinking is wrong. the solution is for everyone (corps and individuals) to pay their debts and act financially responsible. the answer is NOT the opposite, for everyone to refuse to pay their debts and act financially irresponsible (as you are did / are doing, respectively).
two wrongs don't make a right, so they told me when i was 3 anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
yup, and get back to me when we see samsung's android phones selling at a discount, in a "fire sale". they are arguably the best, and most popular android devices produced. i guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem likely.
they sell a less powerful phone at a discounted price. it's the same thing. i think the fact that it wasn't designed from scratch as a low-cost option is moot.
If they were getting $500 of hardware for $500, the TouchPad would not have sold so poorly. The fact is that it lacked a number of fairly significant bullet-point features that the iPad had for the same price. Therefore, if the iPad is $500 worth of hardware, then the TouchPad wasn't. Period.
i like this analogy: ipad is the mercedes (or whatever) of tablets. sure people buy lots of hondas, they are good cars. but they they don't pay mercedes prices for them.
pure hardware companies aren't interested in selling their hardware at a loss, or even at break-even. they might as well not put the effort into making it in the first place
Ship and sold mean the same thing, uh? So, devices sitting in a warehouse somewhere, waiting to be sold, count as much as those in consumer's hands?
either they end up being "sold" eventually, or they get buried in the desert somewhere. i doubt it's the latter. the idea that samsung builds massive numbers of devices that they can't even sell just to be able to press release that they "shipped" more than apple does not seem likely. samsung is a hardware company and if they aren't making $ on that, then can't be reporting profits.
No. Apple easily sells every single unit the make (also, they release SALES numbers, not shipped numbers). I suspect there's a reason Samsung doesn't release sales numbers.
right, they are burying all those unsold phones in the desert somewhere.
sure companies build more than they can sell at times, but they don't continue to do this from quarter to quarter ... and not die a quick death anyway.
Apple could release a cheap model to get more sales but I don't think they ever will.
it's called the iphone 3gs.
Netflix is in the same boat.
apple is different, because they have a large devoted user base that's locked into apple hardware, and hence locked in to the itunes distribution model.
Hulu? Nextflix is (was) not much more per month, and Hulu still forces ads on you and has asinine and frustrating device playback restrictions on certain content, mainly because they're run by the media companies. Netflix should have all the muscle needed to force their way around the studios.
quite the opposite. those same media companies that run hulu are asking themselves why they are licensing content to their would-be competitor, netflix. netflix is entirely reliant of them to survive. content is king, and netflix has none of it's own. it's in a terrible business situation, where it relies on soon to be competitors for it's own survival.
Higher quality professors tend to get recruited by the more expensive schools
high-quality profs != high quality education. the "in demand" profs are the ones that spend all of their time in research and not in educating. seriously, i had profs that would show up once a week and give some unintelligible mess that their TAs spent the next week trying to decipher for everyone during regular lectures and office hours.
Without student loans, the price will go down.
sure prices would go down, because of REDUCED DEMAND. in what universe do you live where reduced demand for education is a good thing?
Supply and demand. Schools will either go out of business or lower prices to increase demand.
and unfortunately, the actual economy never follows theory. you might be right in the long run, but there'd be a time (probably decades) in between where generations of americans would not be able to afford college ... it's really questionable if america would *ever* recover from that.
sir, please do not ever turn to a life of crime, your post shows you will be quite bad at it.
So I can, for instance, sell an iPhone on Craigslist, cash deal, and then report it stolen?
yeah i suppose, just like you can today. if you are trying to have someone pay you for a phone and then have the police get your phone back, having "find my iphone" isn't giving you much as you already have the person's email and phone number, name, a physical description, and maybe other things as well. all of those things are worth more to the police than a blinking dot on a map.
anyway, if you are willing to file a fake police report thereby committing a crime yourself, and you made sure the buyer didn't get a receipt and didn't pay by a check and didn't correspond with you in any way that could be traced like oh, the phone, email, voicemail, texts, or anything else ... then you might be able to make that work.
My local cafe finds an iPhone, calls the numbers in it, holds it for a month, tries to sell it (hey, they're not a high-revenue operation) and finds that the owner has reported it "stolen" because they took the insurance upgrade from the carrier? Nice.
wow that's confusing. am i suppose to be looking at this from the businesses' point of view? the business that is being deprived of the "privilege" of illegally selling lost merchandise that was left at their place of business? do you recall the whole iphone 4 prototype fiasco? where the guy found an iphone proto and sold it? it was on the news again recently, he was convicted (he only got community svc, but none the less).
and if you are looking to collect on the insurance, why would you leave it in a cafe? why not just dispose of it such that it'd never be found? heck, if you are going to commit insurance fraud, you'd better not have it on record that the place that was trying to return your phone was calling and emailing you.
As for finding it, the little dot on the map is over my bedroom, so it's maybe 25 feet of from the real location.
that's by coincidence. you don't get that accuracy from a wifi database. worse, it can be misleading. people see a definite dot on a map when in reality it could be someone within 200 feet of that dot.
If you believe it's accurate, there are essentially only two apartments to check.
anyway, even if it had a GPS lock, it's +/- 5 meters theoretical. in practice it can be off by quite a lot (100 feet or more), so that isn't even enough to say for sure.
while find-wipe-lock tech has been around for a long time, apple is making it standard issue. it will be interesting to see how law enforcement handles this. where for the most part iphone thefts have gone unpoliced, you are now going to have almost every user reporting the theft with enough evidence to find the perp. will law enforcement respond with an army of high-tech detectives to chase down these thieves? not likely.
i don't understand why apple / at&t / verizon don't just band together to squash this. if an IMEI and a police report are submitted, simply do not allow the phone to be used on any carrier and do not let it connect to any apple server. well, i do understand. this would require apple et. al to spend resources to make this happen. now, a stolen iphone is really just another sale when the stolen item is replaced. not a lot of incentive.
it would have given you and the police a good idea where the computer was
what then? they spend the day going around the neighborhood interviewing people. unless someone breaks down and admits to the crime, you are SOL. that is of course in a fairy dream land where the police would actually put any effort at all into the problem.
Translation: You're a nobody, and we're not going to spend our precious resources tracking down and prosecuting a small-time thief. Come back when you've got a friend in politics or the media.
so true. the presence of a police force definitely discourages crime, but once a crime has occurred, as an individual, you are pretty much on your own nowadays unless you have friends in high places or make it into the agenda of some politician. the police exist to provide and environment conducive to corporate profits.
even if he could run a script and take a picture, he will still have a hard time getting the police to care. your best bet is to use logmein to wipe your personal data and then brick (to the extent possible) the system out of general principle.
Even if NASA found dinosaur bones in the dirt on Mars, or whatever other proof that there has been life on Mars millions of years ago, who will benefit from that other than a few scientists who will publish the discovery in Science?
there is so much wrong with that statement i don't know where to begin.
We could learn a lot from exploring the planet closest to us, before venturing out to other places.
venus is the closest planet to earth.
the problem is the belief that we NEED that $375k home and the $30k car in the garage and fancy clothes the ipad. people just take all of those things as a given and go after them regardless of whether they can afford them or not.
if you paid for ivy league or private, and you couldn't afford it, then shame on you. as for $50k for a state school, you could have paid that off by working over the course of your schooling. that's never easy, but a lot of people do it. or, pay half of it off and come out with a reasonable $25k in school loans. there's also this thing called community college that can reduce your costs further.
First, there is that whole "speed of light" business
which is no less a problem for robots.
Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space.
ultimately astronauts would be relying on manual, hand-held versions of the the same sensors present on robots to do their "life detection". every "sensor" on a human is outperformed by the non-bio version that can be carried by robots.
sorry, but did this,
But that they have a payment model, DRM, and give the app distributor absolute control.
and this
It's all about screwing the end user.
go together?
having a payment model doesn't screw the user, it gives the developer a way to feed their family. as to the user, it's up to them if they want to pay or not. nobody is screwed.
at least on android, there's nothing special in the platform that forwards DRM. android does have a "license verification" API that allows developers to validate that users actually purchased the app. see point above about feeding the family.
on android, the "distributor", by which i guess you mean google, doesn't have control. anyone can build a market (see: amazon app store), and anyone can side-load apps, unless your operator has disallowed that, and you were naive enough to purchase the phone anyway.
Google cannot be trusted.
sure they can. they can be trusted to always act in a way that maximizes their profits. in fact, that's all any corporation will ever do, by definition. if you can't stand that, stop using any OSS project that consumes corporate resources in some way or another. that would rule out so many of the OSS projects that you'd be forced to start using non-OSS software in its place.
Why don't they go back to the source, learn the mistakes that Java made ... and create a language initially based on C++ with the good bits of that included.
let me guess. c++ developer?
Writing stuff that will work an order of magnitude slower on JS browsers could seem like a sensible lazy solution to many
well, that's possible if they happen to do a terrible implementation of the compiler, but the intent would that it's faster as it can output optimized JS code.
If I was close to where the large areas are I'd be there tearing up my $900/month student loan bills too.
sorry but that smacks of self interest more than anything else. you borrowed the money. why don't you think you need to pay it back? if the answer is something like "corps borrow money and don't pay it back / get bailed out", your thinking is wrong. the solution is for everyone (corps and individuals) to pay their debts and act financially responsible. the answer is NOT the opposite, for everyone to refuse to pay their debts and act financially irresponsible (as you are did / are doing, respectively).
two wrongs don't make a right, so they told me when i was 3 anyway.