The Xbox 360 division also includes Windows Phone, and that TV thingy that noone uses. From their quarterly report, I see no way to extrapolate Xbox 360 income from WP7. But it does outright say that Windows Phone revenue is subsidising lower than expected Xbox 360 revenue this quarter (still $229 million loss though).
This isn't Wikipedia and I am not your market research organisation. This has been widely reported in the press Europe wide and a little bit of basic Googling will find it easily. However, since I know you won't give it up, here is a good example and here is the quote you really want:
Internet Marketing Services opines that the sales figure for Nokia N9 have been much higher comparing to Lumia so far in spite of a higher price. The report also suggests that the success of N9 in the market can easily be attributed to its superior features. Though these two phones look almost similar, N9 has many more features in it.
You do realise that "opines" means "opinion" right? So that statement actually reads:
The sales figure for Nokia N9 have been much higher comparing to Lumia so far in spite of a higher price, in the opinion of Internet Marketing Services. The report also suggests that the success (in IMS's opinion) of N9 in the market can easily be attributed to its superior features. Though these two phones look almost similar, N9 has many more features in it.
Sounds like they have no evidence to back it up either.
Given that the Lumia 900 has been given away for free in the US to AT&T customers who were given practically no other option, at the same time that N9 sales were practically banned it's figures must now be higher than the N9's.
So's the iPhone, and I'm pretty sure that's not hurting for sales.
I just checked their quarterly report. Actually, it says that Windows Phone revenue is subsidising lower than normal Xbox 360 revenue. So, clearly not losing money on it. The entire division lost $229 million, but that's accounting for... well, Skype.
Oh shit, really? Hmm, it seems Microsoft has been misplacing my pay cheque if I'm an employee of theirs. And I must be, according to you, because I have a Windows Phone.
So what you're saying is that phone manufacturers should also drop Android too, since it's made by Google who will soon own Motorola Mobility, who produce phones?
Wow, with arguments like that, how could I have been so blind! Of course I was wrong, with such masterful debating from yourself illustrating how wrong I was!
Which is what I've said several times.
Except that should say USED TO go to... A day after the problem was raised, Dropbox released a revised SDK, which links to a page which allows sign-up, but doesn't have any links through to paid upgrades. The problem is sorted, and Apple didn't need to make an exception.
So you're actually claiming that if a page links to a page which may or may not link to a page which allows you to sign up to a paid service, then Apple should get a cut? Boy are you deluded. Google better pull their app fast, because if you search for shit, you might get a results page including links to paid services, some of them even from Google! And PayPal better get rid of their app, and eBay. And all those online-banking apps better get pulled to. They all allow money to change hands without Apple getting any.
These aren't exceptions. Apple has two sets of rules, and everyone knows it. The only reason Amazon got clobbered is because they actually are an Apple competitor. Kindle's store button was never a problem before iBooks.
And Dropbox isn't signing up users from within the app. The link in the app simply goes to the create account/login page, from which you can reach the subscription page. So now, Apple isn't allowing links to any web page which has links to any other webpage which could conceivably have a purchase option without giving them money. Fuck that shit.
No, they can't surcharge as Apple demands that you always offer their users the best price - either the same as or less than what you offer elsewhere, despite the considerably higher overheads.
Then again, if you challenged that, the courts would likely strike it down as many courts around the world have stuck down Visa and MasterCard's equivalent clause.
Maybe you should re-read the post. It's quite clear that he most emphatically would owe Apple nothing, and if you honestly believe he would, well... I sure hope Apple marketing is paying you well.
However, publish a game on the PS Store or Xbox Marketplace, and have users sign up to a premium subscription to that game and pay directly without giving Sony or MS a cut, and that's A-OK (see Phantasy Star Online, Final Fantasy XI)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're deliberately setting the bar at a level which no mainstream provider will meet, presumably so that you can claim that this is why you pirate. Newsflash: you can't buy non-drm lossless albums with fucking Windows or OS X either, so don't go touting this as some sort of proprietary vs open thing. Oh, and even if you get "lossless" files from Bittorrent, the originals weren't.
My country is special - we're not on either watch list but got special mention because your drug companies hate our socialised medicine and reimbursement regime with the fire of a thousand suns (because our regulatory agency refuses to pay hundreds of dollars for a course of medication, let alone thousands).
No, it doesn't explain the markup. Specifically, why it exists.
And actually you're being quite disingenuous talking about manufacturers adjusting their prices. Since no, manufacturers don't - they charge the same no matter what to anyone anywhere in the world and it's the distributors that determine the local price and adjust accordingly. The only exception to this seems to be Movies, Music and Software, where the manufacturer sets the prices per region at some vastly inflated rate and refuses to adjust, ever - and contractually prevents distributors from acting unilaterally.
I'm confused. Your complaints are about Windows 3.11's multitasking (it was co-operative, like almost all multitasking at the time), Windows 95's, which you said was co-operative (it was actually pre-emptive), Wing Commander not working with your graphics drivers (your damn graphics card vendor's fault, not Microsoft), Media Player not playing half your movies (Windows doesn't ship with XviD, or anything like that, partially because it can't), and Vista running like ass on a "1/2 gig machine" (half gig of what? Memory? Processor speed? Either way, way below the minimum requirements).
Basically, your entire post boils down to "Microsoft sucks because I don't know what I'm doing". Well done.
Um, not all big governments are inherently like that. Some of them do lots of stuff, but generally stay out of the lives of citizens (apart from occasional well-meaning but ultimately failed attempts with things like anti-smacking regulations). The New Zealand government for example provides healthcare, education, social security, law enforcement, and many other services, but it either too lazy or too weak to interfere too much in peoples' lives (exempting, as above, the anti-smacking law change and small things like that). We don't have a "surveillance state" or that silly "papers please" stuff - not all socialist and semi-socialist civilizations are inherently like Nazi Germany like you "small government" zealots would have us believe.
I see your argument is awfully weak if you have to resort to ad-hominem insults rather than actually address the points. How pathetic your life must be that you actually feel insulted by the fact that someone disagrees with you.
I suggest you actually read the statement, specifically the assertion that a government with too much power is also dangerous. The problem is getting a government with the exact right amount of power - not enough that they are beyond reproach when they do wrong, but enough that criminals do not see it as too ineffectual to retaliate against criminal behaviour.
So I also suggest you shove your strawman up your ass, or something.
It doesn't work like that. He'd then have to apply to a US Court to uphold the judgement (which the court would have to decide if it wants to do it in the particular case) and enforce it. He might still need to appear in front of a court for that, not sure if US courts allow remote representation via teleconference etc. In a perfect world, the US court being independent of the government would then find in his favour and enforce the judgement, but we know that wouldn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
HTC's a pretty big mobile company nowadays isn't it? You know, Windows Mobile exclusive HTC?
No ,they bought a record company. Everyone knows that record companies are experts at alienating customers.
The Xbox 360 division also includes Windows Phone, and that TV thingy that noone uses. From their quarterly report, I see no way to extrapolate Xbox 360 income from WP7. But it does outright say that Windows Phone revenue is subsidising lower than expected Xbox 360 revenue this quarter (still $229 million loss though).
This isn't Wikipedia and I am not your market research organisation. This has been widely reported in the press Europe wide and a little bit of basic Googling will find it easily. However, since I know you won't give it up, here is a good example and here is the quote you really want:
You do realise that "opines" means "opinion" right? So that statement actually reads:
Sounds like they have no evidence to back it up either.
Given that the Lumia 900 has been given away for free in the US to AT&T customers who were given practically no other option, at the same time that N9 sales were practically banned it's figures must now be higher than the N9's.
So's the iPhone, and I'm pretty sure that's not hurting for sales.
I just checked their quarterly report. Actually, it says that Windows Phone revenue is subsidising lower than normal Xbox 360 revenue. So, clearly not losing money on it. The entire division lost $229 million, but that's accounting for ... well, Skype.
Oh shit, really? Hmm, it seems Microsoft has been misplacing my pay cheque if I'm an employee of theirs. And I must be, according to you, because I have a Windows Phone.
So what you're saying is that phone manufacturers should also drop Android too, since it's made by Google who will soon own Motorola Mobility, who produce phones?
Nonsense.
Wow, with arguments like that, how could I have been so blind! Of course I was wrong, with such masterful debating from yourself illustrating how wrong I was!
Which is what I've said several times.
Except that should say USED TO go to... A day after the problem was raised, Dropbox released a revised SDK, which links to a page which allows sign-up, but doesn't have any links through to paid upgrades. The problem is sorted, and Apple didn't need to make an exception.
So you're actually claiming that if a page links to a page which may or may not link to a page which allows you to sign up to a paid service, then Apple should get a cut? Boy are you deluded. Google better pull their app fast, because if you search for shit, you might get a results page including links to paid services, some of them even from Google! And PayPal better get rid of their app, and eBay. And all those online-banking apps better get pulled to. They all allow money to change hands without Apple getting any.
These aren't exceptions. Apple has two sets of rules, and everyone knows it. The only reason Amazon got clobbered is because they actually are an Apple competitor. Kindle's store button was never a problem before iBooks.
And you'd be wrong. Unsurprisingly.
And Dropbox isn't signing up users from within the app. The link in the app simply goes to the create account/login page, from which you can reach the subscription page. So now, Apple isn't allowing links to any web page which has links to any other webpage which could conceivably have a purchase option without giving them money. Fuck that shit.
Google has an Exchange ActiveSync license, so... um, yeah. As does Apple, actually.
Web pages can't use In-App Purchasing.
No, they can't surcharge as Apple demands that you always offer their users the best price - either the same as or less than what you offer elsewhere, despite the considerably higher overheads.
Then again, if you challenged that, the courts would likely strike it down as many courts around the world have stuck down Visa and MasterCard's equivalent clause.
Maybe you should re-read the post. It's quite clear that he most emphatically would owe Apple nothing, and if you honestly believe he would, well... I sure hope Apple marketing is paying you well.
However, publish a game on the PS Store or Xbox Marketplace, and have users sign up to a premium subscription to that game and pay directly without giving Sony or MS a cut, and that's A-OK (see Phantasy Star Online, Final Fantasy XI)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're deliberately setting the bar at a level which no mainstream provider will meet, presumably so that you can claim that this is why you pirate. Newsflash: you can't buy non-drm lossless albums with fucking Windows or OS X either, so don't go touting this as some sort of proprietary vs open thing. Oh, and even if you get "lossless" files from Bittorrent, the originals weren't.
My country is special - we're not on either watch list but got special mention because your drug companies hate our socialised medicine and reimbursement regime with the fire of a thousand suns (because our regulatory agency refuses to pay hundreds of dollars for a course of medication, let alone thousands).
Software distribution is handled by, shockingly, software distribution companies like Tech Pacific or Ingram Micro.
... or? You know that those two are the same company right?
No, it doesn't explain the markup. Specifically, why it exists.
And actually you're being quite disingenuous talking about manufacturers adjusting their prices. Since no, manufacturers don't - they charge the same no matter what to anyone anywhere in the world and it's the distributors that determine the local price and adjust accordingly. The only exception to this seems to be Movies, Music and Software, where the manufacturer sets the prices per region at some vastly inflated rate and refuses to adjust, ever - and contractually prevents distributors from acting unilaterally.
How do you think New Zealand feels? Our cheese costs twice here what it costs in London. The same cheese.
I'm confused. Your complaints are about Windows 3.11's multitasking (it was co-operative, like almost all multitasking at the time), Windows 95's, which you said was co-operative (it was actually pre-emptive), Wing Commander not working with your graphics drivers (your damn graphics card vendor's fault, not Microsoft), Media Player not playing half your movies (Windows doesn't ship with XviD, or anything like that, partially because it can't), and Vista running like ass on a "1/2 gig machine" (half gig of what? Memory? Processor speed? Either way, way below the minimum requirements).
Basically, your entire post boils down to "Microsoft sucks because I don't know what I'm doing". Well done.
Um, not all big governments are inherently like that. Some of them do lots of stuff, but generally stay out of the lives of citizens (apart from occasional well-meaning but ultimately failed attempts with things like anti-smacking regulations). The New Zealand government for example provides healthcare, education, social security, law enforcement, and many other services, but it either too lazy or too weak to interfere too much in peoples' lives (exempting, as above, the anti-smacking law change and small things like that). We don't have a "surveillance state" or that silly "papers please" stuff - not all socialist and semi-socialist civilizations are inherently like Nazi Germany like you "small government" zealots would have us believe.
I see your argument is awfully weak if you have to resort to ad-hominem insults rather than actually address the points. How pathetic your life must be that you actually feel insulted by the fact that someone disagrees with you.
I suggest you actually read the statement, specifically the assertion that a government with too much power is also dangerous. The problem is getting a government with the exact right amount of power - not enough that they are beyond reproach when they do wrong, but enough that criminals do not see it as too ineffectual to retaliate against criminal behaviour.
So I also suggest you shove your strawman up your ass, or something.
It doesn't work like that. He'd then have to apply to a US Court to uphold the judgement (which the court would have to decide if it wants to do it in the particular case) and enforce it. He might still need to appear in front of a court for that, not sure if US courts allow remote representation via teleconference etc. In a perfect world, the US court being independent of the government would then find in his favour and enforce the judgement, but we know that wouldn't happen.
MegaUpload isn't a New Zealand company. We could only have served MegaStuff, which isn't even the operator of the site.