Nokia has the largest market share, why do they have to catch up? The real thing is that Apple has to catch up and probably has used tecnology owned by Nokia illegally.
Why does Apple have to catch up? Apple makes a much greater profit margin on every phone sold than Nokia does. Nokia has a high marketshare, but low profits. Seems that Apple is actually winning this one.
I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25% (39% share vs 52% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11%) of the cell phone market.
And yet, Nokia's profits are way down. You don't go in to business for marketshare, you go into business to make a profit. Guess who does a better job on that front?
The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable? Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.
This argument makes no sense. The fact that others are licensing Nokia's patents is not proof that Nokia's patents are valid or enforceable. Invalid and unenforceable patents get licensed all the time, just to save legal hassles, or because of ignorance. Try using logic next time.
..And the only reason why Microsoft is really allowed to dominate the OS market is due to artificial regulations put in by the government (software patents) and government sponsorship.
What does Microsoft's success have to do with software patents? Microsoft would be able to dominate the OS market without a single software patent. I'm not sure what you base your argument on. Microsoft got where it is through greed, corruption, sheer luck, and the laziness and ignorance of business and home consumers. Nothing to do with patents.
And your evidence for this is... what, exactly? I've followed Apple for a long time, and they don't deliberately leak things. They either release information publicly, or they say nothing at all. "Rogue" leaks are heavily punished.
my favorite was all the idiots falling for the Pre hype like the unboxing videos of supposedly "stolen" Pre's where nothing about the OS or use was demonstrated. all the idiots thought it was really rogue employees doing it instead of the marketing drones.
The Pre is a Palm product, so I don't see what that has to do with Apple. Just because one company might do certain things, doesn't mean that all companies operate in the same way.
Does anyone else turn off the TV when they hear that (hopefully) temporary replacement for Kari on Mythbusters?
She's not going to be temporary. Even if Kari does come back from maternity leave, that annoyingly shrill little blonde is going to remain as a sidekick. I have complete confidence in this prediction.
No, I mean recognition in your original post that the lifestyle you enjoy is because of the same actions in the past. And it's still rather pathetic, because you're perpetuating the same "us versus them" situation. Your side won, and you're living comfortably because of it. So rather than seek a new paradigm of sharing or working on new solutions to the problem, you embrace the hostile approach.
The way you replied in the parent post shows just how clueless and pathetic you are, and how you lack self-awareness.
Recognizing that an adversary is using a similar tactic to one that has benefited you in the past and preparing to defend yourself against that tactic isn't pathetic.
Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic.
Der Fuhrer made them unfashionable, along with racism. My family used to have this big photo of him hanging in the front entry. Once somebody asked me why we had a picture of Hitler. Which was sort of funny, because the photo was his official portrait as the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.
I don't see why this question is funny - after all, it would be unusual to hang a large picture of Hitler near the entry of a Jewish family's home. I also don't remember Hitler being the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.
If this was the case the platform wars (to borrow Microsoft terminology) would be over and developers would code for the internet.
And the resulting applications would suck. Developers should develop for the user. "The internet" is not a sentient being, not the end-user of software. So, why would humans want want software developed for the internet? We should want software developed for humans.
Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
You mean, the same situation that indigenous "Americans" were subjected to? The same process that allowed you to be an "American" in the first place? It's pretty pathetic bitching about it, when one considers all of the benefits that you, personally, gained from such a process.
You contact the webcam base in the USA and the call the feds with the location.
So, essentially, you could spam the authorities and tell them where to go. I guess that could never be abused by drug smugglers or illegal immigrants, could it?
They sure did. There actions have made them out to be quite nice. And?
Are you shitting me? What Google does is not nice. You like advertising? You like data mining of personal information? Google just throws nice toys out there to appease people, so they will take the bad medicine and feel good about it. If Google did not have the warm, fuzzy, "open" image, everybody would be blocking them, and nobody would defend what they do. Remember people's attitudes towards Doubleclick back in the day? Google is doing the exact same thing (and even bought Doubleclick I believe) yet gets away with it.
Marketing is anathema? You realize it is the system of cash flow that we get most of our media from, right?
Right - the media juggernaut that wants to influence what we think and poison our cultures. Why would you want to support that? The internet was an opportunity to get away from corporate media, not strengthen it.
Also it would keep information closed to many because they can't afford to pay for it. So yea, it is open.
That's funny, because when I started using the internet, it was free. It wasn't until the commercialization that we had to start paying ISPs for access, etc. And there was plenty of information, much of it exchanged in a much more open manner than it is today, with less censorship.
That's just your assumption. You have no evidence for this, since it hasn't happened.
They would know exactly what strings to pull. There will always be strings. They can get lucky and guess, but like cheating anything on a massive scale, human moderation (i.e. even just changing how it works over time) can help negate this.
And having it open means much more human moderation, as more people than just Google can tweak the algorithm, and respond to exploits.
Really, there's no reason why Google's and the FOSS movement's arguments about Open Source Software cannot be applied to their search algorithm.
As far as knowing what influences are being exerted on it, all we have to do is search to find out how Page Ranks acts. Then we can see how it influences the query returns...
So, then what's the harm in opening it up, if its behavior can already be determined without the source?
But if your machine is not connected to anything else besides peripherals, then why would it be any more of security risk than USB? Very few people connect their computers together with Firewire. It just seems very odd. Do Linux users not use Firewire hard drives or make routine use of other Firewire peripherals like scanners and audio interfaces? Having an interface that is so widely used locked down seems like a major pain in the butt.
Hey, an actual useful reply! Thanks for that. But the idea of 1394 access being a security risk seems a bit overblown, unless you have physical access security issues already. How is anybody going to get to your Firewire port, unless they have physical access to your machine already? And wouldn't the same issue exist with USB?
Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent
We are?
Then why are so many things that used to be publicly-run being privatized? Why are there hardly any public telephone booths, and everybody has private mobile phones instead? What happened to all the public toilets and public parks? What about the shift to DRMed downloadable media tied to an individual, instead of physical media that be lent, shared or re-sold?
This argument seems completely absurd when it comes to what is actually happening in the world, where the movement is away from public interaction and ownership, and towards private ownership and restrictions.
Any game theorist will tell you that any system of sufficient complexity, open to a large user base, which contains "winning conditions" can be manipulated to the benefit of a few of the participants at the expense of the others.
Well, perhaps we shouldn't be making search rankings a "game" in the first place?
Systems like this are designed to allow everyone to participate without being able to exercise undue influence.
So, wouldn't opening the algorithms up result in less undue influence? After all, everybody can see how it works, therefore it can be modified to eliminate such influences. As it stands, Google has complete control, and we don't know what influences are being exerted on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but "assless chaps" is funnier than "chaps". It also implies the chaps are worn without pants
I thought it implied that the guy has no ass.
Nokia has the largest market share, why do they have to catch up? The real thing is that Apple has to catch up and probably has used tecnology owned by Nokia illegally.
Why does Apple have to catch up? Apple makes a much greater profit margin on every phone sold than Nokia does. Nokia has a high marketshare, but low profits. Seems that Apple is actually winning this one.
I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25% (39% share vs 52% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11%) of the cell phone market.
And yet, Nokia's profits are way down. You don't go in to business for marketshare, you go into business to make a profit. Guess who does a better job on that front?
The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable? Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.
This argument makes no sense. The fact that others are licensing Nokia's patents is not proof that Nokia's patents are valid or enforceable. Invalid and unenforceable patents get licensed all the time, just to save legal hassles, or because of ignorance. Try using logic next time.
Apple does leak the important stuff, like the Intel transition for example. (Which was reported widely weeks before the actual announcement.)
What evidence do you have that it was a deliberate leak? Being reported beforehand does not prove it was intentionally leaked.
..And the only reason why Microsoft is really allowed to dominate the OS market is due to artificial regulations put in by the government (software patents) and government sponsorship.
What does Microsoft's success have to do with software patents? Microsoft would be able to dominate the OS market without a single software patent. I'm not sure what you base your argument on. Microsoft got where it is through greed, corruption, sheer luck, and the laziness and ignorance of business and home consumers. Nothing to do with patents.
Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers
To be an "internet gatekeeper," don't you need people to actually visit your site first?
I wonder what Apple pays for this...
I would estimate that Apple pays approximately zero dollars for such articles.
of course it's "leaks" by marketing.
And your evidence for this is... what, exactly? I've followed Apple for a long time, and they don't deliberately leak things. They either release information publicly, or they say nothing at all. "Rogue" leaks are heavily punished.
my favorite was all the idiots falling for the Pre hype like the unboxing videos of supposedly "stolen" Pre's where nothing about the OS or use was demonstrated. all the idiots thought it was really rogue employees doing it instead of the marketing drones.
The Pre is a Palm product, so I don't see what that has to do with Apple. Just because one company might do certain things, doesn't mean that all companies operate in the same way.
But does it have a web browser worth using, or have decent applications available? A bunch of specifications doesn't make a smartphone.
Nokia makes smartphones?
Does anyone else turn off the TV when they hear that (hopefully) temporary replacement for Kari on Mythbusters?
She's not going to be temporary. Even if Kari does come back from maternity leave, that annoyingly shrill little blonde is going to remain as a sidekick. I have complete confidence in this prediction.
No, I mean recognition in your original post that the lifestyle you enjoy is because of the same actions in the past. And it's still rather pathetic, because you're perpetuating the same "us versus them" situation. Your side won, and you're living comfortably because of it. So rather than seek a new paradigm of sharing or working on new solutions to the problem, you embrace the hostile approach.
The way you replied in the parent post shows just how clueless and pathetic you are, and how you lack self-awareness.
Recognizing that an adversary is using a similar tactic to one that has benefited you in the past and preparing to defend yourself against that tactic isn't pathetic.
Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic.
Der Fuhrer made them unfashionable, along with racism. My family used to have this big photo of him hanging in the front entry. Once somebody asked me why we had a picture of Hitler. Which was sort of funny, because the photo was his official portrait as the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.
I don't see why this question is funny - after all, it would be unusual to hang a large picture of Hitler near the entry of a Jewish family's home. I also don't remember Hitler being the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.
If this was the case the platform wars (to borrow Microsoft terminology) would be over and developers would code for the internet.
And the resulting applications would suck. Developers should develop for the user. "The internet" is not a sentient being, not the end-user of software. So, why would humans want want software developed for the internet? We should want software developed for humans.
Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
You mean, the same situation that indigenous "Americans" were subjected to? The same process that allowed you to be an "American" in the first place? It's pretty pathetic bitching about it, when one considers all of the benefits that you, personally, gained from such a process.
Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.
First rate universities don't have the internet? I highly doubt that.
You contact the webcam base in the USA and the call the feds with the location.
So, essentially, you could spam the authorities and tell them where to go. I guess that could never be abused by drug smugglers or illegal immigrants, could it?
They sure did. There actions have made them out to be quite nice. And?
Are you shitting me? What Google does is not nice. You like advertising? You like data mining of personal information? Google just throws nice toys out there to appease people, so they will take the bad medicine and feel good about it. If Google did not have the warm, fuzzy, "open" image, everybody would be blocking them, and nobody would defend what they do. Remember people's attitudes towards Doubleclick back in the day? Google is doing the exact same thing (and even bought Doubleclick I believe) yet gets away with it.
Marketing is anathema? You realize it is the system of cash flow that we get most of our media from, right?
Right - the media juggernaut that wants to influence what we think and poison our cultures. Why would you want to support that? The internet was an opportunity to get away from corporate media, not strengthen it.
Also it would keep information closed to many because they can't afford to pay for it. So yea, it is open.
That's funny, because when I started using the internet, it was free. It wasn't until the commercialization that we had to start paying ISPs for access, etc. And there was plenty of information, much of it exchanged in a much more open manner than it is today, with less censorship.
No, it would result in more.
That's just your assumption. You have no evidence for this, since it hasn't happened.
They would know exactly what strings to pull. There will always be strings. They can get lucky and guess, but like cheating anything on a massive scale, human moderation (i.e. even just changing how it works over time) can help negate this.
And having it open means much more human moderation, as more people than just Google can tweak the algorithm, and respond to exploits.
Really, there's no reason why Google's and the FOSS movement's arguments about Open Source Software cannot be applied to their search algorithm.
As far as knowing what influences are being exerted on it, all we have to do is search to find out how Page Ranks acts. Then we can see how it influences the query returns...
So, then what's the harm in opening it up, if its behavior can already be determined without the source?
But if your machine is not connected to anything else besides peripherals, then why would it be any more of security risk than USB? Very few people connect their computers together with Firewire. It just seems very odd. Do Linux users not use Firewire hard drives or make routine use of other Firewire peripherals like scanners and audio interfaces? Having an interface that is so widely used locked down seems like a major pain in the butt.
Hey, an actual useful reply! Thanks for that. But the idea of 1394 access being a security risk seems a bit overblown, unless you have physical access security issues already. How is anybody going to get to your Firewire port, unless they have physical access to your machine already? And wouldn't the same issue exist with USB?
We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent
We are?
Then why are so many things that used to be publicly-run being privatized? Why are there hardly any public telephone booths, and everybody has private mobile phones instead? What happened to all the public toilets and public parks? What about the shift to DRMed downloadable media tied to an individual, instead of physical media that be lent, shared or re-sold?
This argument seems completely absurd when it comes to what is actually happening in the world, where the movement is away from public interaction and ownership, and towards private ownership and restrictions.
Any game theorist will tell you that any system of sufficient complexity, open to a large user base, which contains "winning conditions" can be manipulated to the benefit of a few of the participants at the expense of the others.
Well, perhaps we shouldn't be making search rankings a "game" in the first place?
Systems like this are designed to allow everyone to participate without being able to exercise undue influence.
So, wouldn't opening the algorithms up result in less undue influence? After all, everybody can see how it works, therefore it can be modified to eliminate such influences. As it stands, Google has complete control, and we don't know what influences are being exerted on it.