Insightful comment, but that's only half the story, and despite what you might think, they don't have it easier. The holy grail for Apple is to make the hardware disappear completely, leaving the user focused on the task at hand, not the care and feeding of the device. They've come pretty close with the iPad, but it's really damned hard to mask complexity with simplicity. For the last few years Apple has suborned the technical aspects of their products to what ordinary folks can actually do with them. Note that they don't talk about the speeds of the CPU's in iOS devices or how much RAM they have, and the message of their ads is getting things done with their devices. This is what appeals to the majority of consumers, and conversely what drives tech-minded folks up the wall. Contrast iPhone ads with Droid ads. The Apple ads show people listening to music, having Face Time chats ith their grandkids, taking pics at the beach etc, while the Droid ads come across like trailers for "Tron". It's amazing that Motorola doesn't grasp that the ads only appeal to a very narrow segment of their target market, the techies. They hobbled their horse at the starting gate.
Everyone is talking about Siri, not because it's amazing technology, which it is, but because this amazing technology is finally accessible to ordinary folks, not just researchers in an engineering lab. This knack of taking existing tech and presenting it to consumers in a package a majority of people find useful is Apple's strength. The mouse and GUI, MP3 players, touchscreens, voice recognition etc all existed prior to Apple taking them mainstream. Apple made a conscious decision to ignore the technorati in favor of a vastly larger market, and their bets have paid off big time.
And frankly, I think much of the Apple hatred among tech enthusiasts is sparked for this very reason. Apple makes some really cool toys, but they've made it as plain as day that they're not interested in catering to gadget enthusiasts, and they're sealed and locked down to make them as reliable as possible for Joe Sixpack. It's plain that much of the disappointment evinced over the iPhone 4S was from enthusiasts and analysts expecting something new and shiny, but got what they thought was a warmed over iPhone 4. Nothing could be further from the truth. The iPhone 4S only shares the appearance of it's predecessor, but it's a new device with expanded capabilities. It's like complaining that they're disappointed with Boeing's new 747-8 Intercontinental because it looks almost exactly like a first generation 747-100, despite the fact that it's completely re-engineered, with dramatically better performance, electronics, systems, engines etc.
Because it's Apple it is suddenly world changing technology. Had it been anybody else it would have been: Well when Apple implements it properly...
It's world changing when the masses can easily use it, or when it impacts everyday life. An honest-to-God working teleportation device wouldn't be world changing if it never got out of the research lab and only a few scientists used it.
It's more than just marketing, as so many here fail to realize. Marketing may entice you to buy a company's products or services, but it won't keep you buying from that company if you think their offerings suck. They actually have to live up to the marketing. Apple products have very high user satisfaction ratings, and marketing alone can't account for that.
I remember seeing pictures of the Quasar in Popular Mechanics in the mid 70's myself. The Quasar may possibly have inspired the Ecomobile, which evolved into the Monotracer, but I seriously doubt it, unlike Pax681, who avers definitively that it was. The Ecomobile bears much greater resemblance to the little enclosed cab trike delivery vehicles popular all over Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean in th 50's and 60's.
And what is it exactly that I don't get? Please, give us the benefit of your considered opinion, O Fount of All Wisdom, so that I may tell my grandchildren that I listened to geekoid and changed my life for the better.
What part of "not the first" did you fail to comprehend? You're assuming that the Monotracer was inspired by the Quasar. Care to back that up? The cabin motorcycle concept had been around for half century before the Quasar, which is considered a "feet forward" motorcycle, not a cabin motorcycle. There were many other cabin motorcycles before the Monotracer; the Quasar is not one of them, so it's a reach to state that the Quasar was the inspiration for the Monotracer. The Quasar certainly brought attention to the entire enclosed motorcycle concept, but only sold about 20 units total.
You're correct, the price is so high because of the limited production and the fact that they're all hand-built (apparently only about 400 or so have been produced). Cabin motorcycles were originally envisioned as low-cost "two-wheeled cars", and if they were produced in large enough numbers I certainly think the cost could be a lot lower than $50,000. The $77,000 you quoted is a big step down from the $92,000 I heard last year, so that's already extremely encouraging. And that's the gasoline-powered Monotracer. The E-Tracer costs about $108,000. Incredibly cool vehicles though; I'd love to have one.
The Quasar is semi-enclosed. The Monotracer, and it's predecessor, the Ecomobile, are fully enclosed cabin motorcycles. Cabin motorcycles can trace their origins back to the 1920's, 50 years before the Quasar.
The Tron bike is pretty cool, but impractical. The Peraves Monotracer is a Swiss-built cabin motorcycle which is not only practical, it has to be one of the coolest vehicles ever produced (video in German). The electric version, the E-Tracer, which boasts a top speed of 200 mph, an average equivalent fuel consumption of 203 mpg, won the Progressive Automotive X Prize for electric vehicles. Now if only I could afford one...
Out of curiosity, why should Apple split the stock? Their revenues aren't impacted by their valuation, and by keeping the price high they're deterring the day traders. Only serious institutional investors will be willing to buy the stock, and they're more likely to hold it long term, making it much more stable. Day traders and speculators tend to make a company's market cap gyrate wildly since so many of them base their stock picks on hearsay, gut feelings, the phase of the moon etc. The only reason they'd have to split the stock is because they have a burning desire to be on the Dow, which is a pretty piss poor reason in my opinion.
My eldest brother is the majority shareholder of a privately-held financial company, and over the years he's been bombarded with queries about when he's offering an IPO. His answer? "Never. I refuse to have the stock price of my company set by know-nothing day traders. They're busy watching the fluctuations on the scoreboard, not the developments on the field."
As you said, of course Microsoft is working on a Metro version of Office. They'd be crazy not to be. Office is Microsoft's cash cow, the castle that all their other ventures serve to protect, and it's probably the number one reason why people continue to use Windows. They, and everyone else (including Apple), were caught flatfooted by the runaway train that is the iPad, and I'm willing to bet that its incredible success sent deep chills through the executive suites in Redmond, when they realized that an entire vast new market was developing and they didn't even have a toehold in it. People want tablets (the argument over whether they want "tablets" or iPads can wait for another day), and Microsoft is faced with a twofold challenge: to have a viable tablet OS; and to develop a version of Office that can run on it.
Forgive me for not recalling the source, but I read a piece sometime last year about the severe political infighting inside Microsoft, and as an example the writer gave an anecdote about internal discussions concerning the creation of a touchscreen version of Office. The discussions came to an abrupt screeching halt when the head of the Office division at the time flatly refused to have anything to do with it. Try to imagine anyone at Apple telling Jobs that.
The article painted a portrait of a deeply dysfunctional company, riven by rivalries among the various divisions, and of Ballmer's part in the creation of a nightmarish corporate culture where backstabbing and naked ambition rule. One gets the distinct impression that Microsoft under Gates was like the former Yugoslavia under Tito, with only a strong personality holding together a loose confederation of rivals. With Gates's departure (Tito's death in the case of Yugoslavia), all the bitter divisions came bubbling to the surface, and not only was Ballmer incapable of controlling it, he seemed to actively encourage it in order to weaken potential rivals, similar to Milosevic's misrule in Serbia. Now it's biting Microsoft in the ass, as they find themselves culturally ill-equipped to respond quickly to an external threat.
As I said, they're faced with a twofold challenge, to succeed with a touchscreen device, and to have a version of Office that can run on it. Each by itself is an extremely difficult proposition. Success at both may prove to be an insurmountable problem.
Damn, where are mod points when you need them? Insightful comment indeed, and I agree with everything you said, particularly about a home compute appliance to which your mobile devices connect. And it's interesting you should say that Apple and Google have given the future of mobile much thought. Remember it was Jobs who coined the term "Digital Hub", and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it unspool very much like your prediction. I personally envision something along the lines of a Mac mini/Time Capsule-type hybrid device to fulfill the role of network storage, wireless router, and media/application server, with Thunderbolt ports to connect monitors and peripherals. Kudos. Sharp thinking on your part.
Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.
Helping people access cheap medication wIthout prescriptions, and which they know may cause harm, by deliberately ignoring the ramifications and enabling the suppliers solely because it's profitable, seems very non-evil to you?
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
The importation of prescription drugs to consumers in the United States is almost always unlawful because the FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of foreign prescription drugs that are not FDA-approved because the drugs may not meet FDA’s labeling requirements; may not have been manufactured, stored and distributed under proper conditions; and may not have been dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription. While Canada has its own regulatory rules for prescription drugs, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to U.S. residents are not subject to Canadian regulatory authority, and many sell drugs obtained from countries other than Canada which lack adequate pharmacy regulations.... “This investigation is about the patently unsafe, unlawful, importation of prescription drugs by Canadian on-line pharmacies, with Google’s knowledge and assistance, into the United States, directly to U.S. consumers,” said U.S. Attorney Neronha. [Emphasis mine]
It's not a matter of "advertising illegal crap", as you put it, and the fact that the Canadian pharmacies are "entirely legal" is irrelevant. As the statement in the DOJ release makes clear, these pharmacies aren't subject to the Canadian food and drug regulations, and are basically allowed to sell drugs to Americans from any source they see fit, however questionable. The FDA is in fact fulfilling it's basic mandate in this case, namely protecting the American public from drugs and medication whose standards they cannot ensure.
And for the consumption of idiots who think that Google is somehow the victim, here's another passage from the statement:
An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States. Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs.
Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.
Google blocked foreign online pharmacies after being notified by the FDA in 2003 — except those from Canada. The statement also makes clear that customers were willing to pay online pharmacies a premium if they didn't have a valid prescription,
Did I get it right? You are sad that WebOS didn't make it. But it's a happy iPad owner.
For me this is like "To bad he died, oh if I could just hold my finger and not have pulled the trigger..." If you wanted WebOS to have a chance why in hell didn't you bought a TouchPad? You are part of the market that said NO to WebOS so don't be sorry for it.
Here I go breaking my rule not to reply to Anonymous Cowards...
Yes, I am sad that an interesting interface idea didn't get a chance to show off to the general public the talents of the engineering team. What does the fact that I'm happy with my iPad have anything to do with it? Are you such a partisan jackass that you think because I own one it somehow disqualifies me from appreciating the good points of a rival device? By your pathetic rationale Nikon owners should be prohibited from saying good things about Canon cameras.
Are you such a purblind, hidebound fool that you believe that for something to succeed something else must fail? The very concept that other people have differing opinions is obviously a shock to a deep thinker such as yourself.
Are you such a narrow-minded simpleton that you believe that my owning an iPad doomed the TouchPad to irrelevance? HP didn't need my help; they did it themselves when they released a half-baked tablet and expected people to buy them.
For your information I didn't even buy my iPad; it was a gift. For your further information, I received it before the TouchPad was even announced, so it would have taken some sophisticated time-traveling gymnastics to have chosen one instead. For your further consideration, while I appreciate the interface, all reviews I read about the TouchPad stated that it was an unfinished product, and I don't know about you, but I don't have money to waste on a device that I am reasonably certain beforehand will probably disappoint me, just because I like the interface. There are others, but these are the main reasons why I "didn't bought one".
Agilent did not exist before 1999. Before that it was a division of HP, which created all the technology that Agilent now sells. Agilent was spun off from HP in 1999 in order to separate the test and measuring equipment business from the computer and peripherals divisions. Hewlett Packard is the single company most responsible for making Silicon Valley what it is.
I couldn't care less about Fiorina's personality, and frankly it has no bearing on the success of the company. By all accounts Steve Jobs is a complete asshole to work for, the proverbial boss from hell, but investors will forgive anything if he delivers results. Fiorina did not deliver, and the acquisition of Compaq was in my opinion a dramatic strategic mistake. The culture of engineering innovation at HP seemed to go out the window on her watch, and the company became a low-margin mass producer.
I've compared her before with Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. Both come from marketing backgrounds; when both assumed leadership of their respective companies engineers took a distant back seat; and investors rewarded both with flat stock prices in recognition of their inability to innovate and grow the business.
That's an insightful observation, and of course the best example that HP could hope to emulate is IBM's brilliantly successful transformation from a hardware to a service solutions company under the superb leadership of Louis Gerstner.
But why on earth would they even consider getting into bed with RIM? RIM's problems stem directly from their bizarre Frankenstein's monster leadership (2 CEO's and 3 COO's? Seriously??), and management appears to be in serious denial about the nature of their competition. Plus it seems as if the board doesn't see anything wrong with how the company is being led, so don't expect the situation there to change anytime soon.
That 25,000 sales figure doesn't include customer returns for refunds, which anecdotally have been startlingly high. The TouchPad has been an unmitigated disaster for HP, and apparently Best Buy is extremely unhappy with the situation, demanding that HP take back unsold inventory.
I hope that HP will somehow weather the turbulence and emerge stronger than ever. This is the company that built Silicon Valley and for decades was the benchmark for tech innovation, and it's so painful to watch them floundering like this. And I'm especially saddened that WebOS never really had a chance to strut it's stuff. I'm a very happy iPad owner, but I have the greatest respect and admiration for what the Palm team accomplished with WebOS's interface, and I was hoping that it would take off and keep Apple on their toes.
I personally blame Carly Fiorina for the travails of a once-proud company.
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful comment, but that's only half the story, and despite what you might think, they don't have it easier. The holy grail for Apple is to make the hardware disappear completely, leaving the user focused on the task at hand, not the care and feeding of the device. They've come pretty close with the iPad, but it's really damned hard to mask complexity with simplicity. For the last few years Apple has suborned the technical aspects of their products to what ordinary folks can actually do with them. Note that they don't talk about the speeds of the CPU's in iOS devices or how much RAM they have, and the message of their ads is getting things done with their devices. This is what appeals to the majority of consumers, and conversely what drives tech-minded folks up the wall. Contrast iPhone ads with Droid ads. The Apple ads show people listening to music, having Face Time chats ith their grandkids, taking pics at the beach etc, while the Droid ads come across like trailers for "Tron". It's amazing that Motorola doesn't grasp that the ads only appeal to a very narrow segment of their target market, the techies. They hobbled their horse at the starting gate.
Everyone is talking about Siri, not because it's amazing technology, which it is, but because this amazing technology is finally accessible to ordinary folks, not just researchers in an engineering lab. This knack of taking existing tech and presenting it to consumers in a package a majority of people find useful is Apple's strength. The mouse and GUI, MP3 players, touchscreens, voice recognition etc all existed prior to Apple taking them mainstream. Apple made a conscious decision to ignore the technorati in favor of a vastly larger market, and their bets have paid off big time.
And frankly, I think much of the Apple hatred among tech enthusiasts is sparked for this very reason. Apple makes some really cool toys, but they've made it as plain as day that they're not interested in catering to gadget enthusiasts, and they're sealed and locked down to make them as reliable as possible for Joe Sixpack. It's plain that much of the disappointment evinced over the iPhone 4S was from enthusiasts and analysts expecting something new and shiny, but got what they thought was a warmed over iPhone 4. Nothing could be further from the truth. The iPhone 4S only shares the appearance of it's predecessor, but it's a new device with expanded capabilities. It's like complaining that they're disappointed with Boeing's new 747-8 Intercontinental because it looks almost exactly like a first generation 747-100, despite the fact that it's completely re-engineered, with dramatically better performance, electronics, systems, engines etc.
Because it's Apple it is suddenly world changing technology. Had it been anybody else it would have been: Well when Apple implements it properly...
It's world changing when the masses can easily use it, or when it impacts everyday life. An honest-to-God working teleportation device wouldn't be world changing if it never got out of the research lab and only a few scientists used it.
Pogue suffers from severe RSI and has relied on Dragon Naturally Speaking for years. His books and columns are all dictated to his machines.
It's more than just marketing, as so many here fail to realize. Marketing may entice you to buy a company's products or services, but it won't keep you buying from that company if you think their offerings suck. They actually have to live up to the marketing. Apple products have very high user satisfaction ratings, and marketing alone can't account for that.
You may not buy Microsoft products, but if you bought an Android phone from HTC or Samsung recently, they got some money from you.
The iPhone is shiny, but Android phones are shiny and don't involve giving money to Apple.
No, they involve giving money to Microsoft.
I remember seeing pictures of the Quasar in Popular Mechanics in the mid 70's myself. The Quasar may possibly have inspired the Ecomobile, which evolved into the Monotracer, but I seriously doubt it, unlike Pax681, who avers definitively that it was. The Ecomobile bears much greater resemblance to the little enclosed cab trike delivery vehicles popular all over Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean in th 50's and 60's.
And what is it exactly that I don't get? Please, give us the benefit of your considered opinion, O Fount of All Wisdom, so that I may tell my grandchildren that I listened to geekoid and changed my life for the better.
What part of "not the first" did you fail to comprehend? You're assuming that the Monotracer was inspired by the Quasar. Care to back that up? The cabin motorcycle concept had been around for half century before the Quasar, which is considered a "feet forward" motorcycle, not a cabin motorcycle. There were many other cabin motorcycles before the Monotracer; the Quasar is not one of them, so it's a reach to state that the Quasar was the inspiration for the Monotracer. The Quasar certainly brought attention to the entire enclosed motorcycle concept, but only sold about 20 units total.
You're correct, the price is so high because of the limited production and the fact that they're all hand-built (apparently only about 400 or so have been produced). Cabin motorcycles were originally envisioned as low-cost "two-wheeled cars", and if they were produced in large enough numbers I certainly think the cost could be a lot lower than $50,000. The $77,000 you quoted is a big step down from the $92,000 I heard last year, so that's already extremely encouraging. And that's the gasoline-powered Monotracer. The E-Tracer costs about $108,000. Incredibly cool vehicles though; I'd love to have one.
The Quasar is semi-enclosed. The Monotracer, and it's predecessor, the Ecomobile, are fully enclosed cabin motorcycles. Cabin motorcycles can trace their origins back to the 1920's, 50 years before the Quasar.
The Tron bike is pretty cool, but impractical. The Peraves Monotracer is a Swiss-built cabin motorcycle which is not only practical, it has to be one of the coolest vehicles ever produced (video in German). The electric version, the E-Tracer, which boasts a top speed of 200 mph, an average equivalent fuel consumption of 203 mpg, won the Progressive Automotive X Prize for electric vehicles. Now if only I could afford one...
Out of curiosity, why should Apple split the stock? Their revenues aren't impacted by their valuation, and by keeping the price high they're deterring the day traders. Only serious institutional investors will be willing to buy the stock, and they're more likely to hold it long term, making it much more stable. Day traders and speculators tend to make a company's market cap gyrate wildly since so many of them base their stock picks on hearsay, gut feelings, the phase of the moon etc. The only reason they'd have to split the stock is because they have a burning desire to be on the Dow, which is a pretty piss poor reason in my opinion.
My eldest brother is the majority shareholder of a privately-held financial company, and over the years he's been bombarded with queries about when he's offering an IPO. His answer? "Never. I refuse to have the stock price of my company set by know-nothing day traders. They're busy watching the fluctuations on the scoreboard, not the developments on the field."
As you said, of course Microsoft is working on a Metro version of Office. They'd be crazy not to be. Office is Microsoft's cash cow, the castle that all their other ventures serve to protect, and it's probably the number one reason why people continue to use Windows. They, and everyone else (including Apple), were caught flatfooted by the runaway train that is the iPad, and I'm willing to bet that its incredible success sent deep chills through the executive suites in Redmond, when they realized that an entire vast new market was developing and they didn't even have a toehold in it. People want tablets (the argument over whether they want "tablets" or iPads can wait for another day), and Microsoft is faced with a twofold challenge: to have a viable tablet OS; and to develop a version of Office that can run on it.
Forgive me for not recalling the source, but I read a piece sometime last year about the severe political infighting inside Microsoft, and as an example the writer gave an anecdote about internal discussions concerning the creation of a touchscreen version of Office. The discussions came to an abrupt screeching halt when the head of the Office division at the time flatly refused to have anything to do with it. Try to imagine anyone at Apple telling Jobs that.
The article painted a portrait of a deeply dysfunctional company, riven by rivalries among the various divisions, and of Ballmer's part in the creation of a nightmarish corporate culture where backstabbing and naked ambition rule. One gets the distinct impression that Microsoft under Gates was like the former Yugoslavia under Tito, with only a strong personality holding together a loose confederation of rivals. With Gates's departure (Tito's death in the case of Yugoslavia), all the bitter divisions came bubbling to the surface, and not only was Ballmer incapable of controlling it, he seemed to actively encourage it in order to weaken potential rivals, similar to Milosevic's misrule in Serbia. Now it's biting Microsoft in the ass, as they find themselves culturally ill-equipped to respond quickly to an external threat.
As I said, they're faced with a twofold challenge, to succeed with a touchscreen device, and to have a version of Office that can run on it. Each by itself is an extremely difficult proposition. Success at both may prove to be an insurmountable problem.
Damn, where are mod points when you need them? Insightful comment indeed, and I agree with everything you said, particularly about a home compute appliance to which your mobile devices connect. And it's interesting you should say that Apple and Google have given the future of mobile much thought. Remember it was Jobs who coined the term "Digital Hub", and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it unspool very much like your prediction. I personally envision something along the lines of a Mac mini/Time Capsule-type hybrid device to fulfill the role of network storage, wireless router, and media/application server, with Thunderbolt ports to connect monitors and peripherals. Kudos. Sharp thinking on your part.
No. The iPad has proven that dramatically.
Next question.
When I read "Panda Poo" I thought this submission was about an upcoming version of Ubuntu.
Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.
Helping people access cheap medication wIthout prescriptions, and which they know may cause harm, by deliberately ignoring the ramifications and enabling the suppliers solely because it's profitable, seems very non-evil to you?
You're not an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
I suggest that you go to the source. Here's the release from the Department of Justice outlining the settlement, and here's the relevant passage:
The importation of prescription drugs to consumers in the United States is almost always unlawful because the FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of foreign prescription drugs that are not FDA-approved because the drugs may not meet FDA’s labeling requirements; may not have been manufactured, stored and distributed under proper conditions; and may not have been dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription. While Canada has its own regulatory rules for prescription drugs, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to U.S. residents are not subject to Canadian regulatory authority, and many sell drugs obtained from countries other than Canada which lack adequate pharmacy regulations. ... “This investigation is about the patently unsafe, unlawful, importation of prescription drugs by Canadian on-line pharmacies, with Google’s knowledge and assistance, into the United States, directly to U.S. consumers,” said U.S. Attorney Neronha. [Emphasis mine]
It's not a matter of "advertising illegal crap", as you put it, and the fact that the Canadian pharmacies are "entirely legal" is irrelevant. As the statement in the DOJ release makes clear, these pharmacies aren't subject to the Canadian food and drug regulations, and are basically allowed to sell drugs to Americans from any source they see fit, however questionable. The FDA is in fact fulfilling it's basic mandate in this case, namely protecting the American public from drugs and medication whose standards they cannot ensure.
And for the consumption of idiots who think that Google is somehow the victim, here's another passage from the statement:
An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States . Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs. Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.
Google blocked foreign online pharmacies after being notified by the FDA in 2003 — except those from Canada. The statement also makes clear that customers were willing to pay online pharmacies a premium if they didn't have a valid prescription,
Did I get it right? You are sad that WebOS didn't make it. But it's a happy iPad owner.
For me this is like "To bad he died, oh if I could just hold my finger and not have pulled the trigger..." If you wanted WebOS to have a chance why in hell didn't you bought a TouchPad? You are part of the market that said NO to WebOS so don't be sorry for it.
Here I go breaking my rule not to reply to Anonymous Cowards...
Yes, I am sad that an interesting interface idea didn't get a chance to show off to the general public the talents of the engineering team. What does the fact that I'm happy with my iPad have anything to do with it? Are you such a partisan jackass that you think because I own one it somehow disqualifies me from appreciating the good points of a rival device? By your pathetic rationale Nikon owners should be prohibited from saying good things about Canon cameras.
Are you such a purblind, hidebound fool that you believe that for something to succeed something else must fail? The very concept that other people have differing opinions is obviously a shock to a deep thinker such as yourself.
Are you such a narrow-minded simpleton that you believe that my owning an iPad doomed the TouchPad to irrelevance? HP didn't need my help; they did it themselves when they released a half-baked tablet and expected people to buy them.
For your information I didn't even buy my iPad; it was a gift. For your further information, I received it before the TouchPad was even announced, so it would have taken some sophisticated time-traveling gymnastics to have chosen one instead. For your further consideration, while I appreciate the interface, all reviews I read about the TouchPad stated that it was an unfinished product, and I don't know about you, but I don't have money to waste on a device that I am reasonably certain beforehand will probably disappoint me, just because I like the interface. There are others, but these are the main reasons why I "didn't bought one".
Fucking idiot.
Agilent did not exist before 1999. Before that it was a division of HP, which created all the technology that Agilent now sells. Agilent was spun off from HP in 1999 in order to separate the test and measuring equipment business from the computer and peripherals divisions. Hewlett Packard is the single company most responsible for making Silicon Valley what it is.
I couldn't care less about Fiorina's personality, and frankly it has no bearing on the success of the company. By all accounts Steve Jobs is a complete asshole to work for, the proverbial boss from hell, but investors will forgive anything if he delivers results. Fiorina did not deliver, and the acquisition of Compaq was in my opinion a dramatic strategic mistake. The culture of engineering innovation at HP seemed to go out the window on her watch, and the company became a low-margin mass producer.
I've compared her before with Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. Both come from marketing backgrounds; when both assumed leadership of their respective companies engineers took a distant back seat; and investors rewarded both with flat stock prices in recognition of their inability to innovate and grow the business.
That's an insightful observation, and of course the best example that HP could hope to emulate is IBM's brilliantly successful transformation from a hardware to a service solutions company under the superb leadership of Louis Gerstner.
But why on earth would they even consider getting into bed with RIM? RIM's problems stem directly from their bizarre Frankenstein's monster leadership (2 CEO's and 3 COO's? Seriously??), and management appears to be in serious denial about the nature of their competition. Plus it seems as if the board doesn't see anything wrong with how the company is being led, so don't expect the situation there to change anytime soon.
That 25,000 sales figure doesn't include customer returns for refunds, which anecdotally have been startlingly high. The TouchPad has been an unmitigated disaster for HP, and apparently Best Buy is extremely unhappy with the situation, demanding that HP take back unsold inventory.
I hope that HP will somehow weather the turbulence and emerge stronger than ever. This is the company that built Silicon Valley and for decades was the benchmark for tech innovation, and it's so painful to watch them floundering like this. And I'm especially saddened that WebOS never really had a chance to strut it's stuff. I'm a very happy iPad owner, but I have the greatest respect and admiration for what the Palm team accomplished with WebOS's interface, and I was hoping that it would take off and keep Apple on their toes.
I personally blame Carly Fiorina for the travails of a once-proud company.