I was going to finish by saying that I have to agree with Gruber on this one. While Google was in active negotiations with Motorola, Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha, and their largest shareholder, Carl Icahn, were making public statements about attacking other handset manufacturers with their patent portfolio, as well as the possibility of licensing Windows Phone 7. The timing of the statements can't have been a coincidence, and I'd be wiling to bet that they were designed to pressure Google at the bargaining table. The deal so generously favors Motorola that it sounds to me as if the terms were dictated by them. I think Motorola was in the driver's seat the entire way.
Google is effectively paying an amount roughly equal to their 2010 profits.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Google agreed to pay $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility. Google's 2010 net income was $8.5 billion. Unlike you I didn't pull that figure out of my ass. That's according to Google's own financial statement.
According to the same statement their 2009 net income was $6.5 billion, so they paid nearly two years profit for MMI. Coupled with the facts that the $12.5 billion price represent a 60% premium over MMI's share price, and that Google agreed to pay a penalty of $2.5 billion if the deal falls through for whatever reason, this certainly smacks of desperation on Google's part.
And the deal could very well fall through. It's still subject to regulatory approval, and with Google being investigated worldwide, this is certain to ratchet up the scrutiny. And then there's good ol' Microsoft. What if they decided to play spoiler and offer more for MMI? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
The Samsung Galaxy S2 is outselling Apple's flagship in parts of the world. Just look at the crazy amount of pre-orders
There certainly have been a great many pre-orders —and shipments— of Tabs, but how many have been converted into sales to actual customers? And of those, how many have been returned? There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that the return rates have been quite high.
I'm not trying to troll; I'm really keenly interested to see if any competing tablets have managed to gain traction against the iPad, because as it stands at the moment, Apple seems to be asserting iPod-like dominance over the category. Their competitors are fighting a juggernaut, and the longer they take to bring a viable rival to market, the much more difficult it's going to be for them to get some mind share. Right now the general public, not those of us who frequent tech blogs, only know that there's the iPad, and may have heard that there are some other devices available. This is the major reason we're seeing so many half-baked tablets being rushed out the door: the manufacturers know that the device isn't quite ready, but they have no choice but to ship if they have any hope of gaining some sort of attention for their offerings. They may stumble, but they know that every second longer they take to throw their hat into the ring is another second Apple is using to lock up an incredibly lucrative market.
The unfortunate thing for Apple's competitors is that they may find themselves battling for a very distant second place. The iPad is riding high, wide, and handsome, and the Xoom, TouchPad, Playbook etc., are slugging it out among themselves for Apple's scraps.
For another, look at the iPad 2, notice how much cooler it is that the iPad 1. That because even in their brilliance, Apple saw their competitors come up with cool ideas they missed.
It's extremely unlikely that Apple co-opted any of their competitors' hardware ideas for the iPad 2, which was released less than a year after the original. The design would have been finalized months before, probably before the original model shipped, then there would have been consultations with manufacturers, procurement of components, tooling up for production, testing, etc.
Organizing the supply chain for production of a complex, high-volume device like the iPad 2 doesn't happen overnight, and once the trigger is pulled on the decision, altering specs is like trying to turn a supertanker on a dime. Even if they saw something they wanted to copy for iPad 2, it would have been next to impossible to incorporate it into production. It would have caused havoc with component procurement, manufacturing, testing, marketing, etc., and would have introduced delays which would probably have been unmanageable.
No, we don't. He only said he had permission, received from a security guard, who isn't authorized to give that permission. And I like how you managed to get your panties in a knot and turn this issue into an anti-Obama rant.
Fealty to Apple? Hahahah! Now you're just being silly. You're presuming to fit my motivations for replying to you into your own skewed little worldview. And you didn't give any plausible grounds on which Apple could or should be broken up, besides your saying so. Wah wah wah! Grow the fuck up.
Apple's gotten too big. It's got a major case of left-hand not knowing what right-hand is doing. It's almost a culture.
Gotten too big? By what arbitrary standard could that be decided? Because you don't like Apple?
Please give even a single instance of "left-hand not knowing what right-hand is doing" where Apple is concerned. That's about as far from reality as you can get in Apple's case. Not only is their integration working remarkably well for them, but their focus is almost terrifying in it's scope. Everything Apple does informs everything else, from the design of their hardware, software, and retail stores, to the thrust of their advertising and their carefully managed public image. That is their culture, which is diametrically opposed to your assertion. You're really describing Microsoft, with their multiple competing fiefdoms.
When Apple first announced their guidelines for subscriptions and the publishers protested in outrage, I predicted in a discussion that Apple would change them before they went into effect. I argued at the time that it seemed to me that Apple were merely floating a trial balloon to see how far they could push, and were probably well prepared in advance to exercise some flexibility. This also works for them, because they can then give the public impression that they're prepared to be reasonable, when in fact they had probably planned internally for less stringent terms. As I said, Apple manages their public image with extreme care, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that they pushed their original terms knowing full well that they had no intention of implementing them. In fact I would argue that they would have been surprised if they had been widely accepted.
somebody with brains & imagination needs to step up to the plate and kick Apple's ass for a change...
Google are already doing so with Android.
Tell me, how exactly is Google kicking Apple's ass with Android, when Apple's iPhone business by itself generates more revenue than Google's entire enterprise? In market share? Like Apple gives a damn when they're vacuuming up 55% of the total profits for the entire mobile industry, not just the smartphone segment.
Companies must be lining up begging Google to kick their asses like that.
You seem to be of the opinion that just because Apple will not be in first place in handset sales that the company isn't a good investment.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And you keep conflating volumes with sales. Apple is in first place in handset sales, ie, revenue, and are already the sales leader. They aren't the market leader. There's a huge difference.
You claim to own Apple stock, and have no intention of selling it any time soon. Why not? The lion's share of Apple's income derives from iOS, and you seem so certain that Android is overtaking it, so you're investing in a company that will likely suffer a major reversal, but you're determined to stick with it. Or don't you really believe what you said? So which is it? Do you really believe that Android is outselling iOS, but you're sticking with Apple regardless? If that's the case, then Elop must have been addressing you in his "burning platform" memo.
Do you even know what it means? Let's talk about sales then, whereby companies refer to revenue not market share, or volumes. You say that "Apple iOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by Android". Any accountant would disagree with you if they looked at the balance sheets, and by your metric Symbian is outselling all other platforms. Are you seriously suggesting that the totality of Android devices is generating more revenue for their respective manufacturers than iOS is for Apple? Much less twice as much revenue? Not even close, and you're the one who made the comment about Android devices vs iOS devices, so YOU made it about tablets. Furthermore, nowhere in my comment did I refer to YOU as a hater. I was merely pointing out how disingenuous it is that people constantly compare Android to iPhone instead of Android to iOS. And as for the "news you don't like" crack, nice try making me out as the Android-hating iPhone zealot. I own neither an Android phone nor an iPhone; in fact I don't own a smartphone at all, and I have no plans to get one. I'm merely sick to death of both camps spouting bullshit. And you own Apple stock? Ring-a-fucking-ding. So does every hedge fund manager and his dog. And the facts still stand that iOS is outselling Android, by the only measures that count to manufacturers: revenues and profitability. Volume and market share mean nothing if they're losing their asses in the process. Just ask Nokia.
Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.
Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.
Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".
Apple's P/E is only about 18.5, and the case has been repeatedly made that the stock is ridiculously underpriced. Case in point. I can't believe your neck fart was modded insightful.
I'm aware that diesel-electric subs only spend a fraction of their patrol actually submerged, and of course, they could use GPS while on the surface. I'm just wondering what the hell the writer was talking about. If he had made clear, like Anonymous Coward did, that chart plotters with integrated sonar are widely used, he could have saved me a headache, and I wouldn't have had to dip into my snark reserves.
I've heard of side-scan radar and side-scan sonar. What the fuck is side-scan GPS? Wouldn't the vessel have to be on the surface to receive a GPS signal, or if submerged, extend some sort of antenna above the ocean surface? What in the name of Cthulhu are they scanning laterally for? Does the US Navy have a secret GPS constellation that orbits underwater or something? Methinks the writer studied journalism at the University of Make Shit Up.
Burt Rutan is to my mind one of the towering giants of aviation history, all the more so because he continued to think outside the box and roll back the frontiers of the designer's art. In an era when design and engineering principles were already considered to be well-established, and advances were merely refinements of what had gone before, Burt managed to surprise and delight with his every offering. He is a wellspring of innovative genius, a colossus of the industry, a prodigy, a maverick, and one of my personal idols.
They made a key strategic error with the Zune - they didn't realize that no one wanted a "poop brown" media device.
Even more unsavory, it's a poop brown device that "squirts". It would probably have sold better if they had bundled each device with with a packet of wet wipes and a bottle of Purell.
You realize that was their marketing department messing with your expectations right? So when it dropped at £399 you considered it "low". £400 is not inexpensive by any standard for a non-essential device.
Context please. £400 is not expensive for a tablet computer that offers the features of the iPad. If it is, then where are all the less expensive competitors hmm? Oh that's right, there aren't any, because other manufacturers are finding it too fucking difficult to make one for that price.
Not to mention they're practically using slave labor to manufacture these.
Okay, I'll bite. Where are your electronics manufactured? It never ceases to amaze me when all the Apple haters start bleating about Apple's contract manufacturers use of cheap labor in China (This just in! Labor cheap in China! Film at 11!), while conveniently neglecting to mention that the bulk of ALL consumer electronic devices are manufactured in the PRC.
So are using a Dell PC? An HP? Acer? A Samsung Galaxy S? A Samsung Galaxy Tab? Do you own a Playstation? Or an Xbox? Well guess what Mr. Anonymous Hypocrite: if the answer to any of these questions is " yes", more than likely they were assembled at the self-same Foxconn slave labor camp where iPhones and iPads are manufactured, or one of the other 11 just like it in mainland China. Dell, HP, and Acer are far larger clients of Foxconn than is Apple. But I guess it's easier to make inflammatory statements about a company's morality because you don't use their products, than it is to take a good hard look at yourself and your own choices.
I'd tell you to get off your high horse, but you're obviously riding a giraffe.
Concurrent with the announcement of the new portables, Apple announced the availability of the developer preview of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion on the Mac App Store (via a redeemable code).
An intriguing new feature is called AirDrop, which allows P2P transfer of files to other nearby Macs with AirDrop turned on. Clicking on the icon in Finder will bring up a list of AirDrop-enabled Macs, even attaching profile pictures of your contacts if they're in your Address Book. Apparently it works using WiFi, and the base station doesn't even need to be turned on. It is true P2P.
With Lion on the horizon, I think it's probable that AirDrop will be rolled into an iOS update. This would be perfect for the syncing utopia you describe.
And to expand on your point about subscription becoming basically an impulse purchase, Apple are offering the publishers an enormous carrot: access to 160 million credit card numbers. Apple are betting huge here. They're gambling that publishers will grumble about the 30% cut they have to give to Apple, but will weigh that against the potentially huge pool of paying customers who will suddenly be presented with easy one-click access to subscriptions. How many of these people would be more willing to subscribe to content if it's reasonably priced and only one-click away, rather than signing up through the publisher's own site and having to provide payment information all over again when Apple is already in possession of it?
The real sticking point for the publishers though, isn't the 30% cut; it's that Apple refuses by default to give them access to the gold mine of customer data that goes along with those credit card numbers. Subscribers have to choose whether they want to provide the publisher with their name, home address, and email, all of which are essential for targeted marketing, a lucrative source of revenue. They're pissed that Apple is acting as a gatekeeper between them and their subscribers. But from Apple's point of view, these people are Apple's customers, not the publishers, and they're determined to provide content and services with the ease and convenience they've become accustomed to. Apple is actually providing a system that could be extremely lucrative for all concerned. Of course it could blow up in their faces if companies decide that they don't want to play ball, but I personally wouldn't bet against Apple.
Here's the thing that has spurred much of the Apple hatred in the tech community: many geeks feel that Apple don't care about them because of their "walled garden" approach, and guess what? They're right. Apple's priorities are, in descending order:
1) Apple (duh!);
2) their users;
100) everyone else;
the last group to include developers, content providers, publishers etc. Apple's brand is a contract of trust with their users, that they will provide easy to use, dependable hardware, software, and services, and they will not let any group break that contract. Do you honestly believe that the totality of people railing against the "evils" of Apple's "walled garden" constitute even a blip on Apple's radar, when compared to their tens of millions of paying customers? Keep hoping.
Despite the popular portrayal of Apple as some sort of totalitarian state sending in the digital tanks to take away our hard won tech freedoms, Apple is in fact very much a democracy. It's a democracy in which people vote with their dollars, and they voted nearly twenty seven billion times last quarter alone.
Cowardice rises to the next level: another robot to replace the job of having some consequences to war.
Practicality replacing all that honor warrior crap - makes you wonder just how fat and lazy the future military will become; aside from an increased level of cowardice due to those types thriving...
Are you saying that a nation as rich and powerful as the U.S. should not expend the resources to better protect their military personnel in combat? They shouldn't investigate technology that increases force effectiveness while reducing exposure to counter-strikes? They shouldn't field weapons that could deter a potential adversary from engaging in battle?
Cowardice? If that's what you think then by all means let's take away all those assault rifles from the infantry and make them fight with swords and bows. That stand-off range afforded them by modern firearms is dishonorable don't you know.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to finish by saying that I have to agree with Gruber on this one. While Google was in active negotiations with Motorola, Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha, and their largest shareholder, Carl Icahn, were making public statements about attacking other handset manufacturers with their patent portfolio, as well as the possibility of licensing Windows Phone 7. The timing of the statements can't have been a coincidence, and I'd be wiling to bet that they were designed to pressure Google at the bargaining table. The deal so generously favors Motorola that it sounds to me as if the terms were dictated by them. I think Motorola was in the driver's seat the entire way.
Google is effectively paying an amount roughly equal to their 2010 profits.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Google agreed to pay $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility. Google's 2010 net income was $8.5 billion. Unlike you I didn't pull that figure out of my ass. That's according to Google's own financial statement.
According to the same statement their 2009 net income was $6.5 billion, so they paid nearly two years profit for MMI. Coupled with the facts that the $12.5 billion price represent a 60% premium over MMI's share price, and that Google agreed to pay a penalty of $2.5 billion if the deal falls through for whatever reason, this certainly smacks of desperation on Google's part.
And the deal could very well fall through. It's still subject to regulatory approval, and with Google being investigated worldwide, this is certain to ratchet up the scrutiny. And then there's good ol' Microsoft. What if they decided to play spoiler and offer more for MMI? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
The Samsung Galaxy S2 is outselling Apple's flagship in parts of the world. Just look at the crazy amount of pre-orders
There certainly have been a great many pre-orders —and shipments— of Tabs, but how many have been converted into sales to actual customers? And of those, how many have been returned? There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that the return rates have been quite high.
I'm not trying to troll; I'm really keenly interested to see if any competing tablets have managed to gain traction against the iPad, because as it stands at the moment, Apple seems to be asserting iPod-like dominance over the category. Their competitors are fighting a juggernaut, and the longer they take to bring a viable rival to market, the much more difficult it's going to be for them to get some mind share. Right now the general public, not those of us who frequent tech blogs, only know that there's the iPad, and may have heard that there are some other devices available. This is the major reason we're seeing so many half-baked tablets being rushed out the door: the manufacturers know that the device isn't quite ready, but they have no choice but to ship if they have any hope of gaining some sort of attention for their offerings. They may stumble, but they know that every second longer they take to throw their hat into the ring is another second Apple is using to lock up an incredibly lucrative market.
The unfortunate thing for Apple's competitors is that they may find themselves battling for a very distant second place. The iPad is riding high, wide, and handsome, and the Xoom, TouchPad, Playbook etc., are slugging it out among themselves for Apple's scraps.
For another, look at the iPad 2, notice how much cooler it is that the iPad 1. That because even in their brilliance, Apple saw their competitors come up with cool ideas they missed.
It's extremely unlikely that Apple co-opted any of their competitors' hardware ideas for the iPad 2, which was released less than a year after the original. The design would have been finalized months before, probably before the original model shipped, then there would have been consultations with manufacturers, procurement of components, tooling up for production, testing, etc.
Organizing the supply chain for production of a complex, high-volume device like the iPad 2 doesn't happen overnight, and once the trigger is pulled on the decision, altering specs is like trying to turn a supertanker on a dime. Even if they saw something they wanted to copy for iPad 2, it would have been next to impossible to incorporate it into production. It would have caused havoc with component procurement, manufacturing, testing, marketing, etc., and would have introduced delays which would probably have been unmanageable.
Nice summation of the idiotic Android/iOS fanboy mentality. I salute you sir.
We know a) He had permission.
No, we don't. He only said he had permission, received from a security guard, who isn't authorized to give that permission. And I like how you managed to get your panties in a knot and turn this issue into an anti-Obama rant.
Fealty to Apple? Hahahah! Now you're just being silly. You're presuming to fit my motivations for replying to you into your own skewed little worldview. And you didn't give any plausible grounds on which Apple could or should be broken up, besides your saying so. Wah wah wah! Grow the fuck up.
Apple's gotten too big. It's got a major case of left-hand not knowing what right-hand is doing. It's almost a culture.
Gotten too big? By what arbitrary standard could that be decided? Because you don't like Apple?
Please give even a single instance of "left-hand not knowing what right-hand is doing" where Apple is concerned. That's about as far from reality as you can get in Apple's case. Not only is their integration working remarkably well for them, but their focus is almost terrifying in it's scope. Everything Apple does informs everything else, from the design of their hardware, software, and retail stores, to the thrust of their advertising and their carefully managed public image. That is their culture, which is diametrically opposed to your assertion. You're really describing Microsoft, with their multiple competing fiefdoms.
When Apple first announced their guidelines for subscriptions and the publishers protested in outrage, I predicted in a discussion that Apple would change them before they went into effect. I argued at the time that it seemed to me that Apple were merely floating a trial balloon to see how far they could push, and were probably well prepared in advance to exercise some flexibility. This also works for them, because they can then give the public impression that they're prepared to be reasonable, when in fact they had probably planned internally for less stringent terms. As I said, Apple manages their public image with extreme care, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that they pushed their original terms knowing full well that they had no intention of implementing them. In fact I would argue that they would have been surprised if they had been widely accepted.
The vocalist sounds like a seal in distress. That would draw a great white shark like a dinner bell.
somebody with brains & imagination needs to step up to the plate and kick Apple's ass for a change...
Google are already doing so with Android.
Tell me, how exactly is Google kicking Apple's ass with Android, when Apple's iPhone business by itself generates more revenue than Google's entire enterprise ? In market share? Like Apple gives a damn when they're vacuuming up 55% of the total profits for the entire mobile industry, not just the smartphone segment.
Companies must be lining up begging Google to kick their asses like that.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And you keep conflating volumes with sales. Apple is in first place in handset sales, ie, revenue, and are already the sales leader. They aren't the market leader. There's a huge difference.
You claim to own Apple stock, and have no intention of selling it any time soon. Why not? The lion's share of Apple's income derives from iOS, and you seem so certain that Android is overtaking it, so you're investing in a company that will likely suffer a major reversal, but you're determined to stick with it. Or don't you really believe what you said? So which is it? Do you really believe that Android is outselling iOS, but you're sticking with Apple regardless? If that's the case, then Elop must have been addressing you in his "burning platform" memo.
Do you even know what it means? Let's talk about sales then, whereby companies refer to revenue not market share, or volumes. You say that "Apple iOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by Android". Any accountant would disagree with you if they looked at the balance sheets, and by your metric Symbian is outselling all other platforms. Are you seriously suggesting that the totality of Android devices is generating more revenue for their respective manufacturers than iOS is for Apple? Much less twice as much revenue? Not even close, and you're the one who made the comment about Android devices vs iOS devices, so YOU made it about tablets. Furthermore, nowhere in my comment did I refer to YOU as a hater. I was merely pointing out how disingenuous it is that people constantly compare Android to iPhone instead of Android to iOS. And as for the "news you don't like" crack, nice try making me out as the Android-hating iPhone zealot. I own neither an Android phone nor an iPhone; in fact I don't own a smartphone at all, and I have no plans to get one. I'm merely sick to death of both camps spouting bullshit. And you own Apple stock? Ring-a-fucking-ding. So does every hedge fund manager and his dog. And the facts still stand that iOS is outselling Android, by the only measures that count to manufacturers: revenues and profitability. Volume and market share mean nothing if they're losing their asses in the process. Just ask Nokia.
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.
Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.
Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".
Apple's P/E is only about 18.5, and the case has been repeatedly made that the stock is ridiculously underpriced. Case in point. I can't believe your neck fart was modded insightful.
Damn. Your family life must be.....interesting.
I'm aware that diesel-electric subs only spend a fraction of their patrol actually submerged, and of course, they could use GPS while on the surface. I'm just wondering what the hell the writer was talking about. If he had made clear, like Anonymous Coward did, that chart plotters with integrated sonar are widely used, he could have saved me a headache, and I wouldn't have had to dip into my snark reserves.
I've heard of side-scan radar and side-scan sonar. What the fuck is side-scan GPS? Wouldn't the vessel have to be on the surface to receive a GPS signal, or if submerged, extend some sort of antenna above the ocean surface? What in the name of Cthulhu are they scanning laterally for? Does the US Navy have a secret GPS constellation that orbits underwater or something? Methinks the writer studied journalism at the University of Make Shit Up.
Burt Rutan is to my mind one of the towering giants of aviation history, all the more so because he continued to think outside the box and roll back the frontiers of the designer's art. In an era when design and engineering principles were already considered to be well-established, and advances were merely refinements of what had gone before, Burt managed to surprise and delight with his every offering. He is a wellspring of innovative genius, a colossus of the industry, a prodigy, a maverick, and one of my personal idols.
Good luck, and Godspeed Mr. Rutan.
Even more unsavory, it's a poop brown device that "squirts". It would probably have sold better if they had bundled each device with with a packet of wet wipes and a bottle of Purell.
Context please. £400 is not expensive for a tablet computer that offers the features of the iPad. If it is, then where are all the less expensive competitors hmm? Oh that's right, there aren't any, because other manufacturers are finding it too fucking difficult to make one for that price.
Okay, I'll bite. Where are your electronics manufactured? It never ceases to amaze me when all the Apple haters start bleating about Apple's contract manufacturers use of cheap labor in China (This just in! Labor cheap in China! Film at 11!), while conveniently neglecting to mention that the bulk of ALL consumer electronic devices are manufactured in the PRC.
So are using a Dell PC? An HP? Acer? A Samsung Galaxy S? A Samsung Galaxy Tab? Do you own a Playstation? Or an Xbox? Well guess what Mr. Anonymous Hypocrite: if the answer to any of these questions is " yes", more than likely they were assembled at the self-same Foxconn slave labor camp where iPhones and iPads are manufactured, or one of the other 11 just like it in mainland China. Dell, HP, and Acer are far larger clients of Foxconn than is Apple. But I guess it's easier to make inflammatory statements about a company's morality because you don't use their products, than it is to take a good hard look at yourself and your own choices.
I'd tell you to get off your high horse, but you're obviously riding a giraffe.
Concurrent with the announcement of the new portables, Apple announced the availability of the developer preview of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion on the Mac App Store (via a redeemable code).
An intriguing new feature is called AirDrop, which allows P2P transfer of files to other nearby Macs with AirDrop turned on. Clicking on the icon in Finder will bring up a list of AirDrop-enabled Macs, even attaching profile pictures of your contacts if they're in your Address Book. Apparently it works using WiFi, and the base station doesn't even need to be turned on. It is true P2P.
With Lion on the horizon, I think it's probable that AirDrop will be rolled into an iOS update. This would be perfect for the syncing utopia you describe.
And to expand on your point about subscription becoming basically an impulse purchase, Apple are offering the publishers an enormous carrot: access to 160 million credit card numbers. Apple are betting huge here. They're gambling that publishers will grumble about the 30% cut they have to give to Apple, but will weigh that against the potentially huge pool of paying customers who will suddenly be presented with easy one-click access to subscriptions. How many of these people would be more willing to subscribe to content if it's reasonably priced and only one-click away, rather than signing up through the publisher's own site and having to provide payment information all over again when Apple is already in possession of it?
The real sticking point for the publishers though, isn't the 30% cut; it's that Apple refuses by default to give them access to the gold mine of customer data that goes along with those credit card numbers. Subscribers have to choose whether they want to provide the publisher with their name, home address, and email, all of which are essential for targeted marketing, a lucrative source of revenue. They're pissed that Apple is acting as a gatekeeper between them and their subscribers. But from Apple's point of view, these people are Apple's customers, not the publishers, and they're determined to provide content and services with the ease and convenience they've become accustomed to. Apple is actually providing a system that could be extremely lucrative for all concerned. Of course it could blow up in their faces if companies decide that they don't want to play ball, but I personally wouldn't bet against Apple.
Here's the thing that has spurred much of the Apple hatred in the tech community: many geeks feel that Apple don't care about them because of their "walled garden" approach, and guess what? They're right. Apple's priorities are, in descending order:
1) Apple (duh!);
2) their users;
100) everyone else;
the last group to include developers, content providers, publishers etc. Apple's brand is a contract of trust with their users, that they will provide easy to use, dependable hardware, software, and services, and they will not let any group break that contract. Do you honestly believe that the totality of people railing against the "evils" of Apple's "walled garden" constitute even a blip on Apple's radar, when compared to their tens of millions of paying customers? Keep hoping.
Despite the popular portrayal of Apple as some sort of totalitarian state sending in the digital tanks to take away our hard won tech freedoms, Apple is in fact very much a democracy. It's a democracy in which people vote with their dollars, and they voted nearly twenty seven billion times last quarter alone.
Even longer than that. I was a stuent pilot in 1981, and even then the convention was long obsolete.
Cowardice rises to the next level: another robot to replace the job of having some consequences to war.
Practicality replacing all that honor warrior crap - makes you wonder just how fat and lazy the future military will become; aside from an increased level of cowardice due to those types thriving...
Are you saying that a nation as rich and powerful as the U.S. should not expend the resources to better protect their military personnel in combat? They shouldn't investigate technology that increases force effectiveness while reducing exposure to counter-strikes? They shouldn't field weapons that could deter a potential adversary from engaging in battle?
Cowardice? If that's what you think then by all means let's take away all those assault rifles from the infantry and make them fight with swords and bows. That stand-off range afforded them by modern firearms is dishonorable don't you know.
You're not an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.