You mean two phones--and one of them discounted--that are available on the two largest cellular networks in America are outselling a phone that is available only on the third?
I like the commentary quoted in the NY Times [nytimes.com] that likens him to hypothetical former Boeing exec taking over Ford, then announcing that Ford was going to make planes instead.
(insert whiny Apple fanboi voice here) But...but...but...nobody's buying the iPhone 4! They're waiting for the new iPhone to come out! Just you wait and see! Apple will be back on top when the iPhone 5 ships!
My point, though, is that you used to know you were playing a demo or promo version for free. Nowadays, you're getting the whole game for "free" but there's no way to play the whole game for free--you end up having to buy the various things you need to complete the game.
To me it feels sort of "bait & switch"-y. Hey, here's a free game! Have fun! Oh, you actually want to complete the game? That's gonna cost you...
But still, how did Apple discover the location of some random guy who had drinks at Cava?
Supposedly, they traced the phone to the guy's house. They spoke to the owner of the house who told the investigators that he had been at Cava but he didn't take a phone. He allowed them to search the house and they found no phone.
Considering the accuracy of the iPhone AGPS, perhaps they should have knocked on his neighbor's door...
Originally, you got the promo version that ended at level 2. It was clearly labeled "promo version" or "demo" or something like that. You played up to level 2 and decided whether or not you wanted to continue by purchasing the rest of the game for $39.
Now, you get the whole game. All 37 levels. Absolutely free! But what happens is that when you get to the end of level 2, there's a giant wall which is impossible to climb unless you buy the $35 super-jump shoes. But there's a free pair of super-jump shoes somewhere on level 1--if only you knew this and knew that you had to go down to the basement of the 17th brown building out of 23 (the other brown buildings are locked), figure out the maze, and fight the demon.
Then, when you get to level 35, there's another wall and you need to buy a super-jump booster for $10 or find hiding on level 12 and not used it.
So you end up spending $45 on what was advertised as a free game.
Whats interesting is even in the 80s Apple was outsourcing a lot of their production to places like Singapore (My Apple IIgs was built there) while companies like Commodore were manufacturing it all in the USA and were competitive on price.
The NeXT factory was in Fremont, CA. It was mostly automated, if I remember correctly.
I've had iPods for over a decade, because they did what I want then, and continue to do it now... contrast this with, oh, a Zune or any number of defunct devices.
The question is, did you actually compare the Zune to the iPod? Or did you just follow the crowd and go get an iPod because that's what your TeeVee told you to do?
Don't get me wrong--I'm much the same way. I like Apple products and I bought an iPod nano. It's a nice little device that I use to listen to music. The interface is well thought out, it does what I want it to do (play music) in a direct way. I have no complaints with it.
I never used a Zune. I read some good things about the later versions (Zune HD). At one point, it was the top selling hard-drive-based music player on Amazon, outselling the older white iPods.
So did you compare the iPod to the Zune and come away choosing the iPod? Or did you, perhaps, just buy what the other people are buying?
It won't take as much cost to get it to be in a usable location, and it's easier to maneuver on, with higher gravity. On the other hand, it's harder to get the material back off, because of that same higher gravity.
It would be interesting to consider the trade-offs here.
First, the higher lunar gravity might aid production of the raw ore into useful metals. It allows us to potentially use existing techniques rather than having to come up with new techniques for zero/negligible G environments. Second, if humans are involved, the body doesn't really like zero G. Having gravity is a good thing for people. Third, the Moon has a large variety of material: Iron, Aluminum, Uranium, Titanium, etc. You might have to chase down 100 asteroids to get the same amount of uranium you would get from one lunar mine.
Getting the material off the Moon isn't as big a panic. The Moon has 1/6th Earth gravity, so you could lift 6x more payload from the surface with the same amount of fuel (or use 1/6th the fuel to lift the same amount). The interesting thing is that, with the big empty vacuous space that is the Moon and less gravity, you could also do some interesting propulsion systems such as rail guns and nuclear pulse drives.
Of course, less gravity would be better. The interesting question would be where does this dividing line lie? One of the more annoying NASA cut-backs, to me, was the Centrifuge Accommodations Module for the ISS, which would have given us some ability to figure out how much gravity is necessary for human beings and other processes.
Why didn't they start reporting on Irene falling apart and saying "Whoops, my bad..."? I have no idea.
Because that doesn't happen. Heck, you see it with newspapers all the time. Inaccurate story runs on page 1. Corrections are on page 27, right next to the obituaries.
Occasionally, you'll see television media run a story about how the hype never appeared and how, perhaps, they shouldn't hype things quite so much. They'll promise not to, but the next time it comes around, they'll be right back out there again.
The part that always makes me laugh are the intrepid reporters out in the middle of the storm telling people that they shouldn't be out in the middle of the storm. Well, then, why are you out there?
If there's one thing I've learned from watching 10,000 cop procedurals, it's that if the DA dares charge even en ex-cop with anything, all the other cops will "lose" evidence resulting in a 0% conviction rate, and then he won't get reelected because he'll seem incompetent.
"I saw it on Law and Order, so it must be true!"
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds?
TV Shows are not real. Even the ones "ripped from the headlines."
Apple was far more litigious when Steve Jobs left. It was a Jobs-less Apple that sued Microsoft over the "look-and-feel" of Windows 2.0. There were spats throughout the '90s over QuickTime and TrueType (some valid). When Jobs came back, one of the first things he did was sign a patent cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft to get rid of all the lawsuits between the companies and get on with the task of coming up with the next big thing.
One could argue that since Steve has been gone on medical leaves, we've seen Apple litigating instead of innovating. Most of the new and notable features of iOS 5 bring it to parity with Android. Where's the "skating to where the puck will be?"
I have always believed that tablets were a very small niche application. They can not, and will not replace real computers.
Very true. The question is, how big is that niche?
Sitting next to me is an iPad. I can use it to surf the web, play some light games, read and respond to e-mails, update my Facebook page, etc. What else is there?
Well, for me, there's plenty. I can't write code and compile on it. But most people aren't doing it.
Now, the iPad isn't necessarily a great example. I know some people who do Javascript coding on their Android tablets. But the point is that perhaps it will be "real computers" that become the niche.
For instance, iPad sales are killing all the other tablets -- is that despite the average person's supposed hatred of the closed environment? Are you willing to make that argument?
The problem is that argument is a non-sequitur.
Windows-based PCs outsell Macintoshes 10:1. Does this mean that more people think Windows is better than Mac OS X? Androids outsell iPhones 2:1. Does that mean that people prefer "open"? To bring up the inevitable car analogy, since more people in the US buy Fords than Toyotas, does that mean that more people prefer Ford Sync to whatever system Toyota has in their cars?
Saying "More people bought this over that and therefore they like everything about it" isn't necessarily true. There are a lot of elements to that decision.
Come up with some studies showing people's reasons for buying an iPad and I'd pay attention. But just saying, "They sold more of them, that means that they love X 'feature'" isn't necessarily true.
Way back in 1984, Apple developed their desktop interface (with licensed inspiration from Xerox PARC). They copyrighted parts of it but made the mistake of licensing those parts to Microsoft. When Microsoft came out with Windows 2.0 in 1987, Apple took them to court and lost mostly due to that license.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
There are various quotes attributable to Steve Jobs while he was away from Apple about how Apple should be really pushing to develop "the next big thing." He's said a few times that the way for Apple to stay in front is to out innovate and be the best choice. Quotes about "skating to where the puck will be" and such.
Now, one interesting angle of this is that Apple "look-and-feel" lawsuits started with Windows 2.0 in 1987, after Steve had left the company. When Steve came back, one of the first things he did was make peace with Microsoft over the various lawsuits that Apple had filed against Microsoft and the two companies entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement. Part of Steve's rationale behind this at the time was to get the whole lawsuit thing out of the way so Apple could procede to innovate.
Now Steve has been away from Apple for awhile. Tim Cook has been interim CEO while Steve has stepped down. And we see Apple not trying to out-innovate it's competitors but, instead, to sit on it's lead and sue everyone who comes close. Just like back in the mid and late 1980s where Apple sued GEM and Microsoft and HP.
Of course, one difference between now and then is that there is no licensing. The court didn't really rule on whether Apple had a valid copyright claim because Apple had already licensed everything to Microsoft. The few claims that were not covered were ruled "obvious" and Apple lost those claims. So we may get a look at what the world would have been if Apple hadn't licensed the desktop GUI to Microsoft.
Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." [...] The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
Yes and No.
The vast majority want cool stuff that works. But, much of the time, it's the nerds that come up with the cool stuff. They have it first and they show it off. So today's nerd platform can very well be tomorrow's platform for the vast majority.
Look at PCs. They were once nerd toys. Then everyone had one. Look at the Internet. It used to be a nerd playground. Now everybody uses it. Heck, look at Macs--the nerds jumped in back at beginning of the millenium because it was a pretty cool desktop Unix. Now, everyone else is jumping in.
It's easy to say that nerds don't matter as a market. You can say that they make things too complicated. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got to admit, that had me concerned as well.
With such a satellite, the Europeans can count the number of hippies we have. Then they can generate more hippies than us!
Mr President, we cannot have a hippie gap!
You mean two phones--and one of them discounted--that are available on the two largest cellular networks in America are outselling a phone that is available only on the third?
Color me shocked.
I like the commentary quoted in the NY Times [nytimes.com] that likens him to hypothetical former Boeing exec taking over Ford, then announcing that Ford was going to make planes instead.
Nah. It's been done.
(insert whiny Apple fanboi voice here)
But...but...but...nobody's buying the iPhone 4! They're waiting for the new iPhone to come out! Just you wait and see! Apple will be back on top when the iPhone 5 ships!
Yeah, I'm not much of a gamer.
My point, though, is that you used to know you were playing a demo or promo version for free. Nowadays, you're getting the whole game for "free" but there's no way to play the whole game for free--you end up having to buy the various things you need to complete the game.
To me it feels sort of "bait & switch"-y. Hey, here's a free game! Have fun! Oh, you actually want to complete the game? That's gonna cost you...
Close, but Steve rarely wears a suit.
We're trying for the "black turtleneck officer" look. Sandmen are close...
Really? They wear very short skirts?
I assume you mean something like this.
But still, how did Apple discover the location of some random guy who had drinks at Cava?
Supposedly, they traced the phone to the guy's house. They spoke to the owner of the house who told the investigators that he had been at Cava but he didn't take a phone. He allowed them to search the house and they found no phone.
Considering the accuracy of the iPhone AGPS, perhaps they should have knocked on his neighbor's door...
What happened? Why is this paradigm now evil?
Originally, you got the promo version that ended at level 2. It was clearly labeled "promo version" or "demo" or something like that. You played up to level 2 and decided whether or not you wanted to continue by purchasing the rest of the game for $39.
Now, you get the whole game. All 37 levels. Absolutely free! But what happens is that when you get to the end of level 2, there's a giant wall which is impossible to climb unless you buy the $35 super-jump shoes. But there's a free pair of super-jump shoes somewhere on level 1--if only you knew this and knew that you had to go down to the basement of the 17th brown building out of 23 (the other brown buildings are locked), figure out the maze, and fight the demon.
Then, when you get to level 35, there's another wall and you need to buy a super-jump booster for $10 or find hiding on level 12 and not used it.
So you end up spending $45 on what was advertised as a free game.
It's a hs1fa@*ldk NO CARRIER
Whats interesting is even in the 80s Apple was outsourcing a lot of their production to places like Singapore (My Apple IIgs was built there) while companies like Commodore were manufacturing it all in the USA and were competitive on price.
The NeXT factory was in Fremont, CA. It was mostly automated, if I remember correctly.
I've had iPods for over a decade, because they did what I want then, and continue to do it now ... contrast this with, oh, a Zune or any number of defunct devices.
The question is, did you actually compare the Zune to the iPod? Or did you just follow the crowd and go get an iPod because that's what your TeeVee told you to do?
Don't get me wrong--I'm much the same way. I like Apple products and I bought an iPod nano. It's a nice little device that I use to listen to music. The interface is well thought out, it does what I want it to do (play music) in a direct way. I have no complaints with it.
I never used a Zune. I read some good things about the later versions (Zune HD). At one point, it was the top selling hard-drive-based music player on Amazon, outselling the older white iPods.
So did you compare the iPod to the Zune and come away choosing the iPod? Or did you, perhaps, just buy what the other people are buying?
It won't take as much cost to get it to be in a usable location, and it's easier to maneuver on, with higher gravity. On the other hand, it's harder to get the material back off, because of that same higher gravity.
It would be interesting to consider the trade-offs here.
First, the higher lunar gravity might aid production of the raw ore into useful metals. It allows us to potentially use existing techniques rather than having to come up with new techniques for zero/negligible G environments. Second, if humans are involved, the body doesn't really like zero G. Having gravity is a good thing for people. Third, the Moon has a large variety of material: Iron, Aluminum, Uranium, Titanium, etc. You might have to chase down 100 asteroids to get the same amount of uranium you would get from one lunar mine.
Getting the material off the Moon isn't as big a panic. The Moon has 1/6th Earth gravity, so you could lift 6x more payload from the surface with the same amount of fuel (or use 1/6th the fuel to lift the same amount). The interesting thing is that, with the big empty vacuous space that is the Moon and less gravity, you could also do some interesting propulsion systems such as rail guns and nuclear pulse drives.
Of course, less gravity would be better. The interesting question would be where does this dividing line lie? One of the more annoying NASA cut-backs, to me, was the Centrifuge Accommodations Module for the ISS, which would have given us some ability to figure out how much gravity is necessary for human beings and other processes.
Why didn't they start reporting on Irene falling apart and saying "Whoops, my bad..."? I have no idea.
Because that doesn't happen. Heck, you see it with newspapers all the time. Inaccurate story runs on page 1. Corrections are on page 27, right next to the obituaries.
Occasionally, you'll see television media run a story about how the hype never appeared and how, perhaps, they shouldn't hype things quite so much. They'll promise not to, but the next time it comes around, they'll be right back out there again.
The part that always makes me laugh are the intrepid reporters out in the middle of the storm telling people that they shouldn't be out in the middle of the storm. Well, then, why are you out there?
If there's one thing I've learned from watching 10,000 cop procedurals, it's that if the DA dares charge even en ex-cop with anything, all the other cops will "lose" evidence resulting in a 0% conviction rate, and then he won't get reelected because he'll seem incompetent.
"I saw it on Law and Order, so it must be true!"
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds?
TV Shows are not real. Even the ones "ripped from the headlines."
Think they'll send a DMCA take-down notice to YouTube next?
TFA states "Due to security and privacy concerns, we anonymize their names and label them as Carrier A and Carrier B."
Because corporations are people and people have a right to privacy.
Actually, I'm going to take the opposite tack.
Apple was far more litigious when Steve Jobs left. It was a Jobs-less Apple that sued Microsoft over the "look-and-feel" of Windows 2.0. There were spats throughout the '90s over QuickTime and TrueType (some valid). When Jobs came back, one of the first things he did was sign a patent cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft to get rid of all the lawsuits between the companies and get on with the task of coming up with the next big thing.
One could argue that since Steve has been gone on medical leaves, we've seen Apple litigating instead of innovating. Most of the new and notable features of iOS 5 bring it to parity with Android. Where's the "skating to where the puck will be?"
I have always believed that tablets were a very small niche application. They can not, and will not replace real computers.
Very true. The question is, how big is that niche?
Sitting next to me is an iPad. I can use it to surf the web, play some light games, read and respond to e-mails, update my Facebook page, etc. What else is there?
Well, for me, there's plenty. I can't write code and compile on it. But most people aren't doing it.
Now, the iPad isn't necessarily a great example. I know some people who do Javascript coding on their Android tablets. But the point is that perhaps it will be "real computers" that become the niche.
For instance, iPad sales are killing all the other tablets -- is that despite the average person's supposed hatred of the closed environment? Are you willing to make that argument?
The problem is that argument is a non-sequitur.
Windows-based PCs outsell Macintoshes 10:1. Does this mean that more people think Windows is better than Mac OS X? Androids outsell iPhones 2:1. Does that mean that people prefer "open"? To bring up the inevitable car analogy, since more people in the US buy Fords than Toyotas, does that mean that more people prefer Ford Sync to whatever system Toyota has in their cars?
Saying "More people bought this over that and therefore they like everything about it" isn't necessarily true. There are a lot of elements to that decision.
Come up with some studies showing people's reasons for buying an iPad and I'd pay attention. But just saying, "They sold more of them, that means that they love X 'feature'" isn't necessarily true.
This is one of those things I wonder about.
Way back in 1984, Apple developed their desktop interface (with licensed inspiration from Xerox PARC). They copyrighted parts of it but made the mistake of licensing those parts to Microsoft. When Microsoft came out with Windows 2.0 in 1987, Apple took them to court and lost mostly due to that license.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
There are various quotes attributable to Steve Jobs while he was away from Apple about how Apple should be really pushing to develop "the next big thing." He's said a few times that the way for Apple to stay in front is to out innovate and be the best choice. Quotes about "skating to where the puck will be" and such.
Now, one interesting angle of this is that Apple "look-and-feel" lawsuits started with Windows 2.0 in 1987, after Steve had left the company. When Steve came back, one of the first things he did was make peace with Microsoft over the various lawsuits that Apple had filed against Microsoft and the two companies entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement. Part of Steve's rationale behind this at the time was to get the whole lawsuit thing out of the way so Apple could procede to innovate.
Now Steve has been away from Apple for awhile. Tim Cook has been interim CEO while Steve has stepped down. And we see Apple not trying to out-innovate it's competitors but, instead, to sit on it's lead and sue everyone who comes close. Just like back in the mid and late 1980s where Apple sued GEM and Microsoft and HP.
Of course, one difference between now and then is that there is no licensing. The court didn't really rule on whether Apple had a valid copyright claim because Apple had already licensed everything to Microsoft. The few claims that were not covered were ruled "obvious" and Apple lost those claims. So we may get a look at what the world would have been if Apple hadn't licensed the desktop GUI to Microsoft.
It is a good point. Steve recommended Tim Cook. He didn't recommend John Sculley.
Yup. That's because they had to clean up the Apple III mess (Steve's baby) and Macintosh sales were way below expectations (Steve's other baby).
Nice try, though.
The average person has jumped enthusiastically into the world of "closeness" as you can see by iPhone and iPad sales.
Half of smart phone sales are Android phones. Sounds like the average person has jumped enthusiastically into a more open world than iOS, at least for their smart phones.
Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." [...] The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
Yes and No.
The vast majority want cool stuff that works. But, much of the time, it's the nerds that come up with the cool stuff. They have it first and they show it off. So today's nerd platform can very well be tomorrow's platform for the vast majority.
Look at PCs. They were once nerd toys. Then everyone had one. Look at the Internet. It used to be a nerd playground. Now everybody uses it. Heck, look at Macs--the nerds jumped in back at beginning of the millenium because it was a pretty cool desktop Unix. Now, everyone else is jumping in.
It's easy to say that nerds don't matter as a market. You can say that they make things too complicated. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Oops. Sorry. Got a bit carried away there...