Now that Roku is being aggressively marketed in Costco I would expect Apple's sales ratio to diminish. Roku simply has more useful content. I have both; bought Roku, won an Apple TV. After my wife used both the Apple TV is in the closet and she went back to Roku. And yes, we are heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem with many OSx and iOS devices.
Samsung's
smart watch needs a lot of generational improvement. Right now the battery life, charging, and limited models of devices syncing need lots of improvement. There is no major integrated Samsung ecosystem as there is with Apple, and the watch isn't useful to the many iPhone users or even many of Samsung's own phones. It's a one-trick pony at the moment.
So do Lifetrak (but with weak external software), Shine (ditto) and Fitbug ( which could use a little better form factor and button response reliability.). Both are possible with generational improvement, yet none are "junk".
The main failure of AppleTV is a lack of sufficiently aggressive channel acquisition. That's why I bought a Roku, even though I have many Apple products. Unless Apple TV is the precursor of something big using that technology, Apple could perhaps have saved money and lowered costs by buying Roku, keeping that team, and rebranding.
They make gloves now that work with touch screens, just as they make rubber-like tips for the top of pens; the latter so cheaply they are on many give-away pens at trade shows.
One last thing. Anyone, including a worker, can obtain a partial or complete ownership interest by buying equity(common stock) in an enterprise, through investing his own capital either directly or with the aid of an employee stock ownership plan. Bond holders, in contrast, are lenders whose rights are limited to the terms of the bond note. Here endeth the lesson.
Finally, just to complete the distinctions before I leave you, you can buy land. It then becomes part of your capital. You can create capital, for example through profits which are the entrepreneurs', not the factors, to dispose of as he sees fit. You cannot buy labor: that's called slavery and is illegal in most places. Only God ( or parents) can create labor, but it is not chattel under most countries' laws.
If a worker wishes to obtain the rights of an entrepreneur he is free to try to amass the necessary capital, rent the necessary land, and hire the necessary labor to take the risk of going into business for himself.
Just to be clear, capital is a resource, but other resources ( land, labor) are not capital. Capital has distinct properties; it's price is denominated by interest; labor's price is denominated by wages; land's price by rent. Any other "rights" are limited to the law. If you want workers rights to extend to telling a factory owner how to exercise his free political speech, try passing a law. Good luck with that given the Constitution.
If instead, you are advocating the overthrow of the Constitution, we are in an entirely different discussion. There are explicit voting provisions for that. Again, good luck trying. Finally, if you are advocating something more direct, consult your local police department, not me.
For more details, consult any good economics or governance text, not me. I've done all I can to assist you; time to do your own homework.
Your constant claims of triumph do not persuade. You do not appear to know the difference between a resource and capital. I suggest a good economics dictionary.
If it will make you go away quietly feel free to declare victory and pull out of your Vietnam.
Union membership is required in many states. That is why popular rising has created right to work states. There in no free choice in closed shop states.
As to your constant attempts to provoke with name calling, it is none of my business what you think of me.
Finally, as a PhD Economist who received that degree at one of the founding socialist schools, the London School of Economics, I must tell you that you are simply wrong. Labor is not capital. The factors of production are land, labor, and capital. Each has distinct properties.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept of private property. I am sorry I cannot help you further. If a worker does not like the terms of his employment at an employer who observes the labor and immigration laws, he is free to seek elsewhere. There is no "right" to a job in another's company.
Workers are not equity owners unless the company has a Kelso/ESOP plan. If it does they have more say than Union members in a non- Kelso company. In some cases workers own the company ( United Airlines). I suggest you do your homework before spouting off. By the way, John Dunlop, who assisted many union negotiations, was a colleague and when I was Deputy Policy Director for the Secretary of Commerce, Kelso came to us with his idea and we assisted legally with the creation of employee stock ownership plans. So as the Russians say, don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
Democracy is not winner take all. It's a social contract based on compromise and protection of minorities. Your idea of "democracy" is the dictatorship "of the proletariat", namely the majority, and that's what many unions are. And there have been too many cases of ballot rigging and jail sentences to think some unions represent the will of even the majority.
My understanding of Union politics is akin to the old joke:
"Comrades, comes the revolution you'll all eat strawberries and cream."
( voice from the crowd): "But I don't like strawberries and cream."
"Comrades, comes the revolution you'll ALL eat strawberries and cream!"
I am sure you believe what you said. Unfortunately it does not comport with first-person union member interviews I saw during the last election run-up and its aftermath. One of us has been fed a line. If all union headquarters had votes of all members on political contributions and then distributed the money in proportion to the outcomes, I'd be more receptive to your arguments. Nothing personal.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that Roku is being aggressively marketed in Costco I would expect Apple's sales ratio to diminish. Roku simply has more useful content. I have both; bought Roku, won an Apple TV. After my wife used both the Apple TV is in the closet and she went back to Roku. And yes, we are heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem with many OSx and iOS devices.
Should be useful for right-handed Orthodox Jews who take their watches off once a day to put on Tefillin. :-)
How about a methane fuel cell. Should be especially useful to Chili ( with beans) lovers. (No racial slur intended.)
I'm 81 and scratch my ass a lot. A kinetic watch would fit my demographic just fine. :-)
Eco drive watches are (most models) run by an electric motor. Surely a digital smart watch would use less power with the right display, yes?
Samsung's smart watch needs a lot of generational improvement. Right now the battery life, charging, and limited models of devices syncing need lots of improvement. There is no major integrated Samsung ecosystem as there is with Apple, and the watch isn't useful to the many iPhone users or even many of Samsung's own phones. It's a one-trick pony at the moment.
So do Lifetrak (but with weak external software), Shine (ditto) and Fitbug ( which could use a little better form factor and button response reliability.). Both are possible with generational improvement, yet none are "junk".
Bad comparisons with Wii and Xbox, which have much higher price points being designed for high speed game playing.
The main failure of AppleTV is a lack of sufficiently aggressive channel acquisition. That's why I bought a Roku, even though I have many Apple products. Unless Apple TV is the precursor of something big using that technology, Apple could perhaps have saved money and lowered costs by buying Roku, keeping that team, and rebranding.
So you'll need a doctor's certificate in California, but not in Colorado?
They make gloves now that work with touch screens, just as they make rubber-like tips for the top of pens; the latter so cheaply they are on many give-away pens at trade shows.
What makes you think an iWatch has to make phone calls with the concomitant power drain? Even Star Trek used a separate device for that.
Actually, upgrades don't "cripple" anything. Some newer technologies are simply incompatible with earlier models lacking the requisite hardware.
HP-12C. When you get it right, subsequent technology becomes less important.
Scully's gadget is called Shine and Apple should be well aware of it since they sell it at Apple stores.
One last thing. Anyone, including a worker, can obtain a partial or complete ownership interest by buying equity(common stock) in an enterprise, through investing his own capital either directly or with the aid of an employee stock ownership plan. Bond holders, in contrast, are lenders whose rights are limited to the terms of the bond note. Here endeth the lesson.
Finally, just to complete the distinctions before I leave you, you can buy land. It then becomes part of your capital. You can create capital, for example through profits which are the entrepreneurs', not the factors, to dispose of as he sees fit. You cannot buy labor: that's called slavery and is illegal in most places. Only God ( or parents) can create labor, but it is not chattel under most countries' laws. If a worker wishes to obtain the rights of an entrepreneur he is free to try to amass the necessary capital, rent the necessary land, and hire the necessary labor to take the risk of going into business for himself.
Just to be clear, capital is a resource, but other resources ( land, labor) are not capital. Capital has distinct properties; it's price is denominated by interest; labor's price is denominated by wages; land's price by rent. Any other "rights" are limited to the law. If you want workers rights to extend to telling a factory owner how to exercise his free political speech, try passing a law. Good luck with that given the Constitution. If instead, you are advocating the overthrow of the Constitution, we are in an entirely different discussion. There are explicit voting provisions for that. Again, good luck trying. Finally, if you are advocating something more direct, consult your local police department, not me. For more details, consult any good economics or governance text, not me. I've done all I can to assist you; time to do your own homework.
Your constant claims of triumph do not persuade. You do not appear to know the difference between a resource and capital. I suggest a good economics dictionary. If it will make you go away quietly feel free to declare victory and pull out of your Vietnam.
Union membership is required in many states. That is why popular rising has created right to work states. There in no free choice in closed shop states. As to your constant attempts to provoke with name calling, it is none of my business what you think of me. Finally, as a PhD Economist who received that degree at one of the founding socialist schools, the London School of Economics, I must tell you that you are simply wrong. Labor is not capital. The factors of production are land, labor, and capital. Each has distinct properties.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept of private property. I am sorry I cannot help you further. If a worker does not like the terms of his employment at an employer who observes the labor and immigration laws, he is free to seek elsewhere. There is no "right" to a job in another's company.
Workers are not equity owners unless the company has a Kelso/ESOP plan. If it does they have more say than Union members in a non- Kelso company. In some cases workers own the company ( United Airlines). I suggest you do your homework before spouting off. By the way, John Dunlop, who assisted many union negotiations, was a colleague and when I was Deputy Policy Director for the Secretary of Commerce, Kelso came to us with his idea and we assisted legally with the creation of employee stock ownership plans. So as the Russians say, don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
Democracy is not winner take all. It's a social contract based on compromise and protection of minorities. Your idea of "democracy" is the dictatorship "of the proletariat", namely the majority, and that's what many unions are. And there have been too many cases of ballot rigging and jail sentences to think some unions represent the will of even the majority.
My understanding of Union politics is akin to the old joke: "Comrades, comes the revolution you'll all eat strawberries and cream." ( voice from the crowd): "But I don't like strawberries and cream." "Comrades, comes the revolution you'll ALL eat strawberries and cream!"
I am sure you believe what you said. Unfortunately it does not comport with first-person union member interviews I saw during the last election run-up and its aftermath. One of us has been fed a line. If all union headquarters had votes of all members on political contributions and then distributed the money in proportion to the outcomes, I'd be more receptive to your arguments. Nothing personal.