Note the use of the word "game", this is to mean that it's not a serious analysis, and more of a tongue-in-cheek reply to the kind of statistics quoted in the article.
p.s. no, I don't believe in any way that this is correct way of looking at these numbers.
This was a further disclaimer to say that, yes, I know it's a silly and incorrect interpretation, please don't take it seriously. That is, it's a joke. Not serious at all.
Maybe it was actually confirmation bias from the said Apple fan, that Android was so disliked and hence he got taken in by the false report?
Nah, no way!
Apple fans are the most objective and unprejudiced technology connoisseurs, they would never be "taken in" by any reports or studies unless it has been independently verified by Steve Jobs.
Not sure about accuracy, but it's certainly useless. The article now says:
The iPhone is also the gift that keeps on giving: 77% of iPhone owners say they'll buy another iPhone, compared to 20% of smartphone customers who say they'll buy an Android phone.
DECEMBER 1994 | Bill and Melinda consolidate their giving to address two main issues—global health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest—and form the William H. Gates Foundation with an initial stock gift of $94 million. William H. Gates Sr, manages the new foundation.
2000 | The William H. Gates Foundation merges with the Gates Learning Foundation and is renamed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Bill and Melinda contribute nearly $16 billion to the newly merged foundation, which moves to a new office on Lake Union in Seattle.
2006 JUNE | Warren Buffett pledges 10 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock to the foundation. At the time of the pledge, the gift is worth approximately $31 billion and will be delivered through annual installments. The gift will help the foundation deepen and accelerate work already under way in its Global Health, Global Development, and U.S. Programs.
Don't presume you know me based on a couple of posts on the internet and some stereotypes.
I don't claim to know you based on a couple of posts, but it seems consistent with all or most of your previous posts about Apple, they fit the stereotype pretty well. Seems like Apple can do no wrong in your eyes.
Stop your knee-jerking already (jeez, like a bull to a red cloth.)
I'm waiting for Apple to do it too because I happen to be an Apple customer already.
Spoken like a true Apple-fan. Still doesn't invalidate what I've said: nothing matters for you until Apple does it. Doesn't matter for you that Amazon and many others are already selling books directly for authors without publishers online, until Apple starts doing it.
The whole industry could decentralize from big megalithic companies to smaller companies and transitory partnerships.
In an ideal world, where people only care about quality of their work and not about making boatloads of money, maybe.
In the real world, not a chance. These "small companies" will always aggregate, and multiple "transitory partnerships" with the same partners will become permanent association, even if just out of convenience.
We humans have known from historic times that if we gang up, we can take on bigger animals and make others do what we want them to do.
yes, let's all wait for Apple to come to the rescue and ignore everybody else who's already trying to do that... and of course, nothing is real unless Apple does it.
but you do know that publishers don't just "publish", right? editing is a crucial step and good or bad marketing can make or break an author. Even authors like Doctorow who freely distributes their contents online have editors and publishers. A good combination of the two means that even trash like D*n Br*wn's D* V*nc* C*d* can become a bestseller.
I agree, and that's why DRM should be removed from ebooks as well, but that's not the argument I was making above.
My point was if Apple/publishers win, ebook prices will go up. Publishers don't want to sell ebooks, because it cuts into their lucrative hardcover sales, and Apple doesn't give a shit about books (Steve Jobs: “People Don’t Read Anymore.”), they don't give a fuck if the ebook market implodes because the prices are too high and nobody buys them anymore. They already have the music/movie market locked down, and damaging the ebook market would be good for them, particular as the Amazon is making moves against them on the music/movie front.
Getting rid of DRM is all good, but right now, the more immediate problem is keeping the market healthy.
One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books? I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.
I feel so much better now. Do you feel better? Let's all feel good!
Who cares if we need quad-core CPU with 16 Gb just to watch movie, just give me a big shiny button to click on! Yeah, I just want one button, I don't care if all those stupid choices and selection and boxes to click. JUST ONE BIG BUTTON!
oohh... pretty button... don't you think it's so pretty? It makes me feel happy!
However, the problem is that such a conversion cannot happen while there is a large establishment built on it - the judges would have to re-learn, the lawyers would have to re-learn, the legislators would have a gargantuan task of creating a whole corpus of laws without bad loopholes... It would only happen after a revolution.
so the cost of educating lawyers and judges and rewriting laws is less than a revolution?
non-GPL people are always bitching about GPL people. and can't see the brown stain in their own pants.
Theo de Raadt is always complaining how companies that use OpenSSH or BSD do not contribute back either in form of code or money/hardware, the latter being the more frequent case.
de Raadt is definitely not one of those people that "firmly believes in the GPL", and he is also definitely not that happy about companies not contributing back.
maybe these people who want "darker" designs should just play with blindfolds, or if that's too much, try using pantyhose, stocking or a pair of crappy sunglasses instead.
sure, you can _try_. But once after you have invested all your time, effort and money on creating an application, they can just yank the carpet out from under you for any reason at all. Like, if they think you application competes with theirs, or if they like you application just a bit too much and want to make their own version, or someone there is just having a bad day. You'd never know, and poof, there goes your investment.
And the worst part, you don't even have an alternative way to sell your product.
I would assume to reduce speeches to a scalar quantity in order to label someone as liar is a complex process.
However, this guy doesn't even seem to try that hard. There are just too many questions in his method that are not addressed at all.
Even just looking at what he has presented so far, all it means is that McCain is always talking about himself, on stuff that happened to him (e.g. PoW experience and "finding" Palin), but comparatively little on policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? I had no idea.
let me shamelessly quote myself:
So let's play some numbers game.
Note the use of the word "game", this is to mean that it's not a serious analysis, and more of a tongue-in-cheek reply to the kind of statistics quoted in the article.
p.s. no, I don't believe in any way that this is correct way of looking at these numbers.
This was a further disclaimer to say that, yes, I know it's a silly and incorrect interpretation, please don't take it seriously. That is, it's a joke. Not serious at all.
According to Nielsen, Android market share in 2010 Q1 was 9%.
If 20% of the overall smartphone market wants to buy an Android phone next, then it means that:
20/9 = 222% of Android users will buy another Android phone!
Take that, Apple! Your 77% is nothing!
p.s. no, I don't believe in any way that this is correct way of looking at these numbers.
Maybe it was actually confirmation bias from the said Apple fan, that Android was so disliked and hence he got taken in by the false report?
Nah, no way! Apple fans are the most objective and unprejudiced technology connoisseurs, they would never be "taken in" by any reports or studies unless it has been independently verified by Steve Jobs.
The iPhone is also the gift that keeps on giving: 77% of iPhone owners say they'll buy another iPhone, compared to 20% of smartphone customers who say they'll buy an Android phone.
How does one compare these statistics?
It appears that some /.ers just don't learn to read the article.
This place is in Australia.
Why do you just make up crap? How about some facts?
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/pages/foundation-timeline.aspx
DECEMBER 1994 | Bill and Melinda consolidate their giving to address two main issues—global health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest—and form the William H. Gates Foundation with an initial stock gift of $94 million. William H. Gates Sr, manages the new foundation.
2000 | The William H. Gates Foundation merges with the Gates Learning Foundation and is renamed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill and Melinda contribute nearly $16 billion to the newly merged foundation, which moves to a new office on Lake Union in Seattle.
2006 JUNE | Warren Buffett pledges 10 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock to the foundation. At the time of the pledge, the gift is worth approximately $31 billion and will be delivered through annual installments. The gift will help the foundation deepen and accelerate work already under way in its Global Health, Global Development, and U.S. Programs.
really, are you sure you are not an Apple fan?
Don't presume you know me based on a couple of posts on the internet and some stereotypes.
I don't claim to know you based on a couple of posts, but it seems consistent with all or most of your previous posts about Apple, they fit the stereotype pretty well. Seems like Apple can do no wrong in your eyes.
Stop your knee-jerking already (jeez, like a bull to a red cloth.) I'm waiting for Apple to do it too because I happen to be an Apple customer already.
Spoken like a true Apple-fan. Still doesn't invalidate what I've said: nothing matters for you until Apple does it. Doesn't matter for you that Amazon and many others are already selling books directly for authors without publishers online, until Apple starts doing it.
The whole industry could decentralize from big megalithic companies to smaller companies and transitory partnerships.
In an ideal world, where people only care about quality of their work and not about making boatloads of money, maybe. In the real world, not a chance. These "small companies" will always aggregate, and multiple "transitory partnerships" with the same partners will become permanent association, even if just out of convenience.
We humans have known from historic times that if we gang up, we can take on bigger animals and make others do what we want them to do.
yes, let's all wait for Apple to come to the rescue and ignore everybody else who's already trying to do that...
and of course, nothing is real unless Apple does it.
Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/
Amazon Self-Publish
http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html?topic=200260520
but you do know that publishers don't just "publish", right? editing is a crucial step and good or bad marketing can make or break an author.
Even authors like Doctorow who freely distributes their contents online have editors and publishers. A good combination of the two means that even trash like D*n Br*wn's D* V*nc* C*d* can become a bestseller.
I agree, and that's why DRM should be removed from ebooks as well, but that's not the argument I was making above.
My point was if Apple/publishers win, ebook prices will go up. Publishers don't want to sell ebooks, because it cuts into their lucrative hardcover sales, and Apple doesn't give a shit about books (Steve Jobs: “People Don’t Read Anymore.”), they don't give a fuck if the ebook market implodes because the prices are too high and nobody buys them anymore. They already have the music/movie market locked down, and damaging the ebook market would be good for them, particular as the Amazon is making moves against them on the music/movie front.
Getting rid of DRM is all good, but right now, the more immediate problem is keeping the market healthy.
One control-freak company wants to sell cheaper books, while another control-freak company wants to sell more expensive books?
I know which weevil/weasel I will go with.
and while this is just one side of the argument, but anyone who thinks Apple's deal with the publishers will work out better for the authors should read this:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/its-nsfw-because-the-word-fuck-is-in-the-url/
Bring back my tacos!
I suspect if Apple comes out with some sort of e-ink device you'd be singing a different tune
of course that's the case!
I feel so much better now. Do you feel better? Let's all feel good!
Who cares if we need quad-core CPU with 16 Gb just to watch movie, just give me a big shiny button to click on! Yeah, I just want one button, I don't care if all those stupid choices and selection and boxes to click. JUST ONE BIG BUTTON!
oohh... pretty button... don't you think it's so pretty? It makes me feel happy!
However, the problem is that such a conversion cannot happen while there is a large establishment built on it - the judges would have to re-learn, the lawyers would have to re-learn, the legislators would have a gargantuan task of creating a whole corpus of laws without bad loopholes... It would only happen after a revolution.
so the cost of educating lawyers and judges and rewriting laws is less than a revolution?
I am sure it's there and obvious, but I just don't see your point.
non-GPL people are always bitching about GPL people. and can't see the brown stain in their own pants.
Theo de Raadt is always complaining how companies that use OpenSSH or BSD do not contribute back either in form of code or money/hardware, the latter being the more frequent case.
de Raadt is definitely not one of those people that "firmly believes in the GPL", and he is also definitely not that happy about companies not contributing back.
which can be activated remotely by sending "666" to the phone.
maybe these people who want "darker" designs should just play with blindfolds, or if that's too much, try using pantyhose, stocking or a pair of crappy sunglasses instead.
This came up weeks ago.
The article on the comparison between Diablo III design and fan "improved" colours:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables
and Penny-Arcade's take on the "protest":
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/6/
sure, you can _try_. But once after you have invested all your time, effort and money on creating an application, they can just yank the carpet out from under you for any reason at all. Like, if they think you application competes with theirs, or if they like you application just a bit too much and want to make their own version, or someone there is just having a bad day. You'd never know, and poof, there goes your investment.
And the worst part, you don't even have an alternative way to sell your product.
more technical details:
http://research.cs.queensu.ca/~skill/uselection/index.html
I would assume to reduce speeches to a scalar quantity in order to label someone as liar is a complex process.
However, this guy doesn't even seem to try that hard. There are just too many questions in his method that are not addressed at all.
Even just looking at what he has presented so far, all it means is that McCain is always talking about himself, on stuff that happened to him (e.g. PoW experience and "finding" Palin), but comparatively little on policies.