If they are lucky it will turn out like the Swedish brand IKEA. Cheap furniture and stuff which is perfectly adequate for anyone. When they open there doors in new towns, more expensive ones closes their doors. But I doubt Nokia is that smart...
For those that do not know of Ericsson, they are very large within telecom infrastructure, and if they still do, also owns the Ericsson part in phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson.)
Seems like your in the wrong "age", there where fears for interference but there are no real evidence that any of todays systems are affected by "normal" devices. Even if they where, the distance between the device and the instruments (most in the ends of the plane) is to far for the electromagnetic waves to do any difference.
Also the air is already filled with radiowaves, which is another proof for the "radio transmitters" thats not allowed.
They do not need any capture device plugged in. All communication to and from the plane are done through the air, which is free for most intelligence agencies to monitor.
It is not just to put the files on an FTP and expect everything to work. It's ridiculous you'd even think it's that easy.
All PS3s needs to find the files.
An EU system might not have access to a US file.
Distributing using mirrors/different locations.
Storage and uptime.
The Playstation Store.
Not allowing a non PS3 system to download files.
Statistics so they can charge the correct amount and keep track of popularity.
I'd like to see how you get that and 2,5 GB transfer per month! On top of all this the most expensive is always personnel, if you do stuff yourself the cost is zero. Corporations however must always pay a salary, regardless if it is Sony or the distributor/producer who does.
Aren't all Microsoft products vastly superior to the old one or having a lot of redundant code? On the top of my head, products like Windows ME and Windows Vista.
Microsoft pushes for people to upgrade so they make what they can of it, sometimes their new versions actually stink more than the last one, but why let that stop you?
You say that Apple limits demo-functionality but the only example you give is that they do not allow time-based demos. I have seen plenty of "limited" apps/games so without any proof or facts I cannot believe it.
If the premium functions does not sell well, then it shows that those functions are not wanted and will not sell the product. So, why develop something you on beforehand knows does not sell very well? That is just stupid and very similar to the music industry thinking.
You also blindly compare palmos and the iphone without any regard of what customer base it has. For example the iphone does not have the core "businessman" customer base has palmos has or have had.
You missed the point, typing != able to send an e-mail. And who talks about PCs for $3000? Today a school in the us could probobly get 7-8 computers for that price.
Even better, install a terminal server and use thin clients.
I can honestly say that flash is in most cases the work of the devil. It can create cool stuff but most often it is done badly and the page gets very heavy for some small details, especially ads. The last is also a big reason why it is so popular to block this kind of contents.
Or when hole pages is created in flash just because it is cool when noone would have noticed any difference if you had used css/images besides the effect of slower page and that flash has started.
It is very hard to compare the two since one is an industri and the other one is a webpage which primarily markets itself by speech.
Other than that a game, even though it might be a lot of coding behind, contains a lot of reoccurring events. I don't see how the cost could even remotely be linked to the price.
I think they made a terrible miscalculation on the expected price on their part. I would never pay $20 for a game I'll spend a few hours on when most games I'd spend weeks on costs ~$30-40.
Had the price been half, they would most certainly have doubled if not quadrupled their sales if not more. The market for a simple game at higher prices is not that big. It's an easy argument if you have a reasonable price for the consumer and not what you would like someone to pay.
Google still offers the option to lock the phone. The same does the HW-manufacturers. It's the telcos option if they want to use it, Google is only stupid if they limit themselves. Remember it's Google who has to sell to the HW-manufacturers and telcos and not the other way around! That it's an open platform has nothing to do what the telcos want as features. If you want Google to remove the feature I hope you the best of luck, if you succeed I would be happy too but i wonder what telcos would use andoid in their subsidized phones.
Well, this point in the discussion was started by you in the respons to krischik's comment which brings up Google: So Google is between the devil and the deep blue see here. Without software lock down no subsidised phones which in case of a smart phone means a Ã1000 price tag. Which in turn means: very few customers.
And your point about installing another OS on a G1 phone, even if it's true, has nothing to do with getting a phone with a revisable Android OS.
Sure it does: http://code.google.com/android/
Well, if your locked to one opinion/fact and does not take in anything else it gets kind of lonely.
The platform has an option to lock the customers out, which the telcos require in most cases if they want to subsidized. I actually don't know of any who does the opposite?
Well the price still has nothing to do with Google, or for that matter your opinion (if it sells, likely the price will stay).
Sure you can hack the G1 to install another OS, not just android...
I wonder what "facts" I need to bring to you else that whats quite obvious? I mean it is hard to find facts for why "it should't cost that" or why Google is "responsible" for what the telcos do?
"I'm not blaming the OS - what's the point of blaming a few megabytes of 1s and 0s? I'm blaming Google.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized"
Wow, I didn't know it was Google who made the phone or even chose Android as a platform. Even more I'm surprised that you're not aware of how the mobile market works.
And btw, if you wish, you can install the open android over the installed branded version.
Well I'm not sure but I know AMD has rushed out a beta driver (never happened before on Linux) because Ubuntu upgraded to the new Xserver 1.5.0. With this release, drivers which are not configured for that version does not work very well. I would guess Nvidia has similar problems.
It is one of the reasons why I prefer the open source drivers, there I know I get regular updates which are on course with the general Linux development.
Everything in the world is not black and white. Sure some companies throw in cash and expect an AAA game in return, but that does not mean everything needs to cost a lot which the OSS community and companies clearly have shown.
If something is not worth paying for it wont be sold, however if you meet the customers demand you have something. If people rather pirate and take the risk than buy the software, obvious the company does not have a product worth paying for.
No company that cannot show that a viable income can come out of the product will even begin to make it. Now instead, the companies run to different governments and say, they steel from us, make them pay us. It is quite a turn for the markets where instead for you need to earn your keep, you have the right to it.
You cannot just sell products, you need to sell products (if you didn't get it, it means to make the customer need it).
It wasn't not until CDs and radio came that the industry started to see the potential in something that does not cost them that much to create.
Do you seriously believe that everyone that create things do it for money? Most people start doing what they do because it is fun and interesting, not because it pays a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are lucky it will turn out like the Swedish brand IKEA. Cheap furniture and stuff which is perfectly adequate for anyone. When they open there doors in new towns, more expensive ones closes their doors. But I doubt Nokia is that smart...
Well like the Swedish company called Ericsson who has been working on technology like this for about or over a year. See Ericsson Labs and https://labs.ericsson.com/developer-community/blog/omg-camera-still for mor information on this.
For those that do not know of Ericsson, they are very large within telecom infrastructure, and if they still do, also owns the Ericsson part in phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson.)
So care to try again?
Seems like your in the wrong "age", there where fears for interference but there are no real evidence that any of todays systems are affected by "normal" devices. Even if they where, the distance between the device and the instruments (most in the ends of the plane) is to far for the electromagnetic waves to do any difference.
Also the air is already filled with radiowaves, which is another proof for the "radio transmitters" thats not allowed.
They do not need any capture device plugged in. All communication to and from the plane are done through the air, which is free for most intelligence agencies to monitor.
I'd like to see how you get that and 2,5 GB transfer per month! On top of all this the most expensive is always personnel, if you do stuff yourself the cost is zero. Corporations however must always pay a salary, regardless if it is Sony or the distributor/producer who does.
So you have a server where you can decide delivery method of the download and limit to only PS3s for $10?
And how about guarantee of uptime, should you use the same servers in US, EU and Asia?
And then servers, software and people to monitor and serve it?
Aren't all Microsoft products vastly superior to the old one or having a lot of redundant code? On the top of my head, products like Windows ME and Windows Vista.
Microsoft pushes for people to upgrade so they make what they can of it, sometimes their new versions actually stink more than the last one, but why let that stop you?
You say that Apple limits demo-functionality but the only example you give is that they do not allow time-based demos. I have seen plenty of "limited" apps/games so without any proof or facts I cannot believe it.
If the premium functions does not sell well, then it shows that those functions are not wanted and will not sell the product. So, why develop something you on beforehand knows does not sell very well? That is just stupid and very similar to the music industry thinking.
You also blindly compare palmos and the iphone without any regard of what customer base it has. For example the iphone does not have the core "businessman" customer base has palmos has or have had.
You missed the point, typing != able to send an e-mail. And who talks about PCs for $3000? Today a school in the us could probobly get 7-8 computers for that price.
Even better, install a terminal server and use thin clients.
I didn't say that, I said a lot of their sites uses python and get a lot of traffic, one example is code.google.com.
You can read some of it here if you like:
http://panela.blog-city.com/python_at_google_greg_stein__sdforum.htm
I can honestly say that flash is in most cases the work of the devil. It can create cool stuff but most often it is done badly and the page gets very heavy for some small details, especially ads. The last is also a big reason why it is so popular to block this kind of contents.
Or when hole pages is created in flash just because it is cool when noone would have noticed any difference if you had used css/images besides the effect of slower page and that flash has started.
I'm curious since Google uses a lot of python/javascript combinations. I also recall they have some traffic to their sites...
PHP is nice, but it ain't always perfect.
It is very hard to compare the two since one is an industri and the other one is a webpage which primarily markets itself by speech. Other than that a game, even though it might be a lot of coding behind, contains a lot of reoccurring events. I don't see how the cost could even remotely be linked to the price.
I think they made a terrible miscalculation on the expected price on their part. I would never pay $20 for a game I'll spend a few hours on when most games I'd spend weeks on costs ~$30-40. Had the price been half, they would most certainly have doubled if not quadrupled their sales if not more. The market for a simple game at higher prices is not that big. It's an easy argument if you have a reasonable price for the consumer and not what you would like someone to pay.
Google still offers the option to lock the phone. The same does the HW-manufacturers. It's the telcos option if they want to use it, Google is only stupid if they limit themselves. Remember it's Google who has to sell to the HW-manufacturers and telcos and not the other way around! That it's an open platform has nothing to do what the telcos want as features. If you want Google to remove the feature I hope you the best of luck, if you succeed I would be happy too but i wonder what telcos would use andoid in their subsidized phones.
Well, this point in the discussion was started by you in the respons to krischik's comment which brings up Google:
So Google is between the devil and the deep blue see here. Without software lock down no subsidised phones which in case of a smart phone means a Ã1000 price tag. Which in turn means: very few customers.
And your point about installing another OS on a G1 phone, even if it's true, has nothing to do with getting a phone with a revisable Android OS.
Sure it does: http://code.google.com/android/
Well, if your locked to one opinion/fact and does not take in anything else it gets kind of lonely.
The platform has an option to lock the customers out, which the telcos require in most cases if they want to subsidized. I actually don't know of any who does the opposite?
Well the price still has nothing to do with Google, or for that matter your opinion (if it sells, likely the price will stay).
Sure you can hack the G1 to install another OS, not just android...
I wonder what "facts" I need to bring to you else that whats quite obvious? I mean it is hard to find facts for why "it should't cost that" or why Google is "responsible" for what the telcos do?
"I'm not blaming the OS - what's the point of blaming a few megabytes of 1s and 0s? I'm blaming Google.
A smartphone shouldn't cost $1000 unsubsidized"
Wow, I didn't know it was Google who made the phone or even chose Android as a platform. Even more I'm surprised that you're not aware of how the mobile market works.
And btw, if you wish, you can install the open android over the installed branded version.
Well I'm not sure but I know AMD has rushed out a beta driver (never happened before on Linux) because Ubuntu upgraded to the new Xserver 1.5.0. With this release, drivers which are not configured for that version does not work very well. I would guess Nvidia has similar problems. It is one of the reasons why I prefer the open source drivers, there I know I get regular updates which are on course with the general Linux development.
I recall MS being invited to develop ODF but refused to work with SUN and from there MS came up with the brilliant idea of OOXML.
I mean why work with others if you can force others to work with what you supply.
The very best excuse ever, others where doing it so it we were free to do it too, it might work to some extent but not always.
Everything in the world is not black and white. Sure some companies throw in cash and expect an AAA game in return, but that does not mean everything needs to cost a lot which the OSS community and companies clearly have shown.
If something is not worth paying for it wont be sold, however if you meet the customers demand you have something. If people rather pirate and take the risk than buy the software, obvious the company does not have a product worth paying for.
No company that cannot show that a viable income can come out of the product will even begin to make it. Now instead, the companies run to different governments and say, they steel from us, make them pay us. It is quite a turn for the markets where instead for you need to earn your keep, you have the right to it.
You cannot just sell products, you need to sell products (if you didn't get it, it means to make the customer need it).
Then others will take over.
It wasn't not until CDs and radio came that the industry started to see the potential in something that does not cost them that much to create.
Do you seriously believe that everyone that create things do it for money? Most people start doing what they do because it is fun and interesting, not because it pays a lot.
That is the same as asking why don't you want a camera in your bedroom, do you got something to hide?