There seems to be disagreements over what exactly "copying" means.
Both MS and Apple aggregate various existing technologies for their "new" products. The difference is Apple is smarter about how it puts them together and also about what not to copy. Therefore, "copying" itself is not the difference maker.
Apple merges the Mona Lisa with a Rembrandt, while MS merges Dogs-Playing-Poker with Velvet Elvis. An exaggeration, but you get the idea.
What they don't really address is that crooks have been pretty good at finding back-doors. No known technology can make a practical back door for law enforcement that's not a potential and fairly likely access point for crooks.
In fact, the crooks have proved smarter and faster than law enforcement, in part because 3rd-world labor is cheap and plentiful compared to law enforcement staff, and crooks are happy to outsource. The crooks have a much bigger eArmy. Law enforcement will lose a labor contest.
...Brits march all over Kingdom Come chasing people who knew the land and thus fucked with their mind via snipers and hit-and-run. Actual battles were relatively rare.
Let Huawei/China go right ahead and blow their wad on over-hyped shit.
To be fair, Apple copies also. Apple didn't invent touch-screens; they just knew where to put it and how to organize the UI around it. And they swiped GUI's from Xerox (per Mac/Lisa), but made it more practical and cheaper than Xerox knew how.
The trick is knowing what to copy, how to coordinate copied components together, and what to skip.
it doesn't really matter how far away they are; you've already proven to be an incompetent manager.
Most managers are only semi-competent. Managers competent in every necessary aspect of management are rare. Are you good at everything yourself? Many only know how to manage on-premise, and a change introduces a learning curve.
They suppose an ability to predict the distant future - a arrogance I find unwarranted.
It's a decade-cycle pattern that has existed for about 110 years, and if we accept more irregularity in it, 300-ish. Wars do muck it up, but it's otherwise a pretty strong pattern.
Now, perhaps something changed such that the pattern "went away", but if it happened for 110 years, then the chance of it happening for yet another decade is strong.
You might even be able to short sell a company with a large portfolio of San Francisco real estate. Go for it.
Rather I buy up stocks just after the cycle fall, like Warren Buffett does. He's the richest man* in the world: tell HIM he's wrong. (Unfortunately I didn't have the cash prior decades to do that much.)
* Or, he would be if he hadn't been giving much of it to charity, knowing his time on Earth is likely short. Also, he started purchasing entire companies, not just shares in them, but same concept: buy low, sell high (or keep).
Something is out of whack; there are empty houses in the Rust Belt, yet not enough housing in CA. Whenever an industry fades, we throw entire communities under the bus, to be burned at the Altar of Capitalism. We don't just punish individuals for picking the wrong industry at the wrong time, we punish entire regions. Is there no way to rebalance the Country? Should we "just accept" this silliness?
What would be the return for somebody who purchased pets.com stock during its heyday? Sure, chewy.com is growing, but pets.com shrunk to junk status before being purchased by Chewy, if I'm not mistaken.
I suspect a bubble or two will pop and rents will be almost normal again. For example, the revenue received by AI companies does not justify the investment money pouring into them compared to other industry returns. Either they will start spewing forth great products soon, or investors will get a clue and pop the bubble. We are overdue for a general market and economy correction anyhow, AI aside.
Apple's niche has never been "masses" and I don't think they'd do well at it. They've almost always targeted the top 15% or so of consumers and have made a nice living off them (except for the mid 1990's). Why change your spots? Some make Porches, some make Chevy's, both exist in the marketplace and serve different customers.
I hate it when NASA and other science organizations anthropomorphize everything. It is very unscientific...
To be fair, the press cherry-picks quotes to publish such that if you say 99 things in a careful and accurate way but 1 thing in anthropomorphized or over-simplified way, that one is more likely to be quoted because it's more relatable to readers and/or more "catchy". The first job of a reporter/editor is to sell readership quantity, not accuracy. That's life under a market-driven press.
The only solution for science-oriented agencies I can think of would be to funnel everything through a central PR team who carefully vets the phrasing of all info given out, but I don't think voters would want that.
"but obstacles slowed its progress...On its way into the depths, the mole seems to have hit a stone, tilted about 15 degrees and pushed it aside or passed it...The mole then worked its way up against another stone at an advanced depth..."
Mars soil is full of rocks, gee, who would've guessed? What if it hits a rock too big to move? That gizmo may not be strong enough to break through or get around.
Then again, that's what exploration is all about: you don't know what's down there until you actually go. Failure is knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be disagreements over what exactly "copying" means.
Both MS and Apple aggregate various existing technologies for their "new" products. The difference is Apple is smarter about how it puts them together and also about what not to copy. Therefore, "copying" itself is not the difference maker.
Apple merges the Mona Lisa with a Rembrandt, while MS merges Dogs-Playing-Poker with Velvet Elvis. An exaggeration, but you get the idea.
What they don't really address is that crooks have been pretty good at finding back-doors. No known technology can make a practical back door for law enforcement that's not a potential and fairly likely access point for crooks.
In fact, the crooks have proved smarter and faster than law enforcement, in part because 3rd-world labor is cheap and plentiful compared to law enforcement staff, and crooks are happy to outsource. The crooks have a much bigger eArmy. Law enforcement will lose a labor contest.
Okay, make that 9 then.
...Brits march all over Kingdom Come chasing people who knew the land and thus fucked with their mind via snipers and hit-and-run. Actual battles were relatively rare.
Let Huawei/China go right ahead and blow their wad on over-hyped shit.
To be fair, Apple copies also. Apple didn't invent touch-screens; they just knew where to put it and how to organize the UI around it. And they swiped GUI's from Xerox (per Mac/Lisa), but made it more practical and cheaper than Xerox knew how.
The trick is knowing what to copy, how to coordinate copied components together, and what to skip.
Half the problem is nobody knows what fad will take off and which will flop. Many thought the iPhone was a fad, saying people want "real keyboards".
The other half is that MS is usually a step behind real competitors in the consumer market.
All 7 users will be really pissed.
Most managers are only semi-competent. Managers competent in every necessary aspect of management are rare. Are you good at everything yourself? Many only know how to manage on-premise, and a change introduces a learning curve.
It's a decade-cycle pattern that has existed for about 110 years, and if we accept more irregularity in it, 300-ish. Wars do muck it up, but it's otherwise a pretty strong pattern.
Now, perhaps something changed such that the pattern "went away", but if it happened for 110 years, then the chance of it happening for yet another decade is strong.
Rather I buy up stocks just after the cycle fall, like Warren Buffett does. He's the richest man* in the world: tell HIM he's wrong. (Unfortunately I didn't have the cash prior decades to do that much.)
* Or, he would be if he hadn't been giving much of it to charity, knowing his time on Earth is likely short. Also, he started purchasing entire companies, not just shares in them, but same concept: buy low, sell high (or keep).
Some European countries seemed to have found a decent balance. Too much either direction seems the real problem. Goldilocks.
Which deity told you that? I wanna talk to her.
"To err is human; to really foul things up you need a computer."
Something is out of whack; there are empty houses in the Rust Belt, yet not enough housing in CA. Whenever an industry fades, we throw entire communities under the bus, to be burned at the Altar of Capitalism. We don't just punish individuals for picking the wrong industry at the wrong time, we punish entire regions. Is there no way to rebalance the Country? Should we "just accept" this silliness?
What would be the return for somebody who purchased pets.com stock during its heyday? Sure, chewy.com is growing, but pets.com shrunk to junk status before being purchased by Chewy, if I'm not mistaken.
A million lines of, "Oh Wei, I love you long time!"
I suspect a bubble or two will pop and rents will be almost normal again. For example, the revenue received by AI companies does not justify the investment money pouring into them compared to other industry returns. Either they will start spewing forth great products soon, or investors will get a clue and pop the bubble. We are overdue for a general market and economy correction anyhow, AI aside.
It blew my wallet away.
Correction: "Porsches"
Apple's niche has never been "masses" and I don't think they'd do well at it. They've almost always targeted the top 15% or so of consumers and have made a nice living off them (except for the mid 1990's). Why change your spots? Some make Porches, some make Chevy's, both exist in the marketplace and serve different customers.
Somewhere between $18 and $50 million.
To be fair, the press cherry-picks quotes to publish such that if you say 99 things in a careful and accurate way but 1 thing in anthropomorphized or over-simplified way, that one is more likely to be quoted because it's more relatable to readers and/or more "catchy". The first job of a reporter/editor is to sell readership quantity, not accuracy. That's life under a market-driven press.
The only solution for science-oriented agencies I can think of would be to funnel everything through a central PR team who carefully vets the phrasing of all info given out, but I don't think voters would want that.
Mars soil is full of rocks, gee, who would've guessed? What if it hits a rock too big to move? That gizmo may not be strong enough to break through or get around.
Then again, that's what exploration is all about: you don't know what's down there until you actually go. Failure is knowledge.
I hope Europe tells the USA to shove that law where the Eagle doesn't shine.
Mormonism?
Happy Birthdayium!
Bot: "Let me see if I heard that correctly: your duck is too small?"