Even in the US you're greatly restricted. IF you invented a patentable idea, and you publicly show it (say, build it into a device), you have 12 months from your first public show to file the patent in the US. On day 366, it's too late - you can no longer patent it. So if the 1992 Newton did use this patent, then Apple needed to file no later than sometime in 1993. A filing date of 1996 is invalid because it violates the 12 month rule.
That growth to 10% was in the US market only, which on the whole shrank by 4.2%. So Apple is grabbing an ever-bigger share of a shrinking pie - not nearly as impressive when seen in that light.
.
It would be interesting to see how Apple stacks up in Asia, where the PC market is still growing at 12% per year...
My 10 year old Dell Optiplex is running Windows 7 without a problem... It's not real speedy, but as a Squeezebox and printer server, and backup machine it's doing quite well.
Apples only makes one model of each and there is little room for innovation.
Even worse, Apple makes 50% of their revenue - and over 50% of their profits - from a SINGLE product in a SINGLE market (iPhone in smartphones). ANY loss in growth or actual loss in marketshare in that market or with that product means a direct, corresponding 2:1 loss in their revenue and profit (lose 2% in iPhone sales, lose 1% of your revenue).
Apple pretty much has a single product - the iPhone. Everything else totaled is the minority revenue and profit generator for Apple. If they take ANY hits to the iPhone, they're in a very bad position. This is why Apple is getting so aggressive about cell phones - they are so dependent on that single product in a single market that they cannot afford any loss in growth of that product in that market.
Oh, I agree - I don't confuse education with intelligence! You can earn a lot of degrees without having real intelligence or wisdom - something that I think any manager (especially the President) needs in copious amounts!
Wasted a lot of time trying to come up with a screenshot solution in browser
Or the programmer could *communicate* and ask what the manager *really* wanted, rather than blindly following the instructions...
And THIS is the real reason China hasn't caught up in innovation; working in China 6-7 months a year, it's always astounding how engineers, workers, and mid-level people just blindly follow instructions without stopping and thinking about what they are actually doing.
Plus, of course, our nation was led for the past 8 years by the first President to have an MBA,... He was also a C student at Yale,... Look where that led us!
Unfortunately we replaced him with a President with higher levels of education and zero experience, and we've gone from a bad situation to worse.
It's not a matter of a subsidy existing or not; we subsidize all power generation forms. The issue is that solar and wind require subsidies 15 times that of nuclear, and nearly 100 times that of natural gas. If we have only so many dollars to spend on energy generation (NOT research - generation), then let's get the biggest bang for our buck.
Solar won't become economical? Is that a joke? Have you looked at how far solar has come in the last...5, 10 years? That's not exactly a long time. Building more nuclear plants in the immediate future is not a solution when solar is getting pretty significantly efficient.
Yet we still subsidize solar and wind orders of magnitude more than nuclear, natural gas, hydro and coal. If it's so economical, why does it need 100 times the subsidies of natural gas? Why does it need 60X the subsidies of coal?
Solar and wind have a LONG way to go... In 60, 80 years they may be reliable, efficient, cost-effective, and widely-deployed so they can be the majority of our power generation. But what about the intervening decades? Should we pay 15X subsidies for wind when we could use nuclear for now?
Money is a resource, and it is somewhat limited. Buy the affordable power now, build lower cost generation while better wind and solar (and even fusion) is researched for future use.
Same here... It'll be at 45-50 in the morning, and I'll get it down to zero in 20-30 minutes. Then I'll keep it below 10 throughout the day. It's not that bad if you stay on top of it.
??? I don't follow... Overall, wind and solar are a tiny part of the equation - I agree. However, that does not negate the fact the US pays around $24 per MWhr for wind and solar, in the form of subsidies. And those subsidies are orders of magnitude higher than other sources.
I believe that figure is for ALL energy sources, not just wind and solar. The report includes nuclear, hydro, and oil based power generation in addition to wind and solar.
over one ton to store the energy required by the average household for one day. You can reuse it each day, of course, but that's still a buttload of salt
Dude, you need to see a proctologist if you can get that much crammed up there!
Sorry, more and more environmental groups are demanding hydro NOT be considered a renewable resource. Bounce it back out and you'll probably lose 95% of your total...
If it was just web-based, you wouldn't tend to have these kinds of problems. For 99% of these "apps" it's just a built-in browser with some pre-defined bookmarks. Seriously - drop the "app" thing, NYT, and just focus on your website.
Too bad we cannot rely on science... Of course, that would require actual REAL science with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified - exactly what you CANNOT do with climate "science". What it really is, is a set of observations (and even that is a stretch sometimes when you build an entire case from a single tree's rings) and some guesses about what could cause it, but no way of actually testing - or even validating - your guesses.
Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year.
Sorry, income != profits. Not even close.
And it still doesn't change the fact that Greenpeace (and many other pro-climate-change groups) is financed by ExxonMobil and BP and "Big Oil". Shall we discount their conclusions and papers as well, since they are obviously financed by groups you suspect of ulterior motives?
Your original quote was that the Usa was "far and away Apple's largest market". If they don't even have a majority share of the market, it's difficult to see how they're "far and away" the largest, and in fact if the market is defined as 'the Usa vs the rest", the Usa comes out second-best.
Not sure what your marketing or sales background is, but I don't know a SINGLE International entity that considers "the non-US World" as a single market. It's almost always broken up as Europe or EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa), South/Central America, and Asia Pacific. And NONE of those markets are as big as the US market for Apple. In fact, I'm pretty sure Apple breaks their markets down that way as well.
Thus the original contention - the US is the biggest market for Apple - is correct. At least if you consider markets as Apple considers them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even in the US you're greatly restricted. IF you invented a patentable idea, and you publicly show it (say, build it into a device), you have 12 months from your first public show to file the patent in the US. On day 366, it's too late - you can no longer patent it. So if the 1992 Newton did use this patent, then Apple needed to file no later than sometime in 1993. A filing date of 1996 is invalid because it violates the 12 month rule.
It would be interesting to see how Apple stacks up in Asia, where the PC market is still growing at 12% per year...
My 10 year old Dell Optiplex is running Windows 7 without a problem... It's not real speedy, but as a Squeezebox and printer server, and backup machine it's doing quite well.
Apples only makes one model of each and there is little room for innovation.
Even worse, Apple makes 50% of their revenue - and over 50% of their profits - from a SINGLE product in a SINGLE market (iPhone in smartphones). ANY loss in growth or actual loss in marketshare in that market or with that product means a direct, corresponding 2:1 loss in their revenue and profit (lose 2% in iPhone sales, lose 1% of your revenue).
Apple pretty much has a single product - the iPhone. Everything else totaled is the minority revenue and profit generator for Apple. If they take ANY hits to the iPhone, they're in a very bad position. This is why Apple is getting so aggressive about cell phones - they are so dependent on that single product in a single market that they cannot afford any loss in growth of that product in that market.
Oh, I agree - I don't confuse education with intelligence! You can earn a lot of degrees without having real intelligence or wisdom - something that I think any manager (especially the President) needs in copious amounts!
Wasted a lot of time trying to come up with a screenshot solution in browser
Or the programmer could *communicate* and ask what the manager *really* wanted, rather than blindly following the instructions...
And THIS is the real reason China hasn't caught up in innovation; working in China 6-7 months a year, it's always astounding how engineers, workers, and mid-level people just blindly follow instructions without stopping and thinking about what they are actually doing.
Plus, of course, our nation was led for the past 8 years by the first President to have an MBA,... He was also a C student at Yale,... Look where that led us!
Unfortunately we replaced him with a President with higher levels of education and zero experience, and we've gone from a bad situation to worse.
Check the subsidies per MWhr - for solar and wind it's around $24, for nuclear it's around $1.60, and for coal about $0.44. Natural gas is at $0.25.
It's not a matter of a subsidy existing or not; we subsidize all power generation forms. The issue is that solar and wind require subsidies 15 times that of nuclear, and nearly 100 times that of natural gas. If we have only so many dollars to spend on energy generation (NOT research - generation), then let's get the biggest bang for our buck.
Solar won't become economical? Is that a joke? Have you looked at how far solar has come in the last...5, 10 years? That's not exactly a long time. Building more nuclear plants in the immediate future is not a solution when solar is getting pretty significantly efficient.
Yet we still subsidize solar and wind orders of magnitude more than nuclear, natural gas, hydro and coal. If it's so economical, why does it need 100 times the subsidies of natural gas? Why does it need 60X the subsidies of coal?
Solar and wind have a LONG way to go... In 60, 80 years they may be reliable, efficient, cost-effective, and widely-deployed so they can be the majority of our power generation. But what about the intervening decades? Should we pay 15X subsidies for wind when we could use nuclear for now?
Money is a resource, and it is somewhat limited. Buy the affordable power now, build lower cost generation while better wind and solar (and even fusion) is researched for future use.
Same here... It'll be at 45-50 in the morning, and I'll get it down to zero in 20-30 minutes. Then I'll keep it below 10 throughout the day. It's not that bad if you stay on top of it.
OK, I LOL'd on that one! Well played, good sir, well played!
??? I don't follow... Overall, wind and solar are a tiny part of the equation - I agree. However, that does not negate the fact the US pays around $24 per MWhr for wind and solar, in the form of subsidies. And those subsidies are orders of magnitude higher than other sources.
I believe that figure is for ALL energy sources, not just wind and solar. The report includes nuclear, hydro, and oil based power generation in addition to wind and solar.
over one ton to store the energy required by the average household for one day. You can reuse it each day, of course, but that's still a buttload of salt
Dude, you need to see a proctologist if you can get that much crammed up there!
Don't forget the subsidies added in as well. When you take those into account suddenly the "affordability" of wind and solar collapses...
Sorry, more and more environmental groups are demanding hydro NOT be considered a renewable resource. Bounce it back out and you'll probably lose 95% of your total...
If it was just web-based, you wouldn't tend to have these kinds of problems. For 99% of these "apps" it's just a built-in browser with some pre-defined bookmarks. Seriously - drop the "app" thing, NYT, and just focus on your website.
So far - they aren't. At least according to the Courts...
Well the Feds taking their 40% cut off the top doesn't really help CA's tax base?
Well now, be honest - the Feds only take 25% off the top, they borrow the other 15% and make CA responsible for it...
Too bad we cannot rely on science... Of course, that would require actual REAL science with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified - exactly what you CANNOT do with climate "science". What it really is, is a set of observations (and even that is a stretch sometimes when you build an entire case from a single tree's rings) and some guesses about what could cause it, but no way of actually testing - or even validating - your guesses.
Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year.
Sorry, income != profits. Not even close.
And it still doesn't change the fact that Greenpeace (and many other pro-climate-change groups) is financed by ExxonMobil and BP and "Big Oil". Shall we discount their conclusions and papers as well, since they are obviously financed by groups you suspect of ulterior motives?
Turns out Greenpeace, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute all receive significant funding from ExxonMobil, BP, and other "Big Oil" companies as well. I assume then - in terms of fairness - you'll also discount any of their publications based upon your perceived taint from their financiers?
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody.
What else are you going to do with all of those lawyers? Feed them to the sharks?
Can we? Please???
Please no!
I need more reactive targets for my shooting range...
Your original quote was that the Usa was "far and away Apple's largest market". If they don't even have a majority share of the market, it's difficult to see how they're "far and away" the largest, and in fact if the market is defined as 'the Usa vs the rest", the Usa comes out second-best.
Not sure what your marketing or sales background is, but I don't know a SINGLE International entity that considers "the non-US World" as a single market. It's almost always broken up as Europe or EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa), South/Central America, and Asia Pacific. And NONE of those markets are as big as the US market for Apple. In fact, I'm pretty sure Apple breaks their markets down that way as well.
Thus the original contention - the US is the biggest market for Apple - is correct. At least if you consider markets as Apple considers them.