Because sometimes it can cost a lot of money to run and maintain a storage system. It doesn't stop with capital costs. There is maintenance fees and labor costs. It can be a lot cheaper to outsource these things.
Also, a lot less risky. Small outfits are far more likely to do things wrong, not keep things updated and are certainly not doing sophisticated intrusion detection, network monitoring etc.
Most small companies thinking that e.g. Google Apps is a security risk run a much higher risk if they do it all themselves.
A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden.
In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened. If it is just "buyer's remorse", he can use that defense there in the actual trial.
The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.
Anyone, the reason people don't have to line up for Samsung stuff might be because they actually make sure they have enough of them in stock and enough production capacity to make more.
Hardly. The reason is that Samsung doesn't have anywhere the the demand spike Apple does. Apple has one phone a year, which results in massive media attention and a big demand spike at launch. Samsung continually releases new models in different markets throughout the year, and thus gets less media attention and no similar demand spike.
Are you seriously the only person who doesnt know that Apple creates sell-out situations on purpose? Its Apple marketing 101 for christs sake. You don't think they KNOW how many phones they would need on launch day to meet demand? I mean sure, its quite possible for a company to once in a while vastly underestimate sales, but EVERY SINGLE LAUNCH its this way. Fuck, wake up.
Knowing how many they would need and having them are two different things... they sold 4 million the first weekend, hardly an artificial scarcity. Apple has a much higher demand for their handsets than anybody else... the obvious reason being that instead of releasing many models each year, they just have one. The production chain can't magically make an unlimited set of phones in a short time, and spending half a year to make inventory rather than selling them as you make them makes no sense. In addition, everyone you turn away because they can't get your phone risks going to a competitor for two years.
Thus, your claim of "creating sell out situations on purpose" makes no sense. Myth busted.
We all know they next iPhone is Q4 and everyone stops buying Apple phones well before a new product.
In Q3 (their Q4 2011), Apple sold more than 17 million iPhones. 21% increase from Q3 last year when they had a new phone) - so "everyone stops buying" is a little exaggerated. Apple will no doubt have much higher Q4 sales (my own 4S is waiting for me at the post office today.... 15 more minutes to go), but that doesn't make these numbers meaningless. They are still a very interesting data point.
It's the most misunderstood thing in business - do good work, make the customers happy, create good value and profit becomes a side effect.
If you read the book, you'll see that this is where the danger lies. This is what a good, normal managers would do. But customers don't always know what they want, and you leave yourself open to attack from adjacent areas. Two of the examples in the book - computer hard drives and construction machines - show how companies by doing what you say ("doing everything right, by the book") eventually come under attack from adjacent market sectors and die.
That articles does not comment on anti-trust laws, except to use some of the wording for fighting states and others setting standards for products to be sold in their state. Nowhere does it say that monopolies are OK, and should be allowed. Which is good, for a private monopoly is by far the worst way to organize anything... you get complacency and lack of innovative edge you get in the public sector, combined with a profit maximization that underscores it is best not to serve everyone even if you would earn a profit: You could make even more if you raised your margins to your optimal level.
That said, I believe in the setting of standards too. Especially ones which affect others than yourself - your car polluting and being dangerous doesn't only affect you, they affect others. Which is why they have agreed together that common standards are a necessity. Same for environmental standards e.g. in production - you might not care about carcinogens from your factory polluting together, and the external cost is not borne by you.
Hardly. You need regulation like anti-trust law to ensure a free market. If there was no such thing, e.g. consolidating the top wireless carriers and refuse interaction with others would clearly be a profit maximizing move by their owners - and the free market would disappear. Monopoly is the most profitable situation for its owners, and in many markets considerable barricades to entry can be made. Some technical ("you won't be able to communicate with anyone on our network, so you won't have any customers"), and some by a threat that you'll just undercut their pricing until they're broke and you can raise yours again.
To quote Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
[1]
For all the pissing and moaning about evil corporations (much of which I agree with), you seem to miss the fact that these wouldn't have the power you abhor in a free market. They only have all these magical, mystical and evil powers over us because the government allows (and encourages) it. Without the guns of government behind them, the largest corporations in the world would be inert.
Actually, the only free market is a regulated market. Merging and raising barriers to entry is far more profitable to corporations than competition - competition is why the free market is beneficial to society.
Re: Android don't forget voice actions first, over the air updates first, multi-tasking first (no?), and being much more open with the entire apps process (apps allowed, side loading, etc).
I had all of these on Nokia N95... IPhone's innovations wasn't much about features. The only brand new thing for a phone was multi-touch - the revolution was the combination of this with Apple's combination of usability and focus: Let's do the most important things first and do them right the rest can wait.
[1] Apple's big Siri announcement is not about voice control - they've had it themselves since 3GS, and I had it on my Nokia N95. Apple claims that they have added contextual understanding, so you can almost have a conversation about it rather than exact commands.
[2] Nokia N95 had almost everything, but it wasn't very usable... it being the pinnacle of pre-iPhone phones shows how much difference Apple did.
Windows Phone seems to have quite a bit of innovation in it, probably the most innovation since iPhone was launched (Android is just a copycat of that, sorry Android fans[1]). So they're not completely dead yet.
[1] Android has some pros and cons compared to iOS, e.g. being some bits being opens ource, it's less locked down, using Java rather than Objective C for development and support of a wide range of hardware in various niches rather than just one high end set per year.
well, it is a surprise of sorts that they still haven't figured out how to make enough of them for the launch - being that the launch day is just a day they chose on a calendar at their leisure.
Why is that a surprise? Waiting half a year while building an inventory you may sell (or not, if you release a lemon) makes much less sense than selling them as soon as you make them. Your cashflow is better and your risk smaller. Also, production is likely less optimal now than it will be in 9 months... both for the phone, and its parts.
But they already have their own search engine Bing, or is that worse than Yahoo? Why would they be interested in Yahoo @ all? The only company that could make a good case for buying them is Apple, so that they can use something other than Google for their native search services on the iPad and others.
Yahoo! has stopped doing search themselves, search has been handled by Microsoft for a couple of years now. So there is no value there... the value would be in yahoo.com, Flickr and various other web services.
Or that the company cannot afford it. Just because they like you and want to keep you doesn't mean they can print money to pay you (unless they are the government).
If they are the government, they usually can afford it even less... flexibility on compensations tends to be very, very limited in the public sector. And budgets are treated different too... no income side, but a sum of money that is already fully allocated.
MS does research? For real? I thought all they did was buy startups and competitors, some of which had done research in the past, or are winding down R+D after the purchase.
Microsoft has a large research division, Microsoft Research - they spend a lot of money and talent on long term research outside product cycles or existing product in development.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I highlighted the relevant part.
That seems to be for cases in the land or naval force, or in the militia, when the country is at war or there is a public danger. He was not in the land or naval force, or in the militia, so this shouldn't apply? This seems to make the military able to have its own court martial system in war.
In the UK you could easily spend £50 on one night out, whereas a game costing the same would provide several days' pleasure at least without the hangover or any other hassles.
In Norway, that would be a cheap night out... at £10 per beer £15 for a cocktail, food, tickets/cover charge, snacks, taxi home (easy £25) a game is a bargain.
True, but living in North Korea sucks, unless you're one of the elites.
On the other side, living in Norway, Canada or Germany doesn't suck quite as much. If North Korea is where "this will ultimately lead", then the other way leads to Somalia.
For a more reasonable argument, assuming that someone who disagrees with you isn't extremist and that there are positives and negatives on both sides is usually constructive.
Meanwhile, if you look at someone who makes $30 million a year, spends $2 million on taxable goods, and invests or saves the other $28 million, they end up paying an effective 2% tax rate.
To play the devil's advocate here, they will pay the sales tax when they eventually use the money... I agree with your second point, though. And one of the main issues of today's tax rules, is deductions and other strange issues like why compensation for hedge fund managers aren't income.
If you pay the use tax as you are supposed to, this doesn't matter. If it does matter, then it shows the point of why Amazon should collect sales tax...
Whether or not the API is "lightweight" is more a testament to whether or not your application/service is trivial and pointless.
Arguing for lightweight over functionality and coverage is like arguing for a keyboard with fewer keys.
You can only have a monopoly with government backing.
No, you can have monopolies for other reasons too... limited supply, networking effects, barrier of entry etc. You need to regulate the market to ensure competition, remember that monopoly is the best possible state for a private company to be in... competition is for the benefit of the purchasers, not the producers.
An example is phone communications. If there were no regulations, the best way to earn money would be for the top companies to merge and disallow any connectivity outside this new network. This massive barrier to entry would ensure that in a short time, you can set the prices to what maximizes income rather than what competitive pressure allows.
Slashdot Mirror
Because sometimes it can cost a lot of money to run and maintain a storage system. It doesn't stop with capital costs. There is maintenance fees and labor costs. It can be a lot cheaper to outsource these things.
Also, a lot less risky. Small outfits are far more likely to do things wrong, not keep things updated and are certainly not doing sophisticated intrusion detection, network monitoring etc.
Most small companies thinking that e.g. Google Apps is a security risk run a much higher risk if they do it all themselves.
A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden.
In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened. If it is just "buyer's remorse", he can use that defense there in the actual trial.
The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.
Anyone, the reason people don't have to line up for Samsung stuff might be because they actually make sure they have enough of them in stock and enough production capacity to make more.
Hardly. The reason is that Samsung doesn't have anywhere the the demand spike Apple does. Apple has one phone a year, which results in massive media attention and a big demand spike at launch. Samsung continually releases new models in different markets throughout the year, and thus gets less media attention and no similar demand spike.
Are you seriously the only person who doesnt know that Apple creates sell-out situations on purpose? Its Apple marketing 101 for christs sake. You don't think they KNOW how many phones they would need on launch day to meet demand? I mean sure, its quite possible for a company to once in a while vastly underestimate sales, but EVERY SINGLE LAUNCH its this way. Fuck, wake up.
Knowing how many they would need and having them are two different things... they sold 4 million the first weekend, hardly an artificial scarcity. Apple has a much higher demand for their handsets than anybody else... the obvious reason being that instead of releasing many models each year, they just have one. The production chain can't magically make an unlimited set of phones in a short time, and spending half a year to make inventory rather than selling them as you make them makes no sense. In addition, everyone you turn away because they can't get your phone risks going to a competitor for two years.
Thus, your claim of "creating sell out situations on purpose" makes no sense. Myth busted.
We all know they next iPhone is Q4 and everyone stops buying Apple phones well before a new product.
In Q3 (their Q4 2011), Apple sold more than 17 million iPhones. 21% increase from Q3 last year when they had a new phone) - so "everyone stops buying" is a little exaggerated. Apple will no doubt have much higher Q4 sales (my own 4S is waiting for me at the post office today.... 15 more minutes to go), but that doesn't make these numbers meaningless. They are still a very interesting data point.
It's the most misunderstood thing in business - do good work, make the customers happy, create good value and profit becomes a side effect.
If you read the book, you'll see that this is where the danger lies. This is what a good, normal managers would do. But customers don't always know what they want, and you leave yourself open to attack from adjacent areas. Two of the examples in the book - computer hard drives and construction machines - show how companies by doing what you say ("doing everything right, by the book") eventually come under attack from adjacent market sectors and die.
That articles does not comment on anti-trust laws, except to use some of the wording for fighting states and others setting standards for products to be sold in their state. Nowhere does it say that monopolies are OK, and should be allowed. Which is good, for a private monopoly is by far the worst way to organize anything... you get complacency and lack of innovative edge you get in the public sector, combined with a profit maximization that underscores it is best not to serve everyone even if you would earn a profit: You could make even more if you raised your margins to your optimal level.
That said, I believe in the setting of standards too. Especially ones which affect others than yourself - your car polluting and being dangerous doesn't only affect you, they affect others. Which is why they have agreed together that common standards are a necessity. Same for environmental standards e.g. in production - you might not care about carcinogens from your factory polluting together, and the external cost is not borne by you.
Hardly. You need regulation like anti-trust law to ensure a free market. If there was no such thing, e.g. consolidating the top wireless carriers and refuse interaction with others would clearly be a profit maximizing move by their owners - and the free market would disappear. Monopoly is the most profitable situation for its owners, and in many markets considerable barricades to entry can be made. Some technical ("you won't be able to communicate with anyone on our network, so you won't have any customers"), and some by a threat that you'll just undercut their pricing until they're broke and you can raise yours again.
To quote Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” [1]
For all the pissing and moaning about evil corporations (much of which I agree with), you seem to miss the fact that these wouldn't have the power you abhor in a free market. They only have all these magical, mystical and evil powers over us because the government allows (and encourages) it. Without the guns of government behind them, the largest corporations in the world would be inert.
Actually, the only free market is a regulated market. Merging and raising barriers to entry is far more profitable to corporations than competition - competition is why the free market is beneficial to society.
Re: Android don't forget voice actions first, over the air updates first, multi-tasking first (no?), and being much more open with the entire apps process (apps allowed, side loading, etc).
I had all of these on Nokia N95... IPhone's innovations wasn't much about features. The only brand new thing for a phone was multi-touch - the revolution was the combination of this with Apple's combination of usability and focus: Let's do the most important things first and do them right the rest can wait.
[1] Apple's big Siri announcement is not about voice control - they've had it themselves since 3GS, and I had it on my Nokia N95. Apple claims that they have added contextual understanding, so you can almost have a conversation about it rather than exact commands.
[2] Nokia N95 had almost everything, but it wasn't very usable... it being the pinnacle of pre-iPhone phones shows how much difference Apple did.
MS hasn't innovated in 20 years.
Windows Phone seems to have quite a bit of innovation in it, probably the most innovation since iPhone was launched (Android is just a copycat of that, sorry Android fans[1]). So they're not completely dead yet.
[1] Android has some pros and cons compared to iOS, e.g. being some bits being opens ource, it's less locked down, using Java rather than Objective C for development and support of a wide range of hardware in various niches rather than just one high end set per year.
well, it is a surprise of sorts that they still haven't figured out how to make enough of them for the launch - being that the launch day is just a day they chose on a calendar at their leisure.
Why is that a surprise? Waiting half a year while building an inventory you may sell (or not, if you release a lemon) makes much less sense than selling them as soon as you make them. Your cashflow is better and your risk smaller. Also, production is likely less optimal now than it will be in 9 months... both for the phone, and its parts.
But they already have their own search engine Bing, or is that worse than Yahoo? Why would they be interested in Yahoo @ all? The only company that could make a good case for buying them is Apple, so that they can use something other than Google for their native search services on the iPad and others.
Yahoo! has stopped doing search themselves, search has been handled by Microsoft for a couple of years now. So there is no value there... the value would be in yahoo.com, Flickr and various other web services.
Or that the company cannot afford it. Just because they like you and want to keep you doesn't mean they can print money to pay you (unless they are the government).
If they are the government, they usually can afford it even less... flexibility on compensations tends to be very, very limited in the public sector. And budgets are treated different too... no income side, but a sum of money that is already fully allocated.
MS does research? For real? I thought all they did was buy startups and competitors, some of which had done research in the past, or are winding down R+D after the purchase.
Microsoft has a large research division, Microsoft Research - they spend a lot of money and talent on long term research outside product cycles or existing product in development.
Who cares about boot time. Its a phone, when is it ever off?
On airplanes. Some,also do this rather than silent mode when they don't want to be disturbed.
Unless the Kindles just magically appear in the wearhouse and market themselves.
As well as developed themselves, and are so intuitive and bugfree that no support or maintenance is needed.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I highlighted the relevant part.
That seems to be for cases in the land or naval force, or in the militia, when the country is at war or there is a public danger. He was not in the land or naval force, or in the militia, so this shouldn't apply? This seems to make the military able to have its own court martial system in war.
In the UK you could easily spend £50 on one night out, whereas a game costing the same would provide several days' pleasure at least without the hangover or any other hassles.
In Norway, that would be a cheap night out... at £10 per beer £15 for a cocktail, food, tickets/cover charge, snacks, taxi home (easy £25) a game is a bargain.
True, but living in North Korea sucks, unless you're one of the elites.
On the other side, living in Norway, Canada or Germany doesn't suck quite as much. If North Korea is where "this will ultimately lead", then the other way leads to Somalia.
For a more reasonable argument, assuming that someone who disagrees with you isn't extremist and that there are positives and negatives on both sides is usually constructive.
Meanwhile, if you look at someone who makes $30 million a year, spends $2 million on taxable goods, and invests or saves the other $28 million, they end up paying an effective 2% tax rate.
To play the devil's advocate here, they will pay the sales tax when they eventually use the money... I agree with your second point, though. And one of the main issues of today's tax rules, is deductions and other strange issues like why compensation for hedge fund managers aren't income.
One more reason to leave California.
If you pay the use tax as you are supposed to, this doesn't matter. If it does matter, then it shows the point of why Amazon should collect sales tax...
Whether or not the API is "lightweight" is more a testament to whether or not your application/service is trivial and pointless. Arguing for lightweight over functionality and coverage is like arguing for a keyboard with fewer keys.
Huge overdesigned APIs like CORBA begs to differ.
I thought that Lucy/African Eve was the one that we're all descended from. Or was that a single pair of humans ... Lucy and multiple males.
While science has "found" Mitochondrial Eve, she wasn't the only female in existence then... she was obviously part of a larger community.
You can only have a monopoly with government backing.
No, you can have monopolies for other reasons too... limited supply, networking effects, barrier of entry etc. You need to regulate the market to ensure competition, remember that monopoly is the best possible state for a private company to be in... competition is for the benefit of the purchasers, not the producers.
An example is phone communications. If there were no regulations, the best way to earn money would be for the top companies to merge and disallow any connectivity outside this new network. This massive barrier to entry would ensure that in a short time, you can set the prices to what maximizes income rather than what competitive pressure allows.