Re: I blame Holly wood
Damn - you remembered that film as well. I was just about to post as well. :)
2302 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
Damn - you remembered that film as well. I was just about to post as well. :)
Given Apple's well established position on the "high street" I find that hard to believe. Given kind of sales Cupertino are used to I would have expected something like one every five minutes or whatever. It does however go to show that the whole basis of this article is dubious to say the least.
One could also mention the fact that Apple have been well established in main-street retail for many a long year and have been sellers of a whole rang of hardware for a very long time. MS has barely started to open retail stores. The whole thesis is preposterous - Redmond's retail operation may very well turn out in the end to be a complete steaming turd, but this "survey" of the current situation is a bad joke.
However, you have to understand what the game is here for the gold card members of the Anti-Microsoft-Choral-Howling-Society. Had they priced it significantly lower the aforementioned cognoscenti would have logged on howling "see, nya nya nya na, we told you so, they are bumfucking their OEMs". Given that they have not done that (as they indicated they would not) the members are in the delectable position of being able to have their cake and eat. By that I mean that they can log on and howl "it costs too much, they are fucking idiots". You see? They do not give a shit about honest contributions to a debate. If it is their favorite hate figure (in this case it happens to be Redmond but it could perfectly well be another company) they do not care about the size of the odoriferous piles they excrete on a thread.
Precisely, an understanding of what the words mean promotes understanding of what the "perpetrator" has done wrong and how society should act where an "offence" has been committed (I am not in this in any way supporting the way those tossers are enforcing current law or the way in which a nine-year old child has been treated, I am addressing a more general principle). A classic example are those who still log on to howl "convicted monopolist" on threads concerning MS. They do not understand the law (the charge of being a monopolist does not exist under US or UK law) and, even worse, they reveal that they do not understand what Redmond's (serious) offences were. If they do not understand what "anti-trust violation" means they contribute to confusion and shifting the focus away from what any example of "BigCorp" you may care to name are actually trying to get away with. In this area of life (as in many others) words are important as is understanding what they actually mean.
Rich and powerful execs have of course been showing us the way for years, with their unerring judgement, their.......err, hang on a second. They have been regularly fucking up all over the place - in reality, hmm?
As a service. Simply print it out and keep it by your keyboard.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.
.........St Augustine's prayer, "Lord make me pure, but not yet".
Whilst I fully accept that you included that in your sub-heading so you cannot be accused of doing the old "Click-bait" routine on this occasion, might it not be an idea to drop "rumourmongering" based articles outside of "Boot Notes"? This is like the endless Apple rumour stories - a complete waste of time for all but dyed-in-the-wool fanbois. "Why are you reading the article then, nya, na na, nya, nya" I hear a certain section of the "Cognoscenti" howl - because I hoped, idiot that I am, that there might actually be some genuine info in the piece. I am resolved (it will be a New Year's Resolution) to try and avoid making that mistake too often in future.
Pardon me old chap if I say that your calculation does not make it any more appetizing.
It would not surprise me at all that, in families where the under-12s are so shamelessly spoiled that they actually get high-end tablets or high-end mobile phones for Christmas, the children concerned would address an elderly white-bearded gentleman reindeer fondler in such a fashion.
.......conservatory I have ever seen. Are they thinking of marketing iTomatoes or iTangerines maybe? Their advertising slogan being, perhaps, "it just squirts"?
.............until a kindly disposed member of our little congregation (like the one below your post) showed me the light. :)
*Another thread, different topic.
.........by means of some strange reverberation in the force that they had filed in East Texas. It was as if I suddenly heard a billion customer's voices calling out in terror and pain as.................
"Evidence of Apple’s licensing of patents-in-suit weighs against any finding that monetary relief is inadequate by demonstrating Apple’s willingness to forego exclusivity in exchange for money," Samsung said in its court filing."Evidence of Apple’s licensing of these patents would also undermine Apple’s assertion in its reply — made only a day before announcement of the HTC license — that its patents are unavailable for licensing to competitors."
......................we know from court filings related to Apple versus Samsung that Cupertino were demanding between 30 and 40 dollars per device as their price for any settlement* with Samsung. If HTC have been permitted to settle for considerably less than that (especially given the Fruit Company's usual "no licensing" policy) then it is absolutely a legitimate question for Samsung's legal team to pose.
*Settlement offer as in "drop pants, bend over and no, you can't use any Vaseline".
Just to add a further thought with regard to the irony of the situation. It is in a certain gruesome sense highly entertaining that had MS administered their market dominant position in a way that was in compliance with the law then it is likely that they would be in an even more dominating position today than they in fact are. It was their own (IMHO) stupidly unnecessary illegal behaviour that led to DOJ oversight for a decade and the fact that they are watched like hawks by all competition authorities throughout "known space". Had they shown some restraint their position today might have been in practice "bullet proof" - now that would have given the haters something to howl about! There is perhaps a certain Darwinian irony in the situation they are in today as the most watched company (as far as the compliance authorities are concerned) in the entire industry - bar none, even Cupertino. Therein lies perhaps a lesson for all versions of "BigCorp" - what goes around, comes around. Or perhaps, "being a bastard is not the only way to succeed."
Indeed that is what happened. The practical reality was that during that period the only os that could have competed with MS was the Mac OS. Apple however (after a short-lived and unsuccessful attempt) refused to license to OEMs and stuck to the business model that you refer to. This more than anything else, whatever those who like to howl "convicted monopolist"* at Redmond on every possible occasion might believe, ensured that Windows would win. It is in fact one of the biggest and nastiest ironies of the industry during the nineties that Redmond's arsehole behaviour back then was almost certainly unnecessary as far as ensuring the dominance of Windows was concerned. They ended up convicted of anti-trust violations and suffered a decade and a half or more of serious reputational damage as a result of their conduct - conduct that in fact had little practical utility in terms of their aims. MS did it to themselves without deriving any significant benefit from their behaviour - that is richly ironic, although it does not in any way shape or form excuse their conduct for which they were rightly punished.
*The charge of being a monopolist does not exist under US or British law. In fact a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. It's what you do with market dominance that is the issue - hence MS being convicted of anti-trust offences.
Good grief! if this had been submitted as a script for a day-time soap series in the US it would have been rejected out of hand for its lack of realism. Yet this is, apparently, real life - God help us all.
I would not actually disagree with you. In the sense that if Redmond had had an agreed consensus strategy from the beginning with regard to the way they should tackle these issues then what you have pointed out would indeed have made a lot of sense. However, I have a strong feeling that up until the Build Conference about a year ago there were two or more warring camps with regard to precisely those strategic questions. The result has been (and here I admit that I am guessing) that the strategy that appears to be "materialising" has been somewhat ad hoc rather than properly planned at the outset. It may very well be that the result of the internal turf-wars that have undoubtedly been going on may be something like that you describe as initial customer response in the mass-market kicks in.
................then I think they are playing to their strengths while trying something new."
I am not sure whether that indeed was their intended strategy at the outset. However, I have noticed since the "Build Conference" when they launched the pre-beta (about a year ago now) that they have been somewhat less than precise about what their strategy is with regard to which os they will be pushing for enterprise. I get the feeling that there has been some "politics" going on internally (of which Sinofsky's departure may be one of the external signs) and that it is possible that there are those at Redmond who have been arguing that they have not yet got the mileage sales-wise out of 7 that it still potentially has and that 8's main function should be seen as ensuring that they do not get permanently locked out of the tablet market. I do not get the feeling that this view was universal at Redmond at the outset but that it now may have gained the upper hand.
"The other reason is Microsoft’s own field sales team are pushing Windows 7. The goal for Microsoft’s fiscal year 2013 is 70 per cent of enterprise PCs running Windows 7."
This is not surprising, Win7 is still Redmond's main platform for enterprise and I would have been astonished if they really thought that they could get a significant proportion of those business customers who are only now transitioning from XP to jump straight to 8. I get a strong feeling that whatever MS is saying publicly their strategy overall for the current product cycle will in reality be "twin prong", ie both 7 and 8. I believe that as far as they are concerned 8 is there to save a place for them in the tablet market rather than being their main effort overall whilst at the same time (in the form of Win8 rather than RT) still being compatible. How successful this attempt to straddle two horses at once will be remains to be seen but it is clear that that is what they are trying to do.
I agree entirely. Even though I am not anywhere near as dissatisfied with Win 8 as Trevor clearly is I will happily say that that post was one of the most intelligent, well argued and constructive that I have seen here at El Reg concerning Win8. I am so piss-tired of the "contributions" from the "Gold Card Members of the Anti-Microsoft Choral Howling Society" that I do not know where to begin to describe my feelings. However, this kind of post is another kettle of fish entirely. This kind of post is a real contribution to the debate and I personally felt that I learnt something from it. Major thumbs up to Trevor for that.
"While we are pleased by the share attention, Medbox shares have traded between $2.75 and $3.45 over the past several months," said CEO Bruce Bedrick in a statement. "our fundamentals and market potential are improving, but we temper investor expectations at present price points."
1. Elop leaves MS apparently in a cloud of good will and takes over at Nokia making him Redmond's mole there tasked with destroying the company.
2. Sinofsky leaves MS apparently under a cloud of ill will and whenever he takes over a new position, possibly at RIM, he will be Redmond's mole there tasked with destroying the company.
Now if you feel that I am satirising certain elements in this article and some of the attached postings you would be right. It is however IMHO not too far from an accurate synthesis of the contradictions in the arguments used, very often by the same "usual suspects" on many different occasions. I think that some of you guys better try a bit harder to avoid posting blatantly contradictory lines of argument on related threads.
.........imagine the next Nexus will have when that issue is mass-market relevant and deliverable at a mass-market price, hmm? Yes Grasshopper if you actually try thinking you too will eventually attain wisdom.
The grammatical logic of that is indeed that she was taken aback by a very unexpected promotion. It is in fact El Reg who are trying to run it as her expressing shock at Sinofsky's departure. She may indeed have been shocked by her old boss' departure but that tweet really needs to be stretched to sustain what the article is asserting. However, I do have a strong feeling that she is a place-holder, I do not believe that she has the CV to sustain that position.
........and not Microsoft they say? See the contradiction there?"
When I'm feeling charitable I assume that they do not. When I am not feeling so benign I am forced to conclude that many of those postings are wilfully dishonest.
...posts are not allowed on certain threads, amongst them being any thread connected to an issue involving MS? More seriously, I agree with you. For whatever reason he has concluded that further advance within MS is unlikely. For a man like Sinofsky that is more than enough reason to look around for pastures new without Ballmer having to send the boys round - much as some here would love to believe that type of version of events.
....a highly entertaining political joke onto the thread. On topic, well no - but funny all the same. Besides I imagine that Cupertino make sure that they pay even less tax than Starbucks do. :)
....that worried given that they will almost certainly be expecting a particular section of their enthusiastic fan-base to cover the costs - after all that particular section of their customer base have been cheering the Cupertino Posse "onwards and upwards" throughout all of this have they not? It would only be just if they had to pay Sammy's legal costs through the price of their next shiney.
...................very, very slowly I will be content.
On the basis of what the article is reporting the DemonLordBastardDollarSignSwines are, apparently, doing nothing of the sort. Your point was?
However, I don't think that "they're better than Acer" could be described as something for A Certain Famous Mobile Phone Producer to boast about.
1. Are they pretending that the problem does not exist?
2. Are they blaming the customer for the problem?
3. Do they appear to be promptly replacing the equipment?
It would appear that the answers to questions 1 and 2 at least are an interesting study in contrasts to A Certain Famously Cool Hardware Producer.
I am old enough to remember that in the days before breathalysers were invented one quick way that some police used as a rapid judgement of a driver's condition was to get him to repeat "The Leith police dismisseth us" and if he couldn't then it was down to the station and the attendant police surgeon for a rather more scientific investigation. However, I have a gut feeling that the example you have posted is probably even more challenging stone cold sober, never mind a few sheets to the wind!
..............ready for showtime it is still an impressive advance (as pointed out in the article). The technical difficulties involved in this kind of technology are enormous and this is a clear step forward. Not good enough of course but nonetheless a clear improvement.
I had just begun the article and was mentally composing a post along the lines of "I bet that mobilised the gamer vote" and bugger me, she had! The local Republican party must be kicking themselves - way not to understand the cultural changes taking place in your society guys.
.........(and I am sure that like fanbois all denominations, some of them should be) are going to begin to recognise that the behaviour that Cupertino are exhibiting is not in their supporters interests or indeed the long term interests of the company itself. How long before they realise that the biggest favour they could do for the beloved shiney-producer is, in the words of the 1960's advert for the anti-BO properties of Lifebuoy soap, "what your best friends won't tell you", is in fact to be a good friend to their favourite company and say "you are fucking up - big time!" If Apple go on like this they are going to bring the temple roof in on top of themselves - time to stop guys, really it is.
I think I need to lie down with a wet cloth on my forehead. I had a lot of pressure lately, life has been difficult...mumble, mumble.
Wrong gender for them as well.
I am neither a Mac or a iPhone user but even I know that that is about as accurate as saying the WinPhone 8 is simply Windows 8 ported to mobile phone space.
Indeed they are - that is obvious. What is also interesting is the fact that you have already been down-voted for what would appear to be indisputable. It appears that some if their supporters agree with this childish defiance that Cupertino are exhibiting. I do not need to mention any names but I think that it is remarkable that some of them actively support defiance of the law by their favourite company but go absolutely bananas on the occasions when A Certain (In)Famous Software Company gets caught playing fast and loose with the law. Sauce, goose, gander and all that.
You clearly cannot tell the difference between a bit of trolling satire and being a complete arsehole. Well, I can assure you that you have managed to achieve the latter.
No, actually. The average punter (in that degree they have taken any notice of this case) is not especially impressed with "big boys" who take the piss out of a court judgement. They think (naturally enough) that if "I would have do what I was told under those circumstances then so should those bastards".
To be honest with you I did not get the impression from this article that "blinkered acceptance" was the issue here. It seemed to me, at any rate, a fairly careful assessment of the situation so far. If I have misunderstood something I would of course be obliged (no sarcasm or satire intended, I mean what I say and I have said what I meant) if you would point out where I have gone wrong.
........that I find a four incher being described as a "mini" highly entertaining. Two years ago it would have been "oo er missus".
I would have hated to feel that I was the only one saying WTF? Pardon? when reading that.
No, he hates Cupertino as well, however he clearly does not mind as long as it is anti-Redmond (whom he hates even more). Hypocritical? Of course, but "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" and all that. It does not make for very honest or consistent debate but hey, who expects that with these issues?