2190 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
"It's clear malware writers are still concentrating on men with prurient interests"
Re: "For a moment there..." Yep, the Force de Frappe took off on De Gaulle's.........
........orders and nuked Mars from orbit some time in the late sixties. They've been covering up ever since.
I want a proper tinfoil hat icon.
"What would Heisenberg’s position be?"
There or thereabouts.
Nokia do deserve a good smack for letting that one out.
However, as has been pointed out by the author the kit actually sustains the claims - luckily for our Finnish comprades. The result, deserved or not, is likely to be that (within limits) "there is no such thing as bad publicity". In that sense I am almost tempted to done my tinfoil hat and accuse Nokia of "faking the faking" in order to generate publicity. You can see how it would work. You shoot the ad, get "caught", apologise and then say "oh, by the way we can in fact justify these claims". If I was into wearing the aforementioned headgear.
Re: "Smartphone + Internet Radio + Speakers" Yep - charging dock with speakers, sorted.
Indeed, that as well. I was just thinking that the OEMs should themselves get their thumbs out from where ever they have hidden them!
Re: "Smartphone + Internet Radio + Speakers" Yep - charging dock with speakers, sorted.
........always supposing the audio manufacturers can be arsed to produce something that connects with more phones than just the iP!@! ffs. In fact the likes of Samsung, Nokia etc should be doing that kind of thing as peripherals for their phones.
Re: "Utterly absurd !!" I agree and furthermore.......
...........I do not understand why the Editor's Choice includes a major facility that you can only use if you own one particular brand of smartphone. That would be fair enough if we were doing a round-up of dedicated smartphone peripherals/partner equipment but we aren't. The moment you are not an owner of that particular brand the Editor's choice goes from (very) mediocre value for money to truly appalling.
@Lusty Re: "........that it's because they sell across all price points..............."
The implication of your argument is that the OEMs concerned have only themselves to blame for wishing to sell smartphones to people cannot afford the likes of either the SGIII or the iPhone4S. The fact of the matter is that Apple (for perfectly understandable business case reasons) confine their production to high end phones. In saying that I am not criticising them. I am simply pointing out that comparing customer satisfaction indices between a company that supplies a relatively narrow and relatively affluent financial segment with a company that sells products that permit even the "great unwashed" to own a smartphone does not lead to anything that can be called a useful and informative customer satisfaction index.
These comparisons always seem to be about apples and pears.
How about asking iPhone 4S contra Galaxy SIII owners how they feel about their phones? Ie. A direct comparison. Comparing the phones of one company who sells a (very) narrow range of high end models with companies who sell across the whole range of smartphone price points does not seem especially informative. Apple might indeed still "win" on that index but I doubt very much that it would be the apparent hands down win we see here.
@Neil Barnes Re: ".............. than supervise her being read to by a robot."
Indeed. I love tech but the human aspect is still far more important, thank God. Apart from anything else your granddaughter will remember long after we are both gone her granddad reading to her - that you cannot get from any piece of tech regardless of how shiny it is.
Re:"everyone is insisting on 2048 and have been for about a year now."
Yep. The IT dept here at Uni starting tackling that issue a good while ago. It is also clear from the article that this should not come as any surprise to anyone - it's not exactly been sprung on them at short notice.
A very thoughtful article Andrew.............
"I certainly didn't expect to write any of the above on Monday this week, but as Keynes may (or may not) have said: "When the facts change, I change my mind". I decline to give odds either way; I'm not in the prognostication business. But I merely point out that there is nothing 'inevitable' about the outcome of the smartphone market, and as long as Nokia has cash in the bank and can make standout products – which it has started to do again – there could be some surprises yet."
...........most of which I have to say I agree with. The problem is as far as these threads are concerned, that far too many prognosticate about what they want (if they are actually willing to be honest with themselves, never mind anybody else) to happen rather than trying to analyse what might actually happen. The result is of course that any discussion gets drowned out by tribalist howling.
Re: "Jeremy Clarkson's tastes and world views."
I entirely agree with your point regarding the Curiosity mission. However, please excuse me while I barf in response to Mr Clarkson's "tastes and world views". No offence intended towards you of course.
@tony72 Re:"A quick Google reveals that only 7% of UK males and 5% of women own a tablet"
It may be a touch off topic for me to respond specifically to that point but I feel that it is an important one in the larger context. The tablet market (as you point out) is in fact still tiny in comparison to the conventional pc market as a whole. It is not remotely mass-market (yet) in comparison to ordinary boxes. The hardware has only recently (comparatively speaking) begun to catch up with the dream of the "full-song-with-choruses" pc in your pocket. However, with what we can see in prospect as far as the new chips are concerned with regard to the battery life/processing power equation (plus SSD prices heading south) then 2013 may prove to be very interesting. I certainly think that it is highly likely that the tablet market is going to look very different in 2 - 3 years time than it does today - it has not yet really begun to take off.
Re:"Samsung can make huge profits on the Galaxy III, selling at £500 odd, but.......
.......... clearly not on tablets."
I have to admit that I do not understand it. In both cases they are running the same os as the equivalent phone and both phones sell gangbusters to their respective customer bases, so it is not unfamiliarity with the respective operating systems. In certain ways Sammys offering is clearly better equipped than the iPad and both systems have a very large choice of apps. If it is not primarily the screen (iPad 3) then I have to say I am at a complete loss as to how to work out how Sammy's high-end phone can compete with the iPhone and then some but apparently not the tablet.
Re: Infrastructure cost, development cost and security risk
Highly relevant points. I think that companies are at the very least going to have to develop a list of approved devices or the whole issue will be a dog's breakfast security-wise and enormously time-consuming for the IT depts concerned.
I, in common I suspect with most here, could find better things to do with 250 k..........
............if I had it lying around, which I don't! Ok, there is no reason why RegHardware can't do a comedy special every now and then - it should be read it that spirit, LOL!
Re: "But, but....but....we were the best.....we had it all, .....what's happening?"
Indeed. Competition is a wonderful thing, except when you fear that you are beginning to lose! :-)
This kind of thing is hardly surprising.
"In an apparent jab against the US and its allies, which have all but admitted using state-sponsored malware in recent attacks on Iran and other targets, Suffolk warns that the lack of international law governing cyber security may soon have severe consequences."
On the one hand they complain the Huwei may be engaging in or permitting others to engage in espionage against Western interests via "modifications" to the equipment that the company supplies customers with. This they do whilst they, at the same time, can hardly fail to be aware that various Western security agencies are doing precisely this kind of net based spying/sabotage themselves. One can only conclude that certain forces amongst Western politicians and industrialist are using this as an excuse to hamstring a major industrial rival to their own home companies. I am increasingly getting the feeling that a growing number of Western "movers and shakers" are beginning to be attracted by the thought of using a fairly eclectic and unscrupulous mix of IP "protection" and "security concerns" to try and cope with an unpleasant discovery. I.e. That since they managed to shove their own neo-liberal trade policies down the throats of the rest of the word during the nineties and early two thousands, they have ended up hoist upon their own free-trade agreements petard.
@Chris Miller "Re: That is not 'naked' short selling" You are quite right. There was an.....
....... important word missing from part of what I wrote.
"(where you simply pretend to* borrow shares you are
fucking with investing in rather than having to pony up anything yourself)"
I wrote that one too quickly. :) Though in my own defence I will say that a short explanation of the practice is not the easiest thing in the world to write!
Re: That is not 'naked' short selling
With all respect I would be astonished if "naked shorting" was not involved here. What the complainants appear to be upset about here is behaviour that is not normally associated with people trading in shares they in fact actually own. The kind of manipulation/dishonesty they are alleging is usually found amongst the "naked shorters". That was in fact the point I was making when I said that that practice positively encouraged villainy. One can very clearly argue that there are entirely respectable reasons for conventional shorting, I have yet to see any convincing case for the "bare arse" version.
"In the United States, naked short selling is.................
.....................covered by various SEC regulations which prohibit the practice."
If that is the case I am delighted to hear it.
It would not actually need *legislation*.
The leading exchanges to could do it themselves in concert - it would after all demonstrate their commitment to honest markets (strives manfully not to howl with laughter at that thought).
This stuff is hardly surprising.
"The letter then goes on to say that while some negative reports on Chinese companies listed in the US have “helped cleanse the environment”, the likes of Citron have “started targeting legitimate companies with either no problems or minimal problems”, and done nothing but tell bold-faced lies."
The technique of short selling, most particularly so-called "naked shorting" (where you simply borrow shares you are
fucking with investing in rather than having to pony up anything yourself), has a thoroughly pernicious effect given that it positively begs market manipulators/sharks to get involved. When in engaging in this type of "investment" the opportunities/temptations for fraudulent behaviour are so obvious that it is inexcusable that the exchanges have not yet banned at least the "naked" version of the practice.
You may have noticed the term "hands-on review"?
A rather particular piece of terminology/tech-slang - now what might it mean, hmm?
"Stylophone" Love it! Now there is a blast from the past.
Late sixties I think?
@Bernard Re: "No offence to Stephen Fry"
I have admit that although I have enjoyed a great deal of Fry's work as a comedian I cannot dispute what you say. Wilde's talents were considerable including a mastery of the epigram, what we perhaps might today often be tempted to call "the soundbite". He was a past master at summing up a socio-political point he wanted to make whilst making it extremely funny. In the hope that no techies from the Countryside Alliance are going to log on and hose me, I feel that his description of fox hunting as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" is an example of an absolute mastery of encapsulating a point in one sentence and cracking a very funny joke at the same time.
Re:" I don't know why anyone thought that it was worth what they started out at"
I think that the basic rule of thumb is these situations is that if the price reminds one of a
poncey ponzi scheme it probably will end up functioning like that even if nothing technically illegal is afoot.
@Mike Flugennock Re: "or, at least your average major American brands"
You got there before me. I will just add that there are a considerable number of very good local and regional breweries in the US producing absolutely everything one could imagine from the lager end of the scale through various ales and bitter beers to stouts, porters etc. Contrary to what some appear to believe American taste in beer is not confined to Budweiser!
Re: "Payment system" To be absolutely frank with you old chap...........
..............given the various security issues we have seen cropping up with FB I wouldn't touch any such financial service with the thin end of a very long barge pole if it had anything to do with that company.
@tirk RE:".......there are laws against that?"
I had intended to post something to the following effect. "Anybody actually going to post defending Cupertino's attempt to ban the GSIII and the note?". In my naivety I could not believe that anyone, not even the the most
borderline psychopathic enthusiastic Apple fanboi could bring themselves to defend the latest developments with the attempt to ban those devices. Then bugger me, I read your post. It just goes to show.
"clenching one’s teeth will make the copter descend."
Remembering the last time I flew in a helicopter, I started to clench my teeth (as well as another portion of my anatomy) when the copter started to descend - it was doing so rather rapidly at the time. Icon? Describes my feelings at that moment.
"all the people who I know who live in Facebook all have iPhones "
Live in FB? If that in any way describes their real feelings about their FB world then all I can say is - sad, very sad indeed. Which ever phone they use.
"magazine-layout' design of..... ."Notro""
Why not call it the "Clint"-UI. You know, "The UI with no name". All right, I know I ought to be ashamed of that joke. On a somewhat more serious note Andrew I have to say that after have lived with an LG E900 for the last half year (I have a pair of sims answering to the same number, one's in this one and the other in my Desire Z) I largely agree with what you say about the os itself. Do I find it impossible to live with? No, not at all but that does not change the impression one has of the os as a somewhat unfinished work in its current iteration. As far as the current Nokia range being able to compete on the hardware front with the likes of the Galaxy series or the iPhones, that is due also to the hardware restrictions that MS built WP 7.5 on. It is not just the rather short time to market that has been available to Nokia with the current members of the Lumia family. With the coming WP8 phones Nokia will be in a position to do their side of the job, the question is of course: Have Microsoft done theirs?
Re: Goodness Gracious
Upvoted. Though I fear that only aficionados of early rock n' roll will get it. :)
"John Travolta may star in a Toxic remake." I agree entirely, that combination could.........
........certainly be described as a toxic remake.
RE "Larry Crapbeans? Is that the Samsunged copy of Barry Shitpeas?"
No, it's his
even more evil twin.
Re: "Are these Galaxy S mobiles any of the banned ones?"
Indeed they are. However it is just possible that some customers fear that future support may be lacking. However, another motivation for some customers may be the following. We know that many customers partially finance their next upgrade by selling their current phone. Given that the GSIII has made quite a splash we would expect to some extent a surge in earlier Galaxies coming on to e-bay. If this was also reinforced by some customers fearing that if they do not sell now they won't get as good a price at a later date one can see how the judgement against Samsung might play into this*. Having said that of course none of this IMHO suggests that punters are abandoning Samsung's flagship product, just that they are maybe upgrading earlier than they otherwise might have done.
*It might also be the case that give that the sales of the GSII in the States have been the largest of the Galaxy series so far, then the the apparently unusually high number of sales on e-bay are a function of Samsung's success in the States (larger customer base now) and that those sales are indeed largely provoked by the launch of the GSIII. Comparative statistics is a dangerous game!
If there is anything in this at all then I think that the explanation may lie in this......
" and customers might fear that Samsung will be even less likely to issue updates for models that it isn't allowed to sell anymore."
It would not be entirely irrational for customers to fear that they would get very little support for their phones if they are amongst the ones that are banned. Having said that of course there is a considerable head of steam developing behind the GSIII (not to be banned AFAIK) and a fair amount of this may be customers coming to the end of their current contracts and/or simply wanting the latest and greatest in the Galaxy series.
Am I the only one who was reminded of the Python's famous "Parrot Sketch" by this?
"There is also a list of key phrases not to be used by Genius Bar staff. Apple hardware does not "bomb," "crash," "bang," or even "freeze." Instead it "unexpectedly quits," "does not respond," or "stops responding." Similarly there's no such thing as a "bug" or "problem," just a "condition" or "situation."
No, he hasn't crashed he's just resting. :)
"knackering access to......Facebook...........for more than 24 hours"
"'It is an ill wind indeed that blows no good at all."
Re: " ......unless you're trying to tell.................."
Now that would be an example of painful honesty!
Re: "Communism" No, no, old chap it's known as............
.............."Capitalism Within One State."`*
*A joke for old political fogies like me. If you aren't an old fogy like me try googling it, substituting "Socialism" for "Capitalism".
Re: "Patriot Scientific Corporation?" That was exactly what struck me about this.
I am beginning to wonder if there is a new form of "isolationism" (take a look at pre-war American politics and the difficulties that Roosevelt had in getting "lease-lend" past Congress in the early days of the war if that seems unclear) developing amongst certain political and business forces in the US. Many such companies are (despite all the outsourcing and all that) beginning to feel the heat in terms of turnover and cash-flow. However, international trade agreements prevent them from using crude import barriers as they were used in the past (by all countries). What a lovely opportunity to re-introduce such barriers disguised as "defending patents", Oh, and no, I do not for one moment believe that this bunch are uniquely guilty, I am quite certain that if this patent insanity goes much further many other countries will be tempted to use IP law to circumvent free-trade agreements. I just find it very ironic given that during the eighties and the nineties the US was the big driver for establishing these agreements, that this means of circumventing them appears to be cropping first on this scale on that side of the pond (Samsung's fate, anyone?)
I was rather interested to see that......
.....almost half the adult purchasers of Meccano are women. I freely confessed that if I had been asked to guess what the proportion was I would not have got near the correct answer.
RE:"All of the innovation is in..............
..............the software, the chips are just the mechanics."
That, is without peer as the most asinine comment I have read in a long time.
Re: "I especially enjoyed the plum that spewed......." A word of advice.
You have already dropped yourself in a very big hole (and deservedly so) - stop digging.
Re: "Isn't it easier" Oh dear.
@Rampent Spaniel Re:"These are the same patents Android handset makers pay.........
............MS for already. MS can bring something to the table so Apple plays ball with them."
That is precisely why, IMHO, Cupertino are taking the risk of proving to have been Redmond's useful idiots come the Autumn when MS enter table space for the first in any serious sense. Until Apple started its litigation war against Android Redmond was facing a war on two fronts (although not a land war in South East Asia :-P) against two major already existing competitors in that particular market place. What Apple has potentially done is at the very least partially lame Android in advance of these events and ensure that to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case they'll be going head to head alone with Redmond and its senior OEMs such as Samsung (!), Lenovo, Asus etc. Thanks to Apple it is entirely possible that Redmond will have considerably less effective competition from Android in tablet space in the coming year or so and will be able to focus to a greater extent than they otherwise would have been on going up against the iPad and iOS. I do not claim, of course, that this is any certain prediction of the likely fallout from Cupertino's lawyering but the "Law of Unintended Consequences" being what it is, their cunning strategy may turn out to have more than just a touch of the Baldrick about it.
@Turtle RE: The USA patent system is a disgrace
The fact that Apple continue to fund the departments in their company that you refer to does not change the fact the their corporate focus (that intangible is more important than many are willing to credit) has been substantially distracted. It is no coincidence that the work that led to the first iPhones (crucially the two "3" iterations) and later the first iPad occurred before Mr Jobs/Apple got distracted by his hatred of the Android os. I was, as I am sure you noticed referring to what we may see from here on in.
With regard to my use of the word "abuse" I would think that what I was referring to was rather obvious. When a company use the law in order to attempt, in practice, to create a de facto monopoly then it can only be regarded as abuse of the law's intention if not its current letter. If this decision is upheld on appeal Apple will start to go after the other Android OEMs and judging by the outrageous demands (revealed in court filings) that they subjected Samsung to as the price for "licensing" the net effect will be to reinforce their attempts to gain the aforementioned monopoly control. That the parlous state of US IP law permits this kind of tactic does not make it any less abusive.
- Updated HIDDEN packet sniffer spy tech in MILLIONS of iPhones, iPads – expert
- Peak Apple: Mountain of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s ordered
- Students hack Tesla Model S, make all its doors pop open IN MOTION
- BBC goes offline in MASSIVE COCKUP: Stephen Fry partly muzzled
- PROOF the Apple iPhone 6 rumor mill hype-gasm has reached its logical conclusion