2272 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
RE "Where were ofcom when sky chased all the........."
Ah, but you see that was *before* Hackergate blew up in the Dirty Digger's face. That was when his friends within all sorts of organisations both public and private regarded keeping Rupert happy as a major priority. Suddenly, for some remarkable and mysterious reason, they all seem to have abandoned him - I cannot imagine why. Thoughts of rats and sinking ships come to mind.
What on earth has happened here?
A thoughtful, intelligent, fascinating and well written article from which I learnt rather a lot. Without any jokes, satire or the faintest smell of clickbait in it. Have I logged on to the wrong site?
@Steve Evans Re Upgrade Cycles
Like you (as we have discussed before) I am still happy with my "Z" and yes, unless one is a totally maniacal fanboy I do not see the point with constant upgrading. One ends up never having a genuine "wow" feeling because the difference (in reality) between each successive piece of kit is minor. I seem to recall that at one point (before smart phones took off) that people were upgrading their dumbphone shinys every nine months! The manufacturers must of course have thought that they were in pig heaven. Problem here is that when you have bought something high end with the capabilities of a modern smartphone (and the price) an upgrade cycle shorter than eighteen months/two years just does not make sense - financially or in terms of the improvement in the kit that you are getting for the money. The current length of contracts appears to be about right in regard to upgrades for everybody but the most obsessive fanboy (although I do not myself buy on contract). The manufacturers want you to spend 500 quid on one of their high end offerings and then expect you to treat it as if it were disposable! They would be better off taking notice of your final point - battery life. Given that the modern smartphone market has existed for about a decade it is a flaming disgrace that battery life has scarcely improved at all. BTW, it will be interesting to see what Nokia in fact manage with their first "Nokiasoft" phone, after all battery life has always been one of their major strengths.
@D@v3 "Companies such as Amazon and FT are just doing what Jobs wanted in the first place."
You mean that companies like Amazon *not* giving Apple 30% of their action was all part of Mr Job's master plan? Hmm, truly it is written that Lord Steve moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform.
Re "Aspirational marketing"
To add to your list of those adverts that have taken the micky out of aspirational marketing I have to say that one of my favourites is the Carling Black Label series whose punchline "I bet he drinks Carling Black Label" became a national favourite.
I have often seen marketing which revolves around trying to convince the punter that..........
.............that they (against *all* the evidence including the bathroom mirror and their girlfriend's howls of laughter) that they will be smarter, sexier, better looking and more popular if they buy this, that or the other product. I am on this occasion however forced to issue my hearty congratulations to the marketing department of Apple Corp. This is the first time that I have ever really seen that form of advertising work on this kind of scale - you guys are clearly worth every penny Apple pay you.
I know that this is going to get me a shed load of down votes but I do not care.
I speak as a very happy Desire Z owner, I think that Android as a mob os is an excellent operating system. However, it is (so far at any rate) not impressive as a tab os and the hardware with few exceptions (the most notable IMHO being the Asus Transformer) being decidedly mediocre. The fact of the matter is, whether you like or not, the only serious challenge that Apple is likely to face in the tab market is Win8 (if MS *actually* succeed in doing what they claim they are trying to do). MS are in reality the only company currently who has a cat's chance in hell of making a dent in Cupertino's lead in that market. Embarrassing isn't it?
By supporting Crave and its pioneering flash-drive-cum-vibrator [No pun intended. – Ed]
Wafting towards us on the breeze of a summer evening we here the strains of the park band playing "Believe it if you like".
Yes, I am sure that Apples lawyers will..........
............table a motion shortly.
RE "Nothing of the sort" Not *quite* that bad.
Win 7 Pro is currently available at Amazon.com for $223. Still not exactly cheap of course!
"If only Apple could send an iPad back in time"
In 2005 iNet was finally switched on and within..................
@Armando 123 RE "A lot of ifs"
Of course there are "ifs" in any discussion of future possibilities - I do not claim to have a more advanced crystal ball than the next guy. I would point out however that the reasons why the business market is not yet tapped into in any *serious* way is there is not currently available an os that is *both* touch friendly *and* a serious os. *If* Apple had developed a touch-friendly full version of OSX for tablets then that would be a different situation. If Win8 is implemented properly (yes, there's a caveat because I am not any kind of fanboy and I do not deal in certainties) then it will be the first touch friendly *full productivity* os in the tablet space. Then all that remains to be seen is a. Does the market, business and/or home want it? b. Will the OEMs actually produce kit worth running it on? All kinds of unknowns, rather like life in general.
I think that it is *possible* that as far as the tablet market is concerned......
.............we *may* be ignoring the (possible) 500 lb gorilla in the room because all the (entirely understandable) focus on Google/Android and Apple/iOS. In less than a year (as seems increasingly likely) Win8 will be coming to the tablet party. If we take as a hypothetical assumption for the purposes of discussion that MS *do* succeed in creating a *genuinely* touch-friendly version of Windows that does not kill your battery then what effect will *that* have on the market? I think that the current assumption that this is simply a war between Mountain View and Cupertino and that Redmond will remain irrelevant in the tablet space may, just may, prove to be a mistake. Given what a *seriously* pony os Win7 is as a tablet/touch UI os it is fairly amazing that they, believe or not, actually have 5% of the tablet market today! I think that any assumptions that this will remain a two-way fight are rather premature.
"As we said above, whether HTC, Samsung, and the other 36 Android partners should be placing calls to Redmond to inquire about Windows Phone 7 licenses depends on whether Page & Co.'s assurances are to be believed."
Not quite sure what the sense of what you are saying there is old chap but HTC and Samsung are *already* WP7 manufacturers.
@Joe K RE "They know"
Yes, such choral recitals from a very obvious communal song sheet do have a tendency to arouse a certain degree of (understandable) cynicism. However, it may also reflect a certain degree of truth here inasmuch as they (the other OEMs) may not like the situation but that they may very well understand that Mountain View felt that it had no choice and that (to some extent) it *may* help Google to support its OEMs when the next cloud of sub-orbital writ delivery systems start taking off from Cupertino.
Although, I also have to say that it may very well be that events of the last year (Nokia-MS alliance and now this) portend a shake up and restructuring in the mobile communications and computing market that we might not quite have anticipated as recently as a year ago.
@OhFFS RE "Odd conclusion"
I agree with you. Whilst one cannot discount the possibility of poor judgement completely I have to say that I doubt whether Google seriously intends to shaft the rest of their industrial partners. Any more in fact than it is likely that MS will because of *their* alliance with Nokia. In both cases such behaviour would be unbelievably stupid. I have no doubt that their other OEMs (whether they are Android or WP7 OEMs or both) are a bit nervous but I suspect that both Google and MS will regard it as in their own best interests to reassure their various partners. This has (IMO) far more to do with drawing the battle lines with regard to the coming Patent Wars (Armageddon II coming to a cinema near you). What will be left on the battlefield in the aftermath is not something that is easy to predict.
@Neill Mitchell RE "Share price up "
I may be mistaken but I do not believe that MS presently believe that it is in their business interests to actually *buy* Nokia. Why should they when they can get Nokia's divided attention (given Nokia's situation in the market) *and* that the combination of Nokia and MS have little to fear from the "Patent Wars" that have recently been declared by The Man from Cupertino? Google was in a *very* different situation, a situation where they *badly* needed Moto's patent portfolio, *that* is what this is all about.
@JC RE "Elop & Nokia" Ssssh, you are not supposed to say such things here.
You are supposed to repeatedly howl the following:
1. Nokia has been BORGED.
2. Elop is Micro$oft's Bum Boy
3. Bye, Bye Nokia.
Didn't you get the memo?
Memo to El Reg, can't we please have a satire icon, hmmm?
Interesting that Google has chosen such a strategy.
They could have for their own version of the alliance between Nokia and MS. The fact that they did not and have gone for a complete buyout at a premium price per share suggests very strongly that Moto's IP portfolio was indeed a key element in this deal.
Not *quite* the whole story there.
"After NoDo was made available, Microsoft took great pleasure in crowing "I told you so" in an official company blog post here. ®"
They also worked with the ChevronWP7 devs concerned in the aftermath to ensure that an "official" fix was available OTA so that those punters who had done it *would* be able to sort it out and get the full NoDo upgrade.
"iPhone 5 less than a month away"
I will try, very hard, to contain my mounting excite.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
@Dave Kelly 2 RE "Are they paying Lucas?"
Given that he is even quicker off the mark when it comes to suing people than The Man from Cupertino, they had better be paying royalties.
Re "WTF" We are to assume then that *not* getting...........
........... 30% of Amazon's action is all part of Steve's master plan?
All of them need their own seperate power-supply?
.........Then I am absolutely uninterested.
No, not precisely unelected but then........
.........................37% after more than a decade in the wilderness of unelectability facing a pretty unpopular PM in GB does not amount to a ringing endorsement from the British people, hmmm?
Absolutely old chap. However...........
.................at least they worked out which service arm they were talking about (ie the wet one) and which country it belonged to. It could have been worse you know. They might have started burbling on about the "British Air Corp" or some such nonsense.
Can somebody help me here?
"The SLA does not apply when the service is hit by availability issues arising from "factors outside of our control" – one of the criteria."
Unless I have misunderstood the article this was (I quote) an "act of God" situation which got to be a factor outside of the control of Redmond. They have all the same paid compensation, haven't they? Or have I really misunderstood this report?
@Brian Miller Maybe, maybe not.
I read the original reports in the papers this morning here in Norway and the police were asked about exactly that point and the reply was "it depends on the circumstances". What they were referring to was the fact that under Norwegian law if the police themselves or someone acting on their behalf (in the direct sense) had done this then, yes it would indeed be inadmissible. However, under other circumstances it is possible that the court could and would rule the evidence as admissible although the issue of tampering would of course also have to be addressed. They will of course obtain an order for the backups anyway, part of their problem has been the sheer scale of the crime (in Norwegian context) and the amount of evidence both forensic in the conventional sense and the digital is on such a scale that there is a fair amount that they literally have not had time to get to yet.
"How the hell anyone is going to make any money .............."
Other than FaceBook and Google of course!
I think that we have a major problem here.
This concept of the seamless cross-platform experience where all your devices run the same app and you can pick up where you left off regardless of which device you have picked up is of course (by definition) dependent upon wireless syncing. Now that is fine if you are on your wi-fi network at home or at work. The in-between bit? That's 3G dependent - you gotta pay. Problem with that is the punter does not like paying. Cloud-based app experience seamlessly syncing/updating all your devices on the go is technically easier and smoother but that's an awful lot of 3G time being used and the punter, wait you guessed it, does not want to pay. The actual usage of many *locally* stored apps is (of course) heavily dependent upon being on-line. The carriers are stopping "all you can eat" plans because they do not have the capacity to cope with the demand for broadband that people *are* willing to pay for let alone the extra usage that would enable devs etc to be on genuine earners and they have yet to persuade the public to open their wallets for (plus with the increase in demand that the public are willing for prices are going to rise). Fundamentally what is not being recognised is that this is a *very* tough market where the punter is as tight as a gnat's chuff and utterly unwilling to pay more than peanuts unless the app or service is a major league killer app. Navigating via Google maps? They'll pay for the 3G usage then. Buy their favourite game? That they'll pay for. Anything else? You have to pry that pound/dollar out of their cold dead hands. The problem is that all the *ordinary* punter actually *needs* fundamentally from their shiny is to communicate (text, phone call, e-mail, navigate), in general terms what you are trying to do is to persuade them to *want* more and be willing to pay for it. However at the same time you are trying to persuade them to part with money for this or that, the price of *using* it is going to go higher and higher. The would-be seller's challenge is to persuade the public to pay *continuously* (initial purchase + bandwidth) for something and the public wish to continuously *not* pay for anything unless they perceive an overwhelming case for doing so. Face it, the punter does not want to part with a penny piece and the costs of what he/she *is* willing to pay for are going to rise as we hit capacity limits. How the hell anyone is going to make any money at the moment escapes me completely.
So we can now claim that referring to someone as an "arsewipe" .........
.............is an expression of religious respect?
"a metric shit ton of evil"
This would be the approved SI unit for demon-spawn activity?
I'll get my coat.
Ah yes, that's it!
That explains it. Apple aren't really suing Samsung because of product appearance or anything like that at all. They're suing them for nicking their business model!
@Rosco I should perhaps point out that my reference to............
.........."spastic dollar key howling" was directed at a certain section of the "cognoscenti" and not you!
@Rosco RE: If that is true then that is *very* interesting.
Note that I stress *if* it is the case that MS asked Google to get onboard. In that event it makes it very interesting as to why MS (who have more patents than you can shake a stick at) wanted to bid. Was it possibly to checkmate a certain "greengrocer"? It is possible (if this is true - note that I say *if*, so I would appreciate not being subjected to spastic dollar key howling) that MS *on this occasion* got involved defensively and Google *may* have made a mistake in not getting involved.
That I agree with 110%!
The very idea that something that has a *huge* effect on the market is legal to conceal is frankly astonishing. If it does not tolerate the light of day then the patent should be cancelled forthwith without further discussion. The very act of trying to hide the nature of the patent should *automatically* lead to it being cancelled.
Indeed "BigCorp" being "BigCorp".
Yes one does not expect any better and no I am not impressed with Google playing "poor put upon little me". However, this whole situation has spiralled completely out of control.
1. Patents have mutated from being something that protected your invention and the investment you put into it into an offensive weapon to be deployed to attack competitors.
2. Patents have become a commodity in themselves attracting the attention of companies/speculators who have never invented anything nor made any form of product.
3. Patents can be granted for vague ideas/concepts/generalisations which are only intended to plant as large an anti-competitive minefield in the market as possible with no intention of ever actually producing an example of what has been patented. This does not just apply to software patents, we have seen a number of patent applications recently for alleged hardware products that very clearly are the very definition of "vapourware".
The whole business has gone so far that even companies who *might* have preferred to avoid this kind of poisonous nonsense are now forced to join in in self-defence. Unfortunately very little will be done until "BigCorp" has created such a polluted fuck-up in the market that *they* are beginning to take damage *and* the politicians begin to take notice. Shame really because by the time they finally admit that this is not smart, that they themselves are taking long term damage, the amount of collateral damage they will have done is going to be pretty extensive - and here we are talking major economic damage with ramifications way outside their own industry. Anybody listening up there on Capitol Hill or has BigCorp paid you too much to *not* wake up?
Whining? Since when was asking to wholesale at wholesale prices......
........defined as whining? If you as a retailer purchase from a producer on a wholesale basis (ie many units at a time) it is scarcely unreasonable to be a bit miffed if the producer suddenly refuses to give any discount for bulk purchase. Now, Apple are entirely entitled (if they so wish) to insist that they are now solely in the direct retail business (although it would be more honest of them to openly admit this new policy). However, to describe bulk-purchasers when they (in many cases) have been long-term retail partners of the company as "whining" when their industrial "partner" suddenly decides to keep the whole pie to himself or to describe asking for bulk-purchase prices as asking for a "subsidy" is nothing more than fanboism - and a fairly pathetic example of it at that. I am not surprised you posted that as an AC.
Interesting. Was the original pricing policy a deliberate try-on.........
............by the company in the collective sense or was it yet another example of a finance director having rather more to say in the matter than he should? Whatever, somebody at least showed *some* common sense.
Thanks for that link.
I would not actually exist were it not for the fact that my great-grandmother (a lady from a family of many generations of seafarers and coastal fishermen in North Norway) recognised the fact that my nine year old future mother was in trouble and pulled her out before anyone else in their beach party was aware that there was anything wrong.
It is not always ones choice.
Before I made a complete change in the direction of my life I spent twenty years as a tube-train driver. The stock we drove was from 1938 and 1959, the noise in the cab was unbelievable even thought the "authorities" at the time insisted at there was no problem. It is not simply that "the young" won't listen - employers and others turn a "deaf ear" as well. Fortunately my hearing is not *that* bad and my lady is reasonably kind in putting up with, "what? eh? four o'clock!"
@Steve Evans What can I say?
If I end up facing that choice I guess I will have to hope that Nokia have learnt their lesson. Indeed given that they are, for various reasons, reasonably "motivated" now it may be that they *will* have learnt their lesson - although I am not holding my breath. We will see. At any rate given that the very survival of their company is dependent on what they do now I am reminded of a famous quote from Mark Twain about "the prospect of being hung in the morning concentrating the mind wonderfully" (if I have remembered the quote correctly!).
@Steve Evans Re Re Re "Can't win". To be fair what HTC said was that.........
Interesting. I have a gut feeling that in common with the other producers HTC do not release to unlocked customers ahead of the release by their carrier partners in the country concerned to avoid openly embarrassing them. I may have simply been lucky that the carriers offering the Desire Z here in Norway were rather quicker out of the gate than the carriers in the UK with the result that I got my upgrade within (just) the promised time-frame. I have to say that if this kind of malarky where everybody's interest are looked after *except* the customer's interests continues I may end up have to take a look at the "Nokiasoft" phones when I next upgrade. At least then if you are an unlocked customer you get the upgrade when MS release it (at least that appears to be the situation). However, if they are not much cop then I am just stuck having to put up with this kind of crap, sigh. -:)
@Steve Evans Re Re "Can't win". To be fair what HTC said was that.........
..........Desire Z owners should get their update by the end of Q2, ie by the end of the second week in July (if I have not misunderstood the American accounting cycle). I in fact received my update at the end of the second week (I am "unlocked"). It is likely that, as usual, the carriers had a fair amount to do with any delay. A great deal of customer dissatisfaction as far as the *timing* of updates is concerned is the result of the carrier's desire for control and their incompetence when it comes to completing and releasing the upgrade within a reasonable time-frame.
Question from someone who is merely an *amateur* geek.
"id Software's John Carmack reckons there's no chance Euclideon will run on current-gen systems, but has the potential to "several years from now"."
What could this run on and why are we talking "several years"?
Other than that those graphics are gorgeous.
@David Barr RE "In the UK at least"
That may very well be the case. Indeed my impression (I have not lived in the UK for about ten years) of the UK carrier market is that there is a great deal more genuine competition than is currently the case in the US. The problem is that the American market has such influence that we all are in some degree subjected to it. Thus the reason for my "rant" -:)
In reality a company that believes in itself and what it can deliver.........
...........in the market place is generally selective for very sound practical reasons when it comes to starting IP disputes. It is very often the case that such a company confines aggressive legal action to occasions where the breach is especially egregious, where the breach is such that they believe that they have a very good chance of winning and where they believe that they risk serious financial damage if they do *not* take action. I simply pose the question. What does Apple's current campaign against Samsung say about Apple's self-confidence with regard to their capacity to "beat" the opposition in the market place rather than the courtroom?
It does indeed appear that some people cannot be teased.
I have to admit I find it highly entertaining that some people feel the need to convert their iShiney into an ersatz version of an NFC phone. It reminds me rather of an incident in Rome in the early eighties when a disco caught fire. It was evacuated immediately and a large number of punters did not have time to collect their mobiles. After two or three weeks there were still half of them left in the cloakroom (very strange given what a mob cost way back then and the high status they conferred on the owner) and the management took a look at them. All fake, empty shells, posaphones in fact. Now what does that remind me of?
Wile E. Veteran "So why do they encourage TV and movie streaming "
A very good point. See my post earlier in the thread.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…
- Lollipop unwrapped: Chromium WebView will update via Google Play