I got a very specific email from Ford confirming that their cars meet all required environmental standards.
96 posts • joined 26 Aug 2010
I got a very specific email from Ford confirming that their cars meet all required environmental standards.
You make the fatal mistake of assuming these products are made for the benefit of the customer or the planet! :)
A quick google search tells me Apple sold 231.22 million phones in 2015. At 50p the sd card tray would have cost them £115 million in materials alone. Further add development, test, repairs, and so on.
So unless the tray brings in enough *profits* to offset £115 million, what's good for the customer or the planet is irrelevant.
And it is fair to say given the iphone SE "free" replacement tale, it is actually even more profitable not to put in the tray, because it generates an almost guaranteed future sale. I swear I think that is why they price their storage upgrades so high. You're paying for the lost future sale too.
Do enough to make them return to your newer product, and make sure they don't realise you're actually screwing them.
>> I suspect that won't happen now that the UK has decided it doesn't want any migrant workers from Europe.
I don't get why people keep lamenting that visa-free employment is a necessity to be able to hire.
They'd just have to get visas now. It works everywhere else in the world.
It used to be in order of priority - local labour market, EU labour market, external labour market before a visa is granted.. That's would now become the local labour market, and then the external labour market including the EU.
Free movement for employment across national borders is unique to the EU.
It's fine to have it, but it's equally fine not to.
That's what "1st" world support "leads" pay them to say!
Telefonica is already a listed company. How do they list the O2 UK entity without ring-fencing their equity in it? That I'd imagine would be a very costly if the O2UK IPO did not do well, which it very likely will not.
Voda stock performance depends heavily on its global presence.
And for those who say prices will rise and things will fester, could you cite some evidence from past mergers? These tales of pre-merger competitiveness with lower prices and wonderful coverage has eluded my personal experience!
EE are deploying 4G+/LTE-A. Voda and O2 still are just getting round to even doing 4G properly. They never did 3G well. These were the biggest before the merger. There is no way orange or tmob or 3 would have taken the lead over Voda/O2.
An oligopoly, with less competition would imply that EE don't need to bother with LTE-A until they're done miking 4G. Yet they have.
If you say prices have risen (for the same product), why aren't Voda and O2 bothering if the market now actually allows them to charge more?
I'm curious as I don't see any actual evidence, it's largely cynicism. Some anecdotes citing worse customer care are far easier to correct (£) than getting infrastructure investments (££££). That latter clearly needs significant scaling now given how rapidly existing cell capacity is exhausting, let alone for operators to think of new cells in not spots.
Considering how much spectrum costs, the 3G auctions are what held back the industry before IMO, none of the operators, all 4 of them, would compete on price. It rose their capex costs and cut down R&D budgets. I don't see how, without some consolidation to encourage investment and scale, the stagnation of the industry can be stopped from happening again. It's already begun. The 3G problem was one of price, today's problem is coverage and capacity. The latter is not seeing the investment it should and it hadn't even with four operators. IMO EE is only one that is offering something better on this front over the pre-merger era/participants.
Another oddity in this affair : How can the EE commissioner and Ofcom leadership take opinion driven positions. It seems strange to me too. They aren't giving clear reasons, just that they don't "like" the idea. It's like a judge assuming guilt because the defendant "looks" guilty. I honestly think it's a call to the companies involved to pamper them behind the scenes and not break the law.
I don't think the number of operators matters as much as their scale - having 20 operators mean none of them can scale. That isn't good for customers as they do reach a point where they cannot reduce prices without compromising on the product itself - where coverage and reliability would rule I would think.
So if it's just about prices and the number of operators, it would be a race to the bottom. As a person alluded to MVNOs do cover that. Operators today are improving the quality and that isn't being fixed.
A lot of people here comment that EE raised their prices. But I'd argue that's because they're offering a better product allowing them to charge more. They also have improved their offering vastly over TMob and Orange. (on data and coverage). Neither Tmobile nor Orange offered this before. For price conscious customers, MVNOs on their infrastructure are much cheaper while ensuring good spectral use. Voda and O2 are great for voice calls, but they are pretty bad for data, with far lower cell capacity and aren't that competitive. They both crutch on their business customers. EE and to some extent 3 are the ones who offer reasonably continuous data coverage on rail and key road links. Voda and O2 still only really do voice properly.
Bigger isn't always blindly worse! For me personally the merger would result in a better product. Ofcom simply passes the buck off with coverage obligations, but I don't see active steps to improve the quality of comms. Four operators today or five operators before did not offer this. I think lowering prices is only one aspect of a competitive market.
There are other levers such as MVNO's and mandatory national roaming perhaps based on spectral hoarding. Pebble shows it's possible, they today price it in.
So if it's all about competition, why is Ofcom going public with informal commentary. I'm wondering if this means the merger is happening and this is all just theatre.
I have a Dyson now that replaced a Henry. Having used the Henry for so many years, the Dyson literally changed the colour of my carpets. I expected the Henry to suck more dirt, sure, but it does quite stand apart.
There may be even better ones out there, I don't know, but my point is a Dyson is certainly not the same as a Henry in performance.
that's not much of an answer, Mvnos would not exist if this exclusive access as you put it key to provisioning coverage. the profit is probably not worth the technical trouble as well as having to get together and talk. They'd never agree to a rate on their own. May also need cell handover threshold tuning. Blocks of minutes might be a way to do it.
My point is it isn't loss making as such, and worse case needs additional coverage deployments. Both are customer wins, and push operators to do what they should be anyway.
The operators' non responsiveness says it all I think, they normally cry and wail when such things are announced, but they're quiet this time.
I hope this happens and makes operators fix their shoddy data coverage, some squatting on prime spectrum (read O2 and their gprs). It's sad that places in the east have leapfrogged ahead on coverage while the UK lags behind.
@ Peter2 I don't get it, you'd be roaming on to the network, so they would earn on it for calls their network is routing. Of course it shouldn't be cheaper for the competitor to roam than to build their own mast. But that cheaper would depend on the numbers. This is additional revenue, from your competitors.
If 10 of your customers roam onto your competitor, it's fine to pay the premium. The coverage providing operator makes money from those 10 customers, just like an incoming international roamer would. The competitor would have to bear the cost, the end user cost would be the same as your normal minutes.
Put another way, it's about monetizing the spectrum you *already* paid oodles for. If you paid extra for spectrum that is easier to provide coverage for, you'd make even more. This averages out the cost of spectrum AND cell density.
Isn't the operator rhetoric on poor rural coverage about not having enough people using the infrastructure? And if this did ever make them spend less on spectrum, I'd rather have that, better coverage and possibly lower charges, rather than the money being spent on moats and duck houses.
So I think it's great for competition, not for the competition.
this should have been mandated as part of the license conditions. While a sub GHz band is pricier, the upper bands should not be an excuse for shoddy coverage.
It can also be a revenue earner for the operators. If there aren't enough users in an insufficiently dense area, one operator could cover all visitors from other operators, making the infrastructure costs better justified.
If the operators could get their heads out of their arses, they would see that a properly done law would make infrastructure decisions easier to make, help their bottom line as well as customers. The data on national roaming usage should tell them where their customer base needs coverage.
Someone enlighten me but I cannot see any downside, beyond some work on the part of operators.
shipped != sold
I think the same thing applies on the way up. If you play the game on the way up, you have to play the game on the way down.
Whilst ARM is a good business, in terms of share price versus earnings, the valuation for the last few months/years is very, very optimisitic.
Only significant dominance of a very high volume market could justify its valuation going forward. (IoT is the buzz word these days)
Do the math - how many processors do they need to sell across their portfolio to come down to a PE of say 10?
I think shareholders are taking profits and that is fine.
Just saw ossi;s comment - totally agree!
Real Time not Retail time..
House buying is treacherous enough as it is!
Apple has always invested in its brand, but they've also done very decent work with product definition. Even if the end user did not understand it fully, there was at least something to it technically.
I think this is the first time where it is blindingly obvious that they are milking the brand and margins alone. These are incremental updates at best, at most a 5S+. None of the technology introduced has undergone any specific maturity to justify a delayed release, I was hoping it was being done in the name of product experience, but this is also not the case. The NFC and screens are not different, they would be spinning it any which way possible if this were the case. The other features only help operators get away with a sloppy job.
As for not meeting demand on pre-sales, you'd thing they'd figure out how to deal with the problem over the years, with that cash pile. Perhaps physical storefronts, but certainly no excuse for the online store. Occam's razor implies that they are restricting supplies, likely for the free media hype generation. At the very least it should run out a bit later every year, but it's always a day. Probably helps with the "record sale" marketing spiel that follows opening day. Stats like that are relative so they could just add one more phone to the "day1 preorder inventory" and then claim they beat last years record. If the inventory size is small enough ever year to guarantee exhaustion, you have yourself a guaranteed "record sale" every year.
While arbitrage and true price discovery are great ends, the means matter. HFT trading adds to the noisiness around the true price, and with technology, delays convergence to the true price, and would also permit large deviations from it, particularly if the parameters of the created algorithms en masse encourage this. Presently there is no reason this won't be the case. Correlation not causation dominates. One stupid implementation from a too big to fail type entity can dramatically move pricing very quickly. The implied positive undertone of "one price" and a "true" price is where the price discovery and risk is focussing on fundamental economic criteria, and not simply movement/differential profit.
The HFT landscape is artificial, and like an arms race, creates illusions of value in making supply and demand cases just like nukes were justified.
If you have ever worked with control and multi-order feedback loops, hFT is the equivalent of unfiltered glitched samples. They're never far away but It throws off your convergence, and your loop response is very poor, and can even oscillate and collapse but hey, there's movement and it's fast, so it must be good!
This applies to accounting as well as numbers are massaged and reporting groups structured so that the wholesale division bears the brunt of "costs".
No matter what happens, the wholesale division will be shown to be a poor performer, it would be bad for BT and weaken the case for government grants if it did well.
If they take the grant money, they share the outcome no matter what the performance of the wholesale division.
The question that remains though is how much of the grant go into "shared" "infrastructure" that the retail division needs for the footie and everything.
Sorry no, just checked this on my Windows 8 x84 PC and both IEs do flash.
Perhaps the websites go wrong with the user agent or something, but flash is integrated in the tifkam whatever ie
I think they're launching ground breaking coloured covers for all the other products!
MacOSX now in green
iPad Mini in yellow
Macbooks in purple and of course gold.
So was this Plan B all along? To Sell Nokia for a song?
Ha it even rhymes, it must be true!
Adblock is one of the most important features of an Android phone for me.
This notion of yours is not correct.
Calories in => some are burnt for immediate use + some are stored as fat
Ongoing energy use => come from stored source among them fat, glycogen etc
The proportion of this is decided by the hormonal profile among other things.
So simply by cutting intake people with a poor hormonal profile do not lose weight i.e. store less fat. Their bodies are more inclined to simply offer less energy for their activities. They would in some cases actually have no energy to exercise.
Essentially the body's logic function to decide whether to store for the future or burn for immediate use is broken.
So as unlikely as it might seem to you, it doesn't make it any bit more factual. It's pop nutritional science I'm afraid.
If they aren't supposed to pay, then what is this payment?
If they aren't due any tax legally, won't this just be an overpayment that has to be credited against losses or refunded by HMRC with interest?
Assuming Starbucks knows their demographic well, are Starbuck customers going to actually fall for this?
I might be wrong, but charging technology is more analogy so the SoC bits are a bit less relevant. There's lot more to be done on the digital front.
Again, providing accommodation is *not* the same as being eligible for and claiming benefits. This as Daily Mail language, twisting words to imply something sinister.
Illegals have to put up somewhere, just like prisoners. The HMPS is responsible for providing accommodation for prisoners, just like the UKBA is for illegal immigrants. You don't go saying prisoners are claiming "housing benefit" because they are spending time in prison.
Stop using exceptions to define how the system is run. My original point remains - illegal immigrants are not allowed access to benefits - housing, Job seekers, whatever. They don't get NI numbers.
As for Panorama - what the GPs were doing is illegal. The way you are putting it, private medical care would be illegal because of the Human Rights Act. That is not true. Only emergency care needs to be provided under the Human Rights Act, routine care is not. A good example is cancer treatment, the NHS does not offer everything under the sun because of cost, this is not illegal.
So what you say is still misinformation.
Also Panorama prioritises sensationalism. The BBC's token vehicle for "balanced" reporting. But that bit would be my opinion.
The rest isn't.
The reason the guy tried to get into the country as a stoway was to hope to walk out of the airport without border control. I don't think there are any successful stories, but desperation can drive people to these unfortunate decisiosn.
Your comments confirm it is misinformation. Asylum seekers are not "illegal immigrants". You need reasons to claim asylum. You cannot just walk into the country and be qualified to seek asylum.
And illegal immigrants do not qualify for anything legal - housing, benefits, etc. Some exceptions exist eg children.
I believe only A&E is available, where no questions are asked of your legal status, as it may deal with loss of life, where putting national boundaries and laws on hold does not seem to be the wrong thing to do to me.
Stop reading the Daily Mail.
@dave15 "Good" engineers are rare and elusive creatures, they are inevitably well placed and well renumerated by the companies they work for. Short of those companies going out of business, they will be looked after. These engineers affect the company bottom line in a visible way. And if those sort of engineers do need work, hubs of innovation like the Silicon Valley beckon.
This article is about the average engineer. And the hiring challenges companies face mean that the gamble of taking on an engineer that needs to make the switch is a big one. The only practical way I can think of is to take a pay cut when crossing domains.
The software we make are again just tools. What people do with that is quite another matter. People make movies, music, art; there
And your final statement actually adds to my point - there are so many who can flash their cleavage, success is all the more difficult. You make it sound like autotune software+boobs = $$$$. That is simply not true. Making it as a "singer" in a world of instant music, x-factor, celebrity mags requires a lot of effort, and its own set of "skills". The social value of these skills is a different discussion, one that could also extend to those programming for the banks as well!
If an engineer is that good, and has got the knowledge to make something game changing, he or she ought to get into business.
I'd say the equation is more about risk/reward. There are bursts where the risk is low and the reward high, but that never lasts.
People and companies will flock to that anyway, and produce software that is turnkey and need fewer skilled engineers.
Planning or expecting a low risk/high reward existence is silly. If such a things comes your way, milk it for sure, but to wish for it to last forever is pointless.
Software is a specialist skill. Management is not considered so (it is more about the politics and networking). So moving between software domains is not quite the same. We've had some people move from applications to embedded. Where is the RAM to implement my code, they ask.
The problem with saying something is in short supply is that it is relative. I guess 20 years ago, SW was less diversified, and the skill base was small. Come the internet, open source and cheaper computers, and programming ain't like nuclear science anymore.
Software has also massively diversified and has become specialised, and with globalisation, I think specialisation is becoming a requirement. But then picking some to specialise in is always a gamble.
PS: @Dave 15 According to you, if you aren't a millionaire or better, you haven't made it. That's BS. Grow up.
Agree with Metcalf. Theory in this case has proven to make assumption that are not true, like unlimited investment and capex. It also makes no room for evolutionary changes to technology i.e. ones that operators can live without.
I think a spectrum rental model is best, where the rents and license are low to begin with and then ramp up depending on how well the operator has used the spectrum, coverage achieved, and customer satisfaction and/or numbers.
Some assurances need to be given to operators. Appropriate leverage can be applied if required by the regulator, without upfront cost loading.
The 3G auction in the UK killed R&D expenditure from the operators, and has moved most 4G+ development to mainland Europe and the US, for almost all real world testing.
Operators are also now more global so they'll spend where the returns are going to be best. Even if that means only a 100 people use the tech.
It's obvious you are not aware that the Mac OS and therefore all mac os software is also based on open source code called Darwin.
So Mac OS is BS??
PS: Everyone isn't buying Apple.
Have to agree - my Dyson Ball Animal something is pretty darn good. It's significantly better than an older Miele.
It is not necessarily wrong to react strongly especially when someone very senior, trusted with the stewardship of the code, is defending something so wrong. He is betraying the trust placed in him. ("ret == -ENOENT ? -EINVAL : ret"? Come on..)
This is community development, not some corporate development where things can possibly be tracked more closely, with more control over who gets the code and what happens. "Management" speak and HR theories are not fit for purpose here.
However, in this specific situation, it would appear that Linus may have reacted a tad too quickly. If you look through the thread, Mauro is trying to fix something, and yes went about it the wrong way, but is an issue that cannot be resolved as simply as Linus appears to think it can and should be.
Summary: Both sides are right in some ways, and both sides are also wrong in some ways.
But then that's almost always how it is.
Is this not a hyper cynical view of things?
So even if you did your own cloud and/or storage, who would be trust with the hard disk? The computer parts? The power supply?
Protection from floods? What about cosmic rays bit flipping your data? Can't even trust the universe!
I think the obvious solution is to keep data local and in the cloud. You multiply the probabilities of failure there and things look good enough.
It's about redundancy and convenience.
PS: Those tenants were nasty though. But not paying rent was an early warning. One month and begin proceedings. Another two months and you're out.
Time to use App£€ I think..
Just imagine having to go from HR in the south arc to Corporate in the North Arc
It will probably be called an employment benefit - exercise, health and all that.
Or maybe a colloseum for Apple non-believers to be killed by Gladiatroids..
Hmm.. An AC. So insider info ? :D
Yeah can't see how this is a big deal. It would be worth testing on an enterprise class AP/deployment. Though a non standard setting, almost all of them can be configured to do what is described.
From the description of what they have done, this is part of the WMM standard itself. Basically if the AP has traffic let it go out so AIFSN(AP) < AIFSN(STA) for all AC
I guess the difference is that their implementation is triggered based on traffic load. It is just an asymmetric traffic configuration. But then why not just enable it all the time?
Well since we're name calling, as an Apple f*ckwit you probably missed it, but dealing straight with a manufacturer is always faster and quicker - Dell or Apple.
In Apple's case you pay extra for the "privilege". So next time go to an Apple store.
Lighter heads need lighter wallets anyway, so it all works out eh.
Warranty length != Contract length You might want it that way, but that is not how it works.
The manufacturer cannot send a buyer away for product failure. This is also the normal course of action when a retailer goes bust. It is legally protected. They CANNOT say "not our problem". Apple chooses to control the customer relationship and keep the operator out. Indeed they register the 12 month warranty and activate the phones themselves even for operator phones. Just put your serial number on Apple support!
And no they don't take back phones that need stripping for parts. As for refurb, you ignore scale. Even a 0.1% failure with intact pcbs make it quite economical for 3 month life. That's £40+ per month of life. It serves two purposes - reduce repair costs, pay for inventory and second create value for AppleCare purchases.
Offering the £129 phone is not the problem, a shoddy almost illegal warranty policy is.
Really? Then try getting an Apple Verizon CDMA iPhone 5 replaced here in the UK. In the first year of your warranty without Apple care.
You Apple fans are all missing the point - Apple is expecting you to purchase an extended warranty for what the law says they should already cover without one.
Any perks that come with purchasing an extended warranty are fine. But denying basic warranty service without the extended warranty is NOT.
THAT is what they are doing wrong. Apple are not above the law, even if they leave you fans starry eyed like those One Direction teenagers.
Only because they can refurb the phone you just returned. If you do your research or know anyone who has worked at an Apple store, you will realise that the refurb option is generally only available if you return a phone than can be repaired.
Your argument will hold water when they give you refurbed phones without asking you to return a pretty much fully functioning phone save for the power button.
Seriously either you have never used another brand, or are comparing £100 laptops with £1000 Apple laptops.
Besides, advertising worldwide coverage as the addon you buy with Applecare is fair enough, paying for basic warranty provisioning, as required by law, is not. Apple are exploiting people's lack of awareness of their rights.
I am really amazed at how people take anything, just by making them feel "pretend special".
I've seen this in relationships, but didn't for the life of me think it would work when buying a fu!*ing gadget.
I don't get people like you. Apple has shafted you, and you're still going back. For more!!??
I guess now you'll buy their Applecare!?
If you're a fan, I'm afraid that's what you will need to do.
My Dell monitor - with a three years dead pixel warranty. Two years after purchase - a row of dead pixels. Next day collection AND replacement with a brand new one - NOT refurbished like apple, all at no extra charge or cost. Total downtime - 20 minutes.
And no cooked up bills to show me some pretend savings.
No I did not buy their on site warranty package. Yes it is their upper mid product range, not their cheapest product. The price for the specs was the best in market, and far cheaper than the Apple equivalent.
Sorry, real life experience that is narrow is also useless. I can't believe you actually fell for the invoice they pretty much created. Another Apple marketing score. Can't deny that.
I have used this directive against Apple and as per the directive they are correct. To invoke the EU directive, the burden of proof is on the consumer, while according to Apple's claims, if you purchase an Apple care product, the benefit of doubt is given to the consumer. (You basically are given somebody else repaired product as they only need it to last the rest of the warranty)
However you are right, Apple do try to ignore any local laws as far as they can get away with. (Contempt of court and the law of the land.) Perhaps the difference with other companies is that they outright lie to you. They did so in my case as well asking me to pay £200 for a replacement at first, stating that EU directives do not apply in the UK. Genius isn't it! ;)
I had the iPad display go faulty about a month after the warranty, and argued that a HW defect of that nature cannot be caused by any consumer interaction, and since iPads do not show the same behaviour after 13 months of use, the only possibility was that it was faulty at the point of manufacture.
It went quiet for a week after that, and then they came back and offered a replacement.
IMHO, for tech products, it is more or less easy to argue this for HW failures. Since the products are manufactured based on probability of failures (HTOL, MTBF, etc), almost any HW failure is pretty much a manufacturing fault at the component/soldering/design level. Right now, manufacturers target a 1 yr life, with wider knowledge of this EU directive, they will have to target 2 years.
Needless to say that iPad was and will be my last Apple product. I thought I was buying a quality brand, turns out I was buying a logo, and supporting corporate arrogance.
Thank you! I was cringing reading the earlier commentary of how SDR is doing it all, right here and right now.
Apple is trying to avoid the iPad Mini traffic to the website seeing the judgement. It will really hurt the brand. After all they removed the link to the original "apology" quickly enough :D.
I think the apology should be extended to show regret for non-compliance of the court's original order. That will really dent their brand image.
Yes I did as well. I think the first gen were not built well and there were bad batches. The official lines of support do not address this, if you indicate you will go to small claims and give a reason they know they cannot refute, they will handle it.
The costs of such an obligation must be understood, before it is promised. Wherever costs can be cut, that must be also considered. It may just simply be too expensive. I do not agree with spending say £100 bn for rural broadband. It may mean rural communities will have to wait until technology catches up to cost effectively provide broadband,