20 posts • joined Sunday 29th August 2010 17:06 GMT
manufacturers have to jump through extra hoops for the google apps
Manufacturers can take the android source and stick it on their phone.
If they want the Google apps, then they have to meet a bunch of compatibility requirements. This requires a whole load more work by the manufacturer.
Far from being forced to take the apps - they have to jump through extra hoops if they want to.
I believe they have to take the whole bundle if they take anything, so MS may make an argument around that.
If only there was a way to get the users to pay...
It's these crazy users wanting access to google's shiny services.
There should be some way to make them pay for all the infrastructure required to deliver content to them.
How about some kind of monthly payment for using the service? That could go directly to the ISP.
If the user wanted to use more stuff on the web, then they could pay for faster access at a higher price.
that way, the ISP would be fairly compensated for the use of their infrastructure.
It's possibly a controversial approach for France - but they could set it up so that the ISP made the decision about the amount they need to charge for access at various speeds.
easy conversion service
They kinda do. You can go to their website and upload your apk with their web based tool and it will package up your app for Blackberry. After some java jiggling, it looks like it should be pretty simple when it works.
The fact that most devs haven't bothered gives you an idea of how credible Blackberry is at the moment.
Of course, there are a bunch of APIs that don't work - so my app just fails the bundling process (it uses multicast wifi for bonjour).
regulation to increase contestibility
one valuable thing a regulator can do is make it easier for the competition to keep the dominant player honest.
e.g. number portability makes it easier to switch phone supplier, and helps to stop any player 'rooking' the consumer too much
a similar approach might be taken for someone like facebook: mandate data-portability and some level of interoperability, and then let Facebook keep users by virtue of the deal they offer, rather than the fact that is is hard/impossible to switch.
Re: Re: Just another attempt
Not only would it work, but it would make their web design people cry...
you can already use these
mac os already has a HiDPI mode, it just isn't used much
These guys use it with the iPad as a high dpi second display:
Re: Apple wants
Amazon was selling for negative comission.
e.g. they were frequently selling the books to the customer for less than they were paying the publisher.
Apple definitely got rid of an notion of the store competing on how fat their margins are.
In a normal market, Bookstore B could say 'I'll cut my 30% to 15% and pass the saving on to the customer' Apple have made that impossible.
Re: Re: Just another attempt
not so straightforward. It's one thing for google to remove the papers from google news entirely if they demand payment for it. It's another for them to remove them from google search.
That could be seen as using the search business to punish companies for not wanting to play with a different separate business.
e.g. using one monopoly(ish) to force compliance with a different business.
I'm hoping I misunderstood...
Re: Re: Just another attempt
as far as the ecosystem is concerned; the bbc is more than paying their way - they pay to produce the content and make it available.
The ISPs try to argue that the BBC is then using up the ISP bandwidth and should pay for that.
Let's try a thought experiment; What would happen if BT broadband turned round and said that you couldn't access iPlayer. I think we can confidently predict that people wouldn't by BT broadband.
From this, we can conclude that BBC provides the value, the ISP charge for access to it. They have nothing to sell without the BBC (and many others) providing valuable content to access.
If anyone should be paying - perhaps the ISP should be contributing towards the cost of producing programs that make people want to buy fancy broadband packages...
Twitter used to provide a tweet feed to Google who were happy to search the results.
Now they don't provide the data, and add noFollow links - which Google honours.
I imagine they'd be screaming a lot louder if Google was 'illegally scraping their site despite their explicit instructions'.
Net books agreement?
Hard to see how the net books agreement was not ok, but this would be judged ok.
It amounts to the same thing - a requirement that the price of the e-book is the same everywhere...
they haven't taken it too seriously
I just checked my settings.
Instant personalisation shows a checkbox and tells me that I can un-check it to disable.
However it also states that instant personalisation isn't ready for me yet - so the box remains checked and I can't un-check it.
"we're going to enable this soon - bitch!"
people prefer point to point - but won't pay much for it
there - have I answered your first question?
People are kinda stupid when assessing flights. Price comparison sites cause us to focus on the up-front price and encourage people to choose the cheapest.
Meanwhile, ask any punter who is actually waiting for their flight if they'd like to pay £30 to cut four hours off the journey, and they'll buy it faster than you can say 'priority boarding'. Sadly they didn't think of this when making their actual booking.
It's possible that the sites will start to steer people to 'better choices'; Opodo has started showing total journey time, and they could easily expand that concept by asking for my postcode, and estimating driving/parking time&cost in the whole thing (and suggesting where I might fly from on this basis rather than just asking me to specify at the outset)
Conclusion: if point to point costs about the same, it'll win. If it is much more expensive, it'll lose.
Jubilee only needs a driver because of the union
It's the exact same system that is used in driverless trains in France.
In the UK, the unions insisted that was dangerous (and presumably threatened to shut down the whole network), so the drivers sit in the front and control the door opening/closing.
Google sets the prices?
I thought they were set by auction, or has Google started selling advertising on a fixed price basis now?
They don't care about the hardware
Google isn't a hardware company. They probably don't have what it takes to become one, and they probably know it.
They bought Motorolla for the legal shield it gives through patents.
Likely next steps (after the acquisition finishes)
1) sell the hardware company - but keep hold of the patents
2) keep the hardware company at arms-length and demonstrate that they're getting no special favours
Palm had this problem when they owned the OS (which they were trying to license), and also manufactured their own hardware.
However when Sony (major licensee) wanted to do something different, they had to go to palm, get permission and get palm to build it into the OS.
The story is rather different here; Android partners can make their own changes to the code without worrying that their innovations will be leaked to Motorolla before release.
Facebook and Google provide the value - Operators profit nonetheless.
Let's get this the right way around.
Facebook and Google (et al) provide the value here. We only buy the data so we can access those services.
It seems entirely reasonable that they should only get a small portion of the revenue.
Try this thought experiment. The operators could easily offer a data plan which didn't allow access to facebook/youtube/google/iPlayer.
How much do you think people would pay for that?
How can Google be so bad?
1) The desktop version of the app store doesn't have search!
you used to be able to page through all the apps, but I guess they removed that as it was embarrasing. Perhaps Bing can do an search feature for them?
2) Weak store availability
3) They expect the developer to get involved in the transactions as a merchant
-seriously, why do you send me an email that some user's credit card has failed
-why do 10-15% of purchases fail?
4) No way to make an app link which both links to the app in the store on a device AND does something useful if you click on it from a desktop browser
(I built a workaround system for this: http://and-download.hobbyistsoftware.com/ )
on the plus side, they do let you publish apps without having to wait a week for approval (or rejection)