13 posts • joined 31 Aug 2010
Samsung's $14Bn marketing budget is for its whole product range - there's probably a significant chunk there for smartphones and tablets, but there's also going to be considerable spend on marketing TVs, dishwashers, memory cards, cookers.
And so is its profit: the article is simply incorrect in saying the $6.1Bn profit comes from smartphones. It's the whole reported corporate profit, so obviously stated after advertising costs. $4.4Bn came from their 'Internet and Mobile' division, which would include mobiles.
And the advertising budget is annual. The $6.1Bn profit figure is for the second quarter of 2014: you can't just multiply by four, of course, but approximating that way would indicate a profit for a year of about $24-25Bn. Annual revenue for 12013 was around 30Tn Korean Won, which is $218Bn. On that turnover, a $14Bn marketing budget is not unreasonable, in a sector that competitive.
Source: . http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/investor_relations/financial_information/financial_highlights.html
Um, when was there four years of inaction by the Conservatives?
The current Secretary of State for Education is infamous for meddling, usually at about three weeks notice.
Sad story. But it does occur to me - instead of cruising through the rubbish, fending it off with a pole, then asking for someone else to clean it up when they gt home, why aren't these operators netting as much as they can tow each time, and taking it inshore?
Sure it would (environmentally) cost loads in fuel to run a special operation to clean it up - but the marginal fuel cost if journeys are being made anyway is surely more manageable.
Get the governments to pay by the tonne for 'captured' waste, and offset additional fuel costs for operators, and you have a viable system for cleaning up, with the governments whose ports carry most shipping paying the most. logically enough.
Re OTG: it's provide in hardware, but there's an issue with the software at present. See http://nexususb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/android-4.html
ISPs providing content blocks tend to require evidence of age to remove blocks - a passport or driving licence, for example, with details matching those of the account holder.
What's not clear is how this sort of blocking would prevent the access via instant messaging (the Reg mentions only BBM, presumably being unaware that these new-fangled smartphones also do Skype, MSN, WhatsApp etc etc) - that sort of thing is not usually covered in any ISP level blocks -and , yes, blocks at phone level are usually only too removable by anyone.
Was that the sound of the point about hype and Google results going so far over the Reg's head that they fell over backwards looking for it?
I'm find that I get warnings from time to time that i'm not running the latest Chrome at home, usually from Google stuff. This is probably strictly accurate, since I'm running Chromium under Linux, not Chrome.
I wonder whether these statistics are treating me (and all other Chromium users) as 'not up to date'?
"The fancy name for black coffee isn't black coffee, it's an Americano. Which isn't just black coffee (filter) because it's made with espresso."
I suspect I'm not the only one who gets really really pissed off by repeatedly having to answer the question 'do you want milk in it' when I've asked for an Americano.
Which is rather than point here, isn't it? The Italian / pseudo-Italian terms are misused and misunderstood (even by those making the coffees) Perhaps Debenhams are right: let's have some plain coffees.
I just wish I could be confident that they'd be made well - as well as they are in Rome rather than as well as they are in Starbucks....
And then there's the tender rules....
One other issue which needs resolving is the formal process for tender which is required where a contract value of over £125k (or thereabouts - I can't remember exactly) is to be awarded.
Taking an unrealistically simple example to illustrate the point: say you were equipping a 1000-PC unit with software and think it's likely to cost you £150 per machine, or thereabouts. Then because anticipated contract value is over £125k, you have to enter a formal tendering process - which is rightly designed to get competitive quotes and so make sure you get the best value.
But the Open Source alternative has a purchase cost of nil, and no-one's making money out of it - so no-one looks for the tendering opportunities and puts in bids. So there's no Open Source response to the advertised opportunity, so Open Source not only isn't, but at this stage can't be considered.
That is simplistic - and presumably there'd also be support as a contract element, so an OS-based company might well have an interest in tendering - but the process of putting in a bid is often complex and costly, so there's a big disincentive to anyone not making big profits out of supplying things. And that biasses the whole process in favour of the big, and generally closed-source, companies.
So's Canonical; but Ubuntu updates are free.
Yes, M$ makes a lot more money, but it does it by loading up-front fees on software (so by the time you need any service you've already paid for software with problems). They could, of course, use a model under which they charged for support instead,a dn used support feedback to improve the product. Oh, wait, they do that as well, don't they -or at least the charging bit.
If Old Windows is really the big problem, make an upgrade/licence for the latest version available at a low cost, and in the course of that legitimise any versions people are already running, Then you can pursue a proper security and upgrade model from then on.
M$ has to decide whether it's going to act as a responsible body which, due to its own practices, has effectvie control of a large proportion of a market in which there are serious security and compatability problems, or continue simply chasing the dollar until everyone gradually gives up on them. It's their call, and the market's eventual decision.
Even more reason to regard Register hacks with suspicion...
As someone else pointed out (using longer words), that part of the report is simply untrue; Catholics can talk directly to God whenever they want to (unlike those poor atheists who haven't even cottoned on to the fact that God is there yet, and haven't a clue what they're missing out on).
The Register hack who wrote this bit is presumably a bit short in the religious knowledge department - but I'm sure s/he can find somewhere to confess to that....
And confession's free, so there's no money involved. Funny the ideas anonymous cowards can get in their heads, isn't it?
Hmm. Wonder if they've put in a quetion about worshipping false idols, like shiny iphones....
BenR - it's not a Catholic school.
Oh, but the rest of your post shows you're just off on an anti-Catholic rant, so why bother letting the facts get in the way?
Not just Google Apps
Your report seems to say that this is only for Apps users - in fact Google's blog entry says it's for all GMail users - "Priority Inbox will be rolling out to all Gmail users, including those of you who use Google Apps, over the next week or so".
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- 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
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE