26 posts • joined 15 Sep 2011
Re: small sample
Have a look at the first statistic list "What is your current phone?", it says 52% iPhone.
Seeing as the iPhone only holds around 20% marketshare, it's obvious that they went for a set of customers that were heavily biased towards the iPhone from this question alone. This, coupled with the small sample size suggests the survey is meaningless.
If it was a genuinely balanced survey you could guarantee that within a small range of discrepency that very first number would be representative of the iPhone's marketshare, as it's inflated by over 200% of the real figure, then you can't surmise anything of statistical value from this survey.
I like the fact that...
When Google gets involved in politics the question of whether it's interests are aligned with the UK quickly arises, yet no one ever seems to question the rationality of continuing to cater to foreign big media like News International, Hollywood, and the various music corporations out there like Sony.
I'd wager far more harm has been done to the British film industry by Hollywood muscling it out, and far more harm done to UK music with the strict control into the market that large US corporations retain. I'd wager there's a good reason British acts struggle to break into the US market and it's not because of lack of talent, but because getting a British act through the US corporate gatekeepers who have their own long list of manufactured stars to artifically guide through the charts is quite a challenge. As for the media, well, I think there's little question that News International's foray into British media has been anything other than of net harm, not just to media, but to the health of our democracy to boot.
Personally I'd put much more faith in aligning the UK with Google than most other corporations out there.
So Harman can harp on all she wants, it just undoes every little bit of consideration I've had towards voting Labour next election. She's simply reaffirming the view that Brown era corruption, authoritarianism and ignorance is still going strong within the Labour party, that it hasn't learnt from it's mistakes, and that it's still the same old political failure of a party it was 2 years ago. I don't like the Tories at all either if I'm honest, but certainly I'm not voting the Brownites back in. With the Tories you get corruption and ignorance, with Labour you get corruption, ignorance, and economic incompetence.
Yes Matt, that's right, replying to someone with insults is a good way to cover up the fact that you've been caught red handed talking bullshit.
Not that there was ever any confusion as to whether anything you said was bullshit in the first place of course.
@ Matt Bryant
"Please don't include the rest of us in your attempt at intellectual superiority."
You've told us here before that you're from the US. Why now pretend you're not and pretend you speak for the rest of the world? I know Americans do tend to think they speak for the whole world, but really, you don't.
Generally, if you're going to pretend you're something you're not in the hope it'll somehow add some validity to your post (it didn't), then it's a good idea to at very least post AC if you must do it on forums where you've already previously contradicted your claim. Otherwise it just makes you look like you kinda actually know you're wrong, but don't want the truth to be the truth, and are hoping that by spreading a bit of FUD you can change people's perception away from the truth (that bit didn't work either btw).
The real funny part is that many Americans tend to hate the whole "big government" and high taxes thing yet they're actually paying, with their tax money, to employ people, who track down the real identity of someone who posts a joke on Twitter, add them to some list, and then have multiple staff actually waste hours questioning them. I mean, what's the job role? "e-Stalker in Chief"?, "Head of Anti-Tourism"?, "Lead Troll"?
...and I thought UK public sector had a lot of amusing non jobs. America is actually paying people to sit reading Twitter, to stalk innocent holidaymakers online and find their real life identities, and to disuade anyone from ever visiting for business or pleasure.
Someone really needs to have a word with the Antitourist folks at the Department of Homeland Insecurity and tell them to get a grip. Seriously, the terrorists totally won the war on terror, because America has allowed itself to become completely terrorised.
Well, them and just about every business user in the country.
Look, I know Reg readers are for the most part uneducated Daily Mail reading types, but my earlier point about anecdotal evidence was that it doesn't matter how many of you come forward with your anecdotal evidence (yes, it's still anecdotal, even if you fucking count the things each day), it's still anecdotal.
The point is, that my anecdotal evidence is anecdotal too, but my evidence also matches more closely with the cold hard stats. This means that you either just happen to take a very iPhone biased route for some reason, or you're full of shit, because the reality is that iPhones really are outnumbered by Android handsets on the order of about 4 to 1 on average.
You can come here with your anecdotes of how you saw 10 iPhones last night to 1 Android on your train, but it still doesn't matter, because what that means is that someone, somewhere else, is sat on a train where there are 40 Android phones to each iPhone to make the stats balance - that's the problem with anecdotes, they're one person's individual experience, that may vary greatly from the general case, and must vary greatly from the general case if they do not relate to cold hard factual statistics.
Look, I get it, you backed the wrong horse, and now feel a fool for picking the product whose marketshare is in decline as a longer term trend, and want to protect that, I really do, this is the pit all fanboys fall into when they realise they backed the wrong horse, but that doesn't mean by coming here and saying "Well it's all wrong because I was a BILLION BILLION iPhones last night when I was in a restauran!" will make what you want to be true, actually true, it'll just mean you're wrong, and full of shit.
@ Ivan Headache
"I still note on my daily train journeys, that iPhones outnumber every other phone I see."
That's great, on my daily train journeys I notice that they don't, not by a longshot. They're numbering only maybe 1 in 5 phones now on my journeys.
But that's hardly surprising, because 1 in 5 is much closer to their global marketshare of a mere 15%, so I think I'll trust the stats, and my anecdote that seems to match those stats, more than your anecdote which is massively different to the actual stats. Where do you catch the train to each day, Cupertino?
File this under "No shit!"
Apple fails to release a new iPhone for almost 18 months, then when it finally does the fanboys buy it.
It's hardly suprising, due to contract lengths the delay means that there was a bigger pool of people than normal waiting to upgrade / holding off upgrading for the new version when this was released. If they manage to get back on schedule with the iPhone 5 for a June/July release then I wouldn't be suprised to see it's one of the lowest selling on release iPhones yet. I suspect Apple may now push all releases back to the November period including the iPhone 5 for precisely this reason though, or even drop the one year release cycle altogether and stick to 18 months so they can keep making their per-device release sales look ever more impressive, despite the reality being a noticable decrease in growth.
The long term, and global trend, will still be decline in marketshare for Apple though, last round of stats showed that globally, Apple's share of the smartphone market has dropped to a pitiful 15%.
RE: @ac 09:43
"Killing US tech industry and innovation? How so? I don't see the tech industry in China coming out with innovative products at all, do you?"
Yes, I do actually.
Take ZTE for example, they displaced Apple last quarter making ZTE the 4th best selling smartphone manufacturer there is, pushing Apple into a rather pitiful 5th place. This was achieved with the likes of the ZTE Blade which was released only around a year after the iPhone 3GS yet cost £90 instead of the £400 tag the 3GS was selling for by then, and was far more powerful. If producing a far superior product, for less than a quarter the price isn't innovation, I'm not sure what is.
Then there's the likes of Huwaei, whom the US has become very dependent on, and hence very paranoid over for telecomms equipment.
But perhaps you're stuck too far inside you own little nationalistic shell to recognise any of this.
The bigger question I've posed with this gTLD idiocy is what exactly is ICANN going to do with the literally billions of dollars it's going to make from this move?
ICANN is meant to be non-profit, there's no way it needs billions of additional income to be able to run itself, so I think there's a valid question as to where that money is going to go. Is ICANN going to start paying it's execs billions? is this move selfishly financially motivated? Is the US government using this as a move to siphon off money into it's own coffers for it's own purposes?
The technical argument for gTLDs was lost from the outset, it makes no sense, the whole point of DNS is that it's meant to be hierarchial and removing this has implications for replication, and security amongst other things.
The business argument is a no go, companies don't want this for the afformentioned reason it'll cost them tens, possibly hundreds of millions to protect their brand.
I can't help but think the gTLD thing is really just being done either at the behest of the US government as a great big fund raiser, or by the ICANN folks so that they can become "non-profit" billionaires.
But whatever the reason, this is yet against evidence of why the US is not fit to manage and run internet oversight organisations and why, like ITU and countless other UN organisations that function well it should be lumped with them.
Yeah, cos self regulation has worked so well with the banks and with the press.
Self regulation = do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you keep slipping us our bribes and no one finds out.
You seem suprised, didn't you see Lewis Page's anti-Lib Dem rant on the eve of the last general election?
Have you not noticed Andrew Orlowski's climate change denialist posts and pro-music industry/abusive business posts?
The stories supportive of extremely right wing celebrities like Jeremy Clarkson?
If you didn't get the clue that The Register is extremely right wing before this article then there's not much hope for you. It's the Fox News of the IT world.
But everyone isn't panning it now, only the handful of review sites are. User scores average it over 70% which is in the average - above average range for games, certainly not the 30% - 40% flop most review sites claim it was.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the 30 - 40 reviewers in the industry and the thousands of gamers, and in this case it's more prominent than ever. It's demonstrative of the fact that reviews about games aren't done based on quality but for other reasons.
Yes but it's true.
DNF wasn't great, but it was given a reception far more negative than it deserved.
The problem is most reviewers nowadays in their early - mid 20s are too young to remember DN3D when it came out and many were under the impression the fact it was cheesy was because it was a bad game, not because it was intentionally so because that's what Duke Nukem was always like. The joke was probably lost because when DN3D came out in the 90s it was a somewhat amusing take on over the top action films of the mid - late 80s like Commando and so forth.
The game had it's bugs but no more so than most titles nowadays, and it didn't even flop, it still achieved pretty decent sales and still sold much more than some drastically higher rated games have.
User score at sites like www.xbox360achievements.org show it as averaging 76% over 361 ratings, despite the site giving it only 45%. The game certainly wasn't an 80% or 90% imo, but it was an easy 70%.
So really, when it did what it set out to do as a game, when it sold well enough, the users liked it well enough, what exactly is the problem with the developers complaining at the reviews that were completely out of whack with reality? If anything it's the greatest example in a while of how politicised review sites are, and hence, how utterly worthless they are.
Missing the point.
To be fair, both him and you have missed the point.
Sure when it was clear Gaddafi would rather kill his population than step down the AK-47s came out, but without a doubt the smartphones got them to that point, they were instrumental as part of the catalyst in both Libya and the arab spring in general.
It was the rapid spread of information creating realisation amongst the populace that they were all fed up coupled with the largely anonymous and widespread distributed nature of these technology mediums meaning they bypassed the ability of the secret police services in these nations to just abduct and torture anyone showing a sign of dissent.
Simply put, technology created a situation where people could express their feelings honestly, to a large audience, and at a rate and in a way with which the regimes in question could not possibly deal with or keep up with. This would've been difficult or impossibly otherwise.
So sure AK-47s won the day, but no one in Libya would've been willing to risk their life and charge that first military base in Benghazi through fear of the fact they'd charge alone, and die alone, to even get those AK-47s in the first place if it weren't for the smartphones.
RE: And I will call you cynical
"The project is with a 10-15 year span so the per-annum money is not that much."
Well, at £12bn then it's about £1bn per-annum then isn't it?
The math wasn't difficult, but your failure to state it probably also explains why you think that figure "is not that much". Because like many people in our sad country nowadays, you're not too great with numbers.
It amuses me that you're laughing at net developers, yet seem completely oblivious that problems like DLL hell were solved in .NET through strong names and signing.
Perhaps if you knew a bit about your .NET you wouldn't be harping on about a problem that was solved over a decade ago on Microsoft's platform.
Perhaps if you had this knowledge you wouldn't look like someone who might have known a bit about computers in the 90s but has become an obsolete waste of space in the decade since.
"Microsoft has already open-sourced F#, and whilst C# is an excellent language, it has not dislodged Java for Enterprise Applications because it was tied to Windows and Mono has failed to keep up."
This is wrong. You only have to look at any job site, or speak to any IT recruitment agency nowadays to see that companies want .NET developers way over and above anything else and that Java roles are becoming few and far between such that they're no more prominent than even PHP roles nowadays. Java has been dislodged without a doubt, and Oracle's meandering and failure to get Lambdas into 7 mean it's going to struggle to take it's crown back.
You know, it's not that I dislike Java or any such thing, it was my preferred development environment for business apps up until very recently. But it's just become so lacklustre that there's just no point doing new development in it, so all that's left are legacy apps. I'd like to see Java improve and become a strong competitor to keep Microsoft on their toes but it's just not doing that anymore.
Sorry, when you say .NET, are you talking about Silverlight?
Are you aware that you need something on the serverside and that .NET, especially with ASP.NET MVC is actually a very good choice here?
.NET is fine for online apps, if you're saying bespoke browser plugin based solutions like Silverlight and Flash are shit then yes I agree with you however, but Silverlight is not .NET, it's just a technology that utilised .NET.
FWIW in separating concerns the biggest problem there is HTML5, which fails epicly at this. Microsoft for it's part is one of the better vendors out there are ensuring you have good tools to separate things like persistance, web services, business logic, and server and client front end stuff. A decent alternative is Java with libraries like Spring, other technologies like PHP and Ruby are pretty hopeless in these respects though - that's precisely why Microsoft does so well in the enterprise, even for web apps because for all their faults, they know what developers need to follow good practice software development, even if they're not so great at doing it themselves, just like the Java world understands this. The PHP world is still dominated by kids who really don't get even simple things like MVC and has yet to grow up, some projects make an effort to fix this like Zend, but others like CakePHP and Symfony create their own bastardised versions of MVC instead amongst other thnigs because they just don't know how to get it right.
Yeah .NET has it's faults, but it's still one of the best choices for doing really good quality online application development right now alongside Java. Silverlight, like Flash, and like Java applets though, is indeed shit.
Yes, that's great Henry. You keep telling them so, in the meantime those developers who are agile enough to move between technologies will keep earning the big bucks.
It doesn't really matter what you told anyone so, the fact is whether an intentional tactic or not, it works for Microsoft, it works for talented and flexible developers, and it works for companies exploiting these technologies whilst they're hot. You told them so yes, but they don't care, but it doesn't hurt them or anyone, it benefits them, if you haven't clued onto that then I feel sorry for you. Times change, sucks that you're living in the past and still probably think C++ is the right tool for every job or whatever, but that's okay you sit there with your lack of career progression using obsolete technology because that's okay, I mean, you told them so.
"So, what you're saying is - you sent a mail to the leader of a party, he sent it to the specialist in that area in his party who disagreed with you and somehow you manage to liken this to treason?"
No that's not what I'm saying, but as you read what you want to read rather than what is actually written it's no suprise you got it wrong. I wrote to the leader of the party specifically answering his supposed concerns for voters feelings. The response I got was one that was full of factual innaccuracies and was not representative of individual thought on the subject but in fact a near word for word copy of statements released by vested interests - not in protecting creators rights - but in protecting their ability to exploit creators, that is, the RIAA. If he were disagreeing whilst providing actual facts then you'd have a point, but as his comments were demonstrably factually incorrect - just like his use of the term "theft" is in this story, then it's clear he's got an agenda and is not being objective.
"If you've any other ideas, I'd like to hear them..."
I'm a creator myself, the difference is I do it 5 days a week for a wage, why should the creators you refer to be able to earn far more by doing far less work even though their work is of equal standard and requires equal levels of skill?
I'm not suggesting this method of creation should be outlawed or any such thing but the fundamental problem is that the expectations of profit from this "lazy" method of creating - creating one product in a space of some months, then profiting off it for life - are absurdly high, and piracy is an inevitable response to that.
You cannot expect the man in the street to have sympathy for creators who only wish to work a few months a year but have an expectation (which often comes true) of becoming millionaires in the process. You cannot expect the man in the street to slap down much of his hard earned cash to support this. You can say piracy is wrong, you can say it's evil, bad, theft, whatever you want to call it, but it happens, and it happens for good reason. You cannot eliminate piracy without eliminating the fundamental problem of over the top expectations that creators have.
Of course you might argue what about the guy in the pub who can't even make a living off singing? Here's news - not everyone gets to work in the job they want to work in. Sometimes you have to do something else, and if you can't make a living off it then perhaps the simple truth is that you're just not good enough to make a living off it?
Like with many 9 - 5, Mon - Fri software developers who develop software in their spare time to sell on the real key for the likes of musicians is to make touring their main job - a guaranteed income, we constantly hear about how tickets have sold out in 10 seconds so demand is there - and release their songs online for sale, and whatever they make from it, like the software developers, is additional income - a nice bonus, but foolish to rely on for a living.
The fundamental problem is the entitlement attitude of creative types - the fact they believe they had a god given right to make a fortune doing very little work producing something that in fact it turns out no one actually thinks is worth paying for. So what happens if artists do leave the industry? music will die I hear you proclaim! - er, no it wont. Market forces will come into effect and if music become a scarcity people will start paying for it, but as it stands it doesn't matter if Jeremy Hunt bans the internet to stop downloading, kids will just go back to listening to the radio or borrowing the CD of their mate. Music etc. just doesn't have the intrisic value Jeremy Hunt and the music industry very mistakenly think it does.
That's because he's a FUD puppet
Some years ago, when I was younger, and naive, when Tony Blair was still running things in our lovely country, I had this great idea of e-mailing David Cameron, taking him up on his offer of wanting to hear what we hated about the then Labour government of the time, and what we'd like to see from his party if he were to assume power.
The issue I raised of course was the noise at the time about the Labour government bringing in anti-piracy measures and so forth, I pointed out that these were short sighted, and were an affront to justice because they did not allow for due process. This was some time ago- before even the DEA, when ministers were still just testing the water, perhaps as early as 2006 or 2007 or such.
I got a response, not from David Cameron, no, it had been passed onto our dear friend Jeremy. I was quite suprised given Cameron's lip about how he was for the people blah blah blah when reading Jeremy's e-mail I noticed it was almost a word for word copy of the arguments put forward by RIAA executives in the US defending their actions in suing file sharers over there. His arguments made no sense of course, because the RIAAs arguments are not logical, do not follow, and are based on demonstrably faked statistics.
So, he was parroting the RIAA's line all the way back then, I'm not really suprised now that he's a cabinet member that he's still emitting the same bullshit as if he'd taken it straight out of the RIAA's mouth.
Note finally that my use of RIAA here isn't ignorance, it's not a typo- yes I know the RIAA is an American organisation, and therein lies the problem. Jeremy isn't serving the interests of the British people that much is clear, but the problem is he's not even serving the interests of British industry - no, he's serving the interests of a foreign group of corporations. Personally I find that more troubling than anything, a few hundred years ago we might have called that treason.
"freedoms and rights of creators of content to be rewarded fairly."
To be fair the rights of artists and creators to have their works protected is actually listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I'm not quite sure how that got in there alongside the right to not be tortured, the right to life, the right to fair trial, and other kind of fundamental rights that are central to civilised society, presumably the music/movie lobby was as powerful back then too but oh well, there you have it.
The problem is though as you say, whilst it's listed as a fundamental human right that creators have their works protected what's not listed is that those rights be transferable and turned into an industry that does little, but hoardes lots, and actually often exploits artists. In fact, whilst Jeremy is right to call this a right, one might argue that music and movie industry as it stands today actually breaches that right themselves by taking rights away from the actual creators themselves.
Another point is of course that whilst Jeremy is right in recognising this right, he unfortunately seems to miss all the other fundamental human rights which he seems hell bent on trampling over in protecting this one.
Yes, I like to refer to Jeremy as The New Peter.
As in the dark lord.
As in Mandelson.
At least Mandelson didn't try to hide the fact he was a corporate lobbyist puppet by making sure he went on boat trips with music industry moguls on the days before making these type of announcements. Jeremy is one of those lame ones who thinks people actually believe he thought up all this stuff of the top of his head and wasn't fed it by corporations. No The New Peter, we're not that stupid. Just basically admit it like Mandelson did, at least then you're not just outright insulting us by implying we're stupid whilst you also trample all over democracy and our rights.
RE: Never forget
Scunthorpe, is that near Jeremy Shunthorpe?