Has anyone ever complained to The Reg...
About TITSUP? Just wondering...
67 posts • joined 25 Feb 2010
This is either a problem for Apple or where they want the company to go. We've three iPhone users in the house all wanting to upgrade but won't pay the crazy prices for the existing ones and the SE is too out of date for the money, so we're holding off.
Equally, the lack of an afforable MacBook saw us go to another OS.
I think the pricing going up suits Apple just nicely but I suspect we'll (over time) see a rerun of the 90s with them because while the pricing element will suit a considerable part of the market, when you add in the fact that they seem to be making their walled garden more locked-in, I think they're making a bad move. Be expensive, yes, but let me use other companies' products with my Apple gear (the lock-in on their new Siri speaker is just daft).
Just to put it in perspective - one you would change in a few years and the other is an amazing experience. It really is a nuts price for a phone isn't it? (And I say this as someone who always buys a mac for the house and has had some overpriced howlers like the LC475 and PowerPC 4400).
Yeah, same here. The only reason I have from wanting to drop down from the 6s+ I have at the moment is the size - I am bloody sick of carrying a TV screen around with me. If a SE2 gets announced soon I may consider that, failing that I'll stick with this as long as possible and then pick up whatever the last model that is slim(ish) and has a proper headphones socket.
That seems a tad extreme - the variation and complexity there is surely OTT and will give them manufacturing grief...
(I always liked the Sony consumer kit trick of a base model, base model plus £50/£75 and then a third model at £50/$75 above that - was simple and you knew the differences.)
I'm trying to nag the kids to spend less time on tablets and phones but it looks a bit hypocritical if I'm on mine, so I've gone back to the Kindle to show that I'm reading and not doing anything else.
I keep meaning to pick up Jerusalem, but I may need to go to the gym first before getting that bad boy (and finish Artemis and the new Brookmyre)...
The Kindle has been a cracking device though - moreso for what it brought to the market than the hardware - but the price on the books has been getting ramped up a bit of late. I hope this reflects authors getting more royalties...
Lot of snobbery on here. Lists are actually incredibly useful, especially when combined with Hootsuite or Tweetdeck. Great for curating lists of worthwhile people to follow.
Having said that, yet again this shows - along with the poor handling of name selling - that there's a total lack of business savvy in that place.
Don't go blaming the PRs for this one as it may have been nothing to do with them but surely a bit of common sense would have told them that if they were going to be talking about an internal tool then they should get clearance for that - either from comms or compliance - because if the tool wasn't well known externally then technically they are in breach of contract.
Removing the tweet was just daft though, but they may have done it voluntarily.
(Also, they were told beforehand apparently about what would happen if they did their talk - perhaps that shouldn't have been left as a text message though.)
Both parts of this are relatively standard statements in cyber PR issues. The first part is because they really don't want to highlight the matter in case it attracts more attacks and the second part shows that they a) are trying to do something and b) did something.
How effective or useful you may find the statement is another issue and depends from person to person.
Speaking as someone who has been a journalist and on the other side, I can point out that you are utterly wrong here. This isn't about accuracy - people/organisations will use this as a threat to stop something being published even if it is true. As others have pointed out, the big issue is this will be used as a threat ("Are you 100% sure about that? Will your anonymous quotes stand up in court?") - that's something many firms won't take a chance on, even if the story is true.
There are times journalism needs to be on the vague side of the law - many a crook has been exposed because journalism did stuff the law couldn't - but all of the recent activity has mostly been about the rich and famous attacking the media that has, at times, been a pain in the backside for them and embarassed them.
Moshi Monsters wasn't a bad idea at launch but it failed at two things:
1) Was too late to adapt to working on tablets and phones. Having to use a desktop or laptop all the time absolutely hammered it. If they had the full service on tablets earlier they would have been doing far better.
2) They failed to adapt to a changing audience. While they always had the younger market sewn up, there was nothing for the early users who grew up. JK Rowling pulled it off with the Potter books but few others have managed it.
You are totally right but this is the way it has been going for a while in the age of 'content' - most places now work to the opinion of 'as long as a picture is good enough, it will do' and the definition of 'good enough' is 90% of the time not actually that good.
Basically, it's a cost cutting exercise. It's a shame because with the kit and technology available to journalists and others today, we should be in a golden age of reporting but the cuts make that impossible.
A cracking read this - and indeed, sums up one key problem in many a firm. If you want the pay rise you have to get promoted, the old Peter Principle then comes into play.
You think more firms will realise that perhaps there's nothing wrong with having the guy in the middle or the bottom of the management ladder being the highest paid if his work is amazing.
I think given that the older generations take longer to come off platforms that the younger crowd who are always looking for novelty, the theory is probably right but I would say it will be post 2020 before it really drops off. I think you'll see a longer fade-off of users. Unless they do some great privacy cock-up and they've survived most of them so far.
Prices are often set by the publisher. I know a few who believe that a) they can charge more for digital versions because they are more convenient and b) because its the early days of the market. A few also want to dissuade people from buying digital versions strangely enough...
To date, there has been no proof that Meadows took her life because of press involvement. It looks likely but it's not a given. To bring her into it diminishes from those who have taken their lives because of media reporting.
Having said that, this was a fantastic article. Muzzling the press in the way that is planned is wrong - and for those looking for a crusade - wouldn't have stopped Littlejohn's opinion piece from appearing.
Twitter's first cutoff limit is 2000 followers - ie you can only follow 2000 people. If you want to follow more, you need to have 2000 people follow you first.
There used to be limits at 4000 and higher as well but I don't think they are in place any more.
This is a fairly well-known trick, it's why only numpties go by follower numbers (on any platform) and instead go for the a-bit-more-trustworthy metric of engagement or even sales/ROI.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019