practical applications
it doesn't need practical applications, it's so damn cool just in and of itself
2310 publicly visible posts • joined 8 May 2007
one - this is barely a step above something like Bum Fights, which reduced these unfortunate individuals to little more than entertainment. this instead just reduces them to a utility.
two - surely can't be very hard to mug a homeless person for their 4G kit and thereby net yourself a free, personal hotspot of your very own, ensuring you always have high speed data access, for free, until the operators work out which unit you stole and switch it off. And then you just beat up another homeless type and steal their kit again.
neither of these are particularly good for the homeless person
I don't think it's quite the same as the Microsoft antitrust case.
and also, i'm not sure how the old method would work with digital formats. The old way, as I understand it, required the likes of amazon to pay half-price for the books it intended to sell. And it could then sell them for whatever price it wanted.
But surely that method is geared for physical books.
For digital books, which applies to Apple more than Amazon, paying half up front doesn't make a lot of sense. Paying just for the exact numbers of books that are sold to customers is a lot easier and makes much more sense. And that is how the agency model works, isn't it?
that's like saying that online piracy costs the music and movie industry.
if they close this loophole, people aren't suddenly going to start buying the dvds at +VAT prices in the same volume that they do today. the Exchequer will get some extra income, sure, but it'll be a fraction of what they estimate. More people will just pirate or stream their movies instead.
so, that would be anyone who uses a computer at work then. with the possible exception of management and their PA's, who probably quite like the idea of one window on their screen at a time. and because management are the ones that appropriate the budget, it's means the rest of us plebs in the workforce, the ones who actually use our PCs for more than just Outlook, are going to get Metro shoved down our throats whether we like it or not, and then get reprimanded and demoted when our productivity deteriorates.
kodak's hope is to sell it's patent and use the 2.6bn (although after a bidding war, i guess Apple will pay them 5bn for them) to restart the business? But what hope have they got, really? If their business was workable, they wouldn't have had to file for bankrupcy.
They should just flog the patents, pay off their debts, then take the rest to the beach. Where, presumably, they can take lots of photographs in an ironic way.
I don't think _anyone_ is buying an iPad to replace their work PC.
they might be buying it to replace their pad of paper that they take notes on in meetings, or to replace their filofax or contacts/calendar, etc. Possibly their email too, because Outlook is a horrific pain in the neck. That's what i intend to do with my iPad.
If people were buying iPads to replace their work PCs, then i think we'd be seeing vast numbers of them being returned, because you are correct, you cannot do all the functions that a work computer is generally used for. But if you're buying a tablet in the hope of replacing your work computer, then you're an idiot.
People are buy iPads and tablets in general for use at home. For casual web surfing from the sofa, instead of using a heavy hot laptop. For playing light-weight games. For reading books on the way to and from work. Y'know, for fun and entertainment, the exact opposite of what you use a work PC for.
i wish out company would replace my desktop pc with an ultra book. my pc is slow and constantly throwing memory errors when i reboot it. and it ties me to the desk. if we had ultra books instead, we could easily hot desk, and it'd break our tendency to keep files and applications on the pc rather than storing them on the network servers
What Kristian said.
I've just ordered a 3D telly, but not for the 3D. Just that, there isn't a non-3D version of the model I wanted.
I doubt i'll even use the 3D much - my girlfriend gets motion sickness watching 3D movies, and one of my eye's doesn't focus properly, so I only ever get a blurry sense of 3D, rather than the full effect that I assume everyone else gets.
Perhaps the dog will appreciate it, if I can find a way of strapping the glasses to his head.
£50 profit?
The article i read this morning on this subject suggested Apple could be looking for a 2.5% license (similar to what Motorolla offered them i think?)
and estimated that would be equal to between $5 and $15 per device. Which is considerably more than just 50 bucks. And the more units the competition sell, the more money Apple makes. This way they target the expensive high-margin part of the market with their own devices, and still have a revenue stream from the much larger, but lower-profits end, without having to bother with making a cheap iPhone or iPad, and so continue to build that mountain of cash they have stashed in a big room in Cupertino.
does the fifth person in the room end up having an epileptic fit on the floor with their brain leaking through their eyeballs as they try to focus on multiple sweet spots?
how does it work out who are the viewers? my girlfriend watches tv while simultaneously reading from her kindle. how it only active for her when she looks up at the screen?
does the family dog get targetted by a 3D sweet spot when it walks past the telly in the middle of a film, stealing one from one of us?
a quicker and simpler alternative might be to insist that there's a minimum IQ required in order to pass the driving test and hold a license.
In fact, that would probably solve a lot of motoring problems, traffic incidents, reduce congestion and generally make the world a nicer place.
Plus, there'd be less idiots on the road in front of me so I can enjoy driving around instead of fearing for my life the whole time.
is it not more that, if you're hoping to snag the $10,000 gift card, you're going to be downloading app after app after app as it got closer to the 25billion mark, and so you're obviously going to be restricting yourself to downloading free apps instead of paid ones.
your reality sir is lies and balderdash and i'm glad to say i have no grasp of it.
Raiders is obviously the best and anyone who disagrees is blatantly wrong.
Crusade is a close second, the plot, the pacing, the dialogue, it's all perfect.
Temple is third. It's alright, but whatsherface and the kid are just annoying.
and Skulls is best forgotten.
so, they're expecting people to get their acts together and deflect this thing sometime next year?
is there any chance that such a timeframe is remotely possible? i suspect the kind of organisations that need to be involved in causing this asteroid to swerve take more than a year to plan their agendas, let alone actually come to a decision, develop and deploy a solution.
And, what if they get it wrong? Sure, they deflect it away from the keyhole zone next year, only to find that the new orbit means certain collision in 2023.
i saw the Top Gear episode on the cars. they may look exactly like western cars from the outside, but when inside them, the differences in build quality were apparent. that's bad enough with a car, where you're travelling at speed along the ground, but i'm not so sure i'd be so happy in an aircraft travelling at speed 30,000 feet in the air...
"You knew that, but at the same time you didn't..."
it has been that sort of morning all over really
i guess i read OP's comment as being "apple have to do this or else they're doomed" rather than "apple would probably like to do this in order to keep increasing their massive profits and huge market capitalization value"
Why do they _need_ to compete with the Fire? It's target audience is a different bracket to the current iPad's audience.
Sure, if they want to infiltrate and take over some of the Fire's potential customers, then it'd work. But they don't really need to worry about the Fire taking away a huge chunk of their current marketshare.