Posts by Justin Clements 339 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Feb 2008
What a stupid bit of research.
What exactly are they basing any of this on? Nothing. So how can they predict any numbers what so ever? There is absolutely nothing to go on, especially W7 phone since there aren't many out, and they aren't selling very well anyway.
They are merely presuming that MS and Nokia will save Nokia's skin. But what do they have to back that theory up? Nothing.
Page really doesn't have a clue does he?
Facebook is here to stay, and myself and probably my 300 Facebook friends aren't about to move to a Google product anytime soon. You see, Facebook already scratches that itch and I don't need a new itch scratcher.
I certainly don't need to move to a Google product because of Facebook envy. Obviously the $10bn he has in the bank isn't enough. I'm 'required' to move to a Google service to make them ever richer.
Well get f*****d frankly.
Google will fail yet again in social media, and tying everyones bonus into a failure from the outset is a really good way of getting a bit of staff loyalty. No wonder Google staffers are jumping ship to Facebook. Can you blame them?
Point 1.
I have really never understood "The Cloud" concept. Why do I need to store things remotely when I have a laptop. The idea of always connected is great until you actually leave a city, and then you are just "sometimes connected". I could not use remote services for exactly that.
And why would I? I can carry a laptop, and reading/writing a document has a zero cost. Or I could use "The Cloud" and pay a telecom company $$$ to connect me to The Cloud so it'll cost me to do something that I could for free.
Point 2
Apple can easily become the worlds biggest "Cloud" in a single update. All it has to do, is bundle it with a iOS update, maybe a 90 day free trial.
And there you have it, Apple go from 150 MobileMe users, to 50million users overnight.
Then all the commentators can say "we fully expected that to happen" like they always do.
So, if i rip out the forward pages of a book where it states copyright, that book is no longer the intellectual property of someone else?
Or, if I rip out every third page of the book, it's now sufficiently different that copyright doesn't exist?
Or, if I take the pages of that book, and randomise them, copyright ceases to exist?
It's really simple, Jobs is making a speech at his sales function for Apple. He's not making comment on the industry. This isn't an industry speech.
So how many salesmen push the truth? More than a few I imagine. So why are we expecting Apple's lead salesman to be any different at one of their own events?
The article misses the point that networks aren't selling the iPad in any quantity in the first place, so Apple are not beholden to the carriers for distribution.
But will the carriers turn down an iPad subscriber because they didn't get their way? Definitely not, because there will always be another provider who will pick up the service and the $$/££.
Apple can divide and conquer the networks all day long because people want iProducts. If carrier x does something daft, it's an opportunity for carrier y, and so forth.
Also, Apple have very cleverly got away with software sim cards. Dual network devices, and iTunes can set the sim.
And no carrier is going to pass up ££/$$ if the device requires connectivity.
Apple will divide and conquer every single time because people want Apple devices.
Google uptime or downtime is a total misnomer as the cloud is only as reliable as your connection.
If you dsl connection goes tits up, it doesn't matter how reliable Google is - you are offline.
The other problem is that computing today is getting more and more mobile. Can you imagine using an app on a gprs connection for instance? Virtually unworkable.
And then there are large tracts of the world (even the US) where there is no mobile signal anyway. So again, how does the cloud work in this scenario?
Cloud computing is an idea that only works in static environments in a city. For everything else is, it's a big ol'fail.
give something away for free and it becomes market leader.....
trouble is that market share is one thing, but at the end of the day cold hard $$$ is what matters. for Apple's 16% they get $600 on every sale of an iPhone. On Google's 30%, they get f-all.
and as all the other research recently is pointing out, Apple's 16% of the market are buying far more than the Android markets. so again, Apple is making the money that Google isn't.
Google are a one trick money pony.
the clip was used because jubilee clips are unable to take temperature changes on hoses. the clip in question can keep a constant pressure on the hose when it's hot or cold (or something like that).
and the clip is apparently very effective as well, that's why you find them on other vehicles now as well.
Strangely enough a friend also bought an Orange SF a few days ago, and has been busy putting 2.2 on it.
It worked for a time, but then he discovered some horrible bugs with it. He's on his third 2.2 version but stability is getting progressively worse.
So he's back on 2.1 until the device manufacturer releases the drivers or firmware or whatever it needs for an official 2.2.
I kinda like the idea of all this remote computing, but having no connection makes the device nothing more than a brick.
I like our iPad, but it needs a connection to shine. It really does. You can still use a few applications offline (which you won't on the CR48) but when friends want to see it in action, you need that connection. No connection and the device is really quite flat. We still love it and use it without a connection but that's because it can fulfill some of our needs offline.
But the CR48 needs a full time connection, so traveling with it rules it out, commuting with it rules it out, it's not going to double as an iPod type device easily if its streaming, and so forth. Anywhere with a poor signal (eg most of the UK and the majority of the US), and it's not going to work well.
It'll work well in your office, at home, and at MacDonald's.
I dislike Google most of the time, but I like the CR48, but I wouldn't invest in one. "I'm ooot" as they say.
Google still not getting it.
We (the user) are not interested in Google Social Networking - because we have Facebook.
For us (the users), it requires us to tear up our significant investment in time in Facebook and transport it all over to Google along with all our friends.
Which we (the users) aren't going to do. For a number of reasons:
1. Can't be arsed
2. Still can't be arsed
3. Nope, see me lifting a finger so that you (Google) can make more billions? nope, that's cause we (the users) aren't lifting said finger
4. Can't be arsed
Just what any normal user wants, a prompt every morning for updates.
I don't want a box continually updating itself like this. Batch it to a month or 3 months, but not daily.
People have other things to be doing than staring at an Update window each morning when they turn their machine on. They simply want to type a letter, surf a web page, read emails. Not wait until the updates have been downloaded and installed.
This is techie masturbation at it's worse.
Another strange article from one of the magazine contributors of The Register.
If a 10 year old machine running Windows 2000 has managed to dodgy the security/virus/etc bullet after 10 years, then it's likely to dodge the bullet for the foreseeale future. In fact, such an old OS on the machine is probably not a big target for hackers because there are so few of them in the first place.
As for power - i'd be interested to see that one, but again, short of binning an old desktop for a laptop, or maybe just changing the monitor, I'm struggling to see any huge benefit again.
And again, as for cost of support, if the machine has lasted 10 years without being thrown through a window, then it's ongoing support is probably quite low as it's probably quite reliable.
I hate to say it, but this is a very poor article that The Register have allowed to be posted.
"In the olden days" there was a Naming Committee, and members got domains for free.
BT were on the Naming Committee and applied for bt.co.uk. The members at the time agreed and let it go through. I remember watching it go through.
Good to see the "profits" going to Nominets own charity sigh.
Let's get a proper analogy going here. App Store is purely a shop front, and on the Mac it will doubly so as users aren't tied in. Maybe some of the tinhat stuff works for the iPhone/iPad apps stores, but consumers still have a choice on the Mac platform. And if Apple try and lock it down, then the Mac simply becomes a footnote in history. As much as Jobs is controlling, he also like $4bn of Mac Gear going through his company books each quarter.
So, lets say the App Store is Harrods:
1. Complex or "less than very good"
No shop wants to sell goods that are hard to use, or just not very good.
2. Duplicate apps
No shop is going to line their shelves with every alternative that's available. They will choose what to put on the shelves, and who they want to do business with.
3. Not very useful or lacking "lasting entertainment value"
Again, a quality shop only wants to sell useful things. The "arse scratcher" is not something Harrods want to sell.
4. Mentions other platforms
Don't mention John Lewis or Bentals whilst shopping in Harrods.
5. Similar to existing Apple apps
Harrods have their own make of very expensive jam, and they aren't going to accept anyone else's jam. Get over it.
6. Objectionable or crude content
You won't find porno mags or porno dvds in Harrods.
==
And so forth. So Apple have standards for their shop front, get over yourself!
Mobile phone providers already do compress images on their connections.
Also, you can crank up jpeg compression to anything you want. Jpeg isn't a straight compression, there is a scale, and if you crank it to 1% you will end up with 1 or 2 very large pixels on the screen.
The poster above posed an interesting theory that this is about saving Google money in storage costs, so its not exactly altruistic of Google to release this, when the prime benefactor would be themselves.
> What exactly does Google have to do so that people will stop believing it's every action is "evil?"
Stop telling people that they aren't evil for a start, stop trying to compete with everyone else and concentrate on their core stuff, stop pretending that their brand is bigger than it is, stop doing a book deal to prevent others from competing in the same market, stop copying everyone - and for heavens sake will they stop trying to beat Facebook - as I (and the rest of the planet) aren't about to sign up to a new social network just to make Google richer - deal with it.
In fact, if they just stopped becoming the 21st century Microsoft, that would be a real bonus.
Solving a problem that didn't exist.
1. everyone is moving to faster connections all the time, so a few (porn) pictures downloading quicker (not that you would notice) is going to make no difference.
2. never have I thought "these graphics are taking an age to download".
3. Bandwidth is becoming bigger for video, so the savings in this new format are negligible overall. The internet is becoming a broadcast medium for video, so who cares that a webp image is going to load a fraction of a second faster?
....despite the fact a couple of Android tablets are already in the wild and going nowhere, and despite the fact Archos has been making tablets for years, and despite you could buy Windows Tablet at least 7 years ago....
Despite all that, Apple are going to lose a huge amount of market share to products that have already been released and failed, or unreleased but following in the footsteps of failed products.
I've no doubt that Apple will lose market share over time, but the iPad is not the iPhone, and it's not competing in the fickle mobile phone market. The iPad (or AnyPad) is simply an addition to your existing laptop/desktop and so instantly will appeal to a certain type of person - eg one with money.
So is that money conscious person going to choose Android or Apple?
My money is on Apple 4 times out of 5.
It will be interesting to see how many nerds out there will buy an AndroidPad when they become universally available, or whether they will just pass it up, and continue on cheap netbooks.
Look Google, it's really simple. I have been invited to many social networking sites, and only joined one, Facebook.
I'm on Facebook, so are my friends. We're not changing from Facebook just so Google can make more money, nope, we're happy on Facebook, and letting the owners of Facebook try and make money out of us instead. We're not going to invest hours upon hours running a second social site and bringing our friends across etc.
Google can buy as many social networking sites as they want. Google can spunk as much money up a wall as they want finding a competitor to Facebook, but frankly, it's all a waste, because non of us are moving. We're happy where we are thanks.
So please Google, if you want to compete with Facebook, stump up the $4bn or so you need to buy it and be done with. Cheaper in the long run.
Face it Google, you missed this boat. It sailed a long time ago.
If this statement from Google doesn't creep you out, nothing will. Any reason why Google are building face recognition? Its one thing to put your information out there, it's another thing for Google to start analysing it to make money from it:
>>>"We can predict where you are going to go," he said.
>>>"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos! People will find it's very useful to have devices that remember what you want to do, because you forgot ... But society isn't ready for questions that will be raised as result of user-generated content."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
