Uh. They most certainly did NOT create the smartphone sector.

There was NO smartphones before the iPhone. Speaking as a guy that used them all, everything else was utter garbage compared to the iPhone. They were garbagephones, not smartphones.

And they sure as fuck didn't do it out of "nothing".

Are you fucking kidding? Things like momentum scroll and pinch-to-zoom were made out of thin air by Apple. There was nothing like it. The audience literally gasped when Steve Jobs first demoed those things in the iPhone introduction.

Apple defined the new device, and created this market.. from scratch. They threw out every other smartphone idea, because they were incorrect and complete garbage.

THIS is the REAL mobile market that Apple created from scratch. There was absolutely nothing like it, no matter how hard the Android/MS fangirls try to rewrite history to claim that Apple didn't invent the modern smartphone industry.

If you don't believe me, then explain why Google had to REDESIGN Android after seeing the iPhone introduction? Because they knew they had a terrible design, sorta like how Google Glass is a terrible design, and how MS HoloLens is going to lose as well.

Sorry, but you are, right now, living in the world created by Apple. You AREN'T living in the world created by Google or Microsoft.

Also, you're going to REALLY hate it when I let you know that the PC itself was defined and created by Steve Jobs. Nobody but Steve Jobs thought PCs were anything more than Industrial Appliances. He was the only one that thought they would be usable by normal people - kids, grandmas, etc.. And so he defined that market to cater to kids and grandmas, and built the product to match it. Other PC vendors were strictly thinking about PCs in terms of industrial/office products. Even a company like Xerox, who should have figured it out, didn't. Steve Jobs was the ONE guy that thought you should be able to use a PC at home by untrained people, instead of at the office by experts.

So, not only did he create the modern smartphone, but he created the entire PC industry itself.

Perhaps in the next life, you nerds would have been born with a better sense of taste that would allow you to create interesting and useful products for society, But, alas, you were stuck without any talent, and so you have to live in a computing defined by Steve Jobs.

Just saw this incomplete wording. It should along the lines of: "Why do the poor think they matter to the market?"

In general, the market isn't defined by low price: people don't buy bad products, no matter how cheap they are. If you can't afford a quality product, the market just ignores you and doesn't sell to you. The price doesn't go down if you can't afford it.

This should be obvious.

> They just recorded the largest public corprorate profit... in history.

Indeed, and creating a high-quality product is the reason.

The poor (as well as many in the middle-class) generally do not understand that demand comes from the intrinsic desire to be rich and powerful. A high quality is associated with that.

You don't sell a product by saying it's for the poor. You sell it by saying it's for the rich, and this causes draws in the rest of the classes.

There is no advantage to marketing yourself as being towards the poor. The poor generally cannot create demand, because absolutely no one desires to be poor. Marketing yourself as for the poor is more likely to hurt a brand than to help it.

maintain this luxury image will kill them.

Why do poor people think they matter?

that's a star shade to improve contrast.

This focuses based on diffraction, an entirely different concept.

meanwhile, something like thermal expansion would probably ruin it. most diffraction lenses need to be mechanically accurate to within a wavelength of light.

You really need a use case for it for it to catch on. All the demos MS was showing were unnecessary sugar. There's no real use case that a monitor with a 3-D graphics card can't already do. People do 3-D modeling just fine on a computer.

And then you have the problem of being required to actually wear it. That already limits your market. No one is going to want to wear a headset all day, because fashion supersedes everything in life, so that makes things like Skype out of the question. Besides, Skype works just fine on your mobile phone.

This is going to go the way of the Kinect. Nice technology and concept, but very little use. And nothing necessary. Kinect has had many years of development behind it already, but really no new concepts for it.

I'd like to see something that shows you NEED this.

> In case the incumbants haven't noticed by now, the millenial generation of moviegoers is perfectly willing to watch a new-release movie on a damn 3" cell phone screen with earbuds

No, they DON'T watch movies on their cell phones. That's why movies are enjoying record revenue numbers over the last few years.

Only the nerdiest of nerds watch movies on their phones, and they aren't a market that matters.

You don't cater your business model around these dorks.

Theater owners want exclusivity in releases. They don't want to show a movie that can be seen elsewhere in the same local market.

This is how the businesses work.

The idiots at TechDirt have no idea what they're talking about. None of that is illegal. They're talking about campaign contributions (which they have a legal right to do) or buying legal services from their client to support the Attorney General's cases. They're not saying "Let's pay bribe money to the Attorney Generals hurrrr-durrr".

These companies are very wary of what's legal and what's not, and they tread carefully.

Meanwhile, Sony, as a private entity, has every right to interact with government officials privately, perhaps with legal support for their pet causes. Just because they're interacting with government officials doesn't mean it should be public. Your social security # comes from interaction with government, do you want that public too? How about your tax returns?

Sorry, but if you want privacy rights, and if you're against the NSA, you better make sure that EVERYONE gets their privacy rights, including people you don't like.

Privacy rights isn't just for nice people.

What about the 'wrong' things that Sony has done that the documents show?

So what? Who cares? None of those are actually illegal (the VFX salary wasn't a "collusion", but based on an industry survey), and had no public interests. The public doesn't have the right to know these things. They were all legitimate private discussions that any private entity has the right to have. Some of these discussions are with government officials, but you are allowed to have private interactions with government. (Your SS# comes from government, should that be published? How about your tax returns?)

Privacy rights aren't only for nice people.

If you want privacy rights, and if you're against the NSA, you better make sure that mean people also get their privacy rights, too. Honestly, this is worse than the NSA, because the NSA only keeps their data to themselves, whereas these hackers publish the data for everyone to see. This will only encourage more hackers to violate people's privacy, and anyone defending these guys are saying they don't believe people should be allowed privacy rights, which is horrible.

Be vigilant about privacy rights. Don't be lazy about it.

So they better have already been working on their next-gen chips by now.

A11 chips should already be on HDL level by now.

I don't want the money, I just want to make sure Madison Ave doesn't have it either.

This isn't a Madison Ave. problem. Those guys really only deal with measured and demographically aligned CPM, usually on major media outlets. It involves taking clients out to dinner to close on 7-figure deals.

This is a problem for random midwest mom-n-pop businesses with no marketing department trying to use a cheap new advertising tech startup's website widget.

while wiping out an entire village..

Boys and girls are different physically. This defines everything about them. You can't have them equal because of that. Society conditions girls to give birth to and raise kids. Everything derives from that little fact.

You can get your daughter interested in science and engineering and all, but it's not going to change the fact that men are going to judge her by her appearance foremost and her ability to raise a kid. (equivalent to how men are judged by their wealth and power status)

Do you really want your daughter unprepared for a society that has different values for women than what you would like them to be valued for?

Alaska Barbie wasn't "extremely bright". She had the IQ of a rock. You know this already. The rule to determine if someone is smart is if they did something that you could say was genius.And you can't name a single thing she did that anyone has ever called genius.

So please don't look up to her.

Look up to us liberal elite statists instead. We are the ones that actually control you while allowing you to think you have "freedom" (lol). After all, we were able to get you to pay for someone else's health care.