I didn't buy an Apple TV because it does not have an easy to install Plex Server.
Wouldn't you need a Plex client instead? What would you want to serve from an Apple TV?
The problem is it weighs 32% more (2.6 lbs vs 2 lbs) and is 33% bigger (324mm x 226mm vs. 280mm x 196mm). It also does not have USB-C. It is slimmer though, at 12.1 mm!
So, it depends on what one means by similar specs. Over 30% heavier and bulkier in two dimensions is not similar for my needs.
It lacks USB-C but has a dedicated charging port, 3 USB 3.0 ports (as in available even when charging, what a revolution!!!) and a dedicated HDMI port, again, which is not shared with any USB or charging port and directly usable without a dongle. It's well worth the extra size and weight for most people.
I have subscribed to this kind of service in Europe: you will go over the limit and it will cost you dearly when you do. You're not reading the fine print (e.g. "vers mobiles").
I've had many cell phones with less than 120 minutes of talk time. I know what it is. I know how not to go over the limit. I have a separate home phone and work phone. I would still want that plan. There is nothing comparable in the US or Canada that I know of.
By both actually. France regulates the number of providers. They wanted a 4th one so they had one.
So does the US. That's why we have four providers. What's your point?
The US has 4 providers because mostly of market rules. France dictated that there would be a 4th provider. My point was that I was answering your question. You asked wheter Free mobile was the result of regulation or deregulation.
I don't know what you mean by "my country". Do you mean the US?
No, Canada.
Would you "love to have" the taxes, regulations, and obligations that go along with living in France? Because the whole thing comes as a package. You cannot have US-style taxes, salaries, and economic growth while at the same time having French-style subsidized prices and services.
Why not? Cell phone prices doesn't have much to do with taxes. It's not because of subsidies that you can have a cell phone plan for 2 euros/month in France and not in the US or Canada.
The catch is that you automatically switch to very expensive per MB/minute plans, so if you use it at all, you end up paying an arm and a leg. The EU 2 plan by free.fr is a gimmick, not a realistic plan.
How is that not reallistic? As long as you don't go over the limit, you are fine. I'd love to have such a cheap plan in my country. 120 minutes is more than what a few of my relatives have. Free SMS and 50 MB are just bonus. If you are a big user, just take the 20 euro plan. I fail to see how this is a gimmick. It's about 1/4 of the price of my country.
And again, what is the point you're actually trying to make? Was free.fr a service created by regulation or by deregulation?
By both actually. France regulates the number of providers. They wanted a 4th one so they had one. They are forcing an incumbant (orange) to offer roaming while Free is building its network. The minimum coverage area (mesured in % of the population covered) is also regulated.
You mean this? http://mobile.free.fr/ I think your French is a little rusty, and those plans end up being a ton more expensive when all is said and done.
What's the catch? Can't we get a mobile plan for only 2 euros/month?
In any case, in the US, Ting and Family Mobile are pretty good deals.
That's not that cheap. Start at $15 for 100 minutes, 100 text and 100 MB.
They wouldn't have disappeared if the market was still dominated by regional companies.
Correct. So, market consolidation and increased concentration lowers costs.
Well you could argue that while there are no roaming charges within the US, prices are much higher than in the EU.
You could use the same argument within a single country. The average person only needs coverage in his home city, right? Why would roaming across France be free when you live in Paris?
Because the actual cost of roaming within a country is so low that it doesn't make much sense to account for it.
The actual cost of roaming between countries is a lot higher, so it does make sense to account for it and charge for it.
The only reason why roaming within a single country is low is because you usually don't roam as the operator will setup antennas to cover the whole country. If you are to roam on another operator, there is no reason why it should be more expensive just because it's in another country.
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
It's just as localized in the US. The US just happens to be a larger country. But go to Canada or Mexico and you will pay exorbitant roaming fees to.
Yes, and when costs got lower, it wasn't worth accounting for them anymore and they disappeared. All without government regulation.
They wouldn't have disappeared if the market was still dominated by regional companies.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
