...a $350 Android phone is a high-end device--or, at best, at the upper end of mid-range. Roughly 60% of Android phones retail for $200 or less. (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25037214). The $350 price point lands right near the top quintile of all Android phones. By contrast, there does not exist a low-end iPhone for sale at retail. That's a conscious decision on Apple's part, and matches their overall M.O.

Your phone is not one of the low-end phones that give such a bad user experience. Your phone is quite nice--and quite expensive--compared to the fleet of Android devices as a whole.

...well, that's sort of one of the features of Android. It's open, and it's run-on-what-have-you, so it should hardly be surprising that a significant chunk of the install base is running on cheap, low-end devices. It's a big part of the reason Android has such a large market share compared to iOS.

If Google can't pull low-end Android users onto high-end devices instead of iDevices, well, that's partly a failure of marketing, and partly the natural challenge of living in such a diverse world of devices. If a significant chunk of your market share consists of budget devices with bad user experiences that are targeted to non-technical users, you can hardly be surprised when those users clump the OS in with the phone itself.

Setting aside the sheer depravity of this argument, we have ample historical context for what happens when society cuts off the neediest. France, Haiti, Cuba, China, Russia, Algeria, Egypt, India, Scotland, The Phillipines, Mexico--just to name a few places where social and political inequality have driven massive, bloody revolts.

Wealth and political power calcify with the already wealthy and powerful. The middle and working classes slowly lose what wealth they have through attrition. Poverty becomes a virtually inescapable sink of destitution. Eventually, enough people end up having quite literally nothing to lose that you get vicious, deadly, destructive revolutions that take generations to recover from.

If you insist on taking a "pragmatic" view of not even bothering to -try- to improve the lives of the impoverished, try to at least understand the historical ramifications of what you're arguing for.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Uber drivers aren't sharing a damned thing. They're charging for a service. That's called doing business, and if you want to do business, you need to follow certain rules, just like anything else in life. You can't just jump up and say "nuh-uh, this is sharing!" when you're really requiring people to pay you before you "share" anything.

If I open a gas station and call it a "fuel sharing service", does that mean that I get to bypass all those pesky rules and regulations for making sure my tanks don't leak into the ground? Or that I don't need to spend all that extraneous money to install safety cutoff switches (like anyone ever -uses- those, amirite?)

If y'all are still telling yourselves that services like Uber and Lyft are "rideshares", you're not paying attention, and haven't been for a long time.

Ridesharing suggests that people are sharing a ride from point A to point B--that is, they're both going that way, and thus are going to slug together to save gas/cost.

Uber and Lyft are effectively taxi services that uses an app instead of a dispatcher. The driver seeks out a fare, starts the timer, drives the fare to their destination, and then seeks out another fare.

The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.

Literally five seconds on Google gets you here:

http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/612/are-electric-cars-as-environmentally-friendly-as-we-think-they-are

Yes. EVs are a lot--a LOT--more efficient than internal combustion vehicles.

Cities are, by their very definition, massive engineering projects that do not have sufficient natural resources to sustain themselves. Name one city that could function on a daily basis without regular imports from hundreds of miles away.

We're both saying the same thing. You trust the wisdom of the market over your own judgement. Your core argument is that you should stay where the market says you belong, because you really can't be trusted to know how to handle more than what the market says you deserve.

Your argument boils down to:

"if you get paid more than you're worth, you might someday find yourself in a situation where that well-paying job goes away, and you'll need to re-adjust your standard of living back down to where you 'should' be. Wouldn't it be better for you to simply keep making less money and remain at that lower standard of living in the first place? You'd avoid all kinds of uncertainty and potential upheaval!"

Compensation is whatever your employer wants to give you. If you find what this guy is doing to be grating and wrong, that says a lot more about you than it does him.

This is why having good management matters.

Good management keeps this from happening.

Participants in research studies are already stupidly self-selected, and many drop out (and are thus invalidated) because it can be incredibly challenging for people to continue to routinely report over a period of time, especially if the participant has to deal with periods of instability in their lives..

Seeing as you can get an iPhone that supports ResearchKit included with a phone contract, I'm having trouble buying the "upper-class" angle here. The iPhone may have started its life as a Toy For The Rich, but today, it's just another "free phone with contract!", side by side with the likes of the HTC One, the Galaxy S4, and the Droid MAXX.

ResearchKit will provide sensor-driven data to researchers, in a readily-used format, on a far denser timescale than is currently practical, via a familiar user interface, across a considerably wider and more engaged sample. If you genuinely believe that the only outcome of this scenario is that it will degrade the quality of data in medical research, then I'm genuinely interested to hear your recommendations for improving the quality of said dataset. Given, of course, the same temporal and financial constraints as exist today.

The CEO of the company utters those very words, with his own mouth, in front of a live audience full of journalists. As part of a major marketing presentation. That is also being simultaneously watched by FSM knows how many random people and media organizations via webcast.

Or, to put it another way, you'd be a lot happier if they did exactly what they said they were doing.