I have found the expensive hotels in the USA to be the worst for nickel & diming you. After you pay $600, they want extra to look after a bag, $15 if you want to drink the bottle of water beside your bed, etc.

Meanwhile down the road at the $60 place - water, wifi and service are included.

Having said that - there may be something in the fact that the luxury hotels were the first ones to install wifi throughout the building - back when it was really expensive to do. They installed it on the basis that they would be able to charge, and haven't updated their assumptions in the face of widespread free wifi.

because doing anything else is significantly harder / more expensive / less successful.

whilst it is clear that Paypal act like dicks on a frequent basis, they also provide an easy way to accept money from people all over the world in a way that is easy for the customer to use, and cheap/quick for the receiver to set up.

or to put it another way - can you suggest a better alternative?

The holodeck looks like fun. I'd like to spend most of my evenings playing there with my friends.
Also, I'd like a big cabin with a large forward facing window.

Both of those are scarce. How are they allocated?

What if I'm willing to take a smaller cabin in return for more holodeck time?

the smartphone market isn't necessarily a great baseline.

making up numbers completely, It could be argued:

they had 90% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
They now have 60% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.

the broader smartphone market has exploded, and apart from a few niches where bbm is valued highly, they have almost completely failed to succeed in the new market.

not that I don't think they're dead - just that I like alternate perspectives!

I don't see a problem with Google treating themselves differently to people who want to use their API. It would be entirely reasonable for them to have YouTube and offer no API at all.

Amongst other reasons - Google have the ability to update their own apps if they feel a need to change things in the future; They have less control over third parties, so they have a legitimate reason to care more about how third parties implement critical functionality like displaying adverts.

Yes, they pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged YouTube, just like the way Microsoft pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged Office. I don't have a problem with that either.

In an official statement YouTube said:

"We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service."

One sticking point seems to be their ad-serving code. Presumably, this is exactly how Google want it implemented (in a browser control).

So MS signed up to the google API terms and conditions, then thought they could break them.

I don't see what the controversy is here, Google doesn't want to release a windows phone app - they don't have to. I released one for one of my apps, and frankly it was a waste of my effort - the platform is insignificant (~3% smartphone sales).

If MS want to release an app, then they have to use the API and follow the terms like anyone else unless Google gives them special dispensation.

declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require
my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps

possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.

It's kind of embarrassing if your head of state gets killed.

Even if you don't particularly care for them - you might not want to face the political/pr fallout of such a visible fail.

A clock?

the shocking thing isn't so much that there are incidents where things go bad. As you say, there are lots of police, and lots of incidents - there will be some where things go wrong. The shocking thing is that there is almost never any consequence for the brutal officers.

Instead, the whole thing gets brushed under the carpet - sending a clear message to other officers that they are free to abuse their power without consequence. I have personally experienced officers casually lying in their statements to cover up a fairly minor offence by one of their own against me. Whilst most officers probably don't indulge in gratuitous brutality; It seems that most officers will not step in to stop it, or report it when they see it.

If the occasional 'bad act' resulted in all the officer's colleagues roundly condemning the actions and the discipline system enforcing significant punishment then I would start to believe that these were acts which did not represent the body of police as a whole.

Regarding the teenager incident you mention - this is actually a great case. Even if an office has been hit and knocked unconscious by a brick - the job of the arresting officers is to capture the teenager with a minimum of force and allow the legal system to administer justice. That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.

My guess is that this is a direct response to Microsoft.

Google has been talking open-ness, and xmpp is part of that. Microsoft decided to connect messenger so that they could send messages to g-chat users, but didn't reciprocate in terms of allowing g-chat users to see messenger contacts. (I don't know the protocol, but I understand this is a valid use of an xmpp server, even if clearly parasitic).

Google have responded by shutting the whole thing down. 'Hey Microsoft -play nice, or we'll take our ball home'

I'm sure someone will step in to help small retailers with all the messiness. They'll probably call it an online shopping cart or something like that and it will automatically add the right sales tax based on the category of the item and the location of the purchaser.

If nobody steps up to provide a shopping cart that integrates with online sales tax filing services, then there is a great business opportunity for you. Be quick though.

there is a difference between 'struggling to compete with model xxx' and 'struggling to compete with someone who has a 5% tax advantage on prices'

it may well be that they can't compete and should die, but it isn't clear why there is anything fundamentally different between buying something at your shop, and buying it online from another state with respect to whether the government can/should add a tax.

You buy all your stuff online, I buy all my stuff from the local stores. Why am I the only one contributing to the state coffers?

you seem to be presenting a strange argument based on the incorrect idea that socialism in this context is a binary property of states.

clearly when we're talking about states, socialism is a matter of degree. The UK is much more socialist than the USA (universal healthcare, welfare benefits, pensions, etc). France is more socialist than the UK. The list goes on.

If you're going to define socialism as an extreme (Cuba, Venezuela) then that's ok - but I hope to see you leaping on the next debate about universal healthcare.

Someone: government is trying to force universal healthcare in the USA
Someone else: AAARGH - Socialism !!!
You: Nope, this is not socialism. Lots of countries which are neither Venezuela nor Cuba have universal healthcare and clearly they're not socialists.

Given that the suggestion that sales tax should not be avoidable merely by ordering goods from another state has resulted in a cry of socialism in this thread, I think you might find yourself fighting a lonely corner.

I can only speak for myself here. I ported my (fairly successful) app to Windows Phone. My reasoning was that MS was big enough, and Nokia committed enough that they would do whatever it takes to make WP work.

It was a very bad use of my time, I get a bit of cash from WP, but it is a rounding error compared to iOS, or even Android.

It may be that Windows and Nokia will do better in the future, but for now, it is an unrewarding platform.

Blackberry have spent a bunch of time trying to convince me to transfer my Android builds over to their platform, but even spending a day or two to make the necessary tweaks feels like a bad investment.

from a customer point of view - it really doesn't matter why this happened. If the playbook doesn't have the key apps then the customer will be unhappy.

no excuses blackberry: if you have to pay to get the port done, then you have to pay. If your platform is convincing enough that you don't have to pay - then well done to you, but you'd better make sure you're doing to outreach to ensure that the third parties are getting it together.

as for precedent - I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous here. They pay big players at the outset, then when (if) their platform is big enough, they stop paying.