Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Windfall profits tax! (Score 1) 761

by FunnyStrange (#38813293) Attached to: Apple Announces Most Profitable Quarter in History

Different situation. In that case, the oil companies made more profits not because they sold more product, but because world oil prices spiked artificially (due to OPEC, if I recall correctly). Apple sold more stuff by making stuff more people wanted than the competition.

They do have more than half their cash offshore. On the other hand, about 60% of their revenue was generated outside the US, so that might be fair.

Comment: Re:Bubble? (Score 5, Interesting) 761

by FunnyStrange (#38813079) Attached to: Apple Announces Most Profitable Quarter in History

They make very little from the software/media sales. Gross margins on the hardware are huge though: 44.7%. Tim Cook indicated in the conference call that that's probably not a sustainable number (their margins are typically in the high 30s). But the raw numbers of devices they sold grew by stunning amounts. Even Mac volumes rose by more than 25%, and that's in a PC industry that's not doing that well in aggregate.

Say what you want pro or con about their products, but they know how to make stuff that people want to buy.

Case in point: Verizon reported that iPhones accounted for 55% of their smartphone sales last quarter. That's against how many different models of Android phone?

Comment: Re:Silk Browser (Score 1) 521

by FunnyStrange (#37541204) Attached to: Amazon Kindle Fire Surfaces
So, if the browser is faster because everything goes through Amazon's servers, does that mean that they know everywhere I go on the web? And do they then get to use that information to "optimize" the ads presented to me to buy things from them?

I suspect the answer is "yes" to both questions.

Their prices are lower for the razors because they expect to make the money back from increased sales of blades. It's a different business model from Apple's, but it's still a plan for extracting maximum cash from customers. TANSTAAFL.

Comment: Re:iWork for iOS (summary clarification) (Score 1) 201

by FunnyStrange (#36304266) Attached to: Apple Announces iCloud and iWork For iOS

OK, "universal" in the iOS sense.

I suspect the issue here is that iWork is *only* available on Mac and iOS, but lots of people who have iDevices are not Mac owners. Since the iOS App Store (TM, may it burn in Hell, etc) doesn't really allow convenient price discrimination, it's not clear how they would make it so that iWork Mac owners got it free for iOS while charging for non-Mac users or Mac users who have some other office suite. Seems like many free companion-to-desktop-application apps don't have a lot of independent functionality--that is, they require some kind of sync with the desktop app. The iWork apps for iOS can work independently, though I've read mixed reviews about how well they do that--I don't have them, so I can't speak from experience.

Not saying it wouldn't be nice if the Mac and iOS versions were bundled, just that it seems to be outside the limitations of the App Store ecosystem (may it die a thousand horrible deaths, etc, etc).

Comment: iWork for iOS (summary clarification) (Score 4, Informative) 201

by FunnyStrange (#36302916) Attached to: Apple Announces iCloud and iWork For iOS
Not seeing this upthread, but might be redundant by now: The iWork announcement was for the "small" iOS devices (iPhone and iPod Touch). Those apps have been available for iPad (also iOS) for over a year. The update makes them universal. If you own them for iPad, they'll now work on the other devices (it's a free upgrade).

Comment: Re:Resolution? (Score 1) 1118

by FunnyStrange (#35364720) Attached to: IPad 2 33% Thinner, 2x Faster, iOS 4.3

That's only because of crappy design of their UI framework, where most apps seem to use pixels for placement of UI elements. Hence why you need that "double resolution" trick to upscale them without loss.

On Android, using flexible layouts is essentially the default, and most apps designed for phones upscale just fine on tablets. The resulting UI is not always perfect in terms of button placement and such, obviously, but that is a different problem. And between tablets - which already have differing resolutions with no convenient conversion factor - it's not a problem at all.

I wouldn't say it's a "crappy" UI framework, exactly. Apple's just made different tradeoffs. I've written a few Java UIs, and none of the layout managers I've used gives terrific results for complex apps. Acceptable, sure, but not great. Apple is selling (typical, not necessarily tech savvy) user experience, and if the design sucks, that affects user experience. If one doesn't mind oddly placed widgets as long as they work, fine. It's a choice. And the issue still stands for image intensive things like games, where arbitrary resizing doesn't always work. Even games on desktops usually only support a few well-known screen resolutions.

As an aside, a similar problem exists on OS X. For an OS which has that fabled PostScript based vector rendering, I find it very strange that there's no way to change DPI settings so as to "make everything bigger", as you could do on Windows for ages.

I've lost you here. Are you talking about resetting System Font sizes on Windows? You're right that I can't do that out of the box on my Mac. On the other hand, I've always been able to continuously resize my cursor (using a slider), which helps me immensely, since I am visually impaired. There's also built-in zooming available, and, most importantly, the ability to use the screen in inverse-video mode (light on dark text is infinitely easier with my particular sort of visual impairment). Linux just recently got this ability, but Windows still doesn't do it. In terms of graphical bells and whistles, I think Windows 7 is pretty comparable to Mac OS X, but they each have things the other doesn't.

Comment: Re:Resolution? (Score 2) 1118

by FunnyStrange (#35361714) Attached to: IPad 2 33% Thinner, 2x Faster, iOS 4.3
Indeed, my point exactly. Doubling the resolution doesn't *require* a redesign. Nearly any other scaling would. If you want the added depth of images designed specifically for the Retina Display, you replace the images. In the meantime, images for the old resolution look basically the same as before. That wouldn't be the case if the resolution went to, say, 1440x900.

Comment: Re:Resolution? (Score 5, Interesting) 1118

by FunnyStrange (#35360408) Attached to: IPad 2 33% Thinner, 2x Faster, iOS 4.3
On a desktop, adding more resolution to your monitor allows you to fit more stuff on the screen. On iOS devices, where each app takes over the entire screen when it's running, the only way to scale up the resolution without making everything look like crap (anti-aliasing, anyone) would be to *double* the resolution in each direction. That's what the upgrade to the iPhone 4 Retina Display did. Is that even technically feasible for something the size of an iPad at the current price point? Thousands of app developers are thrilled that they don't have to redesign their applications for a new resolution.

Comment: Re:Will they drop Flash, too? (Score 1) 765

by FunnyStrange (#34856700) Attached to: Google To Drop Support For H.264 In Chrome

If you think any of his questions are relevant or insightful you are retarded,...

This is ad hominem. Call the argument "retarded", if you must, but not me. I'll cop to fat and lazy, but I haven't been called "retarded" since I was 9.

Google is not in this for the good of humankind, nor is Apple. They're a public company, looking to make a profit.

The two are not mutually exclusive goals. Google has a track record of doing good things with the tech community and people in general. Apple does not, in fact Apple is openly hostile to the community and even it's own customers.

Never said they were mutually exclusive. "Hostility to customers" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I assume all their customers, deprived of acceptable alternative products, are masochists, considering Apple's revenue growth over the past decade. Apple and Google have different revenue models and different ecosystems. I personally prefer Apple hardware and iOS over Android, but I take no position on which model is better, in some objective way. Preferences are, by nature, subjective. And I use lots of Google tools on a daily basis, so I think they're a great company, too. One can enjoy oysters and snails, as it were.

Dismissing the point of view because of the author is pure ad hominem.

Understanding the bias and mindset of the writer is not important? What colour is the sky in your world

Right, Gruber has been on the attack against Android from the word go. Does this not colour how objective his writings are on this subject?

Also nice try to get it marked as ad hominem, but in order for it to be ad hominem it would need to be untrue in this context, which it isn't. You'd have a point if I compared Gruber to Hitler but I didn't (because that would be something Hitler would do).

I live in Boulder, where the sky is normally a crystalline blue. Pretty much paradise.

There are multiple forms of ad hominem. You didn't use the "abuse" form of the fallacy, but you did use the "circumstantial" form. You can use that to reduce the weight of the other's argument, but it's not a proof. Even assuming bias, which I'm certainly willing to concede, you still have to address the substance, which you did not in your original comment.

Now you have. -o-

Comment: Re:Will they drop Flash, too? (Score 1) 765

by FunnyStrange (#34844772) Attached to: Google To Drop Support For H.264 In Chrome
I read the essay you linked. He cites one line out of a long post, without really addressing the main arguments. In any case, I provided a link to a piece that asked some questions about this decision. Are the questions less salient because they came from Gruber? Dismissing the point of view because of the author is pure ad hominem.

Google is not in this for the good of humankind, nor is Apple. They're a public company, looking to make a profit. So is Apple.

But we're talking about one specific issue: if Google is more "open" than every other for-profit enterprise out there, why keep Flash while dropping H.264?

Address the substance. Flash is pervasive, but distinctly not open. Same with H.264. What's the difference?

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan

Working...