By correlating with IQ tests ...

Perhaps they are not as dead as all that.

I believe Apple has hit the peak of possible margins with their current model and risks the same issues they faced in PCs against Microsoft. They either need a very hot new category that can drag the phones along with it of they need to radically change their model. It's unlikely they will achieve the former unless they are exceptionally lucky and it is very difficult for Tim Cook to abandon Job's path and do the latter.

How many Chinese ARM OEMs are giving back to the Open Source community? In China Android is forked and Google completely cut out and I haven't seen any of the Chinese "innovations" donated. If they follow the GPL but still manage to produce new innovations that they can protect then good on them.

I totally agree. I have for a long time thought that the only way to solve this problem is to split the wholesale and retail portions of the telecoms business by legislation. If all telco wholesalers (network operators) had to sell with flat terms through multiple resellers (customer owners/MVNOs) then in my opinion a lot more innovation would occur in the market. This would be easy to implement in wireless where there are multiple networks (tower ownership is still an area where there are monopoly concerns). Any natural monopolies in the system (last mile cable, towers) would need to be government administrated (government ownership with private contractors providing the service). This structure would also favor our national telecoms equipment providers who are getting massacred by Chinese state subsidized companies.

I would have thought that they wanted developers? This seems to push them into other hands.

It's quieter, very ecological and much more silent. Would be cheaper as well since it doesn't require loads of engineers to create it.

Err. Not sure you grasp this.

Computer A and Computer B

Computer B is 10,000 times more powerful but is shared with 10,000 people

The key difference is timing and time. If all 10,000 people want to do the same thing that they do on their A computers on computer B at the same time then I agree with you. However that is not real life. If the distribution in time of tasks from the 10,000 users is spread out then my task will run up to 10,000 times faster on computer B than computer A.

If I could use computer B all the time there would be no point in sharing it. If I don't (and I assume all the others sharing computer B can't use it all the time either) then there is a benefit to me using computer B since my task will complete faster, maybe much faster.

As far as internet traffic is concerned I assume that the task I want to do on Computer B is compute intensive on local data, like ray tracing / animation.

I don't agree. Google wants the web standards that allow their products (sites) to work well to become standards. The browser is the means to this end but for a web standard to become a standard requires more than one browser to support it. By funding Mozilla they can encourage this to happen. He's absolutely right in saying that Mozilla "winning" is not an issue however they would probably like it not to win too much so they can continue to exert pressure on new features through Chrome.

Sticking my fingers into a cold fog all day seems highly unappealing.

In Chinese: 'We welcome foreign companies to invest and develop here, and we will continue to foster an open policy market.'

In English: 'We really want you to come here so that we can rip your IP off and then compete with you in your local markets with prices that are very low due to our feudal employment policies and government subsidies. In fact, Germany you are not moving enough production to China and we need you to because we haven't managed to spy on you much because your security is too good and we aren't smart enough to copy your stuff.'

They don't need any exploits. The calls are not encrypted inside their networks.

In fact. Don't speed up either.

I'm not sure this is necessary. The wholesaler's only interest is to maximize the return on their network investment. Fill the pipe with the most valuable traffic. I don't really mind how they do that. I absolutely agree that retailers can use multiple wholesalers and that wholesalers should be barred from creating contract terms that tie a retailer to them.

The technical compatibility problems will probably continue until tunable, software definable radios become a reality for handsets. That still seems to be a few years away.

There is a very simple solution to this. Split wholesale wireless provision from retail. One law. If you choose to build a network you may not sell it to end users only to resellers.Contract terms for retailers must be equal for the same commitments. Start of real competition. End of problem.

Actually I did a little research on this and it has been anticipated and fixed as an issue (see http://playground.sun.com/ipv6/specs/ipv6-address-privacy.html) ... perhaps ... there is some randomization and temporal cycling of auto assigned IPv6 addresses although not everything seems to implement this at present. The worry for me is that it is possible and it is very difficult for the average consumer to detect (and understand) so it is likely to be used. NATing and more importantly the generally dynamic nature of IPV4 addresses as you roam around between home, work and mobile helps to enforce (although does not ensure) privacy.