It's called "changing the conversation". Steve Jobs is rightly pointing out the problems that Android is facing, that Apple is not. And he's detailing them well, and discussing Apple's real advantages in this area - their clear focus on this aspect of the business will speak well to the business people on the call.

That said, he's "changing the conversation" - which is another way of saying "change the subject" - he's avoiding the real issues, and the true accusations of Android fans (and Google) - that Android is more open then Apple.

Overall, the only thing to really note here is whether or not Steve manages to change the conversation - the same way that anti-iPhone users managed to change the conversation about the launch of the new iPhone to the reception problems - and how Steve failed to change the conversation by trying to shift it into a "general problem that everyone has". Marketing 101, ya'all.

At Thursday's open meeting, the FCC issued an order that would promote competition in the marketplace for set-top boxes by ensuring retail devices such as TiVo have the same access to prescheduled programming as cable providers. The order would also make CableCARD pricing and billing more transparent, streamline the installation process, and ease requirements on manufacturers and operators upgrading their equipment.

None of these address the "value add" (sorry, kinda puked in my mouth a little bit getting that out) that sells the consumer that they MUST GET CABLE BOX FROM CABLE COMPANY. First of all, consumers don't know they have a choice of getting a cable card, and how to get a device that supports one, and get one installed if they find the device. Secondly, consumers are told they can't get on-demand content if they don't use the cable company's device.

That's it guys. Prescheduled programming? Nobody runs into problems with this. Pricing/Billing transparency? No - this would be a problem if most consumers knew the option existed. Streamlined installation? See pricing/billing transparency. Ease requirements? No - just need to HAVE requirements.

Hear hear! Well said sir!

This report is not a good measure of anything. It only counts botnets cleaned by Microsoft's program, and it doesn't talk about infections per capita. It measures nothing, and is pretty close to useless. Yay. Okay, that's not totally fair - there is useful information in it. But the article has very little of that information, and the summary has none of it. Now, yay.

I don't see this as a good idea for either company. Both companies have similar strengths and weaknesses - call them evil, rail against them or whatever - the companies have products that hit the same value curve in the market place. They are weak against their competition in the same ways, and strong in the same ways, to state the point again. Add to that the other points brought up in this conversation - how Microsoft has already attempted to compete against every one of Adobe's primary products - and there isn't much motivation for Microsoft or Adobe to make this happen. I'm a little skeptical that this will go anywhere.

Exactly the car I was thinking of! I can't wait to see how well it sells. I think the price point is a bit high - they could sell the shit out of the car if it was even a few thousand cheaper - but they have the market analysts - not me.

Quick point - "good enough" is what the market feels is good enough, not what we feel is good enough. I think the current state of the market is likely good enough as well! And, hybrids that reverse the Prius model - a primarily electric driven care with a gasoline backup - that's more than good enough, IMHO. Dunno what the market will think, yet.

Do you understand the massive amount of assumptions inherent in your post? You are arguing very strongly against an attitude that isn't in the least present in the quote itself. You seem to believe that I am stating that I will not be attempting to understand where and how I am mistaken without the input of others. You seem to believe the quote says "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. Otherwise, shut the F*** up, 'cause if you don't take the time to prove it, it ain't so." Why do you make that assumption? What's going on for you that you responded so strongly to a quote that you ended up adding an "or else I'll remain ignorant" to the end of it? I see the quote as a promise - that, given a disagreement, I will listen with the expectation of hearing something that will change or broaden my perspective and understanding. That I will hear you, and discuss with you, a subject with an open mind and a willingness to not only admit when I'm mistaken, but to actually change my mind when I find myself in that position. It's not an attempt to force the responsibility for the validity of my worldview on other people - on the contrary. It merely states that if you believe you are right, and wish to change my viewpoint to match yours - I am open to that, and here's some grounds for doing so. I absolutely do not see anything inherent in that statement that says "I will ONLY change my mind if you can find a way to force me to acknowledge I was wrong." So, I'm actually quite stunned at your reaction. I'd really like to hear where it came from - so if you have a bit of time, and will indulge me - I WILL appreciate it - and I will listen.

People are mis-identifying their concerns, in my opinion. The average consumer is concerned about getting stranded because their vehicle runs out of fuel. In a gasoline powered fuel, you walk to the nearest gas station, fill up a container with gas, walk it back to your car, and you are good to go. If we could come up with a similar mechanism for an electric car, and help people feel comfortable that the need to employ it would be rare, then the concern would be mostly gone. I think the best suggestion I've seen so far is make sure the batteries used are modular, and easy to replace. If you run out of power, you can go grab a single replacement, which would get you to the station, where you could swap out the rest. That deals with the recharge rate - and might even be faster than refilling with gasoline, if it could be done correctly. The problem with that line of thought is that battery technology, and electric car technology - is not yet at a point where it is "good enough". And any educated market analyst will tell you that modularity in a market where the product isn't yet "good enough" will not compete well against integrated and proprietary product stacks that can be tweaked and changed more quickly in response to technological changes.

The technology isn't "good enough" for what the average consumer thinks they want - period. And there are only two ways to fix that: first, you can change their mind. While I think that'd be great, fact is - you can't - not in the short term, which is when it must happen. The only other way to fix the problem is make the car cheap enough that the consumer is comfortable buying it for in-town commuting, and giving up on it for long distance travel (by using an alternative like renting a car, or owning a second car). So, do you think it's likely that they'll price the electric cars cheap enough to be valued by the average consumer? Problem is, until the technology allows for traveling, or the prices allow for a different consumption model, it will not be widely successful. This is marketing 101.

Thanks!

As another poster has pointed out, this planet seems a lot more like Mercury than Earth. It's unlikely there is "life" of any recognizable type on Mercury. What makes the authors assert that the planet is likely Earth-like instead of Mercury-like?

This is a PRESS RELEASE at this point. It's not a news article. I don't know Reuter's policy in picking up press releases, but based on the content of this release, I'm guessing they will publish whatever they get. The press release is short on details, but claims that there will be experts, and declassified documents that back up their assertions. And a dead body in a storage freezer, as well, for those of you who like hairy plastic suits draped over carcasses. Enjoy!

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn1018158 That's the corrected link, I believe.

Anyone remember the following slashdot article?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/09/01/0019238/Why-Microsoft-Is-Being-Nicer-To-Open-Source

Why do we take this stuff seriously? It's not a strategy or plan until it's coherent and on purpose. That's why I disliked the above story in the first place. It would behoove a great many of us (including myself, in many circumstances) to remember to look twice before jumping in with our opinion on this kind of thing.