Government: Necessary Evil.

I hear a lot of folks talk about "trusting" or having "faith" in government...and it scares the living daylights out of me. How anyone could possibly believe without a moment's thought (there's my answer) that any institution has their best interests in mind is utterly beyond me.

The institution, by definition, lives to support itself, and those that align with it. If you do not fall into 100% lock-step with said institution, it no longer serves you. Institutions do not serve individuals, they serves an agenda. That agenda may be "the betterment of society", but we're right back to there not being one single individual that is 100% in lock-step with "society". ...as such, they serve no-one.

Far more people need to understand this and have the proper disregard for their "good intentions".

Dang. Was hoping for option #3, the Intrusion Countermeasure Executable engine.

Ahh well.

Stupid monkeys....

Wait...

Was the the Internal Combustion Engine engine, or the engine that "RUNS ON ICE!!!"?

"Yes there are a few small (ie 3.2"-3.5") Android phones but the bulk is over 4". I think it's a pretty safe assumption."

I don't. I think you're missing the forest for the trees...and you are completely dismissing Symbian, RIM, Microsoft...

http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/wireless-mobile/smartphone-statistics.htm

Gartner, eComScore, Neilsen, all put Apple and Android a lot closer than you are as of Q1, and I think you are letting the media coverage of larger devices affect your assumptions as to how many there actually are. I don't think the 3.2-3.5 market is as negligible as you seem to believe.

"Completely irrelevant."

What makes the best selling device on the planet irrelevant? I would think it would be of utmost relevance, seeing as how what people are buying by the truckload usually seems a pretty good indicator of preference.

"The large smartphone market is larger than the 3.5" smartphone market, all phones combined."

Based on what evidence? Sure, 68% is bigger than 32%, but are you certain that that 68% is all larger than 3.5 (or at least the majority of them)? Again...based on what?

(..and you're right....it is 3.5. but..they keys are really close together...and it's a hint at my personal bias (that I tried to keep out of my OP). All of my smartphones have been Samsung devices, and they've each been larger than the one before it...but that's my *personal* preference...not what the market, sales, and share tell us, which I would think would be more accurate)

"Disagree? then why the hell did you post?"

Well, obviously, it was so I could trolled by a bunch of haters. Look at that...it worked. (Love the "if you post, you must think it's news!" implication there.) /smh

Go ahead and take one meager slice of the pie and proclaim "Samsung wins!"...until the next iPhone arrives, at least... all you want. It still doesn't make my statements any less correct.

Wrong?

About what, exactly?

You said I was wrong, and simply restated my post with a hefty dose of anti-apple personal bias.

Get over it. Apple is a company. They didn't kill your dog.

Judging by sales? No. The 3.7" iPhone is outselling every device on the planet.

That said, among non iDevices, the larger models seem to be selling much better, so if Apple ever offers a larger size, who knows.

Of course, this is all pointless conjecture regarding a purely subjective preference. How this makes "news for nerds" is truly confounding.

Thank you!

I would bring in the irrational fears surrounding the LHC itself into the movie (adds drama) and call it "Chi-b Chi-b BIG BANG!", but then...there's probably a reason I am not in the film industry. ;)

*laughing*

Arguing just to argue? I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here, other than you want to paint it cut and dry.

Simply put: Your dictionary definition is for a pure monopoly. Hell, it even states that. No-one is claiming, or even alleging, that Google is a "pure" monopoly in any market...so...irrelevant?

Name a product in the Search market that isn't "search". Huh...looks like the product is the market. Name a product in the ipad2 market that isn't an ipad2? Market definitions can vary depending on what the person doing the defining wants to include. Try convincing anyone what the "PC" Market is and is not...you will never get everyone to agree. The definition varies.

Market share correlates but does not define dominance. That is what I stated and I stick by it. Market dominance is not solely defined by any specific market share. A majority of 1% could be enough to drive the market. You cannot define a monopoly by simply saying it must have over n percent of the market. All it requires is that the player in question be driving the market.

It is for the feds to decide. You are, obviously, free to question any decision they make....I never claimed otherwise.

In most cases, I would agree with you. ;)

Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on ideals/perspective) Anti-trust is more about market dominance than market share (though the two "tend" to go hand-in hand, the correlation is largely irrelevant in terms of abuse).

Wow.

Me confused? I think you have that backwards. Try this:

Products *are* markets. The "Google Search" product is part of the search market and directly competes in that market with Microsoft's similar search product.

Google uses this product/market to make money in another area, namely; advertising.

"Google needs to have a monopoly. It doesn't,"

So you say. I'd love to know what background you have that would allow you to make such a statement of supposed "fact". The EU has levied anti-trust sanctions against companies with as little as 37% market share. Anti-Trust deals with market dominance, not market share (the correlation is coincidental and irrelevant).

The allegation is that Google is using it's alleged dominance in Search to affect its success in other markets. This, if "Search" is found to be a monopoly and that their ranking of their own products/ads/whatever is found to affect their success in those markets, could be seen as an abuse.

Again, I am not taking sides in this. I am *not* in a position to make any statements of finding on whether Google is a monopoly in any market. That is for the feds to decide...not us.

Monopoly does not, in fact mean "only one". Not in today's markets, and not in US or EU law.

Monopoly simply means commanding the market. I believe the EU has brought penalties against "Monoplolies" holding a measly 37% market share.

The idea is this:

Being a monopoly is fine. (In this regard, a Monopoly is defined as holding a lion's share of the market, regardless of how many actual competitors there are.)

Being a monopoly, and *using* that market share advantage to take more of a share in other markets (using "search" to steal share in "advertising", for example), is deemed anti-competitive and subject to Anti-Trust laws and penalties.

Note: I am not taking sides in this, simply doing my best at explaining the concept behind what is going on here.