Why should Apple and Google be able to use their duopoly in smartphone platforms to prevent third parties from bringing up their own app stores? The reason they can charge a hefty 30% is because they have no competition. It's a good thing for other app stores to come up and compete with these guys.
An anonymous reader writes: It's official. The Smartphone wars have begun, with Apple's announcement of the Apple Watch adding a contender to the race that has the likes of the Pebble watch and Moto 360. My doubts about wanting one were put to rest when I learned of the health-related features. Smartwatches will be able to track your movements and pulse rate, calculate how many calories you burn, coach you continuously to improve your fitness.
If you do get one, though, then what other apps or functions do you imagine yourself benefiting from? Assuming that Slashdot is well-read by the app developer community, your wish might come true.
Dumbphones are great, till you've actually used a smartphone. It's hard to convey the smartphone experience to dumbphone users - it's more than just email, web and apps - it's a paradigm change that speeds up your access to information from 10s of seconds to seconds. With this dramatic change, you start going about your business and life differently.
I wish they would apply the same distaste for violence to the sale of real guns and arms - that's what actually hurts people, not the boom and splat of video games.
Why are we hearing about one of the coolest pieces of technology developed in the last 30 years in a tabloidesque news bulletin? Another area that could benefit from wikileaks.
A very respected psychology researcher recently published a paper producing purported statistical evidence for "psi", i.e. phenomena that cannot be explained by known science. The author carried out a long and detailed study on his students: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html and concluded that the effect of 'psi' was 'statistically significant'. The evidence was severely criticized by his peers - in particular is a dismissive rebuttal to the work cited in the same article. Links to the papers lie therein as well.
The outlook I have had, reinforced by these studies is that it doesn't hurt to dab a toe on the other side (i.e., in favor of pseudo sciences) every now and then. It helps you think out of the box of known science and understanding. It's like exploring a landscape by following the stars rather than your GPS and compass. You may venture into uncharted territory more easily with the former.
Great job guys, that posting just took out Betanews.com. Dunno when these news sites'll learn and stop carrying articles on Google... Or maybe they should just block Google articles from Slashdotters - since we get to know everything that happens anyway...