- Last Active
saltyzip said:MnMark said:A secure version of Android. That's funny!
Read this to educate ones self:
We are educated. Which is why we know Android is a joke for security. You linking an article without context doesn't change that.
First off, those aren't "Android phones" that a normal person might buy, like an LG or Samsung. They run highly modified versions of Android but are stripped of much of what normal users associate with Android or any smartphone. They then install their own custom software to replicate functionality that we get from "stock" Apps. They are completely and 100% locked down. The only reason they use Android is because it's a free OS with the source code provided for you to allow you to customize it how you like.
Calling these phones Android phones would be like calling the Presidents limo a "Chevy" just because the base platform happens to be a Cadillac.
Android that the general public gets with the phones they buy are a joke compared to iOS, and will never match the security of iOS.
Love is blind: NPD says Android customers are so committed that exploding Note 7 did little to help.A coworker who always had iPhones bought a Galaxy S7 Edge this time around when he upgraded. He summed it up the other day to me after having it for a few months:
"This phone is like that blonde-haired, large breasted model you see in the club. You hook up and start having a fling, but after a couple weeks you find out she's a bitch with a lousy personality and dumber than a bag of hammers and you can't stand to be around her."
Impressive in the store, lots of sex appeal with the bright screen and curves, but ultimately just an average device.
Is this just in the United States? and should we trust this data anymore than IDC or Slice Analytics?
Flurry has analytics software installed inside of Apps. They aren't 100% accurate but they would be better than IDC (who don't get data directly from devices) or Slice (who monitor email receipts from people who opt in to their tracking and extrapolate that to a larger population). Flurry deals more in ratios between companies than outright claims about something like device sales.
rotateleftbyte said:jungmark said:
CR also didn't recommend the iPhone 4. Not too worried about it as Apple is investigating the issue.
No new desktops is a problem but it's not a major problem. I'm thinking a spring release for those items. Apple can weather most challenges it faces.
As for the anti-Apple press. Their whole modus operandii is "Slag off Apple and get more ad revenue". End of story.
There's only one company to blame for this:
Now I'll explain. Years ago the concept of ads was very simple. A media source (let's use a magazine as an example) would have two key items that made them attractive for advertisers. The obvious one is circulation - the more people that read your magazine the more you could charge for advertising space. The second is demographics. A car magazine like Road & Track would predominantly have a male readership with most readers in the 18-35 range. Magazines used to send out surveys to subscribers about income, education, interests and so on as this was the only way to determine the demographics of your audience. Advertisers would look at this and then decide if their products would be suitable to be advertised in that publication. Hence Road & Track would get ads from car manufacturers, car accessory manufacturers (like radar detectors) or similar products.
There was a problem with this model for both media outlet and advertiser. You had to work for it. Road & Track had to create QUALITY CONTENT that would make people want to continue to buy their magazines. They had to WORK for their readers. If they didn't do this then there were plenty of other magazines that people could turn to (Motor Trend or Car & Driver). Advertisers also had to work. They needed to perform detailed analysis of readership demographics of various outlets and compare it to the demographics of the people who bought their products in order to determine where they should spend their advertising money. And they had to think carefully about their ads. They had to be catchy, informative and have some quality that would entice readers to consider their product.
Now Google has eliminated these problems. Advertising can now be done by monkeys while Googles services to all the hard work of deciding where ads should be placed (based on demographics it creates about its users through the data it collects). And content providers no longer need to worry about content as their number one priority is now clicks/traffic. Quality content is replaced by click-bait headlines and fake news, because this drives traffic. In this way the primary reason for a media outlets existence has been changed. Websites are happy because it's childs play to secure advertising. No more negotiating deals with advertisers directly. Advertisers are happy because they can pay a single entity (Google) and have ads appear on millions of sites. We suffer through endless useless ads, garbage content only designed to drive hits and wasting bandwidth on something people hate (ads).
Which brings up a related point. Google makes 90% of their revenue on something people hate. Nobody likes ads, which is why we install ad blockers or PVR our favorite shows to skip the commercials. Yet they are rewarded for this by Wall Street even though their entire business could come tumbling down by something as simple as a new browser that actually completely blocks ads. If ever a company was on shaky ground as far as their primary product goes, it's Google.
Meanwhile Apple makes all their revenue from products that people actually want. Nobody buys an iPhone or MacBook because it's a necessity (like food or shelter). They buy it because it's DESIRABLE. And for making products that sell in huge numbers to people who WANT them they are punished by Wall Street and chastised by media as "relying too much on iPhone sales".
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Hey trolls, you need some better material (and some original usernames that don't sound like a child picked). I enjoy owning you as much as the next person, but lately dealing with you all is like playing checkers with a 5 year old. Sure you win every time, but there's no satisfaction.
So please step up your game. This is getting boring.
Lightning headphones with adapter included in box.
So Apple is giving you a pair of Lightning headphones AND an adaptor.
Where's all the trolls claiming Apple only did this so they could sell millions of adaptors at $30+ each?
ericthehalfbee said:Hey trolls, you need some better material (and some original usernames that don't sound like a child picked). I enjoy owning you as much as the next person, but lately dealing with you all is like playing checkers with a 5 year old. Sure you win every time, but there's no satisfaction.
So please step up your game. This is getting boring.
Considering how upset people get with his articles, and how many trolls sign up just to complain, I'd say he's at the top of his game.
VernonDozier said:ericthehalfbee said:There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.
On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.
Quite the dilemma.
Well, you have two factors at work here. First, let's face facts. Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press. Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents.
Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software. Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable. Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action. That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much. It seems to work well for their stock valuation.
As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products. You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..? Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.
But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple. As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments. In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave". Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay. Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers. It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.
Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.