or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › CES: Analysts grow skeptical of iPad competitors due to iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CES: Analysts grow skeptical of iPad competitors due to iTunes - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

Let's not forget too that Abramsky works for Bank of Canada and is reporting on the product of a Canadian company. The guy is, or has to be, biased!

I also recall that his past judgment calls on Apple a while back were little short of appalling.


And all the whiners at the top of the page. Is this turning into an anti-DED campaign? Don't read AI if it all offends your little brains so much.

Couldn't agree more. If you don't like DED, then don't read. What is it with you people, its like an accidental peak of a girls dressing room where you catch a glimpse of your teenage daughter's best friend in the nude, and can't stop looking, jaw agape ?
I think you all love Daniel, and out of envy just cannot accept that his technical prowess is way above yours, simply read and understand, sure he has bias, but hang on look at the name of this website,
is it call Android Fan Club or Steve Balmer Kinky Fetish Club ? NO its not.
Hell, its like you have to hold a loaded gun to their heads before they begin to understand the bleeding obvious, can they really be that thick ?
post #42 of 55
A few points:

@Maestro64: Sorry to be picky, but hydrogen is a battery, not a fuel. Electricity is not a fuel either, it's a way to transfer energy generated by fuel. Looks like the "journalism" you've been reading has been spinning you the usual disinformation ...

I love the idea commonly doing the rounds across many threads here that continually refer to journalism as though it were some kind of bastion of unsullied truth. Most of what we all read is either press releases passed off as "news" or stuff designed to normalise whatever the government or corporations say. There are very few people out there publishing this idealised fantasy of journalism. Daniel, as others have mentioned, is writing articles on a blog called AppleInsider - at least its bias is out in the open unlike, say The Independent newspaper here in the UK whose very name implies something which it manifestly is not ...

@canucklehead: "Don't these other companies have any creative minds working for them at all? It's not like the concept of the iPad in inconceivable after the iPhone's release. And yet, everyone is still scrambling and playing catch-up to Apple's iPad (and doing a crap job of it).

I love Apple but it would be great to have at least one other truly innovative tech company out there producing useful tools for consumers. 13 years after Apple's "Think Different" campaign and still, few if any have taken that advice."

Genuine innovation is a rare thing as it requires people whose minds Think Differently and, if they work in a large company, one rare enough to trust that vision. Most large companies are far too concerned about focus groups, share prices and such like to take a chance so all we get is copies of whatever works. Take my favourite car company, Citroën who introduced: front wheel drive, monocoque construction, self-levelling gas suspension, powered braking, powered steering and really aerodynamic cars when nobody else was thinking about such things. Google the Citroën DS and then other cars from 1955 and be amazed! This company had bright engineers (note, NOT marketeers) and a company culture that encouraged innovation and they produced technologies that really made a difference to the experience of driving and engineering. However, maybe they could have done with some marketeers on par with their engineers as they basically went bust and got taken over by Peugeot and now they live on as an emasculated badge only.
post #43 of 55
In the early 80's the was a book written by Tom Peters titled in search of excellence. There was a video made which featured case studies of ten of the companies in the book, one of which was Apple right after the Macintosh was introduced. In an interview with Steve jobs he explained that great companies start with intelligent people. The man at the top has a vision which when articulated to those below becomes a common vision. Everyone is on the same page, egos are left at the door, and the result is something awesome. This process has been repeated with apple again and again. Apple has developed 5 products which changed whole industries. (the apple I & II, the mac, the iPod,the iPhone, and the iPad) Truly ground breaking products. Very few companies can make this claim this even once. This is a remarkable feat.
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

Let's not forget too that Abramsky works for Bank of Canada and is reporting on the product of a Canadian company. The guy is, or has to be, biased!

Just to clarify, he works for RBC, which is The Royal Bank of Canada, a publicly traded company. This is not to be confused with the Bank of Canada, which is the Canadian equivalent to the Federal Reserve.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post

A few points:

@Maestro64: Sorry to be picky, but hydrogen is a battery, not a fuel. Electricity is not a fuel either, it's a way to transfer energy generated by fuel. Looks like the "journalism" you've been reading has been spinning you the usual disinformation ...

You're the one who's misinformed, of course hydrogen is a fuel:

http://www.netinform.net/H2/H2Mobili...ID=229&CATID=1
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/new...?currentPage=1

Not to mention it's been one of the fuels of choice for the space programme and rockets.
What do you think the Space Shuttle is carrying in that big tank when it launches, home brew for the man in the moon?

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/s...stem_SSME.html
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post

Just to clarify, he works for RBC, which is The Royal Bank of Canada, a publicly traded company. This is not to be confused with the Bank of Canada, which is the Canadian equivalent to the Federal Reserve.

He may be being patriotic but if I was one of his investment clients I'd be annoyed if he told me to dump Apple stock in 2009 (which has nearly quadrupled in value) in favour of buying RIM shares which has produced at best, a ten percent increase in value over the precious three years.
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

He may be being patriotic but if I was one of his investment clients I'd be annoyed if he told me to dump Apple stock in 2009 (which has nearly quadrupled in value) in favour of buying RIM shares which has produced at best, a ten percent increase in value over the precious three years.

I agree but we don't actually know that he's done that. That's how rumours get started.
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsegenmd View Post

A third note, by RBC Capital Markets's Mike Abramsky, did make favorable mention of RIM's new PlayBook …blah blah blah

Less than two years ago, Abramsky saw apple as worth no more than $70 a share; and his company RBC (which is Canadian) is heavily invested in RIM, of course he thinks it's a great product

Abramsky and the rest of RBC's research arm are so bad, and long term bad at that, I terminated a 18 year business relationship with them (should have earlier). Thank heavens I never put too much money in their basket, I would have been ruined. Over that 18 years the $$ they managed based on their recommendations broke even -- just before the big 40% stock market drop a couple years ago. At that breaking even was real world loss of almost 45%.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Abramsky and the rest of RBC's research arm are so bad, and long term bad at that, I terminated a 18 year business relationship with them (should have earlier). Thank heavens I never put too much money in their basket, I would have been ruined. Over that 18 years the $$ they managed based on their recommendations broke even -- just before the big 40% stock market drop a couple years ago. At that breaking even was real world loss of almost 45%.

I hear you, but I don't think that is limited to RBC. Investing in the stock market is nothing more than gambling. No one and I mean no one knows what the stock market will do. How many times have you bought stocks in companies you've never heard of? After years of buying on so-called tips and professional advice, I developed my own philosophy. I only buy companies that are a) profitable, b) have good products/services, and c) are led by people I can trust ie are truthful. Guess which company came to the top of the list.
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

The future is web apps and cloud. Either way, the 'apple wins because of thr apps' argument will soon be invalid. Soon devs will go android first when it hits majority marketshare and the android market revamp is complete. 2011 is the year of android. Its getting more and more backing and with big players like nvidia throwing their weight behind it the possibilities are huge

Actually, the past is web apps. Perhaps you forgot how the iphone was launched.
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

You're the one who's misinformed, of course hydrogen is a fuel:

http://www.netinform.net/H2/H2Mobili...ID=229&CATID=1
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/new...?currentPage=1

Not to mention it's been one of the fuels of choice for the space programme and rockets.
What do you think the Space Shuttle is carrying in that big tank when it launches, home brew for the man in the moon?

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/s...stem_SSME.html

I was obviously not clear enough and when you see it talked of as such and in photos in huge tanks launching a space shuttle it's easy to miss the essential underlying truth. It's also clear that like many people, you have read the three articles to which you linked and assumed therefore that it's a fuel. That's a bit like thinking that because your MacBookPro works when disconnected from the mains that therefore its Lithium battery is fuel - no, it's a battery! Certainly the makers of 'green cars' would like you to think that "Hydrogen is the fuel of the future". It is no such thing and I'm only talking about the energy equation and not even considering the impracticalities of hydrogen storage, distribution and fuel cells.

Real energy sources such as coal are mined from the ground and oil and natural gas are found in reservoirs in the Earth. Hydrogen, despite being universally abundant, doesn't just sit around in pools or reservoirs waiting to be pumped out - it has to be separated from whatever else it's combined with. The two favourite ways we have of producing Hydrogen are:

a) Electrolysis of water (H2O) into H and O using electricity
b) Methane reforming using very high temperature steam

The first produces no primary by-products, the second produces about 10 times more CO2 than Hydrogen! Both of course demand large energy inputs which comes from ... yep, fossil fuels (they could come from renewables but that's not too likely at the moment). So when you make 'free' Hydrogen what you are doing is using a real energy source (usually coal, oil or gas) to generate heat or electricity to run a chemical process which liberates Hydrogen from an existing compound. Energy is always lost during such transformations as well (Mother Nature doesn't give us a free lunch here).

The upshot of this is that Hydrogen is not a fuel (you can't just go and find it, it has to be created by us) it is a battery which stores the energy which has been liberated by a 'real' fuel for use later. Don't swallow what the energy snake oil sellers are offering. Sorry about that.
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post

The upshot of this is that Hydrogen is not a fuel (you can't just go and find it, it has to be created by us) it is a battery which stores the energy which has been liberated by a 'real' fuel for use later. Don't swallow what the energy snake oil sellers are offering. Sorry about that.

Fuels release energy through consumption. Batteries store and release electrical energy.

Hydrogen is a fuel, just like hydrazine is a fuel, just like wood is a fuel, just like ethanol is a fuel, just like U238 is a fuel.

You can't just "find" hydrogen, hydrazine or ethanol naturally and freely on Earth in usable quantities, they have to be "produced", sure. But that doesn't make them "not fuels". They are still consumed when they are reacted to produce heat.

You don't get to decide to make up new definitions to suit your whims.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

I wish AI would list the author next to each headline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Couldn't agree more. If you don't like DED, then don't read.

Nice to see we are all in agreement. I too don't want to read DED articles, because I thing this is really a basement style of journalism, and would invite to know who is the author of the article at the headline level, so I can avoid reading the rest.

Most of the authors of AI are borderline OK, but DED is really an exception, I don't recall unbiased article from him, his stile is apparent after reading a couple of sentences, but thats' too late, damage has been already done.

World would be nicer place to live without DED article full of hatred.
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Most of the authors of AI are borderline OK, but DED is really an exception, I don't recall unbiased article from him, his stile is apparent after reading a couple of sentences, but thats' too late, damage has been already done.

If, in your estimation, you think AI contributors are "borderline OK" at best, why bother coming here? Since the byline appears right under the headline on the article page your whole
Quote:
his stile is apparent after reading a couple of sentences, but thats' too late, damage has been already done.

argument makes no sense - just click away when you see the byline.
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

You can't just "find" hydrogen, hydrazine or ethanol naturally and freely on Earth in usable quantities, they have to be "produced", sure. But that doesn't make them "not fuels". They are still consumed when they are reacted to produce heat.

You don't get to decide to make up new definitions to suit your whims.

Valid point taken, I would concede that Hiro. What I'm (badly) trying to say is that Hydrogen is seen by many wishful people as "the fuel of the future" but are ignoring the reality of its production and the fact that it takes more energy to make it than we get from it, which at the end of the day, is not a very useful attribute of a fuel.\
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › CES: Analysts grow skeptical of iPad competitors due to iTunes