bells

randominternetperson said:

Check back in a year to see if the sky has fallen.  I predict that the doom and gloom predictions will not come to pass.  I hope I'm right, but time will tell.

Doom and gloom is not the appropriate analysis. Whether or not Innovation is stifled would be a more appropriate. For instance, examples like ATT preventing FaceTime. Comcast throttling Vonage. Further, services like Netflix raising prices so they can pay tolls. 

macplusplus said:

cgWerks said:

9secondkox2 said:

Soooo glad to hear this. The hardware designs have taken s step back in some ways. 

And Ive Revolutionized iOS with a perfect minimalist UI THAT WAS THOROUGH. 

THE current iteration can use a thorough going over. Keep it minimal and consistent. 

I was thinking when Ive got involved was when it went downhill.

Downhill? Ive’s interface is the best one for Retina displays. The old one was too cumbersome and heavy, not suitable to high resolution. No need to discuss that after so many iOS versions. It has just proven itself.

Agreed. Ive made iOS much better, not only visbly, but in the way it functioned. Further, simplifying the design also used less system resources.  Prior to him taking over, the OS was cluttered, busy, and inconsistent.

dysamoria said:

Bad news for software. He should not have influence over software.

BS. He did a great job with the design of IOS 7. He cleaned it up, and made it much more consistent across all of Apple's applications. Prior to him taking over, many of Apple's own applications weren't consistent in the use of the same types of functions. IOS 7 was a great foundation to build from. 

Apple is good at design, where it needs help is coding. IOS 11 is buggy as hell. 

SpamSandwich said:

A little surprised they took this long to come around to the right conclusion since they are so concerned about the bottom dollar.

Not me. It likely took IBM’s support to make the case. Walmart relies on IBM infrastructure, and IBM support probably made Walmart see the wisdom of the move. 

SpamSandwich said:

bells said:

SpamSandwich said:

tallest skil said:

SpamSandwich said:

This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.

Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…

We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.

This has little to do with regulation. It has to do with ownership rights of the frequencies the at issues companies use. The public owns the airwaves. The companies just have non-transferable rights.

if competition was the goal, killing the proposed ATT merger was one of the best decisions to ever happen to the cellular industry.

Blocked mergers have little to do with regulation? What are you talking about? They have everything to do with regulation.

And if the public actually “owns the airwaves” then there is no need for the FCC.

How about to ensure compliance with the conditions set forth in the government lease of the airwaves [on behalf of the public]? 

Again, the airwaves are not owned by the prospective companies. They have exclusive non-transferable leases with conditions. The companies know this when they purchase the usage rights. They know the right to use the airwaves is non-transferable without government consent. 

So the government has an absolute right to evaluate a proposed transfer of the airwave rights to determine if it is in accords with government objectives.