Amazon order 5 million Amazon smartphones from Foxconn

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by pl001

This actually makes me a bit nervous about the future of our computing devices. The last thing I want is to be forced to choose between locked ecosystems. Yet even Microsoft is going in that direction. I hope they all fail.

The FCC, RIAA, MPAA, and other IP interests work with these closed solution providers to lock out less vigilent players. We just had the FCC allow cable companies encript all channels. Sony has introduced a new protection scheme that prevents BDs from being format shifted, and the Librarian of Congress says we can no longer format shift our purchased media.

If you're not locked into something, you'll be a criminal.

What should happen is that your licenses are transferred when you move from one closed system to another, but consumers do not have enough money to bribe, er, influence the politicians who make these laws.

[kennyc]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Google Designing 'X Phone' to Rival Apple, Samsung

By AMIR EFRATI

GOOG -0.89% Engineers at Motorola MSI -0.75% are hard at work on a sophisticated handset, to be released next year, that parent Google Inc. GOOG -0.89% hopes will provide more potent competition for devices like Apple Inc.'s AAPL -0.85% iPhone, said people familiar with the matter.

Seven months after being acquired by Google for $12.5 billion, Motorola is designing its marquee handset—known internally as the "X phone"—to stand apart from existing phones, though the company is running into some obstacles, these people said.

The previously undisclosed development effort is a key facet of Google's strategy for bolstering the miniscule market position of the cellphone pioneer, based partly on bolstering quality while reducing the quantity of Motorola products.

Motorola is primarily working on two fronts: devices that will be sold by carrier partner Verizon Wireless, such as the "Droid" line of smartphones, and the X phone, these people said. Motorola is also expected to work on an "X" tablet after the phone, the people added.

But while Google is known for swift execution on the Web, its new hardware unit has run into obstacles associated with manufacturing and supply-chain management that have caused the company to rethink some initial plans for the X phone, these people added. Meanwhile, Google must manage complex relationships with smartphone makers that use its Android mobile-device software—particularly with Samsung Electronics Co., 005930.SE -4.06% a Motorola rival that has become the No. 1 smartphone maker with Google's help.
....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...598368942.html

[pl001]

Originally Posted by holymadness

To recap:

1. You post incorrect information to support your point

2. That information is shown to be incorrect

3. You reply that it "depends on our definition" of what happened, and that it is besides the point anyway.

Okay then.

The information that supported my point was correct. I stated my point twice but you evidently missed it twice. The facts that lead to the speculation are what support my opinion, not the speculation itself. There was conflict and it eventually lead to Amazon offering a web app earlier this year to get around it. That doesn't seem to support your position that there isn't likely going to be any further issues going forward and that Apple always wants to give consumers what they want.

It's fine to disagree with my opinion, but please stop playing these childish games.

[ApK]

Kenny,
You know what Jerry Seinfeld would ask about that WSJ report, don't you?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ApK

Kenny,
You know what Jerry Seinfeld would ask about that WSJ report, don't you?

No I don't, nor do I care, so you have something to say?

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by pl001

The information that supported my point was correct. I stated my point twice but you evidently missed it twice. The facts that lead to the speculation are what support my opinion, not the speculation itself. There was conflict and it eventually lead to Amazon offering a web app earlier this year to get around it. That doesn't seem to support your position that there isn't likely going to be any further issues going forward and that Apple always wants to give consumers what they want.

It's fine to disagree with my opinion, but please stop playing these childish games.

At one point two years ago, Apple considered imposing onerous terms on third-party retailers selling products via iOS apps. They decided not to pursue this policy.

Your understanding of these events is that they make Apple likely to exclude those services from iOS in the future. Why would that be? Why is Business Insider gossip more relevant to you than the actual historical record?

Today, Apple promotes Google Maps as the top-ranked mapping solution in its iOS store. It is the first app you see when you click on this:



If anything, the historical record shows Apple has a consistent willingness to tolerate and even encourage rival services on its platform. The reason for doing so is that the vast majority Apple's revenues come from hardware, not services or software. The better iOS is, the more iPhones and iPads they sell.

I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood the company's business model, its history, and its motivations. There is not much to take seriously in your argument.

Originally Posted by kennyc

No I don't, nor do I care, so you have something to say?

Don't be rude, Kenny. It's the least courtesy you could extend to those of us who patiently tolerate your terrible jokes and pointless linkspam day in and day out.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Today, Apple promotes Google Maps as the top-ranked mapping solution in its iOS store. It is the first app you see when you click on this:

Oh please. I assume you haven't been living under a rock for the last few months and are aware that this is only the case because Apple's own mapping solution was such a monumental failure. Why would you insult us by assuming we don't know that?

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Oh please. I assume you haven't been living under a rock for the last few months and are aware that this is only the case because Apple's own mapping solution was such a monumental failure. Why would you insult us by assuming we don't know that?

Everyone knows that. Only an ignoramus would need it pointed out. Sorry to pull the rug out from under your big reveal.

Apple has had that button prominently featured on the front page of its app store since a few days after the release of iOS 6.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pl001

The information that supported my point was correct. I stated my point twice but you evidently missed it twice. The facts that lead to the speculation are what support my opinion, not the speculation itself. There was conflict and it eventually lead to Amazon offering a web app earlier this year to get around it.

That it simply incorrect.
You could never purchase books through the iOS Kindle app, you always bought them through a web browser.
The only impact of the Apple change was that Amazon removed a button from the Kindle app that switched to their page in Safari for you.
They did not introduce a web app to 'get around' the change.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Only an ignoramus would need it pointed out.

I think that's why I felt it necessary to point it out to you.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I think that's why I felt it necessary to point it out to you.

Hoho, what a zinger. The next Groucho Marx, ladies and gentlemen.

I'll have to share that one with my nieces and nephews at Christmas dinner. Kids get a kick out of that level of wit.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Hoho, what a zinger. The next Groucho Marx, ladies and gentlemen.

I'll have to share that one with my nieces and nephews at Christmas dinner. Kids get a kick out of that level of wit.

Thanks. I appreciate your compliments (whilst noticing your lack of any real response).

[kennyc]

Wow, the end of the world really brings 'em out eh?

Maybe we did cross over....hmmm....

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Thanks. I appreciate your compliments (whilst noticing your lack of any real response).

Response to what? All I see is more insipid tripe, as usual.

If you mean your bizarre objection that in the future, I should spell out common knowledge as if I were talking to illiterates, then I'm sorry I tried to write as if for an adult audience. In the future I will keep your special needs in mind.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Response to what? All I see is more insipid tripe, as usual.

If you mean your bizarre objection that in the future, I should spell out common knowledge as if I were talking to illiterates, then I'm sorry I tried to write as if for an adult audience. In the future I will keep your special needs in mind.

You know what, forget it. Pointless.