cremnob
cremnob on Hacker News
I don't think Apple will be a good defense if Android's market share is 80%.
This is an opportunity for Yahoo. The article mentions that OEMs can't leave because they're afraid of losing Google services, Yahoo can be that replacement. They've been making beautiful mobile apps lately and they have some very polished services. They are a pure play service provider who isn't trying to compete with the OEMs; they have no conflict of interest.
If you work at Yahoo, this is something you should run up the chain. A relationship with OEMs would solve their problems, and allow you to get a foothold in mobile that you haven't been able to before.
Open always wins, until it conflicts with your business interests. "Open" used to be the oft-repeated advantage over iOS in the early days, I wonder if that will slip away from the narrative like "SD card slots", "removable batteries", and "real keyboard" did.
Probably local regulations related to operating in Korea.
Buying back stock is the best use of cash right now.
High taxes on gas fueled cars make Tesla afordable.
Interesting to note that iOS gained share in the US by 5.4% while Android declined by 5.6% in a quarter without new iPhones launching.
There may be some truth to Horace Dediu's hypothesis that Android has peaked in the US.
Whenever you see a story about market share, it's for a quarter.
“The 7.9-inch iPad mini represented about 60% of total iPad shipments and 49% of iPad-related device revenues in the quarter.”
That's from the quoted report.
I wonder if Larry Page will have to write an apology letter over this.
Apple acquired Authentec for it, so it's going to be difficult for competitors to replicate it. I'm sure there are other vendors that provide fingerprint sensors, but their implementations of it and how the tech works probably isn't going to be the same.
Fairfax first invested in RIM back in 2010 and they've been adding to that position ever since. Their 10% stake was purchased at an average price of $17. He's been in the red on this investment for a while. I think this purchase is more about trying to turn the company around and try to recoup whatever they can. What JonFish85 posted is probably what's going to happen here.
> Take it private, do another, more aggressive round of layoffs and get down to a very core group. Then decide whether to chop it up and sell it off (patents alone are probably worth a good chunk of money). As far as I know, Blackberry has no debt, so that makes the math a bit easier.
Watsa is a great investor with a solid track record, but I think this has been a mistake for him.
That shouldn't be an issue considering most people don't have a passcode set.
You linked to a support document explaining how the technology works. You may have had a point if this was listed on their product page describing the feature, but instead you have them touting the convenience of using your finger to unlock your phone and make purchases:
You check your iPhone dozens and dozens of times a day, probably more. Entering a passcode each time just slows you down. But you do it because making sure no one else has access to your iPhone is important. With iPhone 5s, getting into your phone is faster, easier, and even a little futuristic. Introducing Touch ID — a new fingerprint identity sensor.
Put your finger on the Home button, and just like that your iPhone unlocks. It’s a convenient and highly secure way to access your phone. Your fingerprint can also approve purchases from iTunes Store, the App Store, and the iBooks Store, so you don’t have to enter your password. And Touch ID is capable of 360-degree readability. Which means no matter what its orientation — portrait, landscape, or anything in between — your iPhone reads your fingerprint and knows who you are. And because Touch ID lets you enroll multiple fingerprints, it knows the people you trust, too.
Overall security will be increased because of Touch ID because most people don't use a pass code at all.
They have choices. They have complete flexibility. They are under no pressure to do anything that isn't explicitly their goals. They want to control inflation and increase employment. If the economy starts to heat up and inflation starts to rise above their 2% target they will then have the option of selling bonds or raising the federal funds rate, the latter of which is more likely.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with the last comment. He doesn't know the exact number off the top of his head. The exact amount remitted last year to Treasury is $88.4 billion.
The Fed can hold them to term. They are under no pressure to sell.
It is long-term. Opening up iBooks to any device or just being available on the web would increase profits immediately. Building out the ecosystem is the long-term part.
I don't think Apple is as interested in being punitive (though some of it might be that) as they are in diversifying supply sources. It's probably unlikely that TSMC will exclusively build them right away, but Apple may shift more over to them if they do a good job.
The current relationship may not last much longer. It's been reported that Apple has signed a deal with TSMC for 2014.
It has a sapphire cover over it, it shouldn't be a problem.
So you switched to Android which is known for getting timely releases of software updates?
Not that they can do no wrong, they just don't do it very often.
That says more about Apple than it does Gruber.
Apple owns a stake in ARM and likely has more influence on their direction than they would with Intel. Apple is fond of controlling their destiny and that means controlling the entire stack. They might keep iOS and OSX separate but I could definitely see them unifying hardware across all their lines as much as possible. They avoid the margin paid to Intel and can lower costs via scale.
e: I know they had a stake in ARM at one point, but I'm unsure if they still do.
Which company's management are you referring to?
Can you at least resize it?
This is actually a great piece of propaganda that serves Russia's strategic interests. Judging by the comments here and on the NYT, it seems to be working.
Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he didn't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in South Ossetia in 2008.