Blackberry had the market for "Business Smart Phones" fairly well corned prior to the iPhone and Android devices showing up.
They had all the things that Business needs (Control over devices, rich administrative tools, corporate licensing, etc)
When apple showed up, executives essentially said 'screw you local IT people, I want an iPhone whether the company supports it or not' That put a huge push towards the already established thrust of BYOD. Couple of years later corporations were ditching BlackBerries because service providers like Verizon were offering enterprise administration tools that IT departments crave - with a focus on Android devices.
Apple has little patience for "enterprise" devices. The iPad got no bulk quantity breaks in price. iPads have shown up in the enterprise ONLY because consumers love them. He's right...they don't make a lot of business sense. But they are great for what they do - which is entertain.
So in the corporate environment, the tablet will not become the device of choice. He is right about that. But all he knows is the business space. He is not concerned about the consumer space anymore than Apple is concerned about the business space.
Tablets are here to stay. In the consumer market they will continue to destroy the laptop and desktop market. But in a business setting, they will relegated as a "nice-to-have" peripheral (except in some specialized settings) and the Desktop/Laptop/Large Screen will continue to be the computing device of choice - at least as long as touch-typing on a tactile keyboard is the most effective way of entering data in large spreadsheets.
You've got three guys who are witness to each other, each saying the other two were responsible....but only kinda. It's just enough keep doubt about who exactly was responsible for what. If the evidence doesn't point to all three, and each one has a plausible deniability then none of them can be found guilty.
Chess match. They will drag it out as long as humanly possible and admit to nothing. I would hate to be the judge "knowing" all three deserve punishment, and not having the evidence to see that they get it.
Important to keep the discussion - not preaching to the choir
I'm a long time follower and occasionally comment provider.... I'm sad to see so many of the alternate views having been flagged:
"This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."
Is this what TechDirt has become? Is the community so sensitive that it must hide the alternate viewpoints? I have yet to a viewpoint that was in any way offensive. At least not to the point that it should have been hidden.
Man Up TD. Your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to engage in protectionism....that just makes you like those you claim to be against....
1. Company claims they can record but don't want to be recorded : Company is mean spirited
2. Government records (3rd party recording) : Government is abhorrent
3. Individual forced to reveal they are recording (2 party consent) : Such an awful law.
4. I am recording every phone call, don't have to get approval or give notification (1 party consent): The stuff dreams are made of.
How is 1 and 4 NOT in conflict? Either you agree that one party notification is good (in which case #1 is mute because the company doesn't even need to let you know) or you agree that 2 party notification is good (in which case #4 goes away).
Based on the comments here the headline should read:
"We Can Record You Time Warner Cable, But You Can't Record Us"
"In February 2013, the GEO Group purchased naming rights to Florida Atlantic University's new football stadium. On February 20, after the naming rights deal became public, a Wikipedia editor named "Abraham Cohen", the name of a GEO Group spokesman, deleted the "Controversies" section of the firm's Wikipedia article, replacing it with content copied from the firm's shareholder prospectus. After the section was restored, it was again deleted by an anonymous user whose IP address belonged to the GEO Group."
This is the type of War on Science that we see from conservatives here in the US. Sure it's fun to mock Italy, but there is real hatred towards scientist who don't toe the party line.
Environmental impact, global warming, fracking, evolution, GMO studies, rehabilitation vs incarceration, sex education...these are all issues and topics where the science runs counter to the Republican/Right-Wing platform. What better way to eliminate the message than to eliminate the messenger?
Printing screws: You miss the point. You don't need to assemble with a 3dPrinter (sure you do "today", but not tomorrow). Screws are probably the last thing you'll print (unless you're missing one and you don't want to drive 15 minutes to Home Depot, take 15 minutes to search for the screw you want. Wait in line for 15 minutes and then drive 15 minutes home. Sure it's only $0.25 (plus gas) but also an hour out of your life - for one screw. What you are more likely to be printing is a screwdriver or some other multipurpose tool. Or a new camera. (yes 3d printers will be able to print electronics in the "thing" you're printing).
3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
Common complaints - then ask "what happens when":
Too expensive: Seriously? $1000 (and less). Your computer costs more. Laser (laser quality) printers used to cost 2x that. Okay fine. They are too expensive. What happens when they cost $120? That's (likely) cheaper than your phone - and about the cost of a nice ink-jet printer.
Can only make prototypes and only using low-grade resin: Hmmm no. There are low-melt metals that can also be used. But what happens when they print in copper, plastic, aluminum, carbon, ceramic, cotton, wool, fleece, steel, gold, rubber....?
You can only print small pieces: The technology is scalable. Limited only by your space. Do you have a deep-freeze in your garage? A work bench? in you basement? What happens when home builders start to incorporate an appropriate space for your fabricator? What happens when a fabricator can be built into the garage for dual-use purposes? Just drive the car out of the garage and now you have room to create a car-sized item.
What ever the criticism is, just ask what happens when that is no longer a barrier to entry. Price, size, content. None of these things are permanent barriers.
Who get's disrupted? Governments: China no longer becomes the manufacturing power-house. Unions: Jobs won't be going to China...but they aren't coming home - they will be lost forever. Manufactures: Those who migrate to idea shops and engineering will have at least a hope of survival...Otherwise they simply won't exist. Supply chain? Moving of "things" for reasons other than stocking stores will continue. Food will continue to be transported. Trade will continue to be healthy. But there will be no trucks stocking the Autozone, because there will be no Autozone.
Bike shops, car parts, toys stores, clothing stores, etc....Other than show-rooms and service, there will be little need for them. Many fix-it places will go away because we'll just print and replace and not worry about "why" something doesn't work.
The transition from brick and mortar to eCommerce will pale in comparison.
I was the primary developer for the Open Meetings system in Rhode Island. We had a lot of grumblings and "I didn't knows" when it first came out, but by and large we had a lot of compliance. We developed an RSS system of notices (mandatory) and minutes (*encouraged*) and reached out to the local town websites to encourage them to incorporate the feeds into their own sites.
The one (predictable) group that was legally exempt from the Open Meetings law...of course...was the state legislature. But at least all other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies had to abide.
The DNC is live-streaming this year. What a great time to invoke the Copy-Restriction Robots. Not because I have any issue with the DNC, but a live-stream failure would drive-home issues directly to those who can do something about it....
Actually I think people are cheaper, even rich people are cheaper than you give them credit for.
Any service on the 'Net that charges any amount, my instinct is not to say "ah what the hell, I'll try it". My instinct is to say "Hmm... Their going to automatically charge my CC and there won't be any way to cancel or reach a customer service rep to allow me to cancel this subscription"
I am more than happy to pay for items on the 'Net. Sometimes even spontaneously. I will even buy things from eBay that seem "too good to be true". But I reject almost every "subscription" offer that comes to me.
Even if it were just a $1. Because at that point it's principle not cost.
You can thank Intuit, McAfee, Norton, Cox, and Verizon for my jaded view.
A "white-flight" I believe (talking in sheer ignorance here) will take the form of class and business - not on race.
People hide behind (intentional or not) avatars, pseudonyms and online personas. (Just look at this site, myself included.) You don't have a real clue if the person you're chatting with is black, white, or otherwise, and even gender is unknown.
But you can quickly determine (perceived) class and ideology. Much in the same way that MySpace became a white-trash haven by encouraging the use of the purple blink tag and music, Facebook became the everyone's suburbia with more control and homogenous view on the private world of it's members.
App.net may be trying to offer a clean experience with the end-user in mind. But this will really be limited to a certain type of user: Read "corporate". While it keeps the "rift raft" out, it also keeps the growth in check. No free content means limited readers. Limited readers means limited writers. Limited writers means limited content. Limited content is not particularly social.
Google+ Had the clout to pull off a facebook alternative. But there were no users there. No users means an awfully lonely social experience.
And this is why I say it will appeal to the "corporate" user. Think socially motivated PR Newswire. It's really about blabbing (advertising)... not socializing.