 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
> There you go again, typical Brit, adding unnecessary letters into
> words. ;)
>
Mock not the afflicted!
Besides that you lot add an "e" to whisky.
And we can afford to put a "u" in labour and colour. :-P
English. Run of course by an Indian (from India). Who, is an American citizen
(not to mention a great guy).
Good fun and lots of bonding.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/1/2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
> I don’t suppose that I could Pov on a tablet.
There are "tablets" like the ones that run Android, and then there are
"tablet PCs", which are normal PCs that have a touch-screen (usually
stylus-based). I think the media is now deciding to call tablets "tablet
PCs", so you ought be careful there and figure out which you want.
Tablet PCs are actually kind of on the way out, but useful if you want an
actual laptoppy computer.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/1/2011 18:10, Stephen wrote:
> I am going to ask one of my American colleagues about this. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EkCdK6bUls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBWrMQVsuak
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps distributed
> through the app store
That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
Microsoft and Android.
> - which has caused several to implement their 'in-
> app' store interfaces through the web browser instead rather than
> integrated into the app.
A big part of that is to prevent piracy from jailbroken iphones/ipads.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/1/2011 10:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Apple's approach to computing is different than everyone else's
Not really. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. When you
realize that it's OK for the app store and itunes and such to break even as
long as it increases hardware sales, it makes more sense. They're not more
draconian than the phone companies are.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's a bit of a straw man argument. Many app developers for Android
> devices don't "target" anything other than the Android platform.
Most android apps are targeted at cellphones and do not take full
advantage of the resolution and screen size of a tablet, nor the
specialized hardware it might have.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Of course Android has that same problem - Apple tightly controls their
> platforms. That can increase the quality of the products offered, but at
> the same time, their dev agreement allegedly is one of the more draconian
> agreements out there.
There are, roughly speaking, two possible at making hardware that can run
software: Either make it completely open for anybody to use in any way they
want, or keep it under tight control.
The former method is more liked by developers and many users, but it
inevitably causes efficiency and compatibility problems when random Chinese
companies start spewing their cheap low-quality clones and flooding the
market with them, not to talk about the low quality of the software, with
little to no quality control, and which may or may not work properly with
your particular brand of the hardware. While Android devices work acceptably
well for the most part, they often suffer from this problem.
The second method, used not only by Apple but also by most game console
manufacturers (especially the big ones, ie. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony)
ensures that the device *will* be "plug-and-play" (or, in this case,
"install-program-and-play"). There will be no cheap low-quality clones,
there will be no software with little or no quality control. If you buy
the program, you will be able to run the program. No messing around, no
tuning parameters, drivers and whatnot, just install-and-play, and it will
just work. Most users appreciate this, even those who don't realize it
themselves.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/2/2011 4:45, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's a bit of a straw man argument. Many app developers for Android
>> devices don't "target" anything other than the Android platform.
>
> Most android apps are targeted at cellphones and do not take full
> advantage of the resolution and screen size of a tablet, nor the
> specialized hardware it might have.
>
I'd guess that's because android tablets are much newer than ipads.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:12:29 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>> There you go again, typical Brit, adding unnecessary letters into
>> words. ;)
>>
>>
> Mock not the afflicted!
> Besides that you lot add an "e" to whisky. And we can afford to put a
> "u" in labour and colour. :-P
Yes, but then you also have words like "thrufffff" (which I realise
doesn't work so well in writing - if you're familiar with Eddie Izzard's
work, though, you probably have heard that one - the word he's talking
about is "Through" (or in the US, "Thru").
But I think the most egregious examples of "unnecessary letters" are the
place names "Leicester" and "Worchestershire". But I can understand not
pronouncing all of those letters, particularly after a few pints. ;)
The only thing missing, though, is the four M's, and the silent Q.
> At work we had a session about the differences between American and
> real English. Run of course by an Indian (from India). Who,
is an
> American citizen (not to mention a great guy).
> Good fun and lots of bonding.
Indeed - I've a friend in Bucks who is a linguistic 'purist' of sorts -
and who has a terrific sense of humour. First time we went over, we
stayed with him and his wife (well, actually, both times we visited we
did for some period of time) - and he decided to use it as a chance to
practice his "American" speech, as he was planning a trip over here.
I finally got 'upset' (we both were laughing), and I told him "Shaun,
damn it, we're in England, and Amy and I are in fact bilingual - you
don't have to Americanise your speech for us!", and he explained that he
was coming over here and wanted to make sure people understood him.
To which, of course, the obvious answer was "Shaun, nobody will
understand you, and it's not because 'you talk funny'." ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:53:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps distributed
>> through the app store
>
> That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
> Microsoft and Android.
I don't think so, but my sample size is one at present. (It's standard
for the app itself, not the paid content - the paid content is what I'm
talking about).
"Ghost in the wires" on Android market: $12.99
"Ghost in the wires" on amazon.com as a Kindle book: $12.99
What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book, which
means for Amazon to make the same amount per book, they need to increase
the price of the book by 30%. So, through amazon.com or purchased on a
Kindle, that book would be $12.99, but for Kindle on iPhone, that same
book would be $16.88 - for the exact same copy you'd get purchasing it
for $12.99 through the web browser on the phone.
After all, Amazon isn't a charity either - Apple cutting into their
profits doesn't mean they make less, it means they raise their prices.
Most likely, rather than charge iPhone users extra, all of us subsidize
that 30% to Apple, whether we have an Apple device or not.
>> - which has caused several to implement their 'in- app' store
>> interfaces through the web browser instead rather than integrated into
>> the app.
>
> A big part of that is to prevent piracy from jailbroken iphones/ipads.
I don't think that's what Apple's motivation is. They want to make money
not just on the apps, but on the content purchasable in the apps as well.
Unless I'm not understanding what you mean here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
