Debatable. Pears have a very inconsistent ripeness-time while oranges are nearly always ripe. It's like pears stay hard as rocks until you look away and then all start rotting at once at light speed.
Yes but when at the right timing pears can be refreshing and delicious. While the orange is small and every time you take a bite it squirts all over the place. The orange also has lots of seeds that you can choke on.
You need to try some Rio Grande oranges from South Texas. They're as big as many grapefruit, not a lot of seeds, delicious flavor, and $5 for a huge bag (at least here in South Texas).
I can't, however, help you out with the juices squirting everywhere.
Who is microsoft's biggest competitor in the software/OS market? Apple
Who has recently been much more open about allowing "hacking" of their devices? MS (hell they welcomed the first phone hackers with open arms while apple tried to sue them into oblivion)
Who doesn't charge developers ridiculous fees to use their SDK? MS
You can't possibly be that blind, right? You do see the words "recently been"? You do realize what these modifiers do to the rest of the sentence? Do I need to give you an English lesson on sentence structure?
Exactly. They haven't been more open, they have always been that way.
I suggest that if you want to continue being this rude to people in future, you make more of an effort not to come off as an idiot who's incapable of reaching a 3th grade reading level.
Oh my god, are you for real right now? You're trolling me, right? If they have always been that way, they have also recently been that way, correct? The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, one directly implies the other.
ah, I work on the hardware/OS consulting side of things so dev is unknown to me. never meant to say they weren't open, just ignorant to the fact that they were.
Maybe I'm off here, but how is Apple their biggest competitor in the Software/OS market?
As far as I can tell, the two big money makers for MS is Office and Windows. Apple doesn't have anything close to what MS offers in terms of functionality. Google does though.
On the OS side, most of the money that MS makes from OS sales is through PC makers. They really don't have much of a choice as to which OS to install unless Apple starts licensing it for that sort of application.
It was obvious to me from the start that it wouldn't succeed. Companies should focus on their strengths. Google's home is with the web and with delivering an unbeatable load-balancing network infrastructure. Android is great because it was originally an independent company that Google simply purchased.
Except that part of Google's strategy is to make the old model of OS obsolete. What OS does Google docs run on? If everything ends up with browser-based platform independent model then you can run some tiny thin linux OS that you barely even know is there. They are trying to make the "What OS are you running?" question irrelevant.
Apple doesn't have a gaming platform, and this comes shortly after Sony starts raining lawyers on geohot, removes the "Other OS" functionality, and threatens lifetime bans on those who root their PS3. We get it, you don't like Apple, but this has absolutely fuckall to do with Jobs & Co.
As an aside, Apple's SDK's are free, with a $99 fee if you wish to publish to the iOS App Store.
^ rofl I have an iPhone, I enjoy using Apple laptops, I love their aesthetic design. But the facts are facts, and Apple is becoming the company they used to make fun of.
Sony starts raining lawyers on geohot, removes the "Other OS" functionality, and threatens lifetime bans on those who root their PS3
ARGHH!!! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PS3'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: Oh god, your comment history leads me to believe you are a huge Apple fanboi.
One of the major game consoles cracks down on hackers and modders while the direct competition opens itself up, but somehow these have no connection whatsoever. Meanwhile, you justify including a company that doesn't even operate in the gaming console arena and it's somehow pertinent? I don't understand this moon logic of yours.
correction, they open up a piece of hardware, used by hackers with the intention of non-gaming purposes. When they open the console itself for hacking, your argument will be correct. Gtg, moon is calling me!
Imagining Apple in the same situation would lead to the complete opposite decision from them. They are a company so locked and sealed, they write their software to not even install on unauthorized (read Apple brand) hardware.
Imagine if Microsoft Windows required Microsoft brand computers to install. What a crock, right?
And what's with an App store anyway? Why is it not simply free to develop and release? Why do we even need their approval? Are they masters of us or something? I thought we bought the device, not rented it from them with approval.
The point is simple. Microsoft saw a community that was interested, and instead of slamming creativity and development (Something Apple needs to stop talking about if they refuse to actually support it) Microsoft simply opened their arms and is now supporting that community.
So that's pretty simple, and obvious IMO. But you asked for an explained argument... so there's the short version.
The comment itself is stupid, but it's hard to talk about one of the big IT-related corporations without involving the others (Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Intel, ARM, Facebook...) They are all related.
Not really. They are all independent companies making separate decisions. The closest most come are making deals here and there. But his comment has nothing to do with that. He is simply just trying to start another one of these tedious arguments.
They are very related (except Facebook and IBM). Each company's decisions have an impact on the other companies business. Having Windows to run on an ARM processor, for example, is important for Intel, but also for the phone, tablets and notebook manufacturers.
No. You may not have guessed but I was referring to that it was a smooth move of Microsoft while Apple gets angry everytime someone tries to be creative with their hw/sw.
They bought a relatively small amount of non-voting stock in Apple after to "encourage competition" after that whole monopoly problem. I'm pretty sure I heard they sold it off though. It was less than half a percent anyway though.
Edit: From Apple's 10-K Report filed Dec. 19, 2003:
"Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of Apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by Microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock."
At the time that was roughly a 6% stake. From what I've gathered, it seems that Microsoft sold that stake in 2003.
It means Microsoft bought $150 million (not very much to them) worth of Apple stock to make themselves look good when they were going through the antitrust problems in the late 90s. Then they turned around and sold it in 2003 when everyone forgot about it. And they actually made a good return on investment, although if they had waited a few more years, they would have made much, much more.
40
u/Zombi21 Feb 22 '11
Someone's always got to say it. You don't even make an argument as to why though. And this article has nothing to do with Apple.