I'm happy to provide humor. Cool links, bro. Nice how they all refer to the same old, stale data, but you list them so nicely in a list as if there's some obvious conclusion that is somehow relevant to this discussion.
Siri's a gimmick and everyone knows it. I'm baffled by the attribution of some magic to it that is going to allow people to stop using Google. If anything, those ridiculous links would indicate that Google's not going anywhere, anytime. I want to know how Siri is going to do all of this magical nonsense when Apple hasn't done any of the work to make themselves available to the data necessary to do so. As I've mentioned basically from the beginning. Sigh.
Oh and several of those are "total mobile revenue". We all know people buy through the App Store more.
So they're already implementing uPnP or some sort of MAC address identification to make a mental map of the devices and media devices in your home and can already make recommendations for your actions/tasks/behaviors based on that. Nuts, that code is in place, waiting to be leveraged in cool ways.
Yeah, I'm sure Google's fucked.
>What is it you don't understand?
Actually, any of what that garbled mess was at the beginning of that reply? Custom app/searchbox, wtf does that even mean? The article actually goes out of it's way to talk about how Siri sucked when it was used as a standalone app. >_<
Apple can customize the UI and the search results on iOS devices if they want. Apple can take Google's search results (without Google's ads) or Bing/Yahoo, format it, add information from Yelp, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, WolframAlpha, etc. Make this format the default "search results" and make it universally accessible from Siri, the browser, apps, and so on...
>Apple can take Google's search results (without Google's ads)
LOL. Why I bothered even reply to this comment is a mystery. Yeah, I'm sure they can just sprinkle in that stuff and it will magically be great right? Just like Maps blew our mind as soon as they finished that very last strategic partnership, right?
BTW: Google already does all of those things. Kthanx
>Google doesn't have a monopoly on quality data when it comes to search.
LOL
>lol it's funny how upset you are about all these.
Nah, I'm laughing at how clueless and misinformed you are on basically everything in the thread so far.
"U mad" is the standard response for trolls that can't help themselves. I don't even see how what I wrote is construed as "mad".
Here, tell me more about how Apple can just screen scrape Google. I want to laugh some more.
>Another wannabe-knee-jerk-lets-copy-Apple product from Google. Why am I not surprised.
Wow. Just read through your comments, I shouldn't even be typing out these letters. You're obviously a little shit troll. Accusing a company of copying a product that hasn't even been leaked or announced or hinted at by the company. What a fucking poor persecution complex you've got.
A sad little troll that pines for Apple, laments that geeks can't get girlfriends and runs circular logic about "big government"; just shoot me.
Apple still haven't even released a console and Apple apologists are already quick to jump on the "Apple invented everything under the sun" train. Why am I not surprised?
If anything, it's Apple that's copying others here.
No they didn't; vrtually none of their objectives have been met, except that of getting the US to remove its military forces from Saudi Arabian soil.
I get your point, but it's a purely rhetorical one that has little to do with actual history. Al Qaeda had real objectives of their own, rather than simply existing to make us fearful.
Bin Laden's overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long war of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the enemy nations. Al-Qaeda manuals clearly express this strategy. In a 2004 tape broadcast by al-Jazeera, bin Laden spoke of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy". [1]
"Paul Graham, co-founder of Y Combinator, rejected their original idea: a mobile food ordering service called MyMobileMenu. Instead, Graham told them, "You guys need to build the front page of the Internet.""
This is quickly turning into a book press stop! I wanted to be an immigration lawyer -- obsessing over my GPA for the first couple of years at UVA. It all changed when I walked out of an LSAT prep course one Saturday morning to get waffles at Waffle House instead.
My understanding is that Reddit would not be Reddit without Alexis. He came up with the name and (I believe) the alien/branding. But more importantly, he fostered a culture of doing the right thing over making an extra dollar, which ultimately enabled Reddit to beat Digg and become a core part of the culture. I wouldn't downplay his contribution to the "birth of Reddit."
This sounds like a loaded question. ;-) But in all seriousness, I think one of Steve's big contributions was rejecting the constant calls for tags, and opting instead to implement subreddits. (I'm just a guy watching from the sidelines; I could be wrong on some of these details.) It's a good reminder that listening to your users is not always the right way to make something they want.
Totally right. In fact, I was fighting with him during our YC summer about implementing tagging (which I also wanted, because we'd be able to spin up new verticals much much faster than trying to build new communities in new subreddits). I'ts a very good thing he won. More on this in Without Their Permission....
All bluetooth headsets make people look like dorks, but that hasn't stopped their proliferation.
FWIW, when I was an intern at Google, Sergey wore them 24/7. He looked a bit weird the first couple of times, but after that he just looks like Sergey. It's like people wearing glasses when they previously didn't. Weird for a bit, then perfectly normal afterwards.
Wearing a bluetooth headset is not required to use a cell phone though. It's optional. Also, how much have they really proliferated? I don't see them very often in my slice of suburbia.
Socialized health care might work in Canada (pop. 34.48 million) or Australia (pop. 22.32 million), but it will never work in the US (pop. 313.9 million). It's way too expensive. US federal spending for both Medicare/Medicaid is already 23% (Social Security is 22%) of the federal budget in 2012. You want to add another unfunded entitlement program that will cost tax payers $4-$6 trillion?
Here's a little fun fact: Canada and Australia's GDP COMBINED won't be enough to pay for Obamacare.
I hear this argument all the time and it's complete nonsense.
Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. If anything, economies of scale mean America can provide health care at a lower per capita cost than smaller countries.
Your argument is such nonsense it suggests that merely dividing America up into 10 countries each of 30 million would mean it could provide healthcare at a more affordable rate. Nonsensical at best.
>Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget.
I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;)
1. Not everyone in the US has a job. More than 23 million Americans are unemployed/underemployed.[1] And are therefore paying very little/not paying taxes. A large population means a large pool of tax payers, and an even larger pool of non-tax payers.
2. Income inequality. The middle-class/rich are paying more taxes."CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes"[2] The top 10% earners of this country already pays more than 70% of all the income taxes.
3. Entitlements are already killing the US economy. 62% of the federal budget goes to entitlement.[3] Where are you going to get the $4-$6 trillion to pay for Obamacare??? OH RIGHT, 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficit under Obama. The government is already borrowing money to pay for existing entitlements![4]OR tax wealthy people! (those earning more than $250K under Obama's plan).
you are laughably uninformed about the issues regarding entitlements in America.
> I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;)
Australian, actually. I just live in Canada. I spent 1.5 years living and working in America too.
Those problems or "issues" you present are not unique to America. Every country in the world has unemployment, income inequality and entitlements.
It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare.
>It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare.
62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security). That's ONLY $2 Trillion. 18.7% goes to the defense spending. [1]
Implementing Obamacare will cost $4-$6 Trillion. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST WE GET $4-6 TRILLION? Even if you cut 100% of the defense budget it won't be not enough to pay for Obamacare.
>62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements
In other words, 62% of your revenue goes back to the taxpayers that provided that revenue. If anything, I'd be complaining about the other 48% if I were you.
>Implementing Obamacare
The argument that Medicare costs x and support y people, and Obamacare costs 2x and supports 2y people, therefore full universal care would cost 100x and support 100y people is flawed.
Clearly, if the US went universal, the massive administration costs associated with HMOs and such would no longer be an expense to be paid. Instead of being a large employer within your currently broken system, you replace the system.
There is a reason your health spending is almost double per capita to the next highest nation, and it has nothing to do with your population.
I happen to be married to an American and have discussed this topic at length with many of my American relatives.
The big problem is that Obamacare is nothing like a universal system or even the Canadian system, and it does not address the colossal spending costs.
Also, I think Canada happens to have built its medical system at a bit of a sweet spot time. We have enough people paying enough taxes to give a pretty decent average quality of care (assuming you don't live in the boonies). Too many more people or too little taxes and the system will fall apart.
As run4yourlives said,
> There is a reason your health spending is almost double per capita to the next highest nation, and it has nothing to do with your population.
Ditto. Canada and other countries aren't doing that. So in the mean time our skilled workers will keep going to the USA to get salaries 3-5x higher than what they would make and keep on taking the money out of the USA.
>
The big problem is that Obamacare is nothing like a universal system or even the Canadian system, and it does not address the colossal spending costs.
>In other words, 62% of your revenue goes back to the taxpayers that provided that revenue.
Except that the middle class, rich and younger people are paying for majority of the taxes that are spent for entitlements. And you're asking them to pay for another unfunded mandate. Your socialist views have no place in America.
Australia have universal healthcare but your taxes are sky high, zero innovation, zero growth, no jobs, etc. horay for socialism. Give me one innovation that came out of australia? ZERO. (ok i love ac/dc but they dont count) :)
It DOES not "work in every other developed nation on the planet"
spain, greece, germany, france, cyprus and 99% of all socialist countries have declining economies, high unemployment rate, high taxes, ZERO innovation, etc. Hey but they have free health care! horay for socialism!
That's because the Canadian government employs 3.6 Million government employees out of 17 Million of your total labor force. WOW! talk about big government! That's almost 25% of your total labor force!
% of gov't employees in the US is only 15% of our labor force. Considering the size of our country, military, etc. that figure is small compared to Canada's labor force-gov't employee ratio.
NICE TRY ;)
I get it that you're proud of your universal healthcare system. I honestly wish we have one but the issue is COST. if you can think of a way to implement universal healthcare without bankrupting our country i want to hear it.
This crazy line of reasoning is the perfect analog to the notion, associated with liberals, that services provided by the government are "free." You are basically thinking that if a service isn't provided by the goverment, you can consider it free. Well, guess what, we are still going to have those trillions needing to be spent on healthcare, and it's got to come from somewhere. If it's impossible to fund collectively, the alternative (funding it out of all of our pockets individually) is impossible too.
uh..because they're geeks?