L’eliminacode

Inauguriamo una nuova tipologia di post, che andrà a riunire un po’ di quelle che sarebbero state singolarmente pubblicate come “citazioni del giorno” in un unico posto, per (tentare di) rendere più “agile” la lettura del blog. Cadenza, va da sé, irregolare come il resto, con l’attenuante che la cosa si verificherà solo in caso di lettura ravvicinata di articoli in giacenza da tempo (da qui il titolo). Le citazioni degne di particolare attenzione godranno come prima della pubblicazione in un post singolo.

Samsung is hardly the only example of a company that “should” be able to beat Apple at its own premium-priced game, but hasn’t. Consider Microsoft, which has struggled over the last decade to build premium PC notebooks, high-end smartphones, enterprise tablets and an upscale retail chain, yet has clearly failed in every respect– despite spending lavishly to rebrand and then acquire Nokia, then funding a string of billion-dollar marketing campaigns. Having tons of money doesn’t necessarily result in competence.
Or consider Google, which very publicly made a radical shift from its initial strategy of shoveling out ultra-cheap phones and tablets like the Nexus 7 to a new Apple-like strategy of selling the very expensive, MacBook-priced Chromebook Pixel; iPad-priced Nexus 10; and three generations of iPhone-priced Pixel phones. These have all been absolute commercial flops. 

Android apologists can claim that Google was merely spending billions of dollars to dramatically pantomime a theoretical way to successfully make money for the benefit of its Android licensees– like one of those real estate speculation experts traveling to your town to show you how to get rich, rather than getting rich following his own advice– but if Google’s global brand and its expertise with Android and Chrome OS isn’t enough to push out premium hardware, how will a bunch of failing licensees best known for bundling spyware on copycat hardware designs rival Apple?

ANALYSTS CHANGE TUNE, NOW SAY $1,000 HUAWEI #MATE20 ANDROIDS ARE A BARGAIN – Roughly Drafted 

The App Store didn’t open itself. It cost Apple massive resources to get off the ground and it continues to require incredible resources globally to operate. And yet, Apple still offers access to its store to third-party developers for free, charging fees only when they make money distributing their software or selling subscription services. And recall that selling software is an exceptionally high margin business. 

Spotify now takes issue with the fact that it costs money to make money in the App Store. And rather than viewing Apple’s marketplace as a cost-effective way to reach the best customers on the planet, it’s complaining to the public that its costs in selling apps or services through the App Store to App Store users is an expense that it must pass on to its customers.

AFTER DISRUPTING ITUNES, SPOTIFY DEMANDS A FREE RIDE FROM APPLE’S APP STORE – Roughly Drafted

You know what, then? Keep your Google and your Facebook. Buy their hardware. Let these companies into your own home, give all your data to them. I’ll see you at the next data breach, and it may be a data breach affecting another company you never heard from, but which has your data anyway because they got them from Google or Facebook.

Tech’s high speed, and my low tide – Riccardo Mori

Lack of belief in God is still too often taken to mean the absence of any other meaningful moral beliefs, and that has made atheists an easy minority to revile. This is especially true in America, where an insistence on the idea that we are a Christian nation has tied patriotism to religiosity, leading to such strange paroxysms as the one produced by President Trump at last year’s Values Voter Summit: “In America, we don’t worship government—we worship God.”
(…) legislators around the country were trying to promote Christianity in a way that did not violate the establishment clause. They succeeded, albeit at a price: the courts upheld references to God in pledges, oaths, prayers, and anthems on the ground that they were not actually religious. The phrase “ceremonial deism” was coined by a Yale Law School dean in 1962, and in the decades since it has been used by court after court to explain exceptions to the First Amendment. Like saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes, the courts concluded, these “under God’s” and “In God We Trust’s” are innocuous; they belong to the realm of patriotism, not prayer.

Why are americans still uncomfortable with atheism? – The New Yorker 

Stay Tuned,
Mr.Frost

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *