nanairo

25 ms·

211.
by nanairo 16y ago
Sure. But your view is a bit pessimistic. I would like to think that the management at RIM think they've got something unique that will give them an edge. Maybe it's more risky but if you believe in your company that's a risk you should tak
212.
by nanairo 16y ago
Exactly. The Blackberries need to modernise their system, sure. But as long as they keep being the best in what they are, they've got a pretty nice niche, and it's all for themselves.
213.
by nanairo 16y ago
I can't speak for the original poster... but to me WP7 seems actually quite nice despite me liking the iPhone too. I like that MS tried for once to think outside the box: maybe it will be good, maybe it will be crap. Ironically everything I
214.
by nanairo 16y ago
But how much of that is hype and how much is a fundamental problem with Blackberries? To me the torch seems a pretty nice product. Sure: still a generation behind. But it's not like opponents are too far ahead: they (and MS and Meego) can s
215.
by nanairo 16y ago
Incidentally, I think it's too early to call the shots. One year ago Android was another nobody, and now look where they are! Palm had a money problem, but if they didn't maybe they could have got good returns. And on the horizon we have Me
216.
by nanairo 16y ago
Would you care to explain more? (Incidentally here in the UK Blackberries are doing very well, and not just in the corporate environment. A lot of students and teenager have them too.)
217.
by nanairo 16y ago
OMG, this is such an unbelievable wrong idea. The only one that it would help is Android, and it would hurt Apple. But RIM would risk losing a lot too in the long-run. Look at what happened with the PC market. Compaq? Gateway? Even Dell and
218.
by nanairo 16y ago
While an interesting read, this article as well as the others arguing the opposite, are all anecdotal. What needs to be done is a proper statistical study on Android _and_ on the iOS and the results compared.
219.
by nanairo 16y ago
Isn't that what happened with FB?
220.
by nanairo 16y ago
In a perfect market you'd be spot on. But the whole point of monopolies and why they may be dangerous to a market, is because they can use harsh measures and people will still need to use/buy their products. If 60% of the country thinks a g
221.
by nanairo 16y ago
I perfectly agree. It's a risk Google is taking: Schmidt has its pros and cons. The question is not that having a bad reputation may be a risky and one day hurt their revenues. The question is how that would compare to not having done anyth
222.
by nanairo 16y ago
Well, if it was short-sighted you could have replied to it (as you did here) rather than downvoting it... Or maybe I understood the concept of karma wrong. shrug As for what you say I think on a theoretical level I agree with you. But in
223.
by nanairo 16y ago
I agree with you on the first point. Google (and similar data hoarders) should be regulated. A set of laws should explain what they can and can't do, for how long they can keep the data or have to publish it, etc... The problem I had was mo
224.
by nanairo 16y ago
I find it a bit creepy, because he (or to be exact Google) is one of the people driving us in that direction. If you were on a ship, and the captain told you: "It's hard, but at these rate we'll probably go straight into the storm", and the
225.
by nanairo 16y ago
My impression is that Schmidt was the one behind the massive expansion of Google into everything. Both in its need to have a finger in every pie and it's sequence of acquisition it reminds a bit of MS and other such companies. I don' think
226.
by nanairo 16y ago
You vote for it. Sorry, it may not be much but that's how democracy works. I'd love to hear of a better system but as someone a lot wiser than me said, they haven't found it yet. At the same time these are laws that will affect you AND othe
227.
by nanairo 16y ago
Yes, but we are talking of the future. The fact that we can't do it in the present is not being challenged by anyone. The point is Schmidt's prediction that in the future we will.
228.
by nanairo 16y ago
Ah, this is VERY interesting piece of information. Thanks a lot. Yep, that does make a lot of difference.
229.
by nanairo 16y ago
For a start I wouldn't want to spend 461$ to have a vote. You know, democracy and all that. Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say that was so bad? Schmidt compared Google to a government. My point is that only
230.
by nanairo 16y ago
Wow. Apparently I didn't realise such a post would get me downgraded... did i offend someone's sensibility? Was I rude??? Curious... Anyway, back to your point. I agree on what you said. But the problem as I see it is that Google (the compa
231.
by nanairo 16y ago
I agree that a shareholder may be interested in the long term, though not many are (what happens in the long term is not a problem if you manage to sell your shares beforehand). At the same time I think most shareholders want to make money
232.
by nanairo 16y ago
Sure. But there's enough people who would gladly pay the current price _and_ sacrifice values that I doubt any choice by the "ethical" people would make much of a dent in their share price.
233.
by nanairo 16y ago
Good point. Though name is only one of many attributes we have. You should also take a common job (how do you feel about being a waiter?), keep a common wardrobe, live in a big city, drive an average car, and watch/read average stuff. Oh ye
234.
by nanairo 16y ago
Seriously? Look, people several time came up with alternatives. EU gov: "erase your data after 6 months" Google (after a lot of opposition): "fine, we'll erase them after 2 years" Everyone: "you can't just make me use buzz without me having
235.
by nanairo 16y ago
If you were a shareholder, would you rather want your company to be controlled by a shark, who pursue profits vigourosly at the cost of the occasional PR failure (that doesn't really seem to affect them in any real term). Or would you want
236.
by nanairo 16y ago
And what if yahoo does it too (as I imagine they would), and so does Microsoft, and Facebook, and Foursquare... at which point you can't abstain any more? I also can abstain from using the pensions, or public doctors, etc... Sure the govern
237.
by nanairo 16y ago
Maybe it's prescient if it came from you and me. But if it comes from the CEO of one of the companies that has never seem to care much about privacy it's another matter. They _can_ do thing, change them. It seems to me that Schmidt has not
238.
by nanairo 16y ago
I think the point about Google vs. government and who should have our private information is one of the crucial points. Google is a company and there's very little that we (the citizens) can do against it. Every citizen holds a vote for the
239.
by nanairo 16y ago
Sure, but they also gained a lot from it.
240.
by nanairo 16y ago
There seems to be a few mistakes. First, partially it sounds like a branding problem. It would be interesting to know where/how it happens: is it just an American thing? At least in Europe I've not really heard of anything of the sort. Sure

More ›