I-Genius: What the Tech World is Saying About Steve Jobs's Resignation
What
a sad day for the technology industry. As a hardcore PC person that became an
Apple employee, who now supports both sides in the tech industry, I can see what
a difference this man made in technology and culture. This is a company that
prides itself on individuality, creativity, pride in their products, and
positive attitude. I have never been part of a company that truly cares so much
about the customer experience and making people happy, not just trying to get
them to buy something. Apple isn't successful because of their commercials and
traditional advertising, they are successful because people love the products,
recommend them to everyone they know, and keep coming back.
The Apple II changed personal computing,
the iPod changed the entire music industry, the iTunes store has become the
largest distributer of music in the world, Apple Retail makes more money per
square foot than anyone, the iPhone forced the phone industry to step up their
game and create similar products, and the iPad has forced the computer industry
to try and catch up in much the same way the iPhone did to phone makers. They
are also making strong strides forward on the personal computer side.
You can hate Apple all you want, but the
numbers and the history of the last 10 years don't lie. Apple has forced the
rest of the technology world to pick it up and move forward. Steve Jobs was and
is a major force behind that and I wish him all the best.
Read the articleWIRED/Steve Jobs resigns as CEO of Apple
<>
His resignation is sad day for Apple but was bound to happen at some point. His influence was still be felt at his new post as Chairman of the Board and Tim Cook has shown that he is more than capable of running Apple.
My belief is Apple fans, stockholders are more concerned around the future of Apple's creative vision. Will Steve Jobs still have a major influence on this vision or let Cook take a stab at it? Apple's product roadmap is reportedly in place for many years into the future so in the short term I don't see a reason for concern.
We should keep Mr. Jobs in our prayers and wish Apple continued success in making some of the best products in the world.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO "effective immediately"
<>
Consider:
One of the first successful computers that was actually ready to go out of the box. Might have been the first if they had more money at the time to speed development.
First successful machine with a really usable GUI. Yeah, Xerox was first, but couldn't be bothered to actually sell the things.
First successful laser printer. Along with PageMaker, eventually blew up the entire print industry. We had an offset shop in our building… they lasted 2 years.
First (semi) successful all-OO machine. Again, Smalltalk was there first, but it was nothing like NeXT.
First successful all-in-one consumer internet computer.
First really successful media player. Then internet music store. Together, iPod + iTuned blew up the music industry.
First really successful smart phone. In the process of blowing up the telephony world.
First successful tablet computer. In the process of blowing up the PC.
Any one of those makes a good CEO. Two is great. Eight? Four entire industries blown up? By one guy?
And if anyone things this was just good luck or timing (as Stross claimed), consider that not one of those items on the Apple list occurred when Steve was *not* at Apple. What happened when he wasn't there? GeoPort. Comm(s)Toolbox. Copeland.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO "effective immediately"
As with everyone else who has observed Apple for any length of time, I think the only possible reason for this is a serious downturn in Jobs' health. As a human being, I wish him the best.
As an Apple user since the IIe, I have mixed feelings. He was obviously instrumental in the resurgence of the company, but I also feel that his micromanaging, control-freak tendencies are the biggest factor behind the side of Apple that has become so much clearer in recent years, the desire to create a completely closed ecosystem, a walled garden with nary a crack through which to see anything other than Apple's vision.
I generally like Apple's vision. But particularly as a tech-savvy IT veteran, I've never been a fan of it being completely closed. Feel free to hide Terminal away in the Utilities folder. But don't remove it entirely!
So here's to hoping that without Steve's direct day-to-day control, Apple might loosen up just a little bit.
Oh, and to Tim Cook, please, PLEASE don't blindly follow Steve Jobs' unilateral dismissal of older but still widely-used technology that will still be around for a long time. I'm talking in particular about cable TV. Add DVR functionality to the AppleTV. Apple is probably the only company that's capable of beating TiVo at designing a great DVR interface.
The future may indeed be entirely streaming video over the Internet, but we're not going to get to that future without going through decades of screaming resistance by the broadband ISPs, who all also happen to be part of the multi-billion dollar TV delivery business. Tiered plans, data caps, whatever it is, they're going to protect their profits to the bitter end, and cable TV (or the equivalents like FIOS, Uverse, etc.) is thus going to continue to be a major source of programming for many years to come. Please accept that reality and allow it into the walled garden.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO "effective immediately"
<>
Easily the best CEO in the computer industry. The PC industry loses its most experienced employee and a person who is singly responsible for more sea changes in the industry than anyone else. When Apple was weak, the entire industry suffered.
Jobs is an argument against monoculture in companies. Instead of being a techie nerd like most people in silicon valley (like his friend Woz), he was an artsy hippie who finally figured out how to cater to the average person, and he made the most successful tech company as a result. The rest of the tech industry still hasn't learned from him.
If they don't learn soon, then his departure will set consumers back. Music players, laptops, smartphones, and tablets were all abominations before Apple entered the market and kicked everyone in the pants.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO "effective immediately"
<>
Personally, I wish him well. Health issues are Not Fun and no one should have
to deal with them.
Professionally - I guess the Cult of Apple became a creepy thing, almost from
the start. The Mac vs PC thing was adolescent, and my personal experience of
Macs has been of poor hardware and software design - not as poor as Windows was
until XP, but still badly flawed - disguised by excellent industrial design and
laser-sharp marketing.
Steve personally didn't invent things like the iPod. He did what Apple does
as a company - took other people's ideas and marketed the crap out of them.
So where MS's main product was corporate marketing, Apple's main product was
always consumer marketing, selling a largely illusory feel-good factor through
clever story-telling and a relentless appeal to consumer narcissism.
I can't really thank Jobs for that. It worked, but... hey.
Back in the 80s the Amiga was running a full multitasking OS with excellent
(for the time) graphics and sound, and Atari was the cheap consumer option.
Somewhere left field Acorn were doing cool things with the Archimedes.
Those lines could have been developed. Instead Apple and MS flooded the
market with technology that was relatively underpowered and not so relatively
unimaginative - but, in Apple's case, nicely packaged.
Between them Jobs and Gates probably held IT development back by ten or
fifteen years. Developing ecosystems was good, but developing such slow-moving
and flawed ones was a disappointment.
Without that conservatism we might well have had physical and tactile
computing so much more quickly.
Jobs gets props of sorts for realising Apple was a content company rather
than a tech company a good few years before anyone needed that realisation.
But Apple has always presented stinginess as opportunity. App development and
iTunes are both ways to generate content without having to pay people as
employees. And Apple has a mountain of cash, but isn't using any of it for
sponsorship or talent support programs for new ground-up content or
innovation.
At least record companies and publishers find talent and then sponsor it
through advance payments for projects.
The new content companies - Apple, Google, Facebook, MySpace (as was) - don't
need to, so they don't.
The world is a poorer place for it. There's more content, but it's hard to
argue that (say) Angry Birds is really innovative.
So Jobs doesn't get props for innovation. Apple could have done so much more
with its position, and could still do more. But an integral corporate
tight-fisted conservatism means that it didn't, and never will.
That's a shame - a real shame. For everyone.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO
<>
The best thing about Jobs is that Apple makes products that -feel good- to use. It's like driving a Toyota
Camry instead of a BMW, or an Audi, or a Mercedes: it makes no sense to get the
bimmer from a practicality standpoint, and its ability to get you to the
supermarket isn't any greater. But you feel better on the way.
Criticizing a Mercedes because it isn't a Toyota, and has an inferior
price:top speed ratio, is absurd. That's not why you buy it.
Criticize the idea of paying more for something because it just feels good to
use it if you must (and my guess is that all but the most humorless bores would
be hypocrites if they did), but Apple delivers an excellent product for its
market - and Jobs can predict that market so well he actually creates products
for the customer rather than the other way around. That skill is incredibly
rare, and, bastard, marketing liar, and other qualities notwithstanding,
deserves respect.
I own no apple products, and never have. I use a custom built PC, a Sager
laptop, a BlackBerry phone (no, I did not riot), a BlackBerry PlayBook (long
story) and a Sansa Clip. And I also own a 'fine European automobile' (bought
used, natch). I could have gotten a Kia that would do the job just as well, but
I just -like- mine. It looks nice, the seats are great, and it goes much faster
than necessary.
Am I stupid? Maybe. But how many here who criticize Apple as overpriced would
get a Kia instead of a Maserati if they could afford either? Well, if you'd skip
the Kia, don't tell me that Apple products are 'bad'. They're just different
products than you want.
Sorry, guys - if people are buying something you don't want, it doesn't make
them stupid. But it -does- make Steve Jobs -smart-. As a lifetime PC user, I
wish him the best, bastard or not.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO
<>
I remember the Newton. I loved my Newton, warts and all. It had its flaws, like the infamous handwriting recognition algorithms, but it was like having a secretary following me around and keeping track of everything for me. None of the handheld devices I've used since have ever measured up to the Newton's ease of use and effectiveness.
Haven't used an iPad, haven't been interested really, but that's a matter of personal preference over form factor and interface. My iPod OTOH is one of my more cherished possessions. Typing this on a MacBook Pro. Not an Apple fanboy, I strongly dislike some of the legal maneuvers they've pulled, but I will miss Steve. People with vision are rare. Yeah, people with vision tend to be arrogant and aggressive. They see things you don't, and that leads them to being pushy and feeling superior. But the industry needs people with vision. We need people who aren't willing to settle for Good Enough, but who will push hard for Something Better.
Farewell, Steve. Yes, you're sticking around to help with the transition, but let's face it, there can be only one king on the throne. Here's hoping your health allows you time to enjoy your life post Apple.
Read the articleBOING BOING/Steve Jobs resigns as Apple CEO
<>
He is the very breath the we look for as a voice of the future, guiding a generation of computer/music lovers into an age of deliverence, both in information, and stewardship of our collective assets in managing the information that makes up our lives. Guiding Apple to the high road of success, through its people and its advanced technology, there is not a household in America, let alone the world that hasn't heard of Apple or that the emblem does not adorn a space within its walls.
We will continue to look to him and those he endorses to carry on the torch or cutting edge advancement that moves our lives, today, and in the future! Here's to you Steve...!
Read the article MACWORLD/Steve Jobs Resigns as Apple CEO
Patent Move: Google Buys Motorola Mobility
Folks You Are Witnessing the Fall Out of The Software Patent Apocalypse
Obviously Google is just trying to save there arses on this one. It's a nuclear arms race right now and at the rate that Apple is winning it's lawsuits against hardware vendors (Samsung, etc) Google needed leverage and it needed it now.
Their backs were at the ropes after being screwed over in the Nortel deal. This should give them some foundation to discourage others from suing them since Google would just counter sue saying that the plaintiff is violating the patents it owns.
Anyways its all a joke and stems from one core problem. That one core problem is patent law. Software & UI patents should not last 14 years because the industry innovates 5-8x faster than other industries at least at this point in time.
I say allow Software Patents to last 2-3 years max that would solve many of these issues.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Google, needing patents, buys Motorola wireless for $12.5 billion
<>
Just because Google think it's not fair that Apple and Microsoft gang together to buy Nortel patent, it doesn't change the world they lives in. They must protect their patents and the current Android partners (HTC, Samsung, Sony and LG) were kind of starting to feel the heat. Furthermore, it kinds of open the way to Google to throw themselves in the hardware market, a branch that they didn't have already.
It clearly not only a patent battle.. it's simply a smart move that is good on multiple fronts. Partners are happy because Google looks like it will protect their backs.. and Google in a good position to innovate and change the way the mobile market works. Multitouch is great and all.. but it's own by Apple. It would be a good thing if they could actually own the "next big thing" next time.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Google, needing patents, buys Motorola wireless for $12.5 billion
<>
Ouch, $12Bn for a loss-making hardware company? Android is starting to look like a costly strategic misstep to me, from the perspective of Google's bottom line. Sure it's in lots and lots of phones now, but what exactly is that getting for Google? Now they've just added $12Bn to the cost of the exercise. I'm not convinced Google makes more money from Android ads and searches than they couldn't have gotten, at virtually no cost, from providing search and ads on iOS, Blackberry etc. Microsoft was the only phone platform provider that showed any interested in competing with Google in search and advertising, and Microsoft's market share in phones is currently negligible.
Google first went way out of its core competency and business model to get into the OS business, and now it's getting into the hardware business too? Time may well prove me wrong, but the precedents for this kind of merger are nearly all discouraging.
Presumably Google is also making expensive legal commitments to its other partners, e.g. Samsung and HTC. Otherwise, this is the worst of both worlds for them. They'll be competing with their own OS provider in selling handsets, while still getting reamed legally by Apple, Microsoft et alia.
I think we might well see a big resurgence of MS' phone OS now...
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Google, needing patents, buys Motorola wireless for $12.5 billion
<>
Never have I seen a more misinformed bunch of comments than some of those I've seen here.
I'm rather glad @fidget doesn't teach undergraduates anymore if he can't even read his own research which clearly shows Android as the largest mobile OS platform currently.
I'm also gobsmacked that people can't distinguish between the iPhone and iOS, where the iPhone is the biggest selling phone, Android is the largest mobile phone OS and overall mobile OS currently.
I'm also amazed someone called Google's purchase an "anti-competitive patent acquisition" considering the speed at which Microsoft, Apple and Sony have all been snapping up patents to protect and prosecute themselves.
There are some people here who either deliberately misdirect the facts or just plain don't understand the issues at hand here. Why wouldn't Google want to get 25,000 patents under their belts when companies such as Apple (amongst others) are aggressively using them to try and protect themselves. Why shouldn't Google do the same? They can't play "whoa is me, the evil companies are battering us with patents" forever, they have to start getting their portfolio together.
Of course, the whole idea of a software patent is the problem in the first place, not the acquisition of them because of aggressive use of them across the IT Industry in order to try and protect the bottom lines.
Read the article GUARDIAN/Google looks to 'supercharge' Android with Motorola Mobility
<>
Oh how I would have loved to have been a fly on Steve Jobs' wall, as he read this announcement.
I'm sure the air was filled with colorful expletives!
And before I receive fanboy flames, I'm not suggesting that this marks the impending demise of the iPhone (market saturation alone makes that unlikely for a few years yet), I am simply saying that this is the beginning of some really viable competition
The effects on both price and innovation will greatly benefit the consumer, regardless of what their cell drug of choice happens to be.
This is gonna be more fun to watch than the Atari/Commodore battles of the 80's!
Read the article CBC NEWS/Google launches high-stakes bid for Motorola Mobility
<>
As a software developer I bought an iPad last year and a Motorola Xoom this year. There's no debate, for me at least, that the Xoom is far more useful not superior but useful as a business friendly piece of hardware. If you're developing for the iPad you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get your application to the market. If you have to put out critical fixes or you are doing custom software then the iPad and Apple's system is pretty much a non-starter. On Android I can easily allow "unknown sourced" applications in a pinch and send out custom or quick fixes. The Xoom itself is definitely faster and more flexible than the iPad too.
So for Google this is a very good move for them. Let's see what they make of this going forward.
Read the article CBC NEWS/Google launches high-stakes bid for Motorola Mobility
Warren Buffettt: Make the Mega-Rich Pay More Taxes
Warren Buffet got it wrong.
Lowering tax rates on individuals who know best how to grow capital improved tax revenue.
Taking Mr. Buffet's example, the top 400 paid $4.9 billion in federal taxes in 1992. In 2008, the top 400 paid $19.5 billion in federal taxes. That’s nearly 4 times as much.
But to progressives, that’s not the point. They only see money that they can't get their hands on in order to expand their culture of dependency and victimization where the beneficiary's return to being a productive and contributing member of our society is not a requirement. As one research group noted "the success of such government programs is frequently measured by the program's growth rather than the outcome it produces."
The expansion of entitlement programs over the past 40 years has created a mindset with a sizable portion of our population that these entitlement programs are a "right" instead of what they should be, a helping hand.
Between 1969 and 2008, the percentage of all tax filers who paid no federal taxes increased from 16% to 34%. What we have is more than one-third of taxpayers not paying federal taxes for the benefits that many of them receive.
Entitlement programs have diminished the importance of personal responsibility from the receiving of a charitable benefit.
The answer is simply not to raise taxes. Nor is it to assign some form of blame or contempt on individuals who through their own hard work and dedication have been successful. While rethinking tax allocations may be warranted, there is a more fundamental principal that cannot be ignored or dismissed. That is personal responsibility from the choices we make.
In his 1935 State of the Union address in which he introduced Social Security and Aid to Children, Roosevelt made clear the risks and dangers of relief programs if we lost perspective of what their charitable purpose was. He stated:
"The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."
Read the article POLITICO/Bloggers to Warren Buffett: Pay up!
<>
This blog exemplifies why this country is at gridlock. Both extremes like nothing better than to scream at each other while we moderates have to suffer the consequences.
I'm not even close to Mr. Buffett in wealth---live on less than $100K in my semi-retirement, but, heck, I could pay more taxes, too. And I'm willing to see it paid into general coffers because, even after all that has gone on in the past three decades to drive us toward a most uncivil society, I still believe in the basic institutions that so many of you revile.
Those of you who believe only in private charity to solve the world's problems also seem to believe that whatever you accumulate as wealth is the sole product of your own talent and acumen.
What a crock! Any wealth accumulated by Americans is due in some measure to the very public institutions you consider so worthless. Sure, our government can be made more efficient---but, by and large, I've had very good service from most of the teachers, police officers, highway managers, election officials, motor vehicle workers and assorted bureaucrats that I've come into contact over six decades of life.
So count me out of your silly games of "Let's disband the government" and "I'm right, so why are you such an asshole." You all might better shut down your PC's right now and go volunteer at the nearest public library!
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Warren Buffett: Raise My Taxes
<>
I applaud you Mr. Buffet.
"Shifting Responsibility: How 50 Years of Tax Cuts Benefited the Wealthiest Americans", Wealth for the Common Good, April 2010
Effective federal tax rates on America's richest 400 taxpayers:
51.2% - 1955
42.4% - 1961
29.9% - 1995
24.2% - 1997
19.5% - 2003
16.6% - 2007
The average taxpayer had an effective tax rate of 23% in 2007. There you go people!
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Warren Buffett: Raise My Taxes
<>
Buffett is my kind of rich man. He pays himself a meager salary to run his company, but takes most of his compensation in stock. He then depends on how much "value" he can increase the worth of his stock for the incredible amount of money he makes each year.
Buffett also has a conscience, which is rare amongst the super-rich, although he there are others like Gates and Soros, who agree with Buffett's position on taxes.
The problem in America isn't "the rich," it's the "greedy rich," like the Koch brothers and Murdoch, who never have enough money or enough power.
And so the greedy get richer by paying little or no taxes and by buying congresspeople like they would companies they run, and then have the whore politicians enact laws that keep their taxes low and permit them to acquire more power than is sane for any society
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Warren Buffett: Raise My Taxes
Groupon Clips Its Wings, Amends IPO Filing
Read the article CNN MONEY/Groupon updates IPO filing, admits it's unprofitable
<>
Accounting is nothing but a term to hide the truth. Let's go back to basics, how much do you have in the bank, how much do you owe, what are your assets, what are you financing, what is your payroll, boom, done.
Read the articleCNN MONEY/Groupon updates IPO filing, admits it's unprofitable
<>
Their entire business model seems flawed to me honestly. You buy a coupon from them, then they pay some portion to the actual seller and you get a discount from the seller. It seems like you're adding a middleman to a process that doesn't need one. I don't see the company surviving for long, especially not with the losses they're experiencing (and the abysmal customer service I've heard they provide to sellers who use their service).
Read the articleCNN MONEY/Groupon updates IPO filing, admits it's unprofitable
Whites, Hispanics, Blacks: Median Wealth Gap Widens
READ PEW REPORT
On August 14, 2011, I will celebrate my 26th year in America. When I lived in
East Africa, I used to eat from the garbage thrown away from Western ships
docked at the port of my home town. They had tons of stuff which were edible and
much better than what were available from my home. I made my way to America and
I am now living large!
The drive to succeed is in all of us and is
available in many parts of the world, but the opportunities to succeed are
clearly more abundant in America than any other country. My family is a living
proof of it!
That I have made it is an innate desire for all
humans—Black, White, Pink, Green! That it is possible and can be attained by
whoever has the fortitude is as American as an apple pie!
This stuff
about Black and White is just garbage! Why would an African immigrant, who used
to forage in garbage, be able to succeed in a short time, while an African
American or Hispanic not able to succeed? Granted that there is discrimination
and granted that immigrants have higher ethos with which to aspire to. The most
cited reason is the family structure. A family (parents and relatives) confer
you extreme benefit that helps weather through the trials and tribulation of
early life. Even siblings in the house confer a protective benefit.
Being a young minority person who is in dysfunctional family is a double
whammy as it augers extreme ill in future life chances of succeeding.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/White-Minority wealth gap widens
<>
Just a thought -- how come Asians (first generation immigrants) who come to the
U.S. manage to work hard, invest smartly and end up owning wealth aplenty in
such a short span? And why is this article not touch basing on how Asians, who
despite being first generation immigrants, manage to do so well (comparable to
whites or even better), while Hispanics and blacks lag by miles?
It most
certainly is the culture that influences how well a community / culture
performs, irrespective of where the community lives. Case in point being the
Chinese diaspora -- wherever they go, they thrive. Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Canada, U.S., -- you name any country and you will
find the Chinese extremely prosperous, and in some cases even driving the
economy of the adopted country. Same goes for Indians. albeit to a lesser
extent. Both these communities are examples worth emulating for Hispanics and
blacks -- there is a HUGE stress on education in these communities, which
unfortunately is somewhat lacking in Hispanics and blacks.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/White-Minority wealth gap widens
<>
"Minorities and this country (and many others) have been held down savagely
until less than 50 years ago." It is statements like this that are the
problem.
There is no doubt that education and prejudice can hold back the
poor, especially when they are black or immigrants. But if there is anything
that holds them back, it is our culture. The name Horatio Alger has been lost to
us. Most immigrants, Italian, Irish, Oriental, and Jew, that came to this
country 50 years or more ago, had a belief that with thrift and hard work they
could become rich. Not all did, but many moved into the middle class and some
became truly rich.
Beware of statistics. Yes college graduates do better.
Remember though, that those that graduate from college are better motivated and
would do better under other conditions. Have you tried to hire a licensed
plumber recently?
If anything, for the past 50 years we have been telling
the poor that it is not their fault; they do not have to do anything to improve
their situation; big daddy will give them everything that they need by taking it
from the rich. A formula for failure
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/White-Minority wealth gap widens
<>
While these statistics are technically accurate, they are misleading by using
the median (i.e., the middle) as opposed to the mean. If you look at the Pew
report, 35% of blacks have zero or negative net worth. That means that a black
household in the 50th percentile was not too far from the zero point at the 35th
percentile, making the net worth of black households at the 50th percentile very
small. Only 15% of white households, on the other hand, had zero or negative net
worth.
This means that the 50th percentile of white households is much farther
away from this zero line. This makes comparing the median of black and white
household inappropriate. To give a more extreme example, if 50% of all black
households had zero or negative net worth, would this article say that white
households had infinitely more wealth than black households? I would hope not.
Perhaps at that point even Rakesh Kochhar (co-author of the report who strangely
dismissed using the mean as giving an inaccurate picture) would acknowledge that
using the median is not appropriate.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/White-Minority wealth gap widens
<>
Why does expecting people to finish school and be responsible for theirself bother some people? What is so wrong with that expectation?
Sure, life can deal a bad card to people and that is only what government assistance should be used for. A temporary way to sustain you until you get back on your feet. Not as a government grifter way of life forever more.
There will always, always be people out there that have more than I do and people who have less. So what? The people who have more were not responsible for me not having what they do and I am not responsible for the ones who have less than I do.
I am sick of race card cry babies. It is not a race thing at all. You cannot change what race you were born of but you sure can change your gimmie attitude. Unless the political correct liberals have now made attitude a race.
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Wealth Gap Widens Between Whites, Minorities
<>
One reason Hispanics are hardest hit, is even if they are naturalized citizens many of them never grasp the English language. Recently, they've been registering for the military as a means to gain education and skills.
As for Black people......there's a reason why there is a Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action Act.....though we would like to think that things have changed, there's still racism out there when it comes to hiring. But the remedy to this is to start a business....a franchise, a corner store like the immigrants do. Africans do very well in Chicago and they don't look back at racism. They have self-esteem and sense of community, helping each other. They drive cabs if they have to. They open restaurants.
Because of the economic downturn, many of my black friends have lost jobs, very good paying jobs. Many of them with the government. Local governments have taken a big hit and they drag minorities and women down.
One thing I am trying my best not to do is make that 5% rich any richer. So I buy in my community with the little mom& pop as much as possible.
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Wealth Gap Widens Between Whites, Minorities
<>
Unfortunately this study and analysis just shows that the American Dream has been altered yet again and minorities are left on the outside looking in.
As the study says housing is largely to blame for this stateWhites by and large already had homes that they were invested in that gave them room to invest in stocks and increase their financial portfolios, while Blacks and Hispanics were still chasing after that shiny beacon of the American dream; a 4 bedroom two bathroom house with front and back yards and a fence.
Blacks and Hispanics chased that dream right into foreclosure, after foreclosure, after foreclosure thanks to predatory lending a.k.a. subprime mortgages that are unfortunately banks’ new comeback kid. Now our only investment has become our burden and the recovering stock market has done little for us to recover our wealth because we no longer own our wealth; our investment; our sure thing.
The way to wealth for Blacks and Hispanics is going to be a long journey that starts with simply getting a job and saving money. After we’re able to save money then we can invest money in the stock market and watch it recover with urgency when everything else around it is failing apart. We can invest in something that is not tangible, that we cannot hold in our hands, and that we don’t understand (derivatives) and make $12 out of 15 cents.
Read the article THE ROOT/Wealth Gap Grows Between Whites and Minorities
Netflix Hikes Price to Meet Studio Demands for Billions
"This isn't so much of Netflix's own greed as it is their incredibly cheap deals with the movie studios expiring and now their costs are going up tenfold. I just read an article about how Netflix had a deal for streaming with one of the studios that costs ~$140 million for a few years, now the studio will charge them ~$2 billion for the same content."
Precisely; the party is over. People who have been following Netflix from the financial side have been anticipating a move like this for a while now. Studios were willing to sign for much less when Netflix streaming viewership was low and things were getting off the ground; this is no longer the case and the contracts are coming up for renewal.
I don't agree that Netflix is "being greedy." They are raising their prices because their costs are going up. If you don't like it, you should change your plan or drop Netflix altogether (as many people will). This move will undoubtedly cost Netflix customers, revenues, and profit. It's just better for Netflix's bottom line than keeping the prices the same. Are you "greedy" for taking your business to Amazon, Redbox, or elsewhere? Netflix is trying to maximize its profits in the same way you are trying to get the best deal for your hard-earned money.
Personally, I switched to Netflix's streaming-only plan a couple of months ago. It's not perfect and there are holes in the catalog, but it has gotten significantly better over the past year or so. At my household, we are about 2-3 years behind Hollywood's release schedule, so almost all of the periodic "new releases" on Netflix's streaming service are new to us.
Here's one more thing: as Netflix's content costs continue to increase, it's almost certain that Netflix will eventually move to a tiered service, with some content (like Starz Play, for instance) being delivered at a premium. It's only a matter of time.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/DVD-only and streaming-only Netflix plans now $7.99. Each.
<>
The amount of angst over this change is staggering. I started using Netflix around when they introduced streaming and have watched the quality and quantity go up by leaps and bounds. Notwithstanding the last small price increase, people who use DVD + streaming are getting a *lot* more value than in the earlier days of streaming. Sure the DVD costs are pretty flat, but as others have mentioned the costs of getting good/new content for streaming is going up exponentially. I personally was using my DVD part of the subscription so little I jumped for the chance to go streaming only (and my queue is perpetually close to the 500 limit).
What are you people who are canceling planning on turning to as an alternative? Redbox/Blockbuster kiosks aren't nearly as convenient to use as Netflix and the a la carte streaming services seem pricey to me ($4 for Amazon for new releases, $4-5 on iTunes, Xbox prices are similar I think). I have a feeling that when its all said and done most people end up keeping at least part of their subscription.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/DVD-only and streaming-only Netflix plans now $7.99. Each.
<>
I'll
stick with it. From the streaming side, there isn't a better legal option. The
content owners are asking for more $, so Neflix has to pay it to keep/improve
the content. Over time, the content will get better as netflix pays it (let's
hope).
For the DVD rental side, the price is still better than it was when the
"free" streaming part was worthless. So why cancel now? Overall, it is still a
good value. Redbox is a good option, but if you take into account the time and
gas needed to drive there and back, wait for the line before you get to the
machine, both to go get it and to return it, Netflix is still a better value,
IMO. My time is several times more expensive than the amount I would save
renting from Redbox.
Read the article CNET/Up to 41 percent olf Netflix users plan to cancel
<>
There is nothing about this decision or the way it was executed that makes
sense. One has to wonder whether Netflix management has any grasp of who their
consumer is and the alternatives their consumers have available. You can execute
this kind of change through pricing if you have a strong product and brand.
Netflix has made the classic mistake of confusing product popularity with brand
strength. And by the way, their communication on the change was about as
sophmoric as they come. Years ago I consulted to Prodigy Inateractive (remember
them, the first and at the time the strongest online service) who made similar
pricing moves because they thought they could. Where are they now?
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/do you think Netflix's price hike is a good decision?
<>
We Americans do seem to get upset about the silliest of things! Our world and national economies are about ready to go straight down the tubes and what causes us the most upset? Netflix raising their prices by $7.99 a month.
I'm guessing the increase is most likely due to the new, more expensive contracts they've recently had to renegotiate with Stars or are in the process of having to negotiate with the movie studios for streaming.
OK, our family originally had the DVD-only option and then added the streaming and Blu Ray options, as well, and got them at what I considered a pretty phenomenal price. (I say phenomenal because I tend to forget to return DVDs to the store and used to pay lots of extra bucks in late fees.) We have found that streaming works great for the kids because they LOVE watching High School Musical over and over again, ad nauseum.
After the addition of streaming, my wife and I found ourselves renting fewer and fewer physical DVDs from Netflix. If we want to see something not available streamed, we head to the nearest Red Box or our neighborhood grocery store that still rents movies.
Last night I went to my Netflix account and removed the physical DVD and Blu Ray options. Viola! My bill just dropped to $7.99 with no noticeable change to our lives.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Netflix Alternatives For Those Who Don't Want To Pay Up
<>
The primary losers here are those who care enough about sound and image quality -- home theater owners -- to have been paying for discs because NetFlix was the best source for renting Blu-ray Discs. Also shafted are any movie fans who sought out the many often-obscure titles available only on disc and not through streaming.
But this is luxury commerce. Netflix was a bargain, and bargains in the luxury market don't often last. Like most people, I will drop the disc part of my plan and go with streaming-only; the $15/month I don't pay for Blu-ray rental will just help finance purchases.
This is what Neflix wants, of course. I expect them to drop physical disc options entirely something within the next two or three years, simply because the profit ratio will keep dwindling to the point where maintaining all those warehouses and staff will become impossible to sustain for the few customers still renting discs.
Streaming will be the new VHS, and Blu-ray will be the new Laserdisc, and it will essentially be 1999 again, but more "instant."
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Netflix Alternatives For Those Who Don't Want To Pay Up
"Convergence" -- Brazil Takes Giant Strides To Meet the Future
Roger Cohen's article presents a fair and accurate view of today's Brazil. Even though Rio de Janeiro's reality does not give an accurate view of the whole country, it touches some of the deep economic and social problems still plaguing my country.
He poses the key question asked by Brazilians and foreigners alike: Is Brazil of 2011 ready for prime time? Looking into the past, the answer is not so optimistic. After all, from a historical standpoint, Brazil's elite has always made wrong choices on economic, political and social issues. In some ways, Brazil is much closer to India than to the US.
Nonetheless, one has to recognize that for millions of Brazilians, lift from poverty by President Lula's socio-economic policies, the country of the future became the country of the present. It is a big achievement to be celebrated in this new century.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Brazil's Giddy Convergence
<>
There is a reason that Brazil has been referred to as "The Land of the Future." While government policies in Brazil are geared towards lifting millions of people out of poverty, the American government is trying to figure out ways of impoverishing millions of American so as to further enrich the wealthy who send their money abroad to avoid investing in the United States.
Meanwhile ordinary Americans are perfectly satisfied to live off of the infrastructure investments of their parents and grandparents so long as they are not taxed to bring high-speed rail to the country or to repair the crumbling bridges, levees, or water mains.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Brazil's Giddy Convergence
<>
Brasil will be able to sustain its success only to the extent that it continues to nurture its growing middle class.
Lula accomplished a great deal in raising the poor out of their condition. However, I am not convinced that the creation of billionaires is an indication of national health. Their concerns generally do not extend beyond themselves, and their wealth accumulation often comes at the expense of the nation as a whole.
Brasil has many social and infrastructure challenges. To the degree they continue to solve these hard problems, they will continue to thrive.
Allowing new wealth and power to fall into the hands of a greedy few will propel them back into the 3rd world again. The radical individualism of the U.S., where nothing is owed to the general welfare, would be the worst economic pattern to follow. Unfortunately, we now go where Brasil has been.
The Brazilian people are very dear to me. We are happy for them and wish them the best!
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Brazil's Giddy Convergence
<>
As an American living and working in Brazil since the 1970s, I do see two Brazils every day.
One is the macroeconomic miracle cited by Roger Cohen (foreign investment, growth of a lower middle class, offshore oil discoveries, World Cup, Olympics etc.).
The other one has crumbling road and other infrastructure, poor education and health, corrupt politicians siphoning off public funds as if it were their family right,(which directly affects these other problems), environmental degradation, legal malfunctions, etc. Every country in this world has its advantages and disadvantages.
All this being said, and even with Brazil's rapid macroeconomic progress, I would stick with Mr. Cohen's bottom line: "Brazil is not for amateurs."
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Brazil's Giddy Convergence
Amazon Rebels Against California Online Sales Tax
As
I understand it, California is trying to claim that an Amazon affiliate located
in the state is the same as Amazon having a store in the state, therefore the
state should be able to charge sales tax on sales to California residents
(that's what happens with companies that have both online and "brick and mortar"
stores). But they're just wasting their time. They won't get the sales tax
because online-only companies like Amazon will just terminate their affiliates
located in California. Not only won't they get the sales tax, they'll lose the
income taxes that would otherwise come from the income made by those former
affiliates.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
It actually doesn't help small businesses, especially small internet
businesses. The state will never collect a penny from Amazon because they've
eliminated affiliates (we got our letters yesterday), who are their presence
here, and once eliminated, mean that Amazon doesn't have to charge the tax given
no remaining nexus in the state.
So instead of them getting revenue for driving sales at Amazon while in
California, these folks have to move to other states or shut down and lay people
here off. Those people no longer pay taxes nor shop here - the estimate is
$150m+ lost from Amazon alone.
So a law that's supposed to bring in more revenue will actually bring in
dramatically less, cause a loss of jobs, and harm a material class of small
businesses.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from customers
<>
I believe this should be a federal, not a state issue. Individual states that try
to collect for themselves are playing a dangerous game, and one that might just
backfire. some states (like Texas) will try to use this as another competitive
lever to attract business to their more friendly business climate, and the net
of it could be that states like California continue to lose jobs and businesses
to those states not trying to get at this source of revenue.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
Actually
John, under the U.S. Constitution, states are not allowed to regulate interstate
commerce; that right is reserved to the federal government. When a California
resident purchases goods from out of state, the Californian is engaging in
interstate commerce. Taxing the transaction amounts to regulation of interstate
commerce, which is unconstitutional. It has always been such, yet California
legislators continue to flaunt the Constitution because they are so hungry for
revenue. This law is DOA, and there is no reason Amazon shouldn't oppose
something so blatantly unconstitutional. I say go for it. First they try to ban
the sale of video games to minors, now this. For California Dems writing these
laws, the Constitution is really just a formality, and they need to be taught an
easy lesson
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
There
is a little thing called the Quill case that the Supreme Court decided in the
1970's. For a business to be subject to sales tax laws they have to have a
"nexus" or presence in the state. Amazon has no facilities in California
therefore they are not subject to California's sales tax laws.
The state
legislature thought they would be clever and change the definition of nexus to
include the affiliates thereby garnering more revenue for the state. They are
utterly clueless. Amazon has demonstrated in several other states that they will
end their affiliate programs if threatened in this way.
Way to shoot
yourself in the foot California!
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
First,
Amazon operated at a substantial loss for many difficult years (including
surviving the dot-com bust) until they sufficiently built up, at great expense
and ingenuity, all of the related elements for their specific business model to
eventually work above break-even. Amazon is not "shifting" as you contend, any
costs of their goods or services. It's simply a leaner business model, not
withstanding the significant logistic complexities they've
solved.
Second, taxation is always a "cost" to to end-users (consumers)
regardless of the mode of collection. Any cost incurred by the business will be
recovered in its prices, otherwise it ceases to exist.
Perhaps CA cannot
afford all of the goodies to all of the people - who voted for the politicians
who promised the most - regardless of common sense and economic
realities.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
<>
I pay Washington State sales tax when I buy from Amazon. I still buy from Amazon, but they don't get an advantage over me going to a local brick and mortar store. They have to have the best sticker price, or the superior selection.
I don't see why Californians should get a better deal than I do when shopping from the same source.
And I don't see why Amazon should be given an advantage over the same chain store in California that they have to compete heads up with here.
Read the article SEATTLE TIMES/Amazon's next move unclear as California requires online sales tax
Supreme Court Limits Gender-Bias Suit Against Wal-Mart
I'm a woman and I side with Wal-Mart in this case. Women do get promoted in Wal-Mart to management. i don't see how all women can sue at the same time. This would not have been a victory for women. It would have made things harder for women to get employed if women were always playing the victim card and winning. This would have led to more discrimination against women. If you don't feel respected at your place of employment, do what everyone else does and make plans to do something more empowering for yourself.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
<>
How is it terrible a terrible decision? Explain why it was wrong ? The individual representatives can still pursue their claims. Class action lawsuits are designed to adjudicate questions that apply to all in the class.
For example, in a toxic tort case, the class action can determine if a company is responsible for the toxic contamination and if it is found liable, then all class members benefit by that ruling. The individuals don't have to prove liability for each case and each class member can individually prove their damages.
Obviously, the court, including the liberal justices, believed there were no common issues applicable to the entire class--i.e. just because Wal-Mart may have wrongfully discriminated against some doesn't mean they discriminated against all. Class actions also can rise to extortion against the defendant, because the consequences of losing are so great.
Thus, rather than fight them, they are forced to settle claims that may not be valid to save themselves from financial ruin. There is a time and place for class actions--this wasn't one of them. The extortion effect can happen to small companies and defendants as well, not just the Wal-Marts of the world.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
<>
Honestly, so many of the uninformed comments here highlight what is wrong with Americans today. Have any of you people actually read the opinion or even the opinion's syllabus? The Court did not find anything related to the alleged discrimination but ruled on whether this group of women could certify a class -- of 1.6 million people, for heaven's sake. Too many disparate facts for that many people to allow a class. Relax. Get a grip. This isn't about corporate America "buying" the Supreme Court. And I'm a lefty.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
Not being privy to the particulars of the case, I would think that a 5 to 4
split among the justices would be more suspicious than a unanimous decision.
Given the court's recent history, my first thought was, "Here we go again".
While I believe political and judicial corporate favoritism in America to be
self-evident and rampant, 1.6 million plaintiffs claiming discrimination based
on the opinion of one sociologist? C'mon now.
Read the article NPR/Supreme
Court Rejects Female Workers' Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
<>
Mark Memmott forgot to add;
From AP;
The justices divided 5-4 on another
aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar
class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.
Justice
Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be
common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at
once."
But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest
private employer, "That is entirely absent here."
Justice Ginsberg
writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough
uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions
is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.
Business interests
lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have
sided with the women plaintiffs."
Corporate America is getting all their
players in position, now if they can just get the government to become smaller
and less powerful...smile
Read the article NPR/Supreme
Court Rejects Female Workers' Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
<>
First of all, the court never said that the class action suit against Wal-Mart had to be dismissed because Wal-Mart is too big. Nor did they say that the class certified by the N.D. Cal. was too big. What they did say was that Wal-Mart is too decentralized, with each store being run almost like a separate company, with hiring/firing/promotion decisions being made at the discretion of each store manager, etc., that a class action was inappropriate in this situation. In fact, the original trial judge in San Fransisco KNEW that his class certification decision was controversial, and he voluntarily certified it for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Everybody knew that this was a very controversial class certification.
An ideal class certification is where all the plaintiffs suffered a harm from the exact same source. For instance, if a factory blows up in a town and hurts thousands of people. It makes much better sense for the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the courts to just have one big lawsuit rather than thousands of individual lawsuits where the same facts (i.e. the factory blowing up) will have to be proved over and over again. Typically, corporate defendants prefer class actions because it's easier and cheaper for them to fight one large lawsuit.
In Wal-Mart's case, though, there was no evidence of one common action that hurt all the women who have ever worked at Wal-Mart. There was no action that Wal-Mart took (similar to a factory blowing up in my example above) that caused harm. If the company had a company-wide practice of discrimination, that would be grounds for a class action. But, again, Wal-Mart is very decentralized and there was no evidence of company-wide policies discriminating against women.
Any woman who believes she has been discriminated against by Wal-Mart can still file a lawsuit. Nobody lost anything here - except for the sleazy plaintiffs atttorneys who filed this lawsuit (and who have filed an identical lawsuit against Costco and who have filed dozens of identical suits against other companies over the years).
Also: "Women make up more than 70 percent of Walmart’s employees but only a third of its salaried managers." That is just ignorant if you think that's caused by discrimination. Women are more likely to leave the workforce and then return. Women are more likely than men to only want to work part time. Many women will move to a new area if their husband gets a good job and re-enter the workforce at the entry level. There are TONS of cultural reasons why women make up a larger percentage of Wal-Mart's hourly workers than its managers. Even in the most liberal companies in the most liberal parts of the country, women earn less than men and hold less managerial positions - because women are more likely to work part time, leave the workforce to have children and then return, etc. You're doubtlessly aware of this, but you cite those abstract statistics in an attempt to mislead your readers.
Wal-Mart only cares about making money. They don't care what color you are or what gender you are. Their store managers are under relentless pressure to make as much money as possible. If you do a good job and work hard at Wal-Mart and show that you're capable of being manager, you will move up the ranks. All they care about is your ability to make them money. It's a near perfect meritocracy. Not only was class certification silly in this situation, there is simply no evidence to support the notion that Wal-Mart has a "culture of discrimination."
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Women Lose in Walmart Suit Ruling
READ MORE COMMENTS: JUNE 2011
<>
If I had the connections to get Wall St. cheerleaders hyping me fanatically, I bet I could make a couple million with an IPO for a company that prospects using {insert highly technical jargon here} to detect from earth the asteroids in the asteroid belt rich in precious metals and stakes claims on them for the day the technology exists to go get them and bring them back here. Who cares if that day never comes, I'd certainly never entertain that reality at the IPO. Claim your 10-ton hunk of platinum today by investing now!
Read the articleCNN MONEY/Groupon updates IPO filing, admits it's unprofitable
<>
First off, as a consumer, you can't make a business sign up for Groupon, that's something they chose. And secondly, they have to know that they will be losing some money, but also are given an opportunity to gain new customers, so thats +. But some businesses don't perform. We have used Groupon as well as other similar sites to buy coupons to restaurants we have never heard of or wouldn't visit normally, and a lot of times those restaurants don't perform. So to me it doesn't make sense for people to get on here and down Groupon when these company's know what they are getting into.
Read the articleCNN MONEY/Groupon updates IPO filing, admits it's unprofitable