sarvinc’s Comments

• Jan 13th, 2012 @ 9:48pm

  Re: Unless it has rounded corners (or somesuch IP nonsense)

  on Why Apple Will Not Be Part Of The Real Tablet Revolution
  I'd be pretty surprised if Apple even notices Akash. I'd be more worried about Microsoft wanting a cut of purchase fee. http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2012/jan12/01-12LGPR.mspx
• Jan 13th, 2012 @ 9:42pm

  Re:

  on Why Apple Will Not Be Part Of The Real Tablet Revolution
  You just mentioned three hugely successful companies. Why? I'm guessing you're point is that no one stays on top forever. I think that's something we all know.
• Jan 13th, 2012 @ 9:37pm

  Re: Re: The *Real* Tablet Revolution

  on Why Apple Will Not Be Part Of The Real Tablet Revolution
  I agree with pretty much everything you've said except for"The comparison [with Apple] is inevitable [...]" I would addend "Shoddy journalism makes it inevitable." One of the points I'm making is that no one compares Mercedes-Benz with Tata's Nano. There's a reason; it makes no sense what-so-ever to make that comparison. They are competing in completely different markets. Apple is mentioned not because it's inevitable to make the comparison but because the mentioning Apple draws page views and it amounts to link-bait.
• Jan 13th, 2012 @ 8:49am

  The *Real* Tablet Revolution

  on Why Apple Will Not Be Part Of The Real Tablet Revolution
  I have a lot of respect for Glyn Moody and in general appreciate the writing (please don't take this as a personal attack), but this post comes of as pandering to the Android/Anti-Apple audience. It's not clear, to me, exactly what is meant by the "real" tablet revolution. If it's tablets that cost ~$100 then one has to ask; when did you think the "real" computer revolution occurred? I would argue that it occured in the 60s well before prices reached the three-digit level. I lean towards the argument that Apple started the tablet revolution. By this I mean that tablets went largely unsold and un-appreciated before Apple released the iPad.
  
  I also take issue with "[Apple] will never be able to offer a model that is competitive with minimalist tablets built around free software at the bottom [...]" I think if anyone could Apple *could* compete at the bottom, efficiencies of supply chain etc., but they've shown time and time again that they don't *want* to compete at the bottom. I think the opposite is true; most manufacturers would love to compete at the *top* but cannot do so.
  
  Which brings me to another question; why are we making a comparison with Apple? It seems more appropriate to make a comparison with Motorla, Barnes and Nobles, Samsung or Amazon. Do we consider them to be competing at the lower end (note: not the bottom)? None of these manufacturers (yes Apple included) can compete at the sub $100 level.
• Nov 16th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

  Re:

  on A Question For SOPA Supporters: How Will You Gauge SOPA's Success?
  It's funny because I also have an equally simplistic view of piracy. There are those who like sharing because sharing betters mankind and those don't like sharing because sharing betters mankind.
• Nov 16th, 2011 @ 12:01pm

  Re: Re: Easy -- But how /profitable/ is Youtube?

  on A Question For SOPA Supporters: How Will You Gauge SOPA's Success?
  I apologize if you're parodying a troll rather than being one.
  
  "Everyone keeps talking about Youtube as if getting rid of it would be bad."
  It would be bad. Youtube has become a way of sharing and spreading culture, information, humor etc. In a very general way it's like saying "getting rid of Television or Radio or the Internet would be bad."
  
  "I don't agree."
  
  Why not?
  
  "IS Youtube a valid "new business model"?"
  
  Yes, no? Why are you asking this question?
  
  "So even your vaunted Youtube is on questionable basis!"
  
  It's not mine; I don't own it and "Youtube is on questionable basis!" does not compute. I don't understand what you're saying.
  
  "Youtube appears thus far to be operating on its seed capital. Great example, guys."
  
  I'm sure you're making a point; I don't know what it is.
  
  I said good day sir!
• Oct 17th, 2011 @ 11:41am

  Re: Re: Re: Why Care?

  on Can We Just Admit That It's Insane When Microsoft Has A 'Licensing Program' For Someone Else's Products?
  "Why bother trying to innovate if someone is just going to steal your idea and market it as their own - only cheaper because they invested less in the development of "their" product?"
  
  Because ideas are cheap and execution is actually what's important. Also, I'm not really sure one can "steal" an idea. I come up with ideas all day long; no one owes me a damn thing.
• Sep 26th, 2011 @ 3:02pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Lady Gaga's Manager Would Like To Give Her Next Album Away For Free... If He Could
  Sorry, maybe I should start every one of mine with "if this isn't sarcasm then...".
• Sep 26th, 2011 @ 2:41pm

  Re: Re:

  on Lady Gaga's Manager Would Like To Give Her Next Album Away For Free... If He Could
  I know a few people who would go even further than *give* away their music for free. They'd probably crap their pants if they could *make* you listen to their music for free. These are musicians with small followings that are pretty awesome at what they do.
• Sep 21st, 2011 @ 11:47am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
  Actually I think this anonymous poster is being the reasonable one. Perhaps, in this one case, we should follow the example being set.
• Jul 23rd, 2011 @ 8:05am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Industry Suppressed Report Showing Users Of Shuttered 'Pirate' Site Probably Helped Movie Industry...
  As a few others have pointed out by now the link you provide doesn't actually backup the claim you're making. It really is a diatribe attacking the contributors rather than any of the points made. In addition, the arguments made are rather obtuse and don't hold up to even shallow scrutiny and have been disproved several times in the past.