Stronger user lock in once they convert users to GDrive. If your plan is to lock users into Google services, then having all their files in GDrive, integrated with Gmail, GDocs, G+ etc. is going to work towards that. Plus it allows them to corner a market as I suspect Dropbox easily has a majority (I'd guess 80+%) share in consumer cloud storage.
Do I think that is worth what Dropbox would cost? Probably not, but Google has heaps of money and hey, what would I know?
GST does not apply to products sold overseas and shipped to Australians for any product under $1000. For products supplied digitally, as far as I know there is no GST on any digital products, no matter what the value.
Or does work and is just disabled. I don't know about high end cards but it's hard to believe Sandisk would have a completely separate manufacturing process for 2GB and 4GB cards when they're both sold at less than $10 each.
I doubt they would willingly downgrade a working 64GB to a 4GB (and lose all the profit they could have made). That's just not a sane business practice in the flash industry.
Keep in mind, even the major brands are re-branding flash they buy from other manufacturers. So e.g. maybe Sandisk manufactures the high-end 64GB cards themselves using an advanced process, but they purchase the 4GB cards from some shitty manufacturer using a decade-old process.
I don't know. As far as I can tell, it's common to sell downgraded parts at lower price points, just to be able to compete at those price points as well. In theory they could've just dropped the price for 64GB cards, and killed all cards with less capacity -- that would at least have made more (apparent to consumers) sense than sell all cards at the same (cost+margin) price.
I speculate that as manufacturing processes have gotten better, several segments of the industry simply continue to follow the old pattern of lower performance/lower price (GBs of flash, frequency of processors) from processes that did produce "quantifiable" low yields (eg: disabled core that didn't pass q/a, unreliable flash etc).
As for re-enabling flash on lower capacity cards, I remember seeing a reference to some people being able to flash/reprogram/reconfigure SSD drives for higher capacity -- not sure about sdcards. Also not sure if that was just to alter the reported capacity, or actually enabled more flash on the drive -- I can't find the article right now.
> I doubt they would willingly downgrade a working 64GB to a 4GB (and lose all the profit they could have made). That's just not a sane business practice in the flash industry.
It doesn't work like that. The model your parent comment is discussing goes like this:
1. Sandisk decides how much to charge for 64GB cards.
2. That price creates a certain level of demand for 64GB cards.
3. Sandisk manufactures many, many more 64GB cards than it can sell at the price it established in step (1).
4. Sandisk downgrades the surplus cards to lower capacity so it can still sell them without eating into 64GB card profits.
What you appear to be missing is that if you have extra 64GB cards, you can't necessarily sell them without lowering the price of 64GB cards across the board, leaving you having sold more cards for less money. So that "profit they could have made" that you refer to is illusory.
It doesnt work like that either.
Sandisk has a chip FAB. They can make whatever capacity chips they like.
If by a freak accident they make more than they can sell (LOL, wont happen, flash market is constantly under supplied) they can just sell it to third parties (Kingston buys from them among many others).
> Sandisk has a chip FAB. They can make whatever capacity chips they like.
But if production costs are (even almost) the same for a 4GB card and 64GB card, why would you ever produce a 4GB card? A 64GB card can be sold as 1 through 64GB -- rather than collect dust as a 64GB card if there is higher demand for cheaper cards.
Now, I'm not certain that prices are similar, but it seems reasonable that if you already have quality control and precision enough to make 64 GB cards, it would be cheaper to just make one type of card, than different types.
Youtube at the time had a massive marketshare in terms of video hosting and sharing (mostly because it was one of only a few which actually worked properly). Whatsapp is popular, definitely. But it's one of hundreds of messaging platforms, and I suspect it doesn't have anything like a majority share in the worldwide messaging space.
The similarities are of course that they're both defensive aquisitions - the money is justified not on its earnings potential but that it could be the start of a new social network that ousts Facebook. If that really is the case, $16B is well worth it. Facebook's aquisition strategy at the moment appears to be 'overpay for anything that could be the next Facebook to their MySpace'. It'll probably work, too - at least for the near future.
But that said Whatsapp is not very popular in Australia so I have a skewed perspective (current marketshare here seems to be roughly a 50/50 split between legacy SMS and Facebook mesenger).
I have heard of it and have used it - I'm not surprised at the 450 million users figure, but the global messaging market is measured in in billions. Even people in third world countries use SMS - they do not have the ~90% marketshare which YouTube had when it was purchased.
In Australia it just, for some reason, never caught on - many people I know have accounts (as many as say, Instagram, for comparison) - it just seems to be something people try but don't stick with. Which in a sense, is a pity, as it's demonstrably better than SMS.
But in Australia Facebook Messenger already has the equivalent marketshare. Perhaps between Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, Facebook would end with a majority marketshare [of IP-based messaging] as one app is popular where the other isn't. I honestly wouldn't know.
From the perspective of someone who uses sims in the UK, the US and Australia I can say anecdotally why it makes sense to me. There are many more choices available in the UK. As far as Germany or the Netherlands, Spain and so on are concerned, I can't really say though I suspect it's for similar reasons.
In the US I've tended to go with an MVNO like H2O on the back of AT&T. In Australia Optus on a pay as you go. Both are choices from a limited range when compared to the UK.
You can walk past even a 3 store in the UK and see things like a monthly £5 deal with variants that increase data allowance at the expense of SMS. ( forgetting for the moment MMS which simply value adds the later proposition ). It makes sense to spend as little as possible, especially given the austere conditions, to obtain the highest data allowance with adequate voice minutes and to use WhatsApp as a replacement for SMS, which rationally appears as a tax on data allowance, given the expectation of free texting. ( And now add MMS ).
Include the street stalls selling sims for £5 to £10 with a greater focus on expat segments of the population, with data included and so a bundled international SMS substitute. Add mix and match packs from Dolphin and so on.
It's highly competitive. Use wifi when available, back up is the carriers, and get as much data and use that up.
SMS was a surprise cash cow for telcos. WhatsApp played that massive user base well I have to say. The US and AUS I think lacked the competitive market to notice it as much.
I don't have a strong opinion about whether this was a good deal; $16 bil certainly seems like a lot of money, probably too much. But I think you're underestimating their market share, broken down by country here:
Because the current price is just whatever a seller and buyer have 'agreed' to pay at any one time, if there are possible issues with bitcoins on one exchange (for instance, the real or imagined possibility that your bitcoins may go missing on MT Gox, or that there will be difficulties selling or retrieving the ones you hold in that exchange), people will be willing to pay less than the going rate for bitcoins on that exchange. Elsewhere, where this issue doesn't directly exist, people will still be willing to pay full price (though issues at MTGox may affect buyer confidence on other exchange, which leads to an overall decrease in Bitcoin price).
If deleting your Facebook would not have a negative affect on your real life social life, you are not using it the way most people do.
Almost every organised event that I go to starts with a Facebook invite, or someone sharing the event on their feed. It's also a massive time waster, but until another event service gains actual adoption (a service such as this is useless without users, right?), I'll keep using Facebook.
What she is saying, is that women should dress conservatively (presumably for their entire life, or at least for the entire time that they do not want to have sex with any man who feels like it) so that when the time comes that they get raped, people are more likely to look favourably upon them, rather than on the rapist. That is absolutely nuts.
Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted. So dressing conservatively won't even help avoid bring raped, but it means that people might side with you afterwards?
I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a reason why she brought up the Rosa Parks example. You should study the reasons why the African American civil rights movement chose to focus on Rosa Parks rather than Claudette Colvin.
This has nothing to do with statistics and correlations for sexual assault and everything to do with the fact that the people who judge you, despite the fact they are well meaning, may have subconscious prejudices based on the way you act or dress. Fact of the matter is, gender equality won't come in a single sweeping wave, and you will have to deal with people who are well intentioned but "don't get it".
Looking at the Claudette Colvin example, it would have been easy for 1950's America to dismiss the whole case just because she was pregnant teenager - despite the fact there is no correlation between pregnancy/relationship status and where you can sit on a bus. You don't want to give your opponents the chance to dissuade people who can ultimately help you just because of your outfit choice.
At the end of the day humans aren't machines. Despite the fact there airplane travel is far safer than car travel more people are still afraid of air travel. Despite what our "correlations" tell us, we are still, and will continue to be superstitious creatures. It would be wise for those us trying to change things to not play into those superstitions.
I did get that point, I just feel that what she's asking of women is crazy for the net gain. If I had a child who was being bullied at school, I could stop that by forcing him to stay at home for the rest of his life. But that would be a crazy solution to a problem. Asking women to dress conservatively so that if they get raped, society will be more likely to side with them, is crazy. Sure, it will probably help change perceptions in the long term, but it is just not a reasonable solution. Asking women to change their behaviour to accommodate those who are victim blamers (whether they are concious of what they are doing or not) is not fair.
First, I'd hope in America that any rape serious rape trial will look into the facts and the evidence and throwaway any personal bias. From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment.
Secondly, I don't think "dressing conservatively" and "being denied one's education" are anywhere near on the same levels on sacrifice. I just can't see how being forced to a particular style of dress in the work place is an unimaginable thing. Consider a different group of people. Imagine you owned a business that hired black men. Now you know these men are all respectable men, however they dressed in oversized tees, baggy jeans and jordans, and because of this they were accused of being thugs.
Now any rational person can see that your style of dress most likely has no correlation with your likelihood of committing a crime. Despite this however the NBA requires players to hold a certain dress code. The last thing you want in any situation is for a potential judge or employer to think "wow this guy looks like a thug." Is it racist? Maybe. However, again, humans are superstitious and it may take lifetimes to reverse this behavior and I don't think this was "too big of a change."
In a minority position, you generally don't want to look the part. It sucks, it might be racist or sexist, but you don't want to further disadvantage yourself. I'm still sort of shocked that having to change one's style of dress is difficult, "crazy solution" for women, but I am not a woman so there maybe somethings I still don't understand (also, I'm not advocating for all women to wear burqa).
From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment.
Yes, my rant was in reaction to a discussion of a workplace issue where my suggestion that the woman in question dress a little more conservatively as just one part of her overall approach to handling the situation inspired controversy and was deleted as an inappropriate suggestion as to what a woman could do when dealing with an overly-friendly man on the job. I.e I was suggesting that dressing more conservatively on the job in reaction to a problematic situation which had already arisen (not as some sweeping policy "just in case") was a means to politely signal "I am not inviting your advances" without making a big stink out of it. I think if you continue to be eye-candy while having a fit about a man being very friendly to you, your behavior is part of the problem. It isn't helpful to say "I should be able to show up at work damn well naked and men should RESPECT ME ANYWAY" -- an argument I have seen (some variation of) before. I think that is completely unrealistic.
It doesn't even have to involve race or gender. Think about how many nice, hard working people feel the need to cover up their tattoos at work because some people seem to think that an "arm sleeve" is some how going to effect their ability to do their job. I decided early on that I would always make sure I could cover my tattoos and piercings with a normal, collared shirt for that very reason.
She's not talking about women being raped. She's talking about behavior ranging from creepy pickups to groping, and was very careful not to say anything that actually justifies it. Furthermore, she's not talking about what the ideal world is like, she's talking about what women can do today, where they are, to make their life better. If, as you say, a woman is going to be assaulted anyway, isn't it strictly better to have public support after the fact, no matter how small the advantage? Callous, perhaps, but unavoidably true, and ignoring uncomfortable trade-offs doesn't make them go away.
I'll have to dig them up, I was linked them a few years back (when I was on the other side of this argument, actually).
edit: This interesting part from the paper I was linked:
>While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. (140) In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. (141) Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." (142) This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault.
Please note that I also talked about being less warm and friendly -- i.e. behavioral changes, not just clothing -- and the piece is primarily about workplace or professional issues between the sexes, not sexual assault. My rant was inspired by a discussion of a workplace issue where it was not clear cut if the man was "behaving badly" or not but it was clear that the woman wanted him to behave differently towards her. I was roundly criticized for suggesting that dressing more conservatively for a time in response to the issue might help convey a lack of romantic interest in the man without being confrontational. I was told how she dressed at work had absolutely nothing to do with how men at work treated her, the man was merely a creep, etc. We only knew her side of the story. Perhaps he was a creep. Perhaps not.
Saying "it's all his fault, he is merely a creep!" is a) jumping to conclusions without knowing both sides of the story and b) pretty disempowering for the woman. If he is merely a creep and the things the woman does are irrelevant, that leaves you with what? Quit your job or put up with unwanted attentions? Not a great set of choices if, like most people, you need your paycheck. I am proposing that dress and behavior can influence how men treat a woman and if you are a woman who is serious about having a career, you should take some responsibility for your half of it and not just bitch about how all men are led around by their pecker and there is nothing a woman can do about it.
I did work for a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years. I did deal (very diplomatically) with unwanted male attention on the job. I have also dealt with that in other professional situations. This is not just someone blowing smoke based on zero experience or research.
As a woman who (somewhat to my bafflement) comes across as a LOT more aggressive than I wish I did, I assure you that a woman who reads as super aggressive on the job is doing herself no favors. Female passivity is pretty expected in most social settings. Being too aggressive gets you all kinds of attention of the wrong sort and does not help your career.
I have also been sexually assaulted (as a child) and have read a lot about the topic. This is not really the place to argue that issue but I will suggest that a woman can dress conservatively and not read as submissive or passive. I tend to dress conservatively. I also tend to be mistaken for someone in charge, sometimes in situations where I am at the bottom of the ladder, not the top.
The thing that I don't quite get with Twitter is that I genuinely do not know anyone in real life who actually uses it.
Some people I know have accounts so they can use it as an aggregator, and the occasional person tweets a question at a pseudocelebrity who isn't otherwise accessible, but I do not know anyone who uses it for its intended purpose.
For comparison, all my (24, m, Australia) friends use Facebook, most have Snapchat, half have Instagram, some have Pinterest, few use G+ or tumblr). No one uses Twitter.
With that in mind, the kind of valuations Twitter has seem insane to me. It seems like the only people who like it are celebrities and media companies who desparately want me to 'join the conversation'. Both of those groups are more than happy to move onto the next big thing, as we saw with Myspace.
It could be me who is just an outlier (this is, after all, completely anecdotal), but I have a feeling that the outlier might actually be Silicon Valley.