This seems like a good time to change the subject line so it will chime with some new good news. I'm replying to your 3:13 PM post of yesterday, "Re: Glad AKAM decided to join the party today !!! (Topic evolved)" (217230) at
>>And vice versa [Trojan Horse action] . . . there are more iPhones than iPads (at least for now).<<
That's true. How much (or little) time do you think will pass before they're neck and neck? Or will there always be more iPhone users than iPad users?
Some extraordinarily good news about the iPhone and iPad was published just a short while ago. A Forrester Research report adjudges the iPhone and iPad to be secure enough now for most enterprises "including highly regulated ones." And another surprise, "29 percent of North American and European enterprises support the iPhone."
There are still some strides Apple needs to make, but the iPhone and iPad are well on their way to Trojan horsing past the BlackBerries into enterprise. And the CIO author links to another article he titled "Goodbye BlackBerry: the future belongs to the iPhone." Oh, what a delightful serendipity! I was just browsing through that linked article and came to:
<Executives gave up their CrackBerry addiction for sleek, easy-to-use iPhones running consumer apps such as iPod, Facebook, travel apps, foreign-language voice-to-voice translation apps, and, especially relevant to executives, golf apps like Golfshot GPS. iPhones have been trickling down org charts ever since.>
Did anything jump out at you? You'll see the link in the first article, and the first article also contains the Forrester researcher's list of seven security features in the iPhone and an additional three security items a CIO doesn't need to worry about. Apple has put MUCH more thought into the iPhone than is evident in its exterior.
And since Akamai delivers for both the iPhone and BlackBerry, Akamai wins no matter which smartphone system prevails where.
>> . . . I do not trust Google's intentions. . . .<<
Indeed they are a very liberal company . . . but then so is Apple and you don't dislike them so much.
>> . . . Google's Street View software was designed specifically to grab wireless communications from computers that did not use password protection? . . .<<
I recently read that about 25% of Wi-Fi networks don't require a password. That's a virtual invitation for someone to use the network and look around so I can't get very excited about charges of invasion of privacy in that case.
>>Speaking of, remember that Google reports its earnings after hours today!<<
>>No but still I'm more comfortable with Google rummaging around in there than any part of the government or any private citizen for that matter. Google just wants to sell me something or get me to use their stuff so someone else can sell me something. Anyone else probably wants to do me harm.<<
Chances are good that you're right about Google's intentions. But, because Google has designed its software so that it hides facts about Obama that Eric & Co. do not want anyone to read, and brings to the fore all the nasty slurs against the birthers, etc., and likewise blocked negative facts about Kerry, I do not trust Google's intentions. Reportedly (e.g. from The Hill), Google is quite cozy with Obama and the Dems in the administration. So I don't have your confidence that some part of the government isn't rewarding Google for providing certain information about people.
A man from Germany who arrived in this town just a week ago told the group who sponsored him that it was the Germans' collective memory about Hitler that convinced so many of them to opt out of Google's Street View, so that Google won't publish their names and addresses and I think won't publish the photos of those people's homes and businesses.
And remember Google's Street View software was designed specifically to grab wireless communications from computers that did not use password protection? Eventually I read that Google did finally admit it was, in fact, aware that its information-gathering software was archiving those communications. So don't you have to ask _why_ was Google gathering and archiving those wireless communications? Don't you wonder what information exactly Google was seeking . . . and how that stealthily obtained information would benefit Google or whoever hired Google to obtain it? Was this information collection for the same entity that tried to find out which US homes had guns?
>>Yes, so they have to come up with something better, e.g. free but with ads.<<
I haven't seen any glowing reports recently about iAds, have you? When I just now tried googling for something recent, the page had all negative comments about iAds along with glowing comments about Android's popularity. LOL
Speaking of, remember that Google reports its earnings after hours today!
>> . . . Can anyone be 100% confident that Google isn't trying to enter people's computers for the sole purpose of enriching Google legally?<<
No but still I'm more comfortable with Google rummaging around in there than any part of the government or any private citizen for that matter. Google just wants to sell me something or get me to use their stuff so someone else can sell me something. Anyone else probably wants to do me harm.
>> . . . Both Apple and Google face that same competition [Pandora]. . . .<<
Yes, so they have to come up with something better, e.g. free but with ads.
>>Can't be more than a few tens of millions of those [who don't care that Google have access to everything in their computers].<<
It will be those ignoramuses' loss, not mine, but on second thought maybe it will be mine, too. Look what happened when the what's-in-it-for-me, gullible types voted for the present administration. Not only did they not get the mortgage payments and free gas for which they voted, virtually every person in this country experienced some kind of loss, even those who got on the government's dole after losing their jobs. Even the Buffetts and Soroses had stock losses. All but the people who voted for the rotten Obamacare lost their better healthcare. Look at the _needless_ losses the Gulf experienced. No one imagined the magnitude of the attack on We the People. Schmidt is reportedly cozy with Obama. Can anyone be 100% confident that Google isn't trying to enter people's computers for the sole purpose of enriching Google legally?
Yes, my imagination is running to the extreme, comparing Google in people's computers to Obama controlling people's lives, but Google is also moving into control of energy. It's reaching a point that I'm wondering what _isn't_ Google trying to control? I'm too accustomed to freedom (only relative freedom now) and too accustomed to privacy (that, too, is only relative now) to be willing to give them up to a huge, all-powerful, all-ears and all-eyes megalith.
>>Yes, that Pandora service in particular. If you can listen to any radio station on your mobile device for free why subscribe unless you really have to hear your own stuff.<<
So true. As big and varied as my own music collection is, it would still be boring if those songs and relatively few classical pieces were the only music I could listen to. When Sirius was free via AOL, I enjoyed that variety a lot. But I didn't subscribe after it stopped being free. Both Apple and Google face that same competition. They're not competing only with each other.
>> . . . The users Google attracts will have to be the kind who don't care that Google will be inside their computer with access to absolutely everything that's in there. . . .<<
Can't be more than a few tens of millions of those.
>>Speaking of Google, did you know Thursday is when it announces earnings? . . .<<
>>How can anyone compete profitably against free in this impoverished economy?<<
Yes, that Pandora service in particular. If you can listen to any radio station on your mobile device for free why subscribe unless you really have to hear your own stuff.
>>It could be successful or at least a convenience but Google's stream anything on your computer to you scheme will probably attract more users.<<
I wonder. The users Google attracts will have to be the kind who don't care that Google will be inside their computer with access to absolutely everything that's in there. As partial as I am to Apple, no way would I ever let Apple into my computer to scan everything. I wouldn't even walk away from my computer and let a clergyman nose through it for one minute. I have nothing to hide, but my files are not for the eyes of strangers, especially the kind who drive up and down streets secretly archiving people's private communications. Didn't Microsoft try planting its spy software (not Bob, LOL) inside people's computers some years ago to keep track of the applications they used, to find out if the person pirated any of Microsoft's programs? It's not the same thing, but it is still invasion of privacy.
Speaking of Google, did you know Thursday is when it announces earnings? Eric Savitz mentioned that in his report about four analysts raising/reiterating their GOOG ratings and targets. The best was the Stifel Nicolas analyst who raised his target from $560 to $600, though he has reservations about "the impact on margins of aggressive hiring practices and acquisitions." Savits summarizes each of the four analyses.
Is Google's music service going to be free? I wonder if Apple will find Spotify — now in Europe but coming to the US — a formidable competitor. Spotify, Pandora, and some others stream music to users for free. Pandora's founder says:
<. . . The subscription business is growing nicely, but it's not the cornerstone of our business. It's not that we are trying to push people into subscription, or cripple our free service. That's not our strategy."
Instead, Westergren is focused on one thing: expanding market share. . . . Currently, Pandora has about 65 million users. It controls more than half of the Internet radio market and represents more than 2% of all radio listening. The service is adding around 100,000 new users a day, just on smartphones alone. . . .>
YouSendIt is another one that's new to me. See what you think about YouSendIt.
How can anyone compete profitably against free in this impoverished economy?
>>I see what you're talking about . . . I never experience that because I scroll by flicking my finger on the (Magic) mouse.<<
My mouse lacks talent. :-) After I read the NYT article about Cramer's fomenting, I went to the article linked at the NY Post, and there was its bar across the top of the article. That one does do the page down correctly, without cutting off the top line, but the red rectangles, each with a white bullet in the center, between every blue word are distracting. Of course that's what the Post wants, in order to get its readers' attention, and no one can blame it — it provides all its articles for free so sells fewer print newspapers — but I wonder if readers stay to read more or quickly hop to a site where reading is more comfortable. MSNBC (which Rush calls Mess NBC) puts up a big bar (maybe 3/4 inch high?) at the page's bottom, but most of the colors are muted, and you have the option to 'hide tools'/'show tools'. I have always liked Microsoft's maps; that company does create exceptionally good looking graphics.
>> . . . The rumors I've seen all say Apple's subscription music service would be from a cloud, and some connect that cloud streaming with Apple's new data center.<<
It could be successful or at least a convenience but Google's stream anything on your computer to you scheme will probably attract more users.
>> . . . the page-up or -down movement shifts the complete page as always but lops off the page's first (or last) line because the bar covers over that line space. . . .<<
I see what you're talking about . . . I never experience that because I scroll by flicking my finger on the (Magic) mouse.
>>They couldn't possibly not have [thought of the dongle idea]. Not so sure about the analysts.<<
I haven't noticed most analysts getting that creative. They seem to focus on orders data —how many of the company's product units ship, how many units of parts the suppliers ship, etc. — and they relate rumors from suppliers and from who knows where. Though some get imaginative.
>>Subscription music service? When Apple started iTunes some competitor (can't remember who) started up exactly that service. Never heard of them again.<<
That was many moons ago, before streaming was ubiquitous and streaming prices lower. The rumors I've seen all say Apple's subscription music service would be from a cloud, and some connect that cloud streaming with Apple's new data center.
>>Probably. I'm not aware of any scroll inhibiting bar on any news service page.<<
>> . . . I wonder if Jobs or anyone at Apple has thought of this idea. . . .<<
They couldn't possibly not have. Not so sure about the analysts.
>>Did you see this other way Apple is aiming to incease its revenues? . . .<<
Subscription music service? When Apple started iTunes some competitor (can't remember who) started up exactly that service. Never heard of them again.
>> . . . Or do newer OSes handle those omnipresent bars better than my OS X 10 10.4.11 does?<<
Probably. I'm not aware of any scroll inhibiting bar on any news service page.