Y2HH

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) So, apple ditches google maps for their own. Their own suck, but then google comes back with a much improved google maps for iOS? How is this a fail for apple? It's really not. Apple haters are still playing pretend that the PR hit Apple has taken because of maps resulted in anything...when their marketshare ended up increasing, instead. And now they have a fully functional Google Maps on top it all.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) It's a win for iOS users. It's a loss for Apple's PR department as Apple's image took a hit. When two of your engineering heads get fired and your CEO is forced to apologize for a bad maps app, that's not a good thing. It's not a good thing PR wise, but it shows they're willing to make necessary changes sooner rather than later to fix problems. If something ends up being a + for their users, it's also a + for the company itself. They could always be like Microsoft and pretend nothing is wrong while their marketshare continues to fall on practically every product across the board.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) but what pressure did Google face, what was their PR nightmare? that's the part that doesn't make any sense. Well, the pressure of lost revenue, lost data, etc...the PR nightmare was more to Google shareholders...losing Maps on iOS devices was HUGE. It was very sudden and very unexpected considering Google still had a year left on their contract with Apple when it occurred. Google made more money and collected more data from iOS users than it does from it's own Android users, despite controlling like 70%+ of the market. That's a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of GPS data they were suddenly no longer receiving.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) I don't care about any of what you just said, I care about understanding why chw42 said Google supposedly gave in thanks to PR nightmare. Oh, well, I don't really agree with that, either. They didn't "give in" to anything by releasing an iOS maps app. That's a lot of user data they're not getting, so it's merely smart business to get an app out there. Giving in to making a solid business decision isn't giving in, IMO. I went back and read what CHW said, and he has a solid point. Keep in mind the contention was that Google would not give Apple turn by turn and other features of Google Maps that have long been available on Android, prompting Apple to realize they needed to do their own thing so they'd have more power over features. Apple wanted turn by turn and other features as part of their contract with Google, and in return, Google wanted to be able to add advertising and Google Latitude to Apples version of Google maps, something Apple did not want since they were paying royalties to Google for it's use. Apple didn't believe Google should have rights to add those other revenue generators to what they were paying for. I agree with Apple on this...if it was something Google was supplying them for free, Google would have had a leg to stand on, but that wasn't the case. CHW is merely pointing out that Google eventually gave Apple everything they asked for in this app, only now they did it for free, as Apple used to pay Google for the use of Google Maps in iOS. So, he actually has a very solid point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) If we're talking about a "PR nightmare" and which side is feeling pressure, then yeah, what headlines say is what matters. I really don't understand why Google would be the one "giving in" here. Apple is taking a beating in the public because of their sub-par maps program, not Google. Apple is taking a beating in public because it's Apple. When headlines show Google has similar issues, they're ignored, so no...it's not simply headlines. It's who's involved in said headlines that really matters. Story with Apple = huge clicks, huge advertisement revenue. Story with Google...nobody cares. Well, I care...because I like to actually know what I'm talking about. This is no different than when Microsoft was on top, and negative press regarding Windows or other Microsoft products generated huge traffic. It will be no different if/when Google becomes the darling technology company, either. Suddenly you'll start seeing tons of similar stories regarding Google and it's competitors that have similar issues will be largely ignored.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 08:39 AM) Tells you how confident people are with Apple's version of maps. Google Maps the #1 free app in iTunes after one day That's not very surprising...newly released big name free apps are always #1 on the day of release, and usually for a few weeks after.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 05:56 AM) Wait wasn't the pr nightmare on Apples end? Like the people getting stranded in the Australian outback because of their terrible maps? I would think Google would have the leverage here, not Apple. * You mean because it was a story about Apple and you actually saw it in news headlines? You must have missed this one, conveniently enough: http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/12/google-ma...ding-to-police/ * Interestingly, The Register reports that the error was not entirely Apple's fault, as the incorrect location was included in the official Australian Gazetteer. In this case, the Australian Gazetteer – the authoritative list of 300,000-plus placenames, complete with coordinates – includes two Milduras. One is the “real” town, the other is an entry for “Mildura Rural City”, coordinates -34.79724 141.76108. It’s this second entry that points to the middle of the Murray-Sunset National Park, just near a spot called Rocket Lake.

The interface needs some serious work, but that's to be expected with a 1.0 release. I find it somewhat puzzling that after all of that, Apple ended up getting almost all of the features they wanted from the Google Maps app, only now they don't have to pay for it's usage rights. So much for Google Maps not coming out for iOS. Edit: After playing with this, trying to touch on every available feature, I have to say, Google is terrible at designing user interfaces as compared to Apple. Apples old version of Google Maps and their own Apple maps UI is vastly superior to Googles new maps app. And to hear Google admit the new Google Maps app is superior to the one they have on Android seems a bit oddball. I hope they work on the UI, I really do. http://www.cultofandroid.com/19954/google-...mises-ipad-app/ Likes: * I like their voice guided assist * Google Traffic display is far superior to Apples, thankfully this is back * iOS specific API for programmers to link directly to Google Maps App * OpenGL for rendering * Obviously, I like the Google Mapping database, but I figured I'd put it on the list anyway Needs Work: (I wouldn't say dislikes because they're features that are nice, but not necessary IMO, but they need to do some work) * Need to make it easier to use Streetview (for those that use this, I never do, but it's a bit convoluted to find) * Need to add their bike routes (Also not important to me, but may be to others) * Pinch/Push to zoom/un zoom needs to stop immediately after I lift my fingers...this has some sort of lag that keeps it zooming/unzooming * Something seems slow about it...the rendering engine is sluggish and it shouldn't be considering their use of OpenGL, this can be fixed Dislikes: * Overall UI is a bit sluggish and clunky, needs work/polish (expected out of a 1.0 release, but Googles UI's are always pretty bad for a while)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) Yes, there was a rise in interest rates prior to the bursting of the 2000 and 2007 bubbles...but it was a much smaller comparative rise, and the "Slowdown" in those cases was vastly accelerated by the bursting of bubbles that the Fed had allowed to inflate/directly inflated. If he had raised interest rates more slowly...do you really think that it would have led to a soft landing on the bubble? I can't think of an example when that happens. The bubble was going to become a major inflation push in both cases once it existed, effectively forcing the fed to act, and deflating a financial bubble without puncturing it seems about as difficult as...deflating an actual bubble without puncturing it. The real thing to do is actually have a regulatory system that prevents those speculative bubbles. If you allow them to exist, then this boom and bust is the result. That's exactly how things operated in the days before the Great Depression produced meaningful financial regulation, and we've now seen repeatedly, globally, that Central Banks can be rapidly rendered powerless by the scale of these bursting bubbles. ANd on the other point; What we can do is come up with models that allow for the comparison of a variety of economic circumstances, and really, I can fit both of those situations with the same model if it includes both monetary policy and fiscal policy. I think that's exactly what I'm basing my response on. Sounds simple enough...the only problem is that economic control doesn't actually exist...but the "experts" always claim it does, and they will be the one that can do it. The fact is, they didn't see these things as bubbles until it was much too late...and I'm not talking about the alarmists that guess something is a bubble early on, way before it's actually a bubble. Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut...but these guys can never consistently call these things...they get lucky once and suddenly they're bubble calling experts that can see into the future. What Greenspan did was typical knee jerk reaction striving for 'phantom' economic control...raising the rates as if he ever had control of that .com economy was and is a joke. When the pop occurred, combined with the newly high interest rates, it took a bad situation and made it even worse...when the very intention all along was control the deflation of that bubble. The only illusion was controlling it in the first place. Greenspan had no control, but he and others were just arrogant enough to be sure they did. Rinse repeat the housing bubble. They sure controlled that one oh so well, too. Not even a decade after the previous bubble...they allowed another one to grow and pop just the same. And they'll do it again. And again. And no matter how many times it happens, someone, somewhere will have "called it"...and they'll be heralded as an economic genius by whatever political party can gain points by using it to their advantage. If it were that easy to control an economy by imposing a few regulations to curb speculation...we'd be doing it...and we'd have perfect growth year after year with nary a bubble to be seen. But that'll never happen, no matter how much regulation you impose...because it's all an illusion that people are convinced can be controlled.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) ^^^ I echo this as well. Great to see how the thread started off with an immediate attack... Showed exactly which direction it would go. Usually I enjoy a lot of your posts Y2HH since they are generally thought out, but that was ridiculous. There is no way that you can get any type of creative conversation with that type of an attitude. What I said may be a bit unfair when it comes to the religious aspect of what I said, but it appears to me that the majority of the republican party has been hijacked to an extreme position...a position that's purely political. I do not buy their sudden drive for accountability on spending after a decade of them blowing through borrowed money AFTER lowering taxes. Democrats: Tax, borrow and spend. Republicans: Borrow and spend. I like neither option.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) First of all, this has been done before in the filibuster. Second, at least be honest. I read your posts in this thread. Not a single one screamed "intellectual curiosity", including this one. ...this is a fair point. Reddy is trolling in this thread, and it's pretty clear. Obviously people have reasons for being republicans, since republicans exist. I simply disagree with them these days, but I also disagree with the democrats, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 10:16 AM) In general, yes, that's exactly what they should do, because a recession typically occurs because the Federal Reserve pushed things too far in the "Slowdown" direction and the government can spend money more quickly than the Federal Reserve can restart things, plus the government can cushion the blow for people through unemployment benefits and healthcare coverage in this country. And yes, we ought to be doing more of all of that now. That recession is just a little different though, because the inflation rate had gotten so out of control that the fed felt the need to crank up the interest rates beyond the point of "accidentally going to far" and forced a large recession to get that inflation rate under control. The government was going to expand spending to cover unemployment benefits and medicaid, and that's still a good thing, but it was a force pushing against what the Fed was doing in that case, so at the very least there's a complicated cost/benefit calculation involved in offering benefits but fighting inflation. It was a most unique situation back in the 80's, as compared to now...but taken by themselves, every situation is unique and cannot effectively be compared. I recall Greenspan doing something similar in the late 90's to curb the rate of growth due to the .com explosion. He was raising interest rates at a .25 or .50 clip every few months...the tipping point came fast because the bust occurred seemingly overnight, meanwhile this guy had interest rates at 7%+ because he didn't understand the .com boom/bust. At least, IMO, he didn't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) That depends on the nature of the recession. I'm sure it depends on a number of factors. Our problem is we do it all the time, regardless of recession, and regardless of any other economic factors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 10:03 AM) Actually, if your unemployment rate is high because you've raised interest rates to fight inflation...then deficit spending on the part of the government actually pushes the wrong way. Deficit spending at that point is inflationary, so it's pushing counter the move by the central bank to try to fight inflation and making their work harder. I'm not saying they did things right...but when recessions hit, governments are supposed to flood money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) Budgets continued to explode for Reagan's entire Presidency, though. And Bush's. They stopped towards the end of Clinton's Presidency, but then we had a mild recession, two rounds of tax cuts and two unfunded, decade-long wars. BTW the unemployment rate when Reagan took office was ~7%, lower than what Obama has now and what he faced coming into office. Didn't Volcker also intentionally cause the early-80's recession in order to crush inflation? I'm positive in the early 80's unemployment was in double digits...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) Great. Rich people can happily count the payroll tax as part of their total tax rate. Since the payroll tax only hits the first $110k or so of a person's income, it's enormously regressive, and it winds up being I'm slightly below middle income, and I'm paying around 12% including the portion of the payroll tax that I pay myself. If I factor in the fact that my employer is also paying a chunk of payroll tax on my account, and that's a legit chunk of money that could come to me otherwise, then i'm close to a 16-17% rate. You should also get a lot of that back. I don't know what constitues middle income, either. According to research, at least I think, median income in the us is what, 43k? I'm not sure what that means, in the scheme of middle income, etc...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) Rich people can count their payroll taxes, but a portion of it is capped a little above $100k and only wage income is subject to it, so those living off of capital gains and dividends i.e. the really rich pay little payroll tax relative to their income. It's a highly regressive setup. There aren't many people rich enough to live off of capital gains and dividends alone...that's a very very small minority. I'm not talking about hundred millionaires or billionaires. I'm talking about "rich" people that make 250k+ a year. I guarantee they're not living off of cap gains and dividend income.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) This was, at a minimum, pre-Reagan, though. Deficits exploded under Reagan. Yes, Democrats controlled Congress, but Reagan's proposed budgets were right in line or even above what Congress ultimately enacted. So if you want to say that you agreed with the Republican party of 32+ years ago, ok, but we're getting quite a ways back there. Deficits were supposed to explode under Reagan, when he came into office, he had an unemployment rate almost double what Obama has, with interest rates of 13-17%. You're supposed to spend such times...you have to spend in such times. Which is why I disagree with conservatives that say we need to stop spending now. It shows they don't understand economics. Once again, the problem is that when times get good, we tend to not stop that spending. That's where we go wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) Are you counting your payroll tax? If you start counting things like that, rich people also get to count it. I'm counting my tax return numbers. My investments, my income, my dividends, my interest...that equates to an effective tax rate of 7% for me. If I start calculating how much I spend that year on sales tax, payroll tax, etc...I'm sure it's closer to 50% than it is to 20%. But by that same token, rich people can also do that and it'd show they pay just as much as a %.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) This intrigued me so I looked mine up. 9.22% last year. I altered my post to reflect a possibility that he's a single person with no assets, etc... If you're a rich person, making 500k a year, but have no house, no investments, and spend all of your money -- you'd also pay your full tax rate. Only way around that is if you have things in your life that allow you to deduct. Even then, I don't think you'd pay you're full rate...there are always ways around it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget. Well, we're kind of talking about two different things to a degree. I wasn't strictly speaking about a actually achieving a "balanced budget", I was simply saying historically they were closer to trying to achieve such a thing via being a bit more conservative without the help of a Clintonesque .com explosion which made such a budget easy mode. Today, I agree, it's just an excuse...they don't want to balance a budget unless they're not in power...and even then, I doubt they care...it's political pandering and nothing more. I think Tex's point -- and it's my point -- is there was a time that the majority of them actually wanted this...they no longer do until it's convenient for them politically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) And the top tier don't pay 35% despite their tax rate being 35%...but the middle classes pay pretty close to their 15-20% number. Ehh, no, we don't. My actual effective tax rate last year was 7%. If you're paying 15-20%...you're doing it wrong. Either that, or you are a single person with no assets, no family, no house, etc...which is possible. Even rich single people in that situation would pay close to their actual tax rate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) Why? Do you have any historical evidence to the contrary? They've always opposed entitlement programs and taxes, at least since 1980. I don't...mostly because I don't want to bother digging right now. Historically, the republican perspective was to be more fiscally conservative, a perspective I agreed with them on. They were opposes to taxes, but they also wanted smaller government, so less taxes were necessary to run it. Whether that ever became a reality or not is another story, but a lot of them fought for it. Today, I agree with you that it's become nothing more than an excuse to 'appear' conservative. The majority of them are clearly not conservatives anymore. They want tax cuts, but when in power, they spend, spend, spend...simply on different things than the democrats would...but they still spend just as much.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) Yes, that's why they're in favor of returning the top tier tax rate to the 1970's level of 70%, or at the very least hte 1980's level of 50%. Let's keep in mind that these were smoke and mirror tax rates anyway. Nobody paid 70% in the 1970's. Just like corporations don't pay 30% now, despite their tax rate being 30%.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) 15-20 years ago? Newt Gingrich's Congress? No, they weren't actually interested in balancing the budget any more than Boehner or McConnell is now. Then as now, it was used as an excuse to slash entitlement programs they've always imposed while also arguing that any tax increases would lead to economic disaster. Or did you mean the Reagan era? When budget deficits first massively exploded, thanks largely to tax cuts and huge defense spending? Concerns about a balanced budget are used by the opposition minority to oppose policies they never support when they're not in power. As soon as they get back in power, suddenly "deficits don't matter." I think you're argument of using it as an excuse holds a lot more water now than it did back then. I want to edit this to highlight the words : a lot.