Samsung Electronics Co., Apple's biggest competitor in the market for iPad-sized tablet computers, is updating its line to include a feature that lets a tablet act as a universal remote control for an entertainment center.

 

The storage space on the new Galaxy Tab 2 will also be expandable with small memory cards.

 

The tablets will come in two sizes. The 7-inch version will cost $250 and goes on sale April 22. The 10-inch version will cost $400 and goes on sale May 13

 

...

The updated Samsung models won't have higher-resolution screens, even though analysts believe Samsung is one of the sources for the new iPad screen.

Link

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,5990658.story

 

p.m. CDT, April 11, 2012

Verizon Wireless will start charging customers a $30 fee for cellphone upgrades, on top of the price they pay for the new device, as the company looks to supplement its income to cover its costs.

 

The change at the biggest U.S. mobile provider follows a fourth-quarter decline in its wireless profit margins, which came under pressure from hefty subsidies it had to pay Apple Inc. for the popular iPhone.

 

Carriers pay such subsidies because devices like the iPhone help to attract new customers and boost revenue.

 

However, upgrades can be less attractive to operators because despite paying a subsidy for the new device, mobile companies often get no extra revenue from existing customers who switch phones.

 

Verizon Wireless, a venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group Plc, said the fee would help it "provide customers with the level of service and support they have come to expect." For example, it cited wireless workshops, online tools, and expert advice on devices.

 

The company said such a fee was not unique to Verizon Wireless. AT&T Inc. said in January that it would tighten its upgrade policies this year to help reduce its costs for handset upgrades, but has not provided details.

Boo.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,5990658.story

 

But let's sue a bunch of book publishers and Apple for "price fixing" e-books.

 

Meanwhile, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon freely price fix everything cellular related and nobody bats an eye.

But let's sue a bunch of book publishers and Apple for "price fixing" e-books.

 

Meanwhile, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon freely price fix everything cellular related and nobody bats an eye.

Apparently in this case the government actually is going to try to establish that they were meeting at various manhattan restaurants to discuss fixing the prices on e-books, so that's why they can bring that case.

Apparently in this case the government actually is going to try to establish that they were meeting at various manhattan restaurants to discuss fixing the prices on e-books, so that's why they can bring that case.

 

It's still petty, I've read the case, and it's iffy at best...especially since they keep naming Apple first and foremost, when they're their actually the minor party involved in this. I understand the book publishers wanted out from Amazon's monopoly of pricing, where they'd often lose money on sales, and may have colluded to "fix" the problem they had with Amazon's pricing model...but there are more important fish to fry...

 

Like the telcos.

 

That said...they need to crack down on the cellular providers now. All of them charge just about the same for every service, from minutes to text messages to data...to um...upgrade fees. Competition SHOULD put downward pressure on pricing...but with telcos, it continues to put upward pressure...which makes no sense.

Edited April 12, 201213 yr by Y2HH

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,5990658.story

 

This seems stupid to me. They may not get MORE revenues from upgrades, but they lock the customer into another 2 year contract. If the customer cancels that contract, they have to pay the outrageous cancellation fees.

 

What is now stopping customers from going to a competitor to get the new phone and avoid these upgrade fees? As long as the service is about the same, I don't see why people wouldn't, it's not like prices are much different. (I realize there is a "set up" fee with most companies, but corporate discounts usually cover that)

I still don't understand how Instagram could be worth $1B.

A co-worker of mine bought that Samsung Note and had it at work today.

 

It's way too big to be a phone....if you remember all the people making fun of what an iPad would look like if they put a phone in it, that is pretty much what the Note looks like.

Edited April 13, 201213 yr by iamshack

I still don't understand how Instagram could be worth $1B.

 

I still don't even know what Instagram is.

A co-worker of mine bought that Samsung Note and had it at work today.

 

It's way too big to be a phone....if you remember all the people making fun of what an iPad would look like if they put a phone in it, that is pretty much what the Note looks like.

I have no interest in getting it but I could see it being useful with bluetooth.

I still don't understand how Instagram could be worth $1B.

 

Me neither. I mean I think they want it to be the one stop shop for social media photos, and then link it all with Facebook itself but....yeah I dunno. Free programs like Picassa do the same exact thing, albeit not on a smartphone.

I still don't even know what Instagram is.

apparently it's a filtering app for photos so you can make them look olde timey!

Me neither. I mean I think they want it to be the one stop shop for social media photos, and then link it all with Facebook itself but....yeah I dunno. Free programs like Picassa do the same exact thing, albeit not on a smartphone.

 

That's the whole reason. Facebook's interface for uploading photos on mobile devices was clunky and not as easy to use as Instagram. So instead of trying to create an ALTERNATIVE to Instagram, they just straight up bought them so they wouldn't have to put in the time and money to develop one, and then try and win the market over. They just simply BOUGHT the market.

 

So I totally understand why they would buy it, but the pricetag of $1B boggles my mind. I would be surprised if the little startup company who made an app wouldn't have just sold it to FB for like.....$10M? Maybe not even that. I mean, the company is 9 people. NINE!! They made an app that is not even anything new or different. I can't believe the price tag was so high.

That's the whole reason. Facebook's interface for uploading photos on mobile devices was clunky and not as easy to use as Instagram. So instead of trying to create an ALTERNATIVE to Instagram, they just straight up bought them so they wouldn't have to put in the time and money to develop one, and then try and win the market over. They just simply BOUGHT the market.

 

So I totally understand why they would buy it, but the pricetag of $1B boggles my mind. I would be surprised if the little startup company who made an app wouldn't have just sold it to FB for like.....$10M? Maybe not even that. I mean, the company is 9 people. NINE!! They made an app that is not even anything new or different. I can't believe the price tag was so high.

 

1B is a lot of money to put into something, but you're right.

Netflix Doing Just Fine Without Disney/Starz

 

despite the optimistic tone of the rest of the article, the last line is:

 

Still, the relatively optimistic report failed to sway investors, with Netflix stock falling over 14 percent in after hours trading.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Netflix Doing Just Fine Without Disney/Starz

 

despite the optimistic tone of the rest of the article, the last line is:

 

While it's doing "fine" without them, it would still be better off with them. I called the Netflix problems years ago when they had their locked in "introductory" contracts where the studios were trying to gauge if this sort of model would take off or not. Needless to say, it took off...and when those sweetheart contracts expired, the studios asked for MASSIVE money to renew. Netflix had such great distribution contracts for streaming/renting that I believe they once paid around 800M, in total, for ALL of their contracts combined. Today, EACH studio wants a few billion for the same distribution/streaming rights. Obviously this was going to eat into their bottom line and cause rate increases in an attempt to compensate (both have now happened). Netflix also made some strange/head scratching maneuvers in the past year, too.

 

I've had their streaming service for a while now, and I'm on a cusp of canceling it...as it's to the point that while it's great for streaming older TV shows, the movie catalog is next to worthless now.

Yeah, it's best for older TV series and documentaries. Luckily, that works well since we don't have cable/satellite and when we did, we watched Discovery, History etc. before those channels turned to garbage.

 

The Netflix/Hulu/Broadcast HDTV is still working well for us. The only downside, and it is a major one, are sports. But that's what Eastern European streams are for...

Yeah, it's best for older TV series and documentaries. Luckily, that works well since we don't have cable/satellite and when we did, we watched Discovery, History etc. before those channels turned to garbage.

 

The Netflix/Hulu/Broadcast HDTV is still working well for us. The only downside, and it is a major one, are sports. But that's what Eastern European streams are for...

 

It infuriates me that these channels have stopped producing actual documentaries and rely almost solely on reality TV. Watching 4 annoying Las Vegas guys in a pawnshop is not an interesting way to learn about the past.

It infuriates me that these channels have stopped producing actual documentaries and rely almost solely on reality TV. Watching 4 annoying Las Vegas guys in a pawnshop is not an interesting way to learn about the past.

 

H2 is where most of that programming has gone. The science channel is pretty solid as well as Nat Geo.

It infuriates me that these channels have stopped producing actual documentaries and rely almost solely on reality TV. Watching 4 annoying Las Vegas guys in a pawnshop is not an interesting way to learn about the past.

Actually, at least Pawn Stars and American Pickers does show you a bit of history...the shows that you should be listing here are Ax Men and IRT. I won't even mention Swamp People or whatever it's called.

Actually, at least Pawn Stars and American Pickers does show you a bit of history...the shows that you should be listing here are Ax Men and IRT. I won't even mention Swamp People or whatever it's called.

 

But compared to the old documentaries they used to do, they offer very little. It looks like they're going to do a Hatfield/McCoy thing here pretty soon, i'll check that out.

 

 

But compared to the old documentaries they used to do, they offer very little. It looks like they're going to do a Hatfield/McCoy thing here pretty soon, i'll check that out.

 

Now that I will watch.

It infuriates me that these channels have stopped producing actual documentaries and rely almost solely on reality TV. Watching 4 annoying Las Vegas guys in a pawnshop is not an interesting way to learn about the past.

 

They're all following the MTV model.

 

Their reality shows are terrible but so are all of their conspiracy shows.

They're all following the MTV model.

 

Their reality shows are terrible but so are all of their conspiracy shows.

Hey, if it's turning a profit, then it's not obviously a mistake.