“The number one thing to look for in a great moka pot is a basket that’s large enough to accommodate a proper coffee-to-water ratio. It should also be easy to assemble and have thicker walls and a wide base for better heat distribution.“
As a tech enthusiast, I've spent the last several months watching the iOS7 design arguments play out online, and I've read a few reviews with interest this week.
So it was with interest that I observed my wife and MIL's reactions to the upgrade on their iPads, which was really no big deal at all.
A cogent reminder to me that there's a vast difference between us and them.
I love the promotions tab for exactly the reason that marketers hate it. If I haven't opened an email in the promotions folder after a week, I've begun unsubscribing from it.
And now a few weeks later my inbox's without the tabs (phone and tablet) are a lot cleaner and more sane.
Newegg and Groupon and other mass marketers _have_ to hate this.
"(T)he primary problem with using market share as a measure of business health is it provides no insight into the profitability of the product being sold."
But other than that, the answer to "who is winning" is first defined by what goals the competitors are competing to reach.
If Androids goal is market share, and Apples goal is profit, both could be winning...and at the same time.
I thought that the more interesting part of the interview was this answer about why Chrome OS and Android both exist:
q: But can’t it be confusing having two operating systems?
a: Users care about applications and services they use, not operating systems. Very few people will ask you, “Hey, how come MacBooks are on Mac OS-X and iPhone and iPad are on iOS? Why is this?” They think of Apple as iTunes, iCloud, iPhoto...The picture may look different a year or two from from now, but in the short term, we have Android and we have Chrome, and we are not changing course.
I could readily argue that Microsoft incurs huge costs for making all their products Windows. Technology is usually a minor cost, and having one, two, or three technologies to address a wide range of use cases and markets will wash out of the costs if the technologies are appropriately used.
Microsoft announced a Windows Everywhere strategy in the 1990s, and Windows has taken its annual turnover from $1bn to $74bn. (That includes doubling under Steve Ballmer.)
Some people would call that "putting all the wood behind one arrow."
Microsoft did try developing a new and different technology for different use cases with Windows CE. That's what it's replacing with Windows 8....
http://www.economist.com/node/107364
Are those numbers due to The Age of PCs, or is that because Windows actually went everywhere and and is a tier 1 competitor in those categories, i.e. servers, tablets, handsets, cars, TVs, media players, etc.?
On servers, Microsoft is on a supposedly even footing with Linux, but I have not seen traffic-weighted statistics. Apart from that, where is Windows?
It looks like Microsoft has created a bottleneck for itself, where all innovation has to get stuffed through the Windows product line.
Microsoft's Servers and Tools division is a $19bn business and sales were up 12% on last year. This compares with Red Hat revenues of $1.13 billion, up 17% year-over-year.
The $19bn compares with initial expectations of zero. Linux fanboys have been telling me for more than a decade that Microsoft was going to be wiped out in the server business, but so far, it hasn't happened. Maybe next year, like the Linux desktop, eh?
Since you're not paying me to do your research, you can google (or even bing) Windows Embedded, Windows Embedded Automotive (aka Ford SYNC) and so on. Of course, it's tough competing with FREE.
> It looks like Microsoft has created a bottleneck for itself, where all
> innovation has to get stuffed through the Windows product line.
