>There's nothing that implicitly makes something made in Canada, or USA, or Germany that much better than if it were made in China.
I'd say that there is, sort of. Much of the manufacturing that remains in the USA is for industrial applications, with specific requirements for performance and reliability. We basically exported the consumer product manufacturing category, and with it went the majority of the low quality market.
It's like the legendary status of "American made tools". When my grandfather passed away, I got some of his American tools from the 40s - 70s. They're junkier than most tools you'll find at Walmart or Harbor Freight today. Why? Because he was relatively poor and bought cheap, domestic tools built for the hobbiest market.
The one exception I've read is that China isn't producing raw steel that's as high quality as US and German steel. I was looking into tubing benders awhile back and read several accounts of even high-grade Chinese steel kinking at the same wall thickness where American and German steel continued to bend smoothly.
There are vastly more vehicles on the road today, and people expect to maintain higher average speeds. Also, maintaining speed becomes exhausting on smaller bikes, for a variety of reasons.
The best deal I've found for international use is Schwab. I forget the purchasing terms, but for ATM access they don't charge a currency conversion fee, and they even reimburse you the mandatory 1% fee.
Canonical is also ending development of Ubuntu software for phones and tablets, spelling doom for the goal of creating a converged experience with phones acting as desktops when docked with the right equipment.
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion here about that part. I'm really saddened to read that. When the project was first unveiled, it looked like exactly the sort of experience I want out of a smartphone.
+1
I had to double check the date to make sure this hadn't been posted on April 1st. I knew it was a ways away but I was looking forward to being able to have an Ubuntu phone.
This! I'm all glad about going back to GNOME and Wayland, but I really hoped Canonical was strong enough to put up a new mobile OS, even if just as a small player. It takes so much time (and money) to do so, and if even Canonical can't do it, I guess we can totally forget about a truly open source mobile OS in the near future, and maybe ever. That's a pretty sad future we're to, IMHO.
The barrier to entry in the smartphone OS market is just too high for a small company to have a chance. Mozilla learned this, and now Canonical has too.
Neglecting the core product to pursue a phone OS that was very unlikely to succeed was bad for the company.
The barrier to entry in the smartphone OS market is just too high for a small company to have a chance. Mozilla learned this, and now Canonical has too.
Not only for small companies. Microsoft threw billions had at it, bought a phone manufacturer, had a pretty nice phone OS, had a name in business, and was years earlier then Mozilla and Canonical. And they failed miserably.
(Of course, the whole WP7 -> WP8 transition was handled badly, but it shows that even a company with extremely deep pockets will fail to capture significant marketshare.)
The thing is, Microsoft started pretty early: in 2010, when Windows Phone 7 was released, the Apple and Google app stores were not nearly as large as they are now, and a lot of people didn't own smartphones yet. I just looked up some statistics that show that less than 50% of American adults owned smartphones that year. The barrier to entry was a lot lower then, and it should have been surmountable.
I think Windows Phone failed primarily because Microsoft did not take early steps to cultivate a competitive app store, which they probably could have done back then -- these days, it would probably be impossible. They also didn't have very many desirable flagship phones, especially compared to the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy series.
Microsoft's failure was partially self-inflicted, but Mozilla and Canonical would have had no chance even if they did everything right. They don't have the scale, and they are now up against app stores with millions of apps. It doesn't matter how nice the OS is if it can't run Facebook, Snapchat, and a bunch of popular games on day one.
I've always been sceptical of the idea of a converged desktop across different devices. One size just can't fit all in my view. Even a 'hidden' desktop on a mobile phone that reveals itself when docked to a large monitor will still be a constrained experience.
A dedicated desktop OS is capable of rich and complex interactions. Could a mobile 'desktop mode' ever match such capabilities?
I'd rather have a dedicated desktop OS that maximises features suitable for the desktop hardware it runs on. Not an OS that has to lower it's capabilities and interactions to match the smallest device it runs on.
Agree. I was excited for this- even to the point of using and growing to like Unity. (That may not be fair though as I spend a lot of time in xterm so gui isn't so important).
The cop dropping him on his face was horrible, but AFAIK everything up until that point was the correct course of action. The kid was refusing lawful orders. If a cop asks you to do something (which is what all the 'border' checkpoints show, often with clever wording), you can refuse. If a cop orders you to do something, you can't refuse.
Before someone comments about lawful orders, it's a complex topic and you're welcome to fight it in the Supreme Court, but in general I'm just going to obey police orders.
Surely that's a historical oddity courtesy of the economy at the time.