People that abuse the system can get marked as a cheating customer (e.g., regularly claiming a package didn't arrive to get money back or to have it sent again).
If you send to much stuff back, they become less nice/ after a while start blocking your account. It gets ugly when they close accounts that are "similar", there have been cases where people got their accounts closed when their neighbors in the same building created trouble.
In fairness, the iPad was the first tablet to matter all that much, if not the first tablet as such. But seriously now. Blackberry? Myspace? These were enormous and important businesses (BlackBerry still is). Hell, you could date social networking back to usenet if you wanted. It would be nice if people writing "mythbuster" articles did some elementary fact checking.
Maybe they're just thinking in terms of touchscreens or something, but that's hardly what makes a phone 'smart'.
And it doesn't explain how they managed to forget myspace, friendster, friends reunited, etc, etc, etc.
It's quite remarkable how quickly these things get forgotten, even by people who (judging by the byline pics) are more than old enough to have been around at the time. These gentlemen must surely have been the target market for blackberries in the mid-oughts.
> > Apple invented the smartphone (and the tablet)
> No they didn't
While you're technically correct, the iPhone was such a leap over any previous effort that it basically redefined the meaning of the word. If you showed an iPhone 1 to someone today, they'd at least recognise it as an (old) smartphone. A blackberry from the same era? I very much doubt it, and frankly I'd agree. The word now means "iphone 1 or better".
You're right about myspace though (and friendster before them)
Apple wasn't the biggest problem for the mobile phone industry though. They made an early bet on technology that wasn't mature yet and while they had some head start, partly due to aggressive business practices, other companies were catching up. If anything Apple was leading the way for more profitability. What really changed the industry was Googles price dumping of mobile operating systems.
All the other successful smartphone companies today are hardware focused, while companies with strong software departments like Nokia and RIM are struggling. Which is sad because in a couple of years hardware is going to be good enough, while we have ended up with a similar triopoly as the desktop operating systems market is suffering from.
Apples or rather jobs main contribution to the rise of the smartphones was that he convinced the providers to allow mobile data at prices that were merely very expensive instead of astronomical like before.
The other innovation that accelerated the emergence of smartphones tremendously was the realization that resistive touch screens are crap and won't ever get good enough for comfortable touch control.
That pretty much made better on screen keyboards possible. Also i want to point out that the 1st gen iPhone was pretty much limited in what it could do initially - Apple got completely surprised by the magnitude of interest in mobile apps and games.
The only thing Apple did for smartphones was capacitive touch for fingers, as opposed to QWERTY or stylus input. The first smartphone is arguably the 9000 Communicator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator), which was released in 1996. Even RIM (now Blackberry) only had a two-way pager back then.
> It would be nice if people writing "mythbuster" articles did some elementary fact checking.
Yeah, I'm sure that a site ran by a former Apple exec/Be Inc. founder and one of Europe's most successful tech journalists absolutely doesn't do any fact checking.
Nerds can quibble all they want about how usenet was totally a social network and tablets were totally a thing in 1995 and smartphones were totally invented by Nokia, but the reality is that if you get out of the nerd echo chamber and ask normal people, for them tablets start with the iPad, smartphones start with the iPhone, and social networks start with Facebook.
The problem with always wanting to be "technically correct" is that it makes you miss the bigger picture.
> , but the reality is that if you get out of the nerd echo chamber and ask normal people, for them tablets start with the iPad, smartphones start with the iPhone,
And some people are convinced that the moon landing in 1969 was an hoax
Reality is that Apple didn't invented the smartphone.
If you're being very literal about the word "invented", then sure.
If instead you're using the word "invented" the way the authors are - that is, meaning making a technology enter the public consciousness and creating a mainstream industry out of it, then I stand by my original point.
> If instead you're using the word "invented" the way the authors are - that is, meaning making a technology enter the public consciousness and creating a mainstream industry out of it, then I stand by my original point.
Still wrong. iPhone didn't create a mainstream industry, inf cat, the smartphone growth pre iphone and post iphone (200-2009) was the same
Indeed: one of the things that jumped out at me here was how much stricter European law is on data protection and suchlike than the US. Maybe that has a little something to do with friction emerging between certain US tech giants and EU authorities, rather than just irrational suspicion of foreigners.
While there is indeed a large difference, I think the discussion here is around the alleged anti-competitive behaviors; for example, the EC case against Google has been regarding their alleged favoring of Google Shopping vis-a-vis other results on Google Search, not the Data Protection worries.
Given the focus on market share charts, that's fair enough - but I don't think that's anyone's complaint with, say, Uber. There's a whole host of different problems here (including anti-trust, data protection, 'right to be forgotten', Uber's indifference to local laws) that are being amalgamated here to present European concerns as basically a matter of sour grapes at American success. (This is ironic, since they accuse Europe of making amalgams.)
Each of these issues is different (for instance, I think the 'right to be forgotten' case was absurd), and presenting them as an amalgam is ... unhelpful.
Well, the problem is that, while I had never heard of "GAFA" and "NATU", there is absolutely an amalgamated opposition to these companies, not because of those particular problems, nor (I would claim) from sour grapes, but from a general aversion to American multi-nationals, which is common among the whole political spectrum in much of Europe.
It's waining among the younger generations, but around here Coke is still referred to as the "dirty water of imperialism" - and only half-jokingly.
So, often these specific complaints are less actual grievances, and more excuses to criticize and call for restricting the expansion of these companies on our soil.
The tax avoidance is allowed by the governments though. Not saying that it isn't a problem, but tax law is controlled by the government and its the governments role to set policies that allow them to collect tax revenue. The UK and Ireland have made some changes in this area recently.
In 7 years in London tech I have never heard once of 'GAFA' or 'NATU'
Edit: the article mentions that too, it just misleadingly refers to 'Europe' in the title when it probably means France and Germany. It also refers to the UK and Scandinavia as being 'elsewhere' when UK is in the EU and Sweden on the Euro.
I am a Dutch person living in Germany, and I've never head of GAFA or NATU either.
I also found the article quite weak. Sure, the 'GAFA' companies have different market penetrations and different revenue models. But there is also something that binds them: they all build ecosystems and try to bind people to them. E.g. All four offer cloud storage, three offer music and movies, three of them have phones and tablets (I'll not count the HTC First), etc.
I think some resistance against against these companies in Europe come from the fact that they aim for hosting your digital life, which leads to concerns, such as how they treat data and whether US law enforcement can easily access it.
The envy that is mentioned primarily comes from governments who are upset that their country does not have a healthy startup economy as SV. Or relatively old European companies (e.g. publishing houses) that see having Google, Facebook, and other as gatekeepers as a threat to their bottom-line.
I haven't heard any of those abbreviations either. And what is Tesla doing in "NATU"? I thought it was in some states in the US where Tesla's business model is forbidden (i.e. selling directly to the customer). I don't think an EU member state would be allowed to forbid it. And you can't really compare EU/US like this, different states/countries can have very different rules.
As a person from northern Europe, I think this is all about envy: "I don't like you because you have success, so I have to impede you".
The European politicians hate that all the major new internet companies are US based, but they have absolutely no idea about how to foster a European Sillicon Valley that can compete and they have no interest in learning how.
Danish politicians thought they could make a new mini-SV by building a few expensive office buildings in a location with really bad transportation. No politicians here think it's important to listen to the IT sector, instead they just tell us (literally!) to stop wearing white sports socks so women will like us better.
When a rich person in SV talks about all the new startups he has invested in, he will be admired and cheered. One of the major show-stoppers in Denmark is that such a person will be thought of as a cheesy show-off, and therefore will shunned and loose social status. So it becomes impossible to build the network needed for startup investments as such networks often live on "happenstance meetings".
Nobody here realizes how important easy access to money is for startups and to have investors that like to take wild chances. Google would never have been able to succeed in Europe because they would never have been able to get the investment money needed to start up.
We have the same high housing prices as SV and almost no investment money. Add the lack of any IT center and that every country tries to do their own rather than having one common SV for all of EU. It's like if USA tried to build a SV in every single state, including Utah! The marmalade is spread too thin.
> As a person from northern Europe, I think this is all about envy: "I don't like you because you have success, so I have to impede you".
As a person also from Europe I wish people would stop saying this, because it doesn't do justice to the issue that many of us actually have with these specific companies. All it does is divert from the real issues.
It's nothing to do with envy (for me at least, and many others) and everything to do with the way these companies conduct themselves and the outright lack of respect they demonstrate towards the public and the laws of the countries in which they operate.
Can you give specific examples of what these companies do that needs reigning in? I'm excluding the "sharing economy" companies (uber, airbnb, etc) which are a known problem everywhere.
You have to ask? The bad behavior of Facebook, Apple, Google, etc has been a regular topic of discussion for years.
If you truly want specific examples, I suggest you start with Aral Balkan's talk[1] which covers several of the larger problems that needs reigning in.
I don't know what this idea of that you have to compete fairly with Silicon Valley comes from. The US and SV success comes from looking out for their own interests and doing what they are good at. That includes cultural influence, agressive business practices, trade agreements etc.
There are many examples of startup success in the Nordic countries and we have relativly good conditions for starting companies. Usually ending up in the top ten in business and lifestyle indexes. The things is, you can always sit and wait for things to be to your liking or you can do like SV and look out for your interest and do what you're good at.
While outliers, Elon Musk didn't sit around complaining about the state of the US car industry and Steve Jobs didn't do the same about US telecom companies. Well, they probably did, but more importantly did also did something. Something that wasn't what whatever Europe and Asia was doing.
I have said nowhere that this was about being fair.
> top ten in business and lifestyle indexes
Those indexes often ignore things that matters the most. It doesn't matter that it's very easy to start a company in Denmark when I can't get the needed venture capital.
Try name some EU internet based companies which are well known in USA and has huge revenue. Which internet based EU company does an American citizen often buy items from?
40 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 73.3 ms ] threadWhat does that mean?
No they didn't.
> (and the tablet)
No they didn't.
> Facebook coined the concept of social network.
No they didn't.
In fairness, the iPad was the first tablet to matter all that much, if not the first tablet as such. But seriously now. Blackberry? Myspace? These were enormous and important businesses (BlackBerry still is). Hell, you could date social networking back to usenet if you wanted. It would be nice if people writing "mythbuster" articles did some elementary fact checking.
And it doesn't explain how they managed to forget myspace, friendster, friends reunited, etc, etc, etc.
It's quite remarkable how quickly these things get forgotten, even by people who (judging by the byline pics) are more than old enough to have been around at the time. These gentlemen must surely have been the target market for blackberries in the mid-oughts.
> No they didn't
While you're technically correct, the iPhone was such a leap over any previous effort that it basically redefined the meaning of the word. If you showed an iPhone 1 to someone today, they'd at least recognise it as an (old) smartphone. A blackberry from the same era? I very much doubt it, and frankly I'd agree. The word now means "iphone 1 or better".
You're right about myspace though (and friendster before them)
All the other successful smartphone companies today are hardware focused, while companies with strong software departments like Nokia and RIM are struggling. Which is sad because in a couple of years hardware is going to be good enough, while we have ended up with a similar triopoly as the desktop operating systems market is suffering from.
Yeah, I'm sure that a site ran by a former Apple exec/Be Inc. founder and one of Europe's most successful tech journalists absolutely doesn't do any fact checking.
Nerds can quibble all they want about how usenet was totally a social network and tablets were totally a thing in 1995 and smartphones were totally invented by Nokia, but the reality is that if you get out of the nerd echo chamber and ask normal people, for them tablets start with the iPad, smartphones start with the iPhone, and social networks start with Facebook.
The problem with always wanting to be "technically correct" is that it makes you miss the bigger picture.
And some people are convinced that the moon landing in 1969 was an hoax
Reality is that Apple didn't invented the smartphone.
If instead you're using the word "invented" the way the authors are - that is, meaning making a technology enter the public consciousness and creating a mainstream industry out of it, then I stand by my original point.
Still wrong. iPhone didn't create a mainstream industry, inf cat, the smartphone growth pre iphone and post iphone (200-2009) was the same
Each of these issues is different (for instance, I think the 'right to be forgotten' case was absurd), and presenting them as an amalgam is ... unhelpful.
It's waining among the younger generations, but around here Coke is still referred to as the "dirty water of imperialism" - and only half-jokingly.
So, often these specific complaints are less actual grievances, and more excuses to criticize and call for restricting the expansion of these companies on our soil.
It's easy to dismiss the issues many in Europe have as 'hey you're just jealous' but fuck that.
That's just distracting from the issue many people have and it does nobody any good to debase the argument like that.
Edit: the article mentions that too, it just misleadingly refers to 'Europe' in the title when it probably means France and Germany. It also refers to the UK and Scandinavia as being 'elsewhere' when UK is in the EU and Sweden on the Euro.
I also found the article quite weak. Sure, the 'GAFA' companies have different market penetrations and different revenue models. But there is also something that binds them: they all build ecosystems and try to bind people to them. E.g. All four offer cloud storage, three offer music and movies, three of them have phones and tablets (I'll not count the HTC First), etc.
I think some resistance against against these companies in Europe come from the fact that they aim for hosting your digital life, which leads to concerns, such as how they treat data and whether US law enforcement can easily access it.
The envy that is mentioned primarily comes from governments who are upset that their country does not have a healthy startup economy as SV. Or relatively old European companies (e.g. publishing houses) that see having Google, Facebook, and other as gatekeepers as a threat to their bottom-line.
The European politicians hate that all the major new internet companies are US based, but they have absolutely no idea about how to foster a European Sillicon Valley that can compete and they have no interest in learning how.
Danish politicians thought they could make a new mini-SV by building a few expensive office buildings in a location with really bad transportation. No politicians here think it's important to listen to the IT sector, instead they just tell us (literally!) to stop wearing white sports socks so women will like us better.
When a rich person in SV talks about all the new startups he has invested in, he will be admired and cheered. One of the major show-stoppers in Denmark is that such a person will be thought of as a cheesy show-off, and therefore will shunned and loose social status. So it becomes impossible to build the network needed for startup investments as such networks often live on "happenstance meetings".
Nobody here realizes how important easy access to money is for startups and to have investors that like to take wild chances. Google would never have been able to succeed in Europe because they would never have been able to get the investment money needed to start up.
We have the same high housing prices as SV and almost no investment money. Add the lack of any IT center and that every country tries to do their own rather than having one common SV for all of EU. It's like if USA tried to build a SV in every single state, including Utah! The marmalade is spread too thin.
As a person also from Europe I wish people would stop saying this, because it doesn't do justice to the issue that many of us actually have with these specific companies. All it does is divert from the real issues.
It's nothing to do with envy (for me at least, and many others) and everything to do with the way these companies conduct themselves and the outright lack of respect they demonstrate towards the public and the laws of the countries in which they operate.
They need reigning in.
If you truly want specific examples, I suggest you start with Aral Balkan's talk[1] which covers several of the larger problems that needs reigning in.
[1] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...
There are many examples of startup success in the Nordic countries and we have relativly good conditions for starting companies. Usually ending up in the top ten in business and lifestyle indexes. The things is, you can always sit and wait for things to be to your liking or you can do like SV and look out for your interest and do what you're good at.
While outliers, Elon Musk didn't sit around complaining about the state of the US car industry and Steve Jobs didn't do the same about US telecom companies. Well, they probably did, but more importantly did also did something. Something that wasn't what whatever Europe and Asia was doing.
> top ten in business and lifestyle indexes
Those indexes often ignore things that matters the most. It doesn't matter that it's very easy to start a company in Denmark when I can't get the needed venture capital.
Try name some EU internet based companies which are well known in USA and has huge revenue. Which internet based EU company does an American citizen often buy items from?