I wouldn't want a touchscreen MBP even if it was free, anyone else feel similar?
I don't get the draw - we already optimize for keyboard commands to avoid living our fingers over to a touchpad. Why would I want to start clicking on my screen?
If you're using your computer for tasks (rather than entertainment) and you're not a visual designer, I don't get why Apple are apparently going to be putting them into the new MBP line later this year.
I feel like the point isn't "there should be a touch screen MacBook" but more "holy shit we simulated a working touch screen by looking at reflections coming off the glass, isn't that cool".
Sometimes, if I’ve been using my iPad for awhile and switch over to my MBP, I might reach out and touch the screen out of habit. I can’t be the only one.
I had the opposite problem when work issued me a ThinkPad - I would accidentally brush my screen with my caveman knuckles once a day and somehow nuke a dozen lines of code.
My kids do this all the time. They also use the touchscreen in conventional laptop configuration (not folded-flat tablet mode) on their Chromebooks all the time. It's bizarre to me. I'm always trying to get them to use the keyboard, but they don't care. Example: enter password on the keyboard, then tap the log in button on the screen with their finger, rather than just pressing enter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My 3 year-old never had access to tablets or phones but sees us using phones all the time. So when he gets curious and touches the laptop screen (something he does with our phones occasionally as well), he's shocked to see it doesn't react.
I do this on my iPad with Magic keyboard and I'm a die hard command line user otherwise.
I think the reason I started doing it on the iPad is that the keyboard focus is sometimes inconsistent, so clicking or tab-tab-tab-enter is slower and less reliable vs. just touching the screen. Definitely feel the gorilla arm though.
I had a laptop that folded to 180, without touch screen, and had a webcam hidden under F7 so it either looked straight up your nose or showed your huge fingers
You're essentially holding a large tablet upright, but all the weight is taken up up the base. Rather than finger-painting, try holding it on both sides like a tablet or gamepad and operating with thumbs.
Scrolling/controlling checkboxes and switches feels GREAT. Depends entirely what you're using it for.
While I'm the same and totally agree with you, the few times I've been using touchscreen I find the habit sticks so hard that for days I keep touching my macbook screen, so there is definitely some subconscious desire for this (or I would have defaulted to using the trackpad even if my brain thought touch was available)
> Based on current internal deliberations, the company could launch its first touch-screen Mac in 2025
It looks like those leaks aren't too far off what I'm saying. Deadlines slipping by 1-2 years isn't way off especially for such a new/different product direction. And the rumor also said "could" which means even internally, it wasn't a strong claim.
Yes and it's an article about a leak 3 years ago. And there were more "leaks" before that. I just can't be bothered to research and link the obvious to argument against an "opinion".
Because it would blur the lines between the iPad and MacBook to much. Right now it's two clearly distinct product lines, with separate use cases. Adding touch to the MacBook could hurt iPad sales (in the pro segment).
I also think Apple knows that their laptops doesn't need touch. It's a gimmick and adds nothing to the usability, but raises the cost.
All my Windows laptops have touch screens and I love it. What is the problem with having another input method available? You only use it when it’s appropriate.
It just feels ancient and weird now that I can tap every screen I own, except my Mac. I don't want to replace the Mac's keyboard & mouse with a touchscreen, I would simply like it to support touch.
(This also made me realize the impending obsolescence of the Studio Monitor XDR: no touch support.)
My iPad is mounted next to my Macs. I use it as a media player, checking deliveries, personal messages when I'm on my work laptop, and such. All of that is done via touch. When I need to flip over to my Mac to do the same thing, I have to use a 40 year old interface (a mouse).
It's not hard. I don't think we need to make everything touch-size on Mac. Small icons & buttons are perfectly fine in a production environment, and they're considered to be accessible. Just let us touch the screen.
Tech-reviewers keep harping on the MacBook for not having a touch option, but I think it's mostly of check a box.
Something no one seems to address is that it makes no sense to have touch on the laptop screen, because you honestly don't use it much, at least in a professional setting. You'll always dock your laptop anyway, either for comfort, or legal compliance (or both). My 27" monitor doesn't have touch, that's what I use 99% of the time, the laptop screen is a small auxiliary screen on the side. Why I reach out and touch it? That's also why the touch bar made no sense, it was on a keyboard that I almost never use.
I wouldn't want a touch screen to become the primary input device, but I think it would be useful on occasion. Not entirely unlike how we still have touchpads even though we try to use keyboard commands.
> I wouldn't want a touchscreen MBP even if it was free, anyone else feel similar?
I don’t want a touchscreen MBP, but as long as touching the screen is an optional interaction and everything else is the same, I see no reason to reject it if it was free. I can just not touch the screen.
> we already optimize for keyboard commands to avoid living our fingers over to a touchpad.
“We” is a much smaller percentage of people than you’re likely thinking of. We’re outliers, not the norm. Yes, even amongst professionals.
I have 2-3 old touchscreen laptops lying around. The touchscreen is useless to me. Worse than useless. If I ever use it, it’s accidentally, and I end up annoyed.
Well, when I am doing rather thinking work, so not type in commands as fast as possible - I very much do like my laptop to have a touchscreen. It is way more ergonomic and comfortable, but yes, slower. But when the real work happens in my head, I like to be rather comfortable.
(Also I can immediately test touch features of the apps I develope)
Seems like it only makes sense if it's a hybrid tablet laptop like the Yoga. Otherwise it's a nice gimmick. I can also see Apple being terrified at someone's dirty fingers smudging the laptop, though they'd have some anti-smudge coating built in at that point
Macs are definitely not optimized for keyboard commands. If you feel the software you use is keyboard optimized, odds are it's not really Mac software.
Linux/windows: ctrl+shift+c (unless you want to cripple proper ctrl+c functionality in which case you can (maybe) activate it from a UI menu)
The command key on Mac is somewhat magical and engages in all sorts of productivity and finger efficiency related context switching so that you can do more with less physical movement.
I’m genuinely curious who you think does it better
I really just discovered after many decades that you can still just select text and paste it with the middle mouse button just like you could in the Solaris days. No need for any keyboard command.
Even better is that it's a separate clipboard from the ctrl+shift+C clipboard, so if you want, and you're careful, you can copy-paste two things independently from each other.
macOS has been one of the best keyboard OSes for over a decade, maybe longer. Nearly everything is bindable without additional software or third party apps. This can be done on globally or app-specific. A lot of this comes from the deep script ability that used to be a priority but has fallen by the wayside in recent years.
I had been using Windows my entire life and using a Mac in 2009? was awful. How do I get to the menu bar? Ctrl-F2. They keep changing the behaviour of the menu so that cursor keys don't wrap at the bottom of a menu so you have to know which direction you want to go to get to a menu item - make your choice! Up or down!
How do I get to the dock so that I can open the Applications menu? Ctrl-F3. left left left left left up. Then the popup menu doesn't respond to any letters.
All of this contrasted with Windows which had Alt + key for the menu. I learned it from Windows 3.11 for incredible speed:
- Alt space - show the window menu
- Alt space x - maximize
- Alt space n - minimize
- Alt space r - restore
- Windows key - start menu
- Windows key > P > right cursor > N - notepad (the right cursor = accessories)
This was broken in later start menus. The modern start menu is absolutely useless and takes forever. Up until XP this worked fine.
- (with Quicklaunch): Windows + N (number) - launch that item. Eg. Windows + 3 will launch the third item across. No idea if they broke this in Windows 11.
Under Windows 98 all of these were lightning fast. Explorer behaved as you'd expect too.
None of this was possible on the Mac and using it was very very very slow with a mouse to wave around the screen.
I mean, all of this is available in MacOS as well, and configurable even—your main complaint seems to be that it works differently from Windows?
MacOS is a different operating system with different paradigms; instead of a start menu, you'd use Spotlight search for the same effect, which can be invoked with CMD+Space.
No, the main complaint is that you can't do half of those things with a keyboard. Eg. how do I maximise a window on macos with my keyboard?
I have been using macos for decades and use it daily at work so I understand it is different. I am just saying that the out-of-the-box functionality for keyboard usability is very poor compared to Windows (and Linux DEs which imitate Windows).
I end up using Rectangle on macos for moving windows and maximising them using keyboard shortcuts because else it's infuriating for window management to have to move from the keyboard to the mouse all the time. The usability under Tahoe for window edges etc. is even worse with a mouse than previous versions and a complete joke, so I am stuck on Sequoia.
> how do I maximise a window on macos with my keyboard?
System settings > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Window > Fill. Default on my machine is fn+control+f, but you can also reassign that there of course (which AFAIK is something Windows doesn't let you do, by the way.)
> I end up using Rectangle on macos for moving windows and maximising them using keyboard shortcuts
I also used to use Rectangle, but by now the built-in window management shortcuts fulfil the same purpose out of the box (almost, that is; where Rectangle can move Windows onto the next screen, that is arguably where the built-in shortcuts fall flat, only being able to arrange on a single screen)
Also, somewhere in accessibility settings, you can turn Keyboard Navigation to On - this allows you to tab through just about any control on the screen - very helpful. I find keyboard navigation much more fluid and easy on my Mac than my windows machine, but then I’m rarely doing anything serious in windows anyways and there’s a ton of muscle memory built up at this point
I'm surprised you feel that way. I fight with my mac every day for one reason or another. At least it's not as bad as the days where some software used Cmd + letter and some used ctrl +letter, but for instance Cmd tab will switch to the wrong window when I go back and I have to use the mouse. Window switching in general is a lot harder if you only have the keyboard because the laptop is docked without a magic trackpad
strange. Some keyboard shortcuts in os x are kinda weird and not intuitive to linux or windows users, but they are there. It's totally possible to use mac without trackpad. even cmd+tab switcher has a lot of hidden (but googlable) things: while still holding cmd after initial cmd+tab, you can close apps with q, switch to other apps with tab and (cmd+)shift+tab or left/right arrows, show app windows with down, etc.
There's also a cmd+` for switching between one app's windows. I still find that distinction weird from usability perspective, but it's not too hard to adapt to it.
As I discover every time I have a mouse fail, it is exceptionally difficult to use a modern Mac without a pointer device because at some point, it became quite difficult to get from (eg) the settings nav panel to the settings panel. I can CMD+SPACE to open spotlight, type 'Settings' to get to a settings panel, type 'Bluetooth' to open the bluetooth settings, and where I feel like I _should_ be able to `Tab` or `Enter` into the devices list, or have SOME way to navigate over there, the only way I've found to be able to is to plug in a physical mouse
Moreover, I occasionally encounter modals that won't let me tab to their action buttons, requiring a pointer device click to dismiss
Take a peek in the accessibility settings - there is a setting for keyboard navigation that defaults to Off - setting jt On should let you navigate those items
huh. I just did what you describe above (on tahoma) and was able to tab into the list of bluetooth devices, no problem.
do you have "Settings > Keyboard > Keyboard navigation" on? I thought it is on by default, but apparently it isn't. Without it "tab" only jumps between text fields and checkboxes.
There's also an "Accessibility > Keyboard > Full keyboard access", which gives more controls.
Cmd+Space to open spotlight, type in the first 3 or 4 letters of whatever you're trying to do (an application to open, or a system setting to change) and then Return gets me about where I need to go most of the time. Cmd+Tab and Cmd+` for window selection. I don't do much else on the OS itself so my bases are covered.
This is true for the most part, unless you adjust keyboard settings in System Settings to let all UI elements be focusable with the keyboard (for tabbing between UI elements). I think it used to be under "keyboard" but they might have moved it in the recent Control Center reshuffle.
Really? I find that on MacOS apps are very inconsistent about whether popping open a menu shows me hints for selecting items in that menu. Those same apps are consistent about it on Linux.
And then there's the bonkers window manager which can't move focus directionally (e.g. Super + left) and so you have to fall back to Cmd + tab tab tab tab but even then there's no consistency about whether you're switching between app instances or windows instances within the same app...
Display of shortcuts in menus is the responsibility of the app developer (especially in the case of use of foreign UI toolkits). If you don’t see them it’s because its dev dropped the ball and the Mac version is an afterthought.
I think its more about priorities. I expect touch related features to be a bit rough on Linux and I expect the same for keyboard focused things on Mac.
I have a lot of complaints but I would say my three big gripes are:
- Window navigation within (rather than between) open programs. Mainly if one is on an external monitor, this is just a nightmare and I end up using expose and clicking the window instead.
- Window positioning (I installed 3rd party software called Rectangle for this last year so it’s kind of solved but if we’re talking about the vanilla experience this is a big one)
- Having to switch focus to the dock and navigate one by one through shortcuts to open them instead of the Super+Dock position shortcuts that Windows and KDE expose
Interesting, those are problems I don't have, I guess due to my work and workflow.
Command-` works for window switching as I expect, probably simply due to being used to it so I know exactly how It works.
Window positioning is an interesting one. I can't stand windows being positioned through tools, I stack them like you would with papers and shuffle through so the edge overlap is really important. Probably showing my age there!
And I never use the dock. Spotlight gets me everything I'd need from there.
They kinda added window positioning with Tahoe -- there are things I like more about it than Rectangle (resizing), but I found that it was janky enough I switched back to Rectangle.
I rarely use the Dock, it's somewhat eye candy I leave up, or add stacks for folders that I use, but typically for keyboard action I reach for spotlight (cmd+space). Now, spotlight occasionally shitting the bed, that's another issue...
Annoyingly it doesn't even maximize properly. You have to use alt-click for sensible behaviour.
They also decided about 10? years ago to make it behave as a "fullscreen" button which was really useless to me on a Mac Pro with 2 screens, where it would only ever "zoom" to one screen and then make the other screen display the desktop wallpaper - not the actual desktop - the wallpaper.
There is no comparison. I even use their trackpad in my desktop setup. The keyboards are fine. I prefer a mechanical keyboard, but this is a laptop of course. I do want to strangle someone over at Apple for deciding to NOT put the control key in the bottom left corner though. Luckily it's not a hard fix.
I completely disagree. I've got a laptop with a touch screen, and it's occasionally very useful. It's rarely my primary input method, but when you're not constantly using the mouse, how often do you lose track of where the mouse cursor is? Instead of reaching for the mouse, figuring out where the cursor is, and then carefully maneuvering it over the button I want to click, I can just reach out to the screen.
A touch screen is incredibly useful when you're not currently already holding your mouse. It's easier to switch from keyboard to touch than from keyboard to mouse.
Yes, I feel like it'll be a degrade in quality if they do this with any of their current line up. If they want to make a Macbook Ultra or whatever with it, that's fine -- I would have no interest in it.
Up until v recently cars were not remotely accessible and part of a command-and-control network which Teslas are (perhaps other modern cars are too, I only know Tesla because I have one).
I know that the car reports practically all user events to Tesla in real time over the cell network (eg, open door), and I know it has root access. I don't know if that root is available remotely and I don't know if foundational commands like steering, acceleration and brake are accessible via the CLI (they are computer controlled actions locally)
THUS I would not want to drive a Tesla if there was the possibility of all cars being rooted and remotely controlled by an unauthorized actor.
People are painting this as a mutually exclusive ideological decision. Yet two things can be true:
1) The act of archive.today archiving stories (and thus circumventing paywalls) is arguably v low level illegal (computer miss-use/unauthorized access/etc) but it is up for interpretation whether a) the operator or the person requesting the page carries the most responsibility b) whether it's enforceable in third party countries neither archive.today or the page requester reside in
2) DDoSing a site that writes something bad about you is fundamentally wrong (and probably illegal too)
They already will be selling your ride data and there is no way they could monitor conversations in the car for commercial purposes (at least in Western countries).
Ads in cars, partnerships with alternative destinations, etc. definitely would feel like enshitification for a demographic comparable to the hacker news one here. But these are all per session/user settings just like most of us have a paid Spotify account and never see advertising and those who don't get a very different monetized experience.
What is exciting about monetization like this is the possibility for rides to become very cheap or even free. If my dentist offers free rides to the office in return for my loyalty, I'm quite happy to take that.
> If my dentist offers free rides to the office in return for my loyalty, I'm quite happy to take that.
That's actually a really interesting angle. The same way businesses often provide free parking now... what if they start providing free self-driving round trips?
E.g. spend $75 or more at Whole Foods, and get free round-trip up to 20 miles or something. Especially for bulky items like groceries where a car makes a big difference, I can totally see that becoming standard. Home Depot too. Plus entertainment like amusement parks, movie theaters, spas...
It makes particular sense for vertically integrated conglomerates like Amazon-Whole Foods which owns Zoox.
I buy Whole Foods French fries shipped to the store via Amazon logistics and purchase those at Amazon owned Whole Foods, at a discount via my Prime membership on my Amazon credit card which is processed on AWS infrastructure and I ride home on an Amazon owned Zoox that also runs on AWS infrastructure.
Amazon owns so much of the profit margin across that stack that they can afford to give rides away for example.
> there is no way they could monitor conversations in the car for commercial purposes (at least in Western countries)
people used to feel that way about search queries, email (gmail) and IP laws (LLM training).
> What is exciting about monetization like this is the possibility for rides to become very cheap or even free. If my dentist offers free rides to the office in return for my loyalty, I'm quite happy to take that.
this won't happen. alphabet will collect on both ends.
> and there is no way they could monitor conversations in the car for commercial purposes (at least in Western countries).
Why not? You can consent to having your audio recorded. They can even offer a higher “private” price and a lower “ad supported” price. I write “private” because I assume the microphones will always be listening no matter which price you pay.
I guess that's semantics. If you opt in then yes I guess they could do anything. I think the point was that enshitification would occur if they forced you to do that.
You could opt in to have blood or plasma taken on every ride if you so wanted I guess.
As a plasma donor you can earn $30-$70 per session for 800 ml. Let's call it $50. A session takes about 90 minutes, or 533 ml/hour, and you make $33/hour
Waymo charges $0.50 - $1.00 per mile. Let's use the high end.
To break even, your Waymo will need to consume < $33/hour, or < 33 mph. That's not bad!
If you go any faster, you won't be able to extract enough plasma in the same amount of time.
You really think ads in vehicle are not coming? You’re being naive if you think that.
Also, cheap rides cut into stocks margins. That won’t fly by investors either. These companies are not charities. They are in the business of maximizing profits. We lost “don’t be evil” over a decade ago.
It's a very capital intensive operation given the amount of vehicles that need to be carried on the balance sheet.
There are many reasons why a conglomerate like Alphabet doesn't want to hold all of that directly on the balance sheet, which is why Waymo is run as a subsidiary with its own sources of capital.
When I was at Uber 10 plus years ago and we were ideating autonomous vehicles. The general consensus was that we would run the technology platform and private equity would own fleets of cars built and operated to our specification.
Waymo has concluded either we are too early in the journey to decouple the tight vertical integration or they want to go very big and own all of the capital expenditure for what will presumably be a global rollout ultimately.
For anyone like me with a finance and technology crossover interest I actually think this is as interesting, maybe more interesting, than the private equity play around data centers at the moment because all of that is constrained against chip delivery and power constraints.
"Tech" was incredible light on CapExp compared with everything else (until AI hit, that is). That is what allowed its explosive growth. On the one hand alphabet is not used to that. On the other hand it is turning into a more normal business with more CapExp, and like other more "normal" business it uses more external investment. As a general rule of thumb: The more capex, the more leverage; for example commodity extraction, infrastructure or power generation are very capex heavy, and heavily leveraged.
I disagree with their reasoning and would say it's more for strategic benefits.
Giving firms that they get along well with (like Sequoia) allocation feels like a mix between a favor and possibly a way to signal that the valuation has some external buy-in too.
> The general consensus was that we would run the technology platform and private equity would own fleets of cars built and operated to our specification.
Private equity, or private capital (debt investors)? Although I guess PC was less of a thing 10 years ago.
What I'm talking about is that is still considered an external capital raise for the purpose of the markets and where those assets sit on the balance sheet.
Also, keep in mind the Alphabet doesn't fully own Waymo. I don't know the percentage ownership of hand, but that also feels like it's probably a prorated investment based on ownership so Alphabet doesn't reduce its voting control.
Yes and what matters the most is what Waymo has been signaling for years. They don’t want the capex (owning and running the physical cars). I don’t know the intent of this raise but you have to realize companies may have a good asset but they don’t want to own it 100% for a multitude of reasons. Some of them could be as simple as wanting to get other investors involved and comfortable with the asset to maybe take on larger roles in future rounds. Or in this case potentially running the car part of the business.
If they truly wanted the capex, this would not be a mixed round
A fully internal recap would have been simpler. The presence of outside capital, even minority, is consistent with a gradual transition toward shared ownership, asset light structures, or operator partners.
They have made many comments over the years about this too.
Notice I left a list of potential reasons. Not that ownership has changed. Just pointing out for folks like yourself that Google has made commentary about this exploring the idea of partnering with companies that operate the physical fleet. $3bn even if chump change for you is still a larger placement and has some level of signaling indicating the want to get other folks involved at some level.
I didn't ask for potential reasons. You're talking about the "reasons" for a "gradual transition," and I am telling you that this investment isn't transitioning anything. Everyone is keeping their equal share of the company. So, I don't understand why you are giving reasons for something that isn't currently happening.
I think the words are going over your head sorry. I will try one more time but realize now it might be too much especially see some of your dead comments here.
I am not claiming a transition is happening in this round, so asking for evidence of one misses the point. Transition here means enabling future shifts in who owns and operates the capex, not changing the cap table today. If Alphabet wanted permanent full-stack ownership, an entirely internal recap would have been cleaner. Bringing in outside capital, even minority, is about signaling and optionality, not dilution.
I understand everything you have said. The D-K of you WSB transplants is wildly frustrating.
If you'll notice, all I am doing is asking the brigade of snarky know-nothings to stop talking. I'm not pretentiously claiming to know, unlike all of you. You clearly aren't in any position to understand the internal working of Google, and it's unfortunate that HN used to be a place where a question like the original one would have been answered by a person who does, but is now flooded with people like you. I will gladly take the downvotes if they're from a bunch of garage band stock pickers.
Go take a breath and stop digging a hole. Nobody is being rude to you but you are highly inflammatory and honestly a real lowering of quality. Take a bit of your medicine and step away. I am sorry you feel the need to be so rude back to everyone.
You are not “just asking questions.” You are dismissing any analysis that is not insider gossip as illegitimate, which is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the substance. No one claimed NDA level insight. We are talking about incentives, capital structure, and signaling, which is literally what outsiders analyze. If only Googlers are allowed to reason about Google, then HN has no purpose beyond rumor laundering.
I definitely modulated my tone to match yours and some of your killed comments. Sorry you don’t like what you see. Happy to have a discussion but not be told I am someone from Reddit. Low effort and low class. You are consistently being rude and you just need to reflect on some of your comments. Your right my comment back to you was definitely not nice but look at some of your killed comments. Ick.
Sure thing boss. What other advice stemming from your vast experience, wealth, and psychological heath do you have for me? I'd love to improve my image to you... the "ick" police.
My finance people care about the cents, a ROI of 7% is average but at 8.5% and now you are a world class asset of that inventory type. That’s sometimes the difference of a few hundred k out of 20m but they would not take the deal if it is slightly over due to their risk appetite.
The 3b external either matters a ton to fit their risk models OR they are doing a favor to an outside party. Probably a bit of both.
Well, given that it is an equity sale, split still feels like it is the prorated amount so that alphabet continues to own its percentage - not more not less.
Obviously you're entitled to your view, but I don't think it's that kind of finance model right now - it's far too speculative and the upside too unknown to be adjusting for small amounts on risk models.
The concern, I think, is that their spare cash is dwindling and thus financial prudence might be beneficial - especially for those who rely on the core Mozilla propositions like Firefox.
The last I heard was that the Google rev-share agreement was on the skids and they stopped developing projects like Thunderbird and Fake Spotter because they were capital constrained.
If you know otherwise then you're better informed than I am I guess
This might be financial prudence of sorts - doesn't something like 80% of their yearly monetary contributions come from Google, particularly for search partnerships? If they are concerned that Google will start paying them less because search has diminishing future returns, diversifying their income sources through investments in AI might be a good idea.
If your comment is referring to the bending spoons business model, it's worth pointing out they are not VC, they are private equity.
If your comment is referring to the software company's exiting to provide a return to shareholders, that happens all the time whether it's venture-backed or privately owned. The owners of privately held bootstrapped companies still want an exit one day too.
As an open source software engineer who is now a venture capital investor, respectfully, I think your beef is with capitalism, not with the institutional investors.
Not in the startup world beyond what I pick up on HN, but this distinction was helpful. My mental model going forward:
- If a company is still validating the business model and optimizing for rapid growth, it’s typically a Venture Capitalist (VC) fit.
- If a company is already established and the play is to improve operations, scale, or restructure (often involving a change of control), it’s typically a Private Equity (PE) fit.
Reminder that restructure often means a company working just fine, but whose assets outstrip what PE can buy it for, so they strip it to the bones. Or they leverage it with debt against assets then pay that money to themselves for consulting, account/hr services that they force the company to outsource to other PE companies. Nothing is 'created' through this process, no value created/added, nor it is healthy capitalism as the company could have continued fine without this added leveraged debt that was purely used to profit PE.
One of the frustrating things about international roaming in the UK is typically your plan does not include coverage on this neutral network on the underground
I had a fun situation when I had friends visiting me in Japan for a road trip. One friend's US-model Android phone didn't support the specific low bands used for sparse coverage in rural Japan, but the repeaters inside of the tunnels were all on standard 2100 MHz, so whenever we drove through a tunnel he rushed to his phone to get some messages through. Kind of the opposite to what you usually experience with loss of signal in tunnels :)
Source? As someone that comes back to London every month, I’ve been able to roam the same as anywhere else in the UK. I’d be shocked if this were true.
Did the UK stop people from just picking up a cheap SIM at the Airport? I always like a local number when traveling. Anyway, Indian Roaming plans are so cheap these days that it's much easier and cheaper to just subscribe to them as part of the plan. These days, I don’t even need to add/activate it or anything, the providers turn it ON when I start my phone outside India and turn it off when I re-activate back in India.
The main problem if you're roaming is that you're considered a lower-priority customer, and since the network is often saturated already, you don't get any bandwidth.
Give the government your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database in order to protest against the government having your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database.
I don't get the draw - we already optimize for keyboard commands to avoid living our fingers over to a touchpad. Why would I want to start clicking on my screen?
If you're using your computer for tasks (rather than entertainment) and you're not a visual designer, I don't get why Apple are apparently going to be putting them into the new MBP line later this year.
reply