@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov: First preference votes amongst Labour members/supporters
11%: Kendall
20%: Cooper
26% Burnham
43%: Corbyn
(2/4)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Android devices are more popular in the world than Apple and I believe their dominance is growing. Outside of the west, Apple is no where near as successful as US / Europe.

That's utterly irrelevent. Apple takes 92% of all profits from mobile phone manufacturing...

Scott_P said:

@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov: First preference votes amongst Labour members/supporters
11%: Kendall
20%: Cooper
26% Burnham
43%: Corbyn
(2/4)

F##k Me....

Scott_P said:

@SamCoatesTimes: Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership according to The Times / YouGov poll.
In the final round, Corbyn beats Burnham 53%v 47%
(1/4)

They wouldn't.....surely they wouldn't............... Errr...Would they?

LOL.

Plato said:

That's a huge margin for Jezza and Watson. WOW.

Just W W

Turkeys voting for christmas. But looking at the other options is it really THAT surprising....

And I know after 13 years of government the Labour cupboard of plausible leaders was bare but you have to admit you look at the options and think none of the above...

Tbh, my suspicion is a YouGov would be too skewed to young people (thus more Corbynesque than the whole membership).

Andy_Cooke said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Andy_Cooke said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Why?
I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.

Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
So about a million or so?
It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.

I don't understand.

I hadn't yet started when fees went up to £9,000, and yet I qualified for £3,500 only.

At most the people who were charged £9,000 had offers, I don't recall about that; but none of them were in the middle of a degree.

But they are now, and it's those people - all of those who started after you and are already in their degree - or even have just finished this summer - who will pay more than they were promised.

It's very skilful politics from Osborne. No-one will listen to any Lib dem criticism, as they're fatally compromised already. The SNP won't raise it as it doesn't affect Scottish students. Labour are too disorganised to mount any challenge. The general public (and thus the media who follow what the public want) won't notice due to the persistence of looking at it as a conventional debt (which it is, of course, certainly not) and the headline numbers won't have changed.

Yet it makes it a far worse deal for students than the system brought in after the latest hike, and it changes the amount paid by the students.

See Martin Lewis at MoneySavingExpert: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/

I see now you were making a point about this policy move by Osborne.

Sorry, I thought it was a serious suggestion of yours as a means of raising revenue for the exchequer from past students.

New Thread New Thread

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Android devices are more popular in the world than Apple and I believe their dominance is growing. Outside of the west, Apple is no where near as successful as US / Europe.

The problem is Apple is a solitary vertically-integrated company, and all that revenue goes directly to them, with a few exceptions.

Android is a vast network of companies, from Google to Samsung, many of which compete with each other.

The businesses are very different, and Apple has a much easier job as it tightly controls both the hardware and software, and has a ravenous horde of fans willing to slurp up whatever Apple produces. (*)

It's like saying ARM should be more profitable than Intel because it shifts many more chips than the US firm ...

(*) As an aside, Microsoft have done an absolutely amazing job of ensuring that Windows operates with a vast range of devices. It's an incredible technical accomplishment.

THe problem for Android is that any manufacturer profit beyond the bare minimum is competed away immediately as the next flagship model arrives and the others discount £50 off their previous price...

MarkHopkins said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Nevertheless, it's as big a difference as that between your deal and the one they took, except applied in retrospect.
I also know a considerable number of students who did use the calculators provided to help their decision. My eldest daughter chose to wait a year and go under the new regime as it did, in fact, offer her a better deal (those who just looked at the headline numbers, of course, wouldn't do that, but she actually weighed up the pros and cons).
Osborne fucked that up, though. By retrospectively changing the conditions on her.

I see where you are coming from, but Governments change rules like this all the time.

Private pensions used to be a good thing, until Gordon Brown came along. Maybe someone would have invested differently for their retirement, had changes not been made.

Or how about if someone created a business and expects to sell it - then the capital gains tax changes. Perhaps it wouldn't have been worth the risks with the new tax regime.

There are many examples.

However, those in receipt of private pensions, or those who were fortunate enough to remain in a final salary pension weren't affected. If, however, they were, it would be more comparable.

And the fact that capital gains tax varies regularly is well known and is taken into account; no Government has ever undertaken to hold it unchanged for the duration of any asset that you purchase.

The best direct analogy is indeed that former graduates suddenly find themselves charged by retrospective changes (as has, indeed, happened to those from the 2012 intake and those in the 2013 and 2014 intakes). If it's fair for them, it's fair for the rest of us. If it's widely accepted, then what leg have lawyers got to stand on to defend anyone complaining that their 1992 degree is suddenly being charged for?

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_Cooke said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Andy_Cooke said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Why?
I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.

Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
So about a million or so?
It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.

I don't understand.

I hadn't yet started when fees went up to £9,000, and yet I qualified for £3,500 only.

At most the people who were charged £9,000 had offers, I don't recall about that; but none of them were in the middle of a degree.

But they are now, and it's those people - all of those who started after you and are already in their degree - or even have just finished this summer - who will pay more than they were promised.

It's very skilful politics from Osborne. No-one will listen to any Lib dem criticism, as they're fatally compromised already. The SNP won't raise it as it doesn't affect Scottish students. Labour are too disorganised to mount any challenge. The general public (and thus the media who follow what the public want) won't notice due to the persistence of looking at it as a conventional debt (which it is, of course, certainly not) and the headline numbers won't have changed.

Yet it makes it a far worse deal for students than the system brought in after the latest hike, and it changes the amount paid by the students.

See Martin Lewis at MoneySavingExpert: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/

I see now you were making a point about this policy move by Osborne.

Sorry, I thought it was a serious suggestion of yours as a means of raising revenue for the exchequer from past students.

And your reaction was absolutely merited. It would be unfair and disgraceful to retrospectively change the conditions.
As it is for those affected by this. It's disgraceful, and definitely worse than the Lib Dems betrayal of students (albeit with less added sanctimony ). It's certainly ensured that my vote isn't going Tory-wards.

And, incidentally, surely creates a precedent to allow the government to actually implement that sort of suggestion.

notme said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Android devices are more popular in the world than Apple and I believe their dominance is growing. Outside of the west, Apple is no where near as successful as US / Europe.

The problem is Apple is a solitary vertically-integrated company, and all that revenue goes directly to them, with a few exceptions.

Android is a vast network of companies, from Google to Samsung, many of which compete with each other.

The businesses are very different, and Apple has a much easier job as it tightly controls both the hardware and software, and has a ravenous horde of fans willing to slurp up whatever Apple produces. (*)

It's like saying ARM should be more profitable than Intel because it shifts many more chips than the US firm ...

(*) As an aside, Microsoft have done an absolutely amazing job of ensuring that Windows operates with a vast range of devices. It's an incredible technical accomplishment.

How about apple rewriting OS X from powerpc to intel x86 on a point release of OS X 10.4 Tiger? Yes, a point release, not even a new operating system. I know nothing about software engineering, but i do know that was effing amazing.

No more amazing than other stuff that goes on in the industry. For instance MS getting Windows 8 working on ARM. (*)

It is, so I believe, quite common for the big companies to build their core OS's on other chipsets, often nightly. For one thing, the differing architectures show up bugs and problems that might not be apparent on the main target architecture.

But that leaves aside the fact I can buy a cheap keyboard, plug it into my PC and expect it to work. Or a monitor, or speakers, etc. Microsoft have to cater for a vastly wider ecosystem - including down to BIOS and motherboard level - than Apple. And it generally works.

That is truly effing amazing. And I'm not particularly an MS man.

(*) I certainly know MS were running various desktop Windows variants on ARM chips (albeit slowly, and only core services) in the early 2000s. And this was not the CE version. Rumours are Apple were also routinely building for other chips.