Makes me wonder why anyone would assume everyone on./ knows who he is, what he's done, or why we should care what he has to announce...
Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up. You could be a philosopher who has never heard of Aristotle or Plato. Or a FLOSS developer who has never heard of Richard Stallman. A game developer who has never heard of John Carmack. I could go on, but I'm not sure I could find a good stopping point and I'm fighting the impulse to just be insulting. Your ignorance is appalling. Please just smash your computer with a sledgehammer and go for a long walk on a short pier.
In ten years, Dell will still be around but your memory of this incident won't be. You will most likely be buying Dell again.
No I won't. Failure is terminal and my memory is long. Maxis fucked me over in the early 90's and I never bought another Sim game again. Ever. It's not that hard to avoid products from a particular company, really. Since we have something that resembles a free market, even if distorted, alternatives are available. Thank goodness for that. Dell is dead to me. End of story. That's how companies fail, because I'm not alone.
Yeah, I have been paying attention in the last decade. But my personal experience and memory currently is approaching a half century. What happens in a decade means Jack Shit. I've seen companies come and go. The ones that have staying power don't pull this shit. If they are lucky they get a goodbye wave as they fail and disappear (or get purchased). Crappy companies don't last. Nuff said.
For what they charge per month, Comcast's On Demand selection blows, hard. I get more for my $10/mo Netflix subscription than I ever got for my Comcast premium package that cost much more. And for those of us that are unfortunate enough to be in a Scientific Atlanta market, the DVR user interface makes bamboo shoots under the fingernails seem fun. They just rolled out a much lauded update to the UI that brings us into the mid 90s, which I guess is a move forward. In the meantime, our Netflix streaming via the Wii blows Comcast out of the water without even trying. Comcast stinks and they should be praising their deity for the monopoly they have, because they do not deserve to stay in business.
This seems clever and insightful, but the formula fails to include a number of factors.
How about:
D - "The likelihood we can cover this up and will never be found out" Diminishes over time, exponentially if the problem persists
E - "The damage to our reputation and long-term viability as a company when we're inevitably caught covering this up" Asymptotically approaches infinity.
F - "The long term goodwill we engender by telling the truth and making things right" If managed right, more important to the survival of the company than any other factor.
Dell was never in my list of top hardware companies, but now they are right at the top of my worst list. I'll never buy from them again and I will advise others against doing so, citing this kind of behavior as evidence. I hope they fail and vanish from the face of the earth to be replaced by another company that's much better at their business than they are. Good riddance.
There. That's what their strategy of lying and obfuscation got them.
Damage to personal reputation can destroy the lives of individuals, it should do so to companies as well, and deservedly so. Toyota realizes this and is working hard to make amends. They will very likely survive and thrive again. BP seems to be somewhat clueless about this, but I predict their arrogance will bite them in the ass eventually and they will either be bought out or have to undergo an identity wipe in an attempt to erase themselves from peoples memories.
Anyone at all familiar with popular culture would have picked a different name. I was like "Oh cool! Magneto Sales Tactics! That could be exciting.... Oh - Ma-GEN-to Sales Tactics. Meh."
No kidding. OP needs to dial down the fanboi-ism a bit. I like android quite a bit, but it's not due to "sweet eye candy" of which there is precious little present by default. Android is notable foremost because it works nicely for certain use cases (small form factor touch screens, small focused micro applications) not because it looks pretty.
A large portion of US residents have become addicted to the flow of information arriving via the internet (myself included). Disrupting it would lead to a greater panic than just about anything the government might be trying to "protect us from" (ie, hide from us).
Perhaps you really meant "rely" or "depend" upon? I know it's popular these days, but IMHO 'addicted' is a profoundly overused word. (Probably due to the current fashion of calling anything that people find enjoyable or useful enough to do regularly an addiction.) I use the internet a lot and depend on it for information and convenience, but I sure as hell wouldn't "panic" if it were disrupted. I would be upset and angry, as I am when I lose power, water or the use of my cell or landline. The ability to rapidly gather information and communicate with loved ones or authorities during a crisis is crucially important (particularly when on the move eg. during a commute home), as you rightly suggest, but it's not an addiction.
Sometimes squeezing every last penny out of customers isn't the best way to do business.
Invalid by existence proof. Verizon (and AT&T) seem to be doing well, so it appears to be a fine way of doing business, at least so far. Perhaps your claim is that they would do even better if they didn't bother charging as much for services as they are doing now, but I would put on my skeptical face for that claim. Perhaps you're confusing "best way to do business" with "best way for people like me"?
No, not really, though tossing off a quick thought wasn't really a good way to make a nuanced point about business strategy though that wasn't really the objective. It's not about "liking" a business, it's about the real and perceived value of the product or services. I'm personally less likely to reduce the amount of services or features I pay for if they get a little better over time for the same cost, even if that cost is really more than I need or want to pay. And I might be more willing to try new services or features because I don't have to worry about getting screwed. Giving people less value for the same cost, in contrast, encourages them to evaluate the value of said services which can be a prelude to reducing them or seeking a better deal elsewhere. I'm no economist, but that seems to be a formula for a slow decline, not viable growth.
My phone *is* an android phone (Droid), so I'm quite familiar with the nuances of WiFi, 3G and how they behave and interact on this device.
What you say is accurate, but somewhat beside the point, which is that I would prefer greater control of when 3G is active should I choose to rely primarily on WiFi and use a limited or metered data plan. Yes, when connected to a WiFi network, the device will use that instead of 3G, but it automatically fall back to 3G if the connection fails in any way (and there doesn't seem to be any graceful fail- or switch-over for established connections - they just hang). That actually happens a lot, even when I'm stationary near a strong signal (eg. at home 10 feet away from my AP) and the connection freezes up fairly often and seems to be wonky when using channels higher than 6. But there's currently no way to prefer WiFi over 3G in a useful or convenient way. The device is designed to use 3G more or less constantly, based on what I observe. You can turn off 3G and retain data capability actually, but only in a fairly stupid way: by going to airplane mode (everything off) then selectively activating WiFi. But the ability to make and receive voice calls is still disabled, so this is fairly useless for regular use. That's about it. There are no settings to disable 3G only, easily toggle it on/off, or allow it only under certain conditions (except disallowing it when roaming). As such, any limited data plans offered that might be preferred by non power users need to take this into account.
You're assuming I live in a metropolitan area where there is an abundance of public hotspots so I can always rely on WiFi when moving about. Not so - I'm in a rural area too. I just spend a lot of time near a few places that do. I work from home, so most of the time I'm near my own wireless network, so I can use that to update apps, sync up with the cloud, control my media center etc. When not home, there are a few places I happen to frequent that also provide WiFi like the public library and the coffee shop. Beyond that, I'm not much better off than you - I could not rely solely on WiFi. The point was really that since my current habits keep near the 2-3 WiFi sources available to me, I don't really NEED the expensive data plan to consume data. Thus I would rather be able to turn it on/off except when traveling off my beaten path, because even with metered data I would likely spend less than the current mandatory monthly fee.
First: Contrast the behavior of big companies like Verizon who consistenly reduce their level of service with that of companies like Linode, who consistently increase the level of service offered to their customers for no additional charge: http://blog.linode.com/2010/06/16/linode-turns-7-big-ram-increase. THAT is how you ensure customer loyalty. Sometimes squeezing every last penny out of customers isn't the best way to do business.
Second: When I purchased my smartphone, I didn't like being forced to purchase the "unlimited" plan for $30/month. Since the phone has WiFi and I'm usually near a WiFi access point, I was willing to rely on that to save some money. Instead I had to drop a second phone from the plan so my monthly bill didn't increase too much. If their new data plans include limitied but reasonable data allowances for a lower cost, I'm actually ok with that. The real problem is that it seems many (most?) current smartphones don't easily allow 3G to be disabled until needed. Or deprioritized with respect to WiFi - eg. Use WiFi preferentially when in range, only fall back to 3G if necessary and only for the apps configured to do so. (Note I say *easily* - I know data can be turned off but it's a PITA. The normal state is "data always on".) Given that these devices are constantly accessing the network, if simply having the phone on with data enabled puts people in danger of incurring overage charges when using the standard plans, they (Verizon) did it wrong. The new plans should take "normal" use into account, be less expensive than current plans, and provide reasonable options for heavy data users. Then this move might actually be a good one, benefiting everyone.
Wow. Organisms that are part of a balanced ecosystem are in fact in balance with their surrounding ecosystem. What's next? The revelation that planets in orbit around the sun do not in fact fly off into space because they follow a curved path centered around the parent body? Must be a slow news day.
At a certain nearby defense contractor they require the lens to be Sharpied. Better to have a camera free phone than ruin it.
In general, though, I think you missed the larger point in order to point out a triviality. What value are personal and presumably private devices if no reasonable conditions exist so that personal communications can remain private?
Watch for the other shoe to drop. Once this precedent is firmly established in the public and private sectors, the only remaining step is to ban personal devices so there is no possible way to communicate that isn't subject to search, surveillance or other forms of monitoring. There are already workplaces that ban personal laptops from accessing the network, or ban phones with cameras (good luck finding such a device these days), quite often for good reason (any defense-related job, for example, or jobs that involve sensitive data like medical information).
Personally, I don't think such rulings should be allowed to stand unless the law clearly defines reasonable conditions under which personal communication not subject to unlimited surveillance are permitted. I'm cynical enough to think that this will never happen. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Who would want to print their newspaper in the morning? Physical newspapers are convenient because of their wide format. Electronic news is nice because it is targeted and doesn't waste paper. Printing out your newspaper in the morning seems like the worst of both. You don't get the nice wide format, and you still waste the paper.
I've seen this done at hotels as well as Bed and Breakfasts, particularly if they are off the beaten path. The local paper (if there is one) doesn't cut it and they can't get delivery of a current paper, so they print out an electronic edition formatted to fit on plain paper. It's rather better than no paper at all, and they often include the local weather forecast and calendar of events on another page. Nice to grab off the front desk on the way out to read in the car or shuttle.
Actually it *is* really censorship. Stop making excuses for corporations. Just because Apple backpedals when public opinion goes against them doesn't mean their initial impulse was out of line with what they truly believe. In fact, this episode reveals their total lack of actual integrity since they don't actually stand behind a coherent set of beliefs, just the desire to reap maximum profits. Don't condone it just because it's wrapped up in the warm blanket of corporate rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Best followup thread tree ever.
I thank you all.
Me too, brother, me too.
Acting as an advocate for these people with your spelling, grammar and punctuation skills takes irony to epic levels.
Makes me wonder why anyone would assume everyone on ./ knows who he is, what he's done, or why we should care what he has to announce...
Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is. Or a physicist/mathematician and drawing a blank when Sir Isaac Newton's name comes up. You could be a philosopher who has never heard of Aristotle or Plato. Or a FLOSS developer who has never heard of Richard Stallman. A game developer who has never heard of John Carmack. I could go on, but I'm not sure I could find a good stopping point and I'm fighting the impulse to just be insulting. Your ignorance is appalling. Please just smash your computer with a sledgehammer and go for a long walk on a short pier.
In ten years, Dell will still be around but your memory of this incident won't be. You will most likely be buying Dell again.
No I won't. Failure is terminal and my memory is long. Maxis fucked me over in the early 90's and I never bought another Sim game again. Ever. It's not that hard to avoid products from a particular company, really. Since we have something that resembles a free market, even if distorted, alternatives are available. Thank goodness for that. Dell is dead to me. End of story. That's how companies fail, because I'm not alone.
Yeah, I have been paying attention in the last decade. But my personal experience and memory currently is approaching a half century. What happens in a decade means Jack Shit. I've seen companies come and go. The ones that have staying power don't pull this shit. If they are lucky they get a goodbye wave as they fail and disappear (or get purchased). Crappy companies don't last. Nuff said.
For what they charge per month, Comcast's On Demand selection blows, hard. I get more for my $10/mo Netflix subscription than I ever got for my Comcast premium package that cost much more. And for those of us that are unfortunate enough to be in a Scientific Atlanta market, the DVR user interface makes bamboo shoots under the fingernails seem fun. They just rolled out a much lauded update to the UI that brings us into the mid 90s, which I guess is a move forward. In the meantime, our Netflix streaming via the Wii blows Comcast out of the water without even trying. Comcast stinks and they should be praising their deity for the monopoly they have, because they do not deserve to stay in business.
This seems clever and insightful, but the formula fails to include a number of factors.
How about:
D - "The likelihood we can cover this up and will never be found out"
Diminishes over time, exponentially if the problem persists
E - "The damage to our reputation and long-term viability as a company when we're inevitably caught covering this up"
Asymptotically approaches infinity.
F - "The long term goodwill we engender by telling the truth and making things right"
If managed right, more important to the survival of the company than any other factor.
Dell was never in my list of top hardware companies, but now they are right at the top of my worst list. I'll never buy from them again and I will advise others against doing so, citing this kind of behavior as evidence. I hope they fail and vanish from the face of the earth to be replaced by another company that's much better at their business than they are. Good riddance.
There. That's what their strategy of lying and obfuscation got them.
Damage to personal reputation can destroy the lives of individuals, it should do so to companies as well, and deservedly so. Toyota realizes this and is working hard to make amends. They will very likely survive and thrive again. BP seems to be somewhat clueless about this, but I predict their arrogance will bite them in the ass eventually and they will either be bought out or have to undergo an identity wipe in an attempt to erase themselves from peoples memories.
Anyone at all familiar with popular culture would have picked a different name. I was like "Oh cool! Magneto Sales Tactics! That could be exciting. ... Oh - Ma-GEN-to Sales Tactics. Meh."
Name Fail.
Somewhere, someone on the internet is blaspheming. Duty calls.
I'd love to have that functionality in my android phone.
No kidding. OP needs to dial down the fanboi-ism a bit. I like android quite a bit, but it's not due to "sweet eye candy" of which there is precious little present by default. Android is notable foremost because it works nicely for certain use cases (small form factor touch screens, small focused micro applications) not because it looks pretty.
A large portion of US residents have become addicted to the flow of information arriving via the internet (myself included). Disrupting it would lead to a greater panic than just about anything the government might be trying to "protect us from" (ie, hide from us).
Perhaps you really meant "rely" or "depend" upon? I know it's popular these days, but IMHO 'addicted' is a profoundly overused word. (Probably due to the current fashion of calling anything that people find enjoyable or useful enough to do regularly an addiction.) I use the internet a lot and depend on it for information and convenience, but I sure as hell wouldn't "panic" if it were disrupted. I would be upset and angry, as I am when I lose power, water or the use of my cell or landline. The ability to rapidly gather information and communicate with loved ones or authorities during a crisis is crucially important (particularly when on the move eg. during a commute home), as you rightly suggest, but it's not an addiction.
Sometimes squeezing every last penny out of customers isn't the best way to do business.
Invalid by existence proof. Verizon (and AT&T) seem to be doing well, so it appears to be a fine way of doing business, at least so far. Perhaps your claim is that they would do even better if they didn't bother charging as much for services as they are doing now, but I would put on my skeptical face for that claim. Perhaps you're confusing "best way to do business" with "best way for people like me"?
No, not really, though tossing off a quick thought wasn't really a good way to make a nuanced point about business strategy though that wasn't really the objective. It's not about "liking" a business, it's about the real and perceived value of the product or services. I'm personally less likely to reduce the amount of services or features I pay for if they get a little better over time for the same cost, even if that cost is really more than I need or want to pay. And I might be more willing to try new services or features because I don't have to worry about getting screwed. Giving people less value for the same cost, in contrast, encourages them to evaluate the value of said services which can be a prelude to reducing them or seeking a better deal elsewhere. I'm no economist, but that seems to be a formula for a slow decline, not viable growth.
My phone *is* an android phone (Droid), so I'm quite familiar with the nuances of WiFi, 3G and how they behave and interact on this device.
What you say is accurate, but somewhat beside the point, which is that I would prefer greater control of when 3G is active should I choose to rely primarily on WiFi and use a limited or metered data plan. Yes, when connected to a WiFi network, the device will use that instead of 3G, but it automatically fall back to 3G if the connection fails in any way (and there doesn't seem to be any graceful fail- or switch-over for established connections - they just hang). That actually happens a lot, even when I'm stationary near a strong signal (eg. at home 10 feet away from my AP) and the connection freezes up fairly often and seems to be wonky when using channels higher than 6. But there's currently no way to prefer WiFi over 3G in a useful or convenient way. The device is designed to use 3G more or less constantly, based on what I observe. You can turn off 3G and retain data capability actually, but only in a fairly stupid way: by going to airplane mode (everything off) then selectively activating WiFi. But the ability to make and receive voice calls is still disabled, so this is fairly useless for regular use. That's about it. There are no settings to disable 3G only, easily toggle it on/off, or allow it only under certain conditions (except disallowing it when roaming). As such, any limited data plans offered that might be preferred by non power users need to take this into account.
You're assuming I live in a metropolitan area where there is an abundance of public hotspots so I can always rely on WiFi when moving about. Not so - I'm in a rural area too. I just spend a lot of time near a few places that do. I work from home, so most of the time I'm near my own wireless network, so I can use that to update apps, sync up with the cloud, control my media center etc. When not home, there are a few places I happen to frequent that also provide WiFi like the public library and the coffee shop. Beyond that, I'm not much better off than you - I could not rely solely on WiFi. The point was really that since my current habits keep near the 2-3 WiFi sources available to me, I don't really NEED the expensive data plan to consume data. Thus I would rather be able to turn it on/off except when traveling off my beaten path, because even with metered data I would likely spend less than the current mandatory monthly fee.
First: Contrast the behavior of big companies like Verizon who consistenly reduce their level of service with that of companies like Linode, who consistently increase the level of service offered to their customers for no additional charge: http://blog.linode.com/2010/06/16/linode-turns-7-big-ram-increase. THAT is how you ensure customer loyalty. Sometimes squeezing every last penny out of customers isn't the best way to do business.
Second: When I purchased my smartphone, I didn't like being forced to purchase the "unlimited" plan for $30/month. Since the phone has WiFi and I'm usually near a WiFi access point, I was willing to rely on that to save some money. Instead I had to drop a second phone from the plan so my monthly bill didn't increase too much. If their new data plans include limitied but reasonable data allowances for a lower cost, I'm actually ok with that. The real problem is that it seems many (most?) current smartphones don't easily allow 3G to be disabled until needed. Or deprioritized with respect to WiFi - eg. Use WiFi preferentially when in range, only fall back to 3G if necessary and only for the apps configured to do so. (Note I say *easily* - I know data can be turned off but it's a PITA. The normal state is "data always on".) Given that these devices are constantly accessing the network, if simply having the phone on with data enabled puts people in danger of incurring overage charges when using the standard plans, they (Verizon) did it wrong. The new plans should take "normal" use into account, be less expensive than current plans, and provide reasonable options for heavy data users. Then this move might actually be a good one, benefiting everyone.
Wow. Organisms that are part of a balanced ecosystem are in fact in balance with their surrounding ecosystem. What's next? The revelation that planets in orbit around the sun do not in fact fly off into space because they follow a curved path centered around the parent body? Must be a slow news day.
At a certain nearby defense contractor they require the lens to be Sharpied. Better to have a camera free phone than ruin it.
In general, though, I think you missed the larger point in order to point out a triviality. What value are personal and presumably private devices if no reasonable conditions exist so that personal communications can remain private?
Watch for the other shoe to drop. Once this precedent is firmly established in the public and private sectors, the only remaining step is to ban personal devices so there is no possible way to communicate that isn't subject to search, surveillance or other forms of monitoring. There are already workplaces that ban personal laptops from accessing the network, or ban phones with cameras (good luck finding such a device these days), quite often for good reason (any defense-related job, for example, or jobs that involve sensitive data like medical information).
Personally, I don't think such rulings should be allowed to stand unless the law clearly defines reasonable conditions under which personal communication not subject to unlimited surveillance are permitted. I'm cynical enough to think that this will never happen. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Who would want to print their newspaper in the morning? Physical newspapers are convenient because of their wide format. Electronic news is nice because it is targeted and doesn't waste paper. Printing out your newspaper in the morning seems like the worst of both. You don't get the nice wide format, and you still waste the paper.
I've seen this done at hotels as well as Bed and Breakfasts, particularly if they are off the beaten path. The local paper (if there is one) doesn't cut it and they can't get delivery of a current paper, so they print out an electronic edition formatted to fit on plain paper. It's rather better than no paper at all, and they often include the local weather forecast and calendar of events on another page. Nice to grab off the front desk on the way out to read in the car or shuttle.
Actually it *is* really censorship. Stop making excuses for corporations. Just because Apple backpedals when public opinion goes against them doesn't mean their initial impulse was out of line with what they truly believe. In fact, this episode reveals their total lack of actual integrity since they don't actually stand behind a coherent set of beliefs, just the desire to reap maximum profits. Don't condone it just because it's wrapped up in the warm blanket of corporate rhetoric.
Just a typo, though very subtle.
Gah! You're right. My bad.
Well yeah, but if it's illegal and you do it, you can be sued. Talking about whether it should be on /. is a waste of time.