What you describe as an "implosion" is seen differently by people who actually like the products that are offered. Just because you don't like the "fatpod" doesn't mean it isn't going to sell well. I have no idea where you dreamt up the less responsive UI because it is not only visually better than the previous models, it unscientifically FEELS more responsive to me. As an iPhone owner, I could care less about the price cut as well, so at least we agree there.
What third party AV cables won't work with your iBook or iPods? Last I check, Apple makes one cable, and the third party makes about 100000. It is a pretty sad statement that you'd hold a grudge against a company for something like AV cables, (that isn't even true). What's the problem with just buying a Mac with Leopard preinstalled, and enjoying the experience, regardless if you have to pay an extra $5 for some special Apple cable (that doesn't exist)?
I don't think Apple makes a Linux version of anything, so what's your point? I'm not even sure Microsoft makes a Linux version of anything either, come to think of it.
I enjoy the schadenfreude as well...but....I don't see how her "disasterous" performance was any worse than the same crap she's been putting out for 8 years now.
I have that cd too! I haven't seen my cds in the past 5 years though...all digitized. I wonder if that is unauthorized? Face it. Those two sentences don't lay out the terms as clearly as those 100 page long EULAs for sure.
Eh, I run WoW in windowed mode most of the time anyway, so a pop-up ad wouldn't interfere with my long stretches of running/riding/flying/boating around the world to gather my next 250xp quest:-(
Can you think of maybe one counter-example where intrusive advertising was forced on the mass market, and the mass market responded by forever rejecting that form of advertising in both that product and any future products?
Sure! For me at least, (but hardly the mass market example you are seeking). Public Radio and Television! Better content, no commercials. The only problem is that 95% of the public are too stupid to enjoy commercial free content or comprehend the fact that some of us REALLY don't care what Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan are upto these days.
No. Patent means if anyone else wants to use it, they have to pay the rightful inventor for the privilege. There are billions of ways to circumvent patents; just ask Microsoft. "Recycle Bin", "File-Exit", "Aero", "Gadgets"...just to name a few they ripped from one company alone.
Or you could choose not to be a cheap-ass and actually buy an OS worth spending money on instead of using a crippled, ad-supported watered-down P.O.S Windows system. Too bad Microsoft doesn't have any offerings in that department.
I guess I'm a commie socialist then... I'm all for capitalism, as long as people making money off of millions of idiots out there don't impose their idiotic schemes on me without my ability to, a) think about the service that is being "offered", and b) flatly reject said stupid offer.
FTFP (p for patent)...The revenue from fees paid by advertisers often allows software providers to offer software applications to users at a reduced price or even free of charge in some cases...
So am I to presume that Vista is then overpriced? If this patent goes through, shouldn't Vista be "reduced price or even free"? That's the problem with the Microsoft Capitalism; having everything is not enough. Not only do they want to generate millions of dollars in ad revenue (that does nothing for the end user, mind you), they also want to continue charging hundreds of dollars for an OS than enables said revenue generation.
You are probably right, but the thing that bothers me about music, is it isn't explicitly stated anywhere with the music product (whatever medium) that the songs are leased. At least with computer programs and television broadcasts, they take the time to tell you the content is not yours. To me (and millions of other consumers), it is implied that I bought the CD so the songs belong to me...if only because it doesn't state otherwise anywhere on the CD.
I'm not sure your example is correct either. With your logic, I can buy a music CD (not lease, but BUY) and then turn around and sell individual tracks/copies/the whole cd/whatever. I think I should be able to do all of this, but the music industry sure doesn't (if you've been alive at all over the past 10 years, you'd have noticed).
Although I'm a certified UNIX system admin, I can say with all honesty that I have never used a command line in OS X. There is no need for home users to need this capability. Why would you ever run a "Linux command line" to fix a something in OS X, especially since OS X is decidedly NOT Linux?
Macs struggling "being in corporate business world" is not Apple's fault, nor is it relevant, since all Macs can now easily run Windows. You can be a single PC house all day long, and the Mac will stay play along just fine (and usually better than the PC brand-du-jour). "Completely clueless" users will appreciate the fact that on a Mac, you don't need a BS in computer science to unzip a compressed file, a Master's degree in Engineering to configure hardware devices, nor a PhD to, oh, lets just pick, remove malicious code from your system.
I recently configured a MacBook vs. a Dell Latidude, and the Dell was $19 cheaper when equally configured. I would say that the industrial design alone is well worth $19, not to mention getting a superior OS with the ability to run the inferior OS at the same time. So no, Macs DON'T cost any significant amount more. What you seem to be confusing (and many people make this mistake) is there is no basement-bottom offering from Apple. The cheapest Mac is not a budget model (although I would argue budget PC's are a complete waste of money anyway), BUT when compared to equal PC offerings, the Macs are the same price. In many cases, especially the higher-end you get, the Mac becomes a significantly cheaper computer to buy.
Let me try to clear it up. You were trying to point out the flaw in the 9/11 theory by saying, "then why didn't we plant WMD in Iraq?". There was no need to plant WMD in Iraq, because the government wasn't trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq's WMDs. The reason we went to Iraq is because Saddam Hussein didn't meet the deadline, NOT because we wanted to go in there and get those bad terrorists that bombed the twin towers. I'm not disagreeing with your point-of-view at all, I'm just suggesting that the planted-WMD theory wouldn't matter. In other words, planting evidence would do NOTHING for their claim that 9/11 WASN'T an internal job (even though any sane person in the world knows it wasn't an internal job).
And just for another record, WMDs WERE found in Iraq by the early efforts of the inspection teams. Saddam Hussein wrangled the UN out of there long enough to destroy/relocate/bury/sink, etc. the main supplies before letting them back in.
I wasn't trying to infer that YOU don't research anything, I was just saying that the people who just think Windows is their only option, or is a "safe" option, need to broaden their horizons.
I agree with you about Linux. I won't touch the thing again for another 5 years. I'll check back then to see if it the idiot-proof, works-out-of-the-box solution that Apple has already been providing for the past 15-20 years.
Macs aren't as expensive as "they" say (again, back to the research) nor is their a large contingency of PC only applications and peripherals, as you claim. These are all OLD claims (again, the research). "Learning a new OS" is a pretty tired argument too, because the vast majority of switchers have little to no learning curve when it comes to using Mac OS X. Novice users will have some issues, as will power-users, but in this day and age, most everyone has experience using a point-and-click operating system. The benefit of OS X is that users can actually figure out 95% of everything they need to do by just trying things out.
Well I have one reason that would destroy your argument. The US didn't go to Iraq because of 9/11. The US went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein was given a deadline to comply with UN resolutions and he didn't. Not that the 9/11 theory crazies are any more right because of this. I just wanted to remind all the historical revisionists of the entire Iraq timeline and it's complete irrelevance to 9/11.
The first thing that is wrong is that anybody would ever want a ringtone. You'd have to pay ME, AND remove the ringtone before I'd even consider your offer of a crappy pop-single with an even crappier "remix" and a third filler to go along with the ringtone that only idiots want. Then there's the whole issue of, WHO USES CD'S ANYMORE????
And in Cupertino and Austin, the iTunes business teams are high-fiving. As the industry insists on implementing 20-year old business models, Apple Inc. no longer really needs to update their iTunes services, as it will be another 25 years before the industry realizes that PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY PLASTIC DISCS ANYMORE......
I hate the "no choice" argument. There are plenty of choices, just in Mac OS X alone, and even more if you want to venture into Linux. The people who claim they have "no choice" have no research skills.
#3 should read: "Without the user, you are nothing."
Users WILL break the system out of stupidity, because most users aren't programmers or engineers. This is why an engineering/programming approach is misguided as applied to the web. If we could concentrate more on usability and design, we'd give the dumb user less opportunity to break the system.
Slashdot Mirror
What you describe as an "implosion" is seen differently by people who actually like the products that are offered. Just because you don't like the "fatpod" doesn't mean it isn't going to sell well. I have no idea where you dreamt up the less responsive UI because it is not only visually better than the previous models, it unscientifically FEELS more responsive to me. As an iPhone owner, I could care less about the price cut as well, so at least we agree there.
What third party AV cables won't work with your iBook or iPods? Last I check, Apple makes one cable, and the third party makes about 100000. It is a pretty sad statement that you'd hold a grudge against a company for something like AV cables, (that isn't even true). What's the problem with just buying a Mac with Leopard preinstalled, and enjoying the experience, regardless if you have to pay an extra $5 for some special Apple cable (that doesn't exist)?
I don't think Apple makes a Linux version of anything, so what's your point? I'm not even sure Microsoft makes a Linux version of anything either, come to think of it.
Hurting Apple in the end? Yeah, because Apple is doing SOOOO much worse in 2007 than they were in 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkzhVHTXgS4/
Enjoy?
I enjoy the schadenfreude as well...but....I don't see how her "disasterous" performance was any worse than the same crap she's been putting out for 8 years now.
I have that cd too! I haven't seen my cds in the past 5 years though...all digitized. I wonder if that is unauthorized? Face it. Those two sentences don't lay out the terms as clearly as those 100 page long EULAs for sure.
Eh, I run WoW in windowed mode most of the time anyway, so a pop-up ad wouldn't interfere with my long stretches of running/riding/flying/boating around the world to gather my next 250xp quest :-(
No. Patent means if anyone else wants to use it, they have to pay the rightful inventor for the privilege. There are billions of ways to circumvent patents; just ask Microsoft. "Recycle Bin", "File-Exit", "Aero", "Gadgets"...just to name a few they ripped from one company alone.
Or you could choose not to be a cheap-ass and actually buy an OS worth spending money on instead of using a crippled, ad-supported watered-down P.O.S Windows system. Too bad Microsoft doesn't have any offerings in that department.
FTFP (p for patent)...The revenue from fees paid by advertisers often allows software providers to offer software applications to users at a reduced price or even free of charge in some cases...
So am I to presume that Vista is then overpriced? If this patent goes through, shouldn't Vista be "reduced price or even free"? That's the problem with the Microsoft Capitalism; having everything is not enough. Not only do they want to generate millions of dollars in ad revenue (that does nothing for the end user, mind you), they also want to continue charging hundreds of dollars for an OS than enables said revenue generation.
You are probably right, but the thing that bothers me about music, is it isn't explicitly stated anywhere with the music product (whatever medium) that the songs are leased. At least with computer programs and television broadcasts, they take the time to tell you the content is not yours. To me (and millions of other consumers), it is implied that I bought the CD so the songs belong to me...if only because it doesn't state otherwise anywhere on the CD.
I'm not sure your example is correct either. With your logic, I can buy a music CD (not lease, but BUY) and then turn around and sell individual tracks/copies/the whole cd/whatever. I think I should be able to do all of this, but the music industry sure doesn't (if you've been alive at all over the past 10 years, you'd have noticed).
Macs struggling "being in corporate business world" is not Apple's fault, nor is it relevant, since all Macs can now easily run Windows. You can be a single PC house all day long, and the Mac will stay play along just fine (and usually better than the PC brand-du-jour). "Completely clueless" users will appreciate the fact that on a Mac, you don't need a BS in computer science to unzip a compressed file, a Master's degree in Engineering to configure hardware devices, nor a PhD to, oh, lets just pick, remove malicious code from your system.
I recently configured a MacBook vs. a Dell Latidude, and the Dell was $19 cheaper when equally configured. I would say that the industrial design alone is well worth $19, not to mention getting a superior OS with the ability to run the inferior OS at the same time. So no, Macs DON'T cost any significant amount more. What you seem to be confusing (and many people make this mistake) is there is no basement-bottom offering from Apple. The cheapest Mac is not a budget model (although I would argue budget PC's are a complete waste of money anyway), BUT when compared to equal PC offerings, the Macs are the same price. In many cases, especially the higher-end you get, the Mac becomes a significantly cheaper computer to buy.
And just for another record, WMDs WERE found in Iraq by the early efforts of the inspection teams. Saddam Hussein wrangled the UN out of there long enough to destroy/relocate/bury/sink, etc. the main supplies before letting them back in.
I agree with you about Linux. I won't touch the thing again for another 5 years. I'll check back then to see if it the idiot-proof, works-out-of-the-box solution that Apple has already been providing for the past 15-20 years.
Macs aren't as expensive as "they" say (again, back to the research) nor is their a large contingency of PC only applications and peripherals, as you claim. These are all OLD claims (again, the research). "Learning a new OS" is a pretty tired argument too, because the vast majority of switchers have little to no learning curve when it comes to using Mac OS X. Novice users will have some issues, as will power-users, but in this day and age, most everyone has experience using a point-and-click operating system. The benefit of OS X is that users can actually figure out 95% of everything they need to do by just trying things out.
Well I have one reason that would destroy your argument. The US didn't go to Iraq because of 9/11. The US went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein was given a deadline to comply with UN resolutions and he didn't. Not that the 9/11 theory crazies are any more right because of this. I just wanted to remind all the historical revisionists of the entire Iraq timeline and it's complete irrelevance to 9/11.
I don't even have to read TFA to know it is flawed. A Republican and a Democrat are not the automatic equivalent of "Conservative" or "Liberal".
The first thing that is wrong is that anybody would ever want a ringtone. You'd have to pay ME, AND remove the ringtone before I'd even consider your offer of a crappy pop-single with an even crappier "remix" and a third filler to go along with the ringtone that only idiots want. Then there's the whole issue of, WHO USES CD'S ANYMORE????
And in Cupertino and Austin, the iTunes business teams are high-fiving. As the industry insists on implementing 20-year old business models, Apple Inc. no longer really needs to update their iTunes services, as it will be another 25 years before the industry realizes that PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY PLASTIC DISCS ANYMORE......
I hate the "no choice" argument. There are plenty of choices, just in Mac OS X alone, and even more if you want to venture into Linux. The people who claim they have "no choice" have no research skills.
Beer analogies never work, because there is no such thing as bad beer ;-)
I doubt this is worthy of a lawsuit, but it is boneheaded enough to drive customers to other, better platforms like Mac OS X.
Users WILL break the system out of stupidity, because most users aren't programmers or engineers. This is why an engineering/programming approach is misguided as applied to the web. If we could concentrate more on usability and design, we'd give the dumb user less opportunity to break the system.