That metaphor breaks down here because there's no way to "see the hole" until you've stumbled through it. In this case, we're talking about changing a value somewhere in an URL or something similar, and getting access to something that isn't yours. You can look at the structure of the URL and make the intuitive leap that there might be an issue and test it out, but there's no way you can know without testing and no point in reporting if you don't know.
Not technically true, unless you're looking at Microsoft as a percent of the TOTAL OS market and not just Desktop OS, which would be a bit. Even years later, MS still has a tighter grip on the Desktop OS market than Google does on search. Google commands 65% of US search vs Microsoft's 79% of Desktop OS. Back when it was under scrutiny, I do believe Microsoft had well above 90%.
At any rate, as others will point out, Microsoft's problems stemmed less from having a monopoly and more with the manner in which they abused it. Google is accused of practices which they alone out of all search engines actually deny doing (human manipulation of search results). You can't really prove a negative, so it's a pretty tricky claim to defend against. If Google is lying, then I'm not sure how I feel about it. There are quite a few people who say there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. But, as I said, they do deny it. They've stated clearly, on the record, under penalty of personal prosecution, that this is something they do explicitly do not do. I'm inclined to believe that.
This is why government exists. Some things will never be paid for by private individuals but offer benefits so far in excess of their costs its ridiculous not to do them. Public education and public health are two primary examples. Have you ever really considered how much more money we'd have to spend on Law enforcement and prisons if we, as a for instance, stopped paying for public education?
Perhaps your familiar with game theory and the prisoner's dilemma. Neither party will achieve the optimal outcome by selfishly pursuing their own self-interests--it requires a 3rd party to step in and enforce some discipline to ensure that everyone achieves the best possible outcome.
As a for instance, needles for drug addicts. If the government provides them, the company who makes the needles profits. The addicts themselves will never spend money on something that means less heroin (or whatever drug we're talking about) however they each receive a net aggregate benefit far in excess of the needles total cost. A few million spent on needles can easily translate into tens of millions of dollars LESS spent on healthcare for Hepatitis and AIDS down the road. A huge part of that benefit goes to the drug addicts but much of it goes back to the government and hospitals who might likely get saddled with their healthcare costs in the end.
The net benefit to everyone for such a simple program is huge, an order of magnitude, at least, greater than the cost. And yet, if left to the free market and private charity it would never happen. That's a simple example. This is what government is supposed to do. You benefit from those tax dollars spent so much more than you realize, and its a benefit far greater than what you could do with your own spending power. You benefit by getting robbed less, by spending less on security, by cheaper prices and by any other number of other ways.
They can't notify you because even if they have your MAC address in their database they have NO WAY of knowing its yours. All they know is what locations have wifi networks, not which people have wifi networks. Which is why this isn't tracking. Which is why this isn't a big deal. Which is why this whole thing is dumb.
And anyways, why would you want to opt-out? Do you have some weird thing about people potentially figuring out that you have a wifi network in your house from a distance? How does this put your privacy at risk in any conceivable way?
How? Figuring out whether someone has Wifi in their house is a big turn on for stalkers? That's all anyone can do with this information. Unless people are carrying their Wifi routers around with them in their purse/briefcase all day long (while somehow keeping them plugged in) there's no way this equates to tracking. At WORST is merely reveals which addresses own wifi network
You're confused. I'm too tired to give you the long explanation. Suffice to say, there was harmless stuff they were collecting on purpose when they ACCIDENTALLY collected stuff that might actually be private along with it. This is not about the accidental stuff.
This is about the stuff they were collecting on purpose which is, as I said, completely harmless. There are literally 0 privacy implications to having this data collected. It does not track back to you, it's already completely public, and at the absolute worst all Google could do with it is figure out if you owned a wifi network at all. That's it. Unless you have Wifi at your house and you want it kept super-secret for some obscure reason, you have no reason to care about this data collection.
It's because it's Europe. For whatever reason, Europeans trust government and distrust corporations. The bigger one is, the obviously less trustworthy it becomes. Google is huge, so clearly must be very, very evil.
But Google is pretty good about opt-in compared to companies like Facebook. This particular issue, however, is not a privacy one. Some regulatory drone simply has no idea what Google is doing but doesn't like the sound of it so they demanded an opt-out. An opt-in would be *literally* impossible because MAC addresses are naturally anonymous. There's no way to take one and track it back to its owner by name. As such, there's no way to contact people and ask for permission--nor is there any need to since this is a completely harmless (actaully, quite beneficial for everyone else) thing that Google is doing.
The summary only calls it "tracking" because Theodp is an inflammatory troll whenever it comes to Google--a streetview car ran over his dog or something.
If your router is broadcasting an SSID announcement packet, Google grabs your MAC address and remembers the location. That's it.
Your router is not your phone. You don't take it everywhere you go, so Google isn't tracking YOU when they record this. Moreover, your router's MAC address is not personally identifiable. They have no way to say look at that address and put a name to it.
That announcement packet is not just on the public airwaves, it by design, is EXPLICITLY intended for the public. Everyone in range receives it. When you turn on your phone/laptop and see all the networks you can connect to, that list is created by receiving these packets. You were not stealing them You did not require their owners to OPT-IN to you seeing them. At any time you may put your router in stealth mode and stop announcing its existence. You are basically shouting from a rooftop that you own a wifi network. You should not be getting mad if Google hears you and says "Neat, I'll remember that".
If Google wanted to "abuse" this data, they might be able to, at the very worst, figure out which houses in a sparsely populated area had Wifi networks and which did not. How might the privacy implications of this affect you? I don't mean to be rude, but anyone saying "Why not opt-in?" clearly has no idea what the actual issue at hand here is. This is not "tracking". This is not a privacy issue. Some nutjubs want the fact that they have Wifi to be private but at the same time don't want to stop their routers from shouting it at the top of their lungs. This compromise is for them.
You pretty much named the only questionable thing I can think of, and even it, they were on the "good guys" side of it from most people perspective. Allowing people to search through books might be on legally shaky ground, but it was hardly an act of evil.
Because its hysterical nonsense. There's no privacy issue here whatsoever. Even the summary calls it "tracking", which just shows the submitter has no idea whats going on here. It's not tracking. All their doing is paying attention to their location when a router announces its presence. So theoretically, somebody might be able to figure out if your address has a wifi router or not. Is that a privacy issue for you?
Because if so, you can turn that announcement off and stay "private". You don't actually need to "opt-out". I cannot imagine *why* you would need to keep the fact that you have a Wifi router a secret. Are you an Amish person afraid of being ostracized? Regardless, that is the only privacy issue at stake here and it hardly qualifies as tracking.
Google is only doing this to shut up some bag of hot air at some regulatory agency who clearly doesn't understand technology and assumes that there must be some greater privacy significance to creating this sort of database but there simply isn't. Router MAC addresses cannot be backtracked to people's names, and even if they could all you'd know is who has wifi in their house and who doesn't. Oooooooh, scary!
Being visible/receivable from the street is one thing, having that data recorded and redistributed on a mass -- almost exhaustive -- scale is something different.
Certainly Americans don't see it that way, but I recall reading that the Japanese feel that things which occur in public still have some privacy because politeness dictates that people not stare/spy/etc. So, for instance, changing your clothes in front of an open window still, somehow, qualifies as private and when a streetview car drives by that suddenly puts it in the public because people viewing those pictures later will not feel the social pressure to politely look away.
I think most cultures have a pretty clear line between public and private, whereas the German line seems to be kind of wishy-washy which is why Streetview creeps you out. I can assure you that the vast, vast majority people in the United States would say "Why would you want to do that?" if you asked if they wanted their house blurred.
There's no tracking. There is nothing resembling "tracking" going on here. That's pure inflammatory nonsense. Theodp posts trollish summaries whenever it comes to Google and he submits them constantly; sometimes they get posted as-is and the comments are generally full of people saying "Wtf?".
This is not about *tracking* and opt-in would be literally impossible because there's no way to tie an identity to a MAC address so Google wouldn't have any damn idea who to ask. Google has a database of Wifi router mac addresses and their locations. These things a) don't track back to a specific person b) don't move around. So calling this "tracking is nonsense". Wifi routers by default will *announce* their existence and their SSID. That announcement packet is meant for the public--it's how your laptop knows what networks are around you to try to connect to. If you want it to be private, you simply turn that broadcast off. All google did was make a list of what networks they could see broadcasting their existence and where they saw them. The idea that this is something people need an opt-out for is so silly as to be laughable and an opt-in wouldn't even be possible as there's no way to figure out who owns a network to contact them to ask them for permission because its already pretty much anonymous.
In fact, the reason why an opt-in wouldn't be possible is precisely the reason why this is a total non-issue.
You would think that, and you'd be sort of right. But this is basically a retroactive opt-out. Say your SSID was public and now you want it out of their database. I honestly cannot imagine why. There are literally 0 privacy implications here. It's pretty clear this was done just to shut up some European regulator who had no idea what the hell Google was actually doing but thought it *sounded* like something he should be concerned about.
Also, I think its not about SSID but rather MAC address of the router broadcasting an SSID. So if you changed your SSID, you wouldn't confuse the geolocation service, but if you stopped broadcasting your SSID and went stealth it should still serve as an opt-out.
There are a lot of people elsewhere who think this sort of crap makes sense--mostly people sick of cleaning up forums full of trolls. Even some major sites, like Techcrunch, have made the mistake of switching to Facebook for their blog comment system. It really makes me sad to see that kind of thing happen.
Sure, you cut back on trolling but you cut back on a lot of good stuff too when people don't feel free to speak honestly. I'm not willing to make a political statement of any sort attached to my real name on the internet. It's not that I don't have political views, I'm just afraid someday that I'll be at a job interview and somebody with opposite views will have Google'd me and I'll end up not getting the job.
Erm, I meant that the other way around. Serving Flash to devices that support it, and non-flash video to those who don't. In other words, Adobe's own server software doing exactly what you suggest it should do.
And what are those advantages, actually? As far as I can tell, the "advantage" is mainly to content producers who haven't updated their skill sets since around 2002. And these tools cost a pretty penny.
The advantage is that HTML5 video tags do not support anything with DRM, and sadly there are many content producers who will not allow their content to be available without DRM. As a result, there is always going to be video content exclusive to Flash that iOS devices miss out on. I don't actually know how Adobe expects to get around there here (since they are effectively serving up HTML5 video in h.264), but I suspect sites that are concerned about DRM simply won't use this feature.
Erm, I meant that the other way around. Serving Flash to devices that support it, and non-flash video to those who don't. In other words, Adobe's own server software doing exactly what you suggest it should do.
[quote]And what are those advantages, actually? As far as I can tell, the "advantage" is mainly to content producers who haven't updated their skill sets since around 2002. And these tools cost a pretty penny.[/quote]
The advantage is that HTML5 video tags do not support anything with DRM, and sadly there are many content producers who will not allow their content to be available without DRM. As a result, there is always going to be video content exclusive to Flash that iOS devices miss out on. I don't actually know how Adobe expects to get around there here (since they are effectively serving up HTML5 video in h.264), but I suspect sites that are concerned about DRM simply won't use this feature.
No, it's actually exactly what Adobe is trying to sell here. Read again. This is about server software serving up non-flash video to devices which do support flash, and flash to everyone else.
Well, Adobe blames flash problems with Macs on Apple's API lacking any sort of low level access to the graphics card. Flash doesn't seem to be a source of instabilities on non-Mac PC's, nor does it seem to cause performance issues.
On the other hand, I would have to uninstall Flash if I didn't have NoScript to keep it off when I didn't specifically turn it on.
And something else would have all the problems with exploits. Flash was targeted for the same reason Internet Explorer *used* to be targeted--because its the largest common denominator. It's the single piece of software that more people than any other on the internet have installed on their machine. If you target a specific browser, you can only get a fraction of the people, but if you find a flash exploit you can get them all. So if you're going to spend your time finding exploits for one or the other, it makes sense to target Flash.
That doesn't necessarily excuse them for all the problems they've had, but its highly likely that anybody else would have had just as many problems discovered if they were was ubiquitous. Internet explorer didn't suddenly get way more secure, it just stopped being targeted as often (to be fair, Microsoft has made huge strides with security as well, so it was some of both).
That's like saying only meteorologists care about funnel clouds. Sure, they're the only ones who want to do in depth research and discussion, but you can be damn sure everybody else will suddenly care when there's one outside their house. It's just a matter of time.
Millions maybe, but that still leaves billions to say "No, thanks."
Steve Jobs took Apple in a money-making direction to be sure, one that has benefited consumers in certain ways--but one that has been detrimental in many others.
Slashdot Mirror
That metaphor breaks down here because there's no way to "see the hole" until you've stumbled through it. In this case, we're talking about changing a value somewhere in an URL or something similar, and getting access to something that isn't yours. You can look at the structure of the URL and make the intuitive leap that there might be an issue and test it out, but there's no way you can know without testing and no point in reporting if you don't know.
Not technically true, unless you're looking at Microsoft as a percent of the TOTAL OS market and not just Desktop OS, which would be a bit. Even years later, MS still has a tighter grip on the Desktop OS market than Google does on search. Google commands 65% of US search vs Microsoft's 79% of Desktop OS. Back when it was under scrutiny, I do believe Microsoft had well above 90%.
At any rate, as others will point out, Microsoft's problems stemmed less from having a monopoly and more with the manner in which they abused it. Google is accused of practices which they alone out of all search engines actually deny doing (human manipulation of search results). You can't really prove a negative, so it's a pretty tricky claim to defend against. If Google is lying, then I'm not sure how I feel about it. There are quite a few people who say there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. But, as I said, they do deny it. They've stated clearly, on the record, under penalty of personal prosecution, that this is something they do explicitly do not do. I'm inclined to believe that.
What?
This is why government exists. Some things will never be paid for by private individuals but offer benefits so far in excess of their costs its ridiculous not to do them. Public education and public health are two primary examples. Have you ever really considered how much more money we'd have to spend on Law enforcement and prisons if we, as a for instance, stopped paying for public education?
Perhaps your familiar with game theory and the prisoner's dilemma. Neither party will achieve the optimal outcome by selfishly pursuing their own self-interests--it requires a 3rd party to step in and enforce some discipline to ensure that everyone achieves the best possible outcome.
As a for instance, needles for drug addicts. If the government provides them, the company who makes the needles profits. The addicts themselves will never spend money on something that means less heroin (or whatever drug we're talking about) however they each receive a net aggregate benefit far in excess of the needles total cost. A few million spent on needles can easily translate into tens of millions of dollars LESS spent on healthcare for Hepatitis and AIDS down the road. A huge part of that benefit goes to the drug addicts but much of it goes back to the government and hospitals who might likely get saddled with their healthcare costs in the end.
The net benefit to everyone for such a simple program is huge, an order of magnitude, at least, greater than the cost. And yet, if left to the free market and private charity it would never happen. That's a simple example. This is what government is supposed to do. You benefit from those tax dollars spent so much more than you realize, and its a benefit far greater than what you could do with your own spending power. You benefit by getting robbed less, by spending less on security, by cheaper prices and by any other number of other ways.
They can't notify you because even if they have your MAC address in their database they have NO WAY of knowing its yours. All they know is what locations have wifi networks, not which people have wifi networks. Which is why this isn't tracking. Which is why this isn't a big deal. Which is why this whole thing is dumb.
And anyways, why would you want to opt-out? Do you have some weird thing about people potentially figuring out that you have a wifi network in your house from a distance? How does this put your privacy at risk in any conceivable way?
How? Figuring out whether someone has Wifi in their house is a big turn on for stalkers? That's all anyone can do with this information. Unless people are carrying their Wifi routers around with them in their purse/briefcase all day long (while somehow keeping them plugged in) there's no way this equates to tracking. At WORST is merely reveals which addresses own wifi network
You're confused. I'm too tired to give you the long explanation. Suffice to say, there was harmless stuff they were collecting on purpose when they ACCIDENTALLY collected stuff that might actually be private along with it. This is not about the accidental stuff.
This is about the stuff they were collecting on purpose which is, as I said, completely harmless. There are literally 0 privacy implications to having this data collected. It does not track back to you, it's already completely public, and at the absolute worst all Google could do with it is figure out if you owned a wifi network at all. That's it. Unless you have Wifi at your house and you want it kept super-secret for some obscure reason, you have no reason to care about this data collection.
It's because it's Europe. For whatever reason, Europeans trust government and distrust corporations. The bigger one is, the obviously less trustworthy it becomes. Google is huge, so clearly must be very, very evil.
But Google is pretty good about opt-in compared to companies like Facebook. This particular issue, however, is not a privacy one. Some regulatory drone simply has no idea what Google is doing but doesn't like the sound of it so they demanded an opt-out. An opt-in would be *literally* impossible because MAC addresses are naturally anonymous. There's no way to take one and track it back to its owner by name. As such, there's no way to contact people and ask for permission--nor is there any need to since this is a completely harmless (actaully, quite beneficial for everyone else) thing that Google is doing.
The summary only calls it "tracking" because Theodp is an inflammatory troll whenever it comes to Google--a streetview car ran over his dog or something.
Also it would be pretty stupid considering there's no privacy issue here whatsoever.
If your router is broadcasting an SSID announcement packet, Google grabs your MAC address and remembers the location. That's it.
Your router is not your phone. You don't take it everywhere you go, so Google isn't tracking YOU when they record this. Moreover, your router's MAC address is not personally identifiable. They have no way to say look at that address and put a name to it.
That announcement packet is not just on the public airwaves, it by design, is EXPLICITLY intended for the public. Everyone in range receives it. When you turn on your phone/laptop and see all the networks you can connect to, that list is created by receiving these packets. You were not stealing them You did not require their owners to OPT-IN to you seeing them. At any time you may put your router in stealth mode and stop announcing its existence. You are basically shouting from a rooftop that you own a wifi network. You should not be getting mad if Google hears you and says "Neat, I'll remember that".
If Google wanted to "abuse" this data, they might be able to, at the very worst, figure out which houses in a sparsely populated area had Wifi networks and which did not. How might the privacy implications of this affect you? I don't mean to be rude, but anyone saying "Why not opt-in?" clearly has no idea what the actual issue at hand here is. This is not "tracking". This is not a privacy issue. Some nutjubs want the fact that they have Wifi to be private but at the same time don't want to stop their routers from shouting it at the top of their lungs. This compromise is for them.
You pretty much named the only questionable thing I can think of, and even it, they were on the "good guys" side of it from most people perspective. Allowing people to search through books might be on legally shaky ground, but it was hardly an act of evil.
Because its hysterical nonsense. There's no privacy issue here whatsoever. Even the summary calls it "tracking", which just shows the submitter has no idea whats going on here. It's not tracking. All their doing is paying attention to their location when a router announces its presence. So theoretically, somebody might be able to figure out if your address has a wifi router or not. Is that a privacy issue for you?
Because if so, you can turn that announcement off and stay "private". You don't actually need to "opt-out". I cannot imagine *why* you would need to keep the fact that you have a Wifi router a secret. Are you an Amish person afraid of being ostracized? Regardless, that is the only privacy issue at stake here and it hardly qualifies as tracking.
Google is only doing this to shut up some bag of hot air at some regulatory agency who clearly doesn't understand technology and assumes that there must be some greater privacy significance to creating this sort of database but there simply isn't. Router MAC addresses cannot be backtracked to people's names, and even if they could all you'd know is who has wifi in their house and who doesn't. Oooooooh, scary!
Being visible/receivable from the street is one thing, having that data recorded and redistributed on a mass -- almost exhaustive -- scale is something different.
Certainly Americans don't see it that way, but I recall reading that the Japanese feel that things which occur in public still have some privacy because politeness dictates that people not stare/spy/etc. So, for instance, changing your clothes in front of an open window still, somehow, qualifies as private and when a streetview car drives by that suddenly puts it in the public because people viewing those pictures later will not feel the social pressure to politely look away.
I think most cultures have a pretty clear line between public and private, whereas the German line seems to be kind of wishy-washy which is why Streetview creeps you out. I can assure you that the vast, vast majority people in the United States would say "Why would you want to do that?" if you asked if they wanted their house blurred.
There's no tracking. There is nothing resembling "tracking" going on here. That's pure inflammatory nonsense. Theodp posts trollish summaries whenever it comes to Google and he submits them constantly; sometimes they get posted as-is and the comments are generally full of people saying "Wtf?".
This is not about *tracking* and opt-in would be literally impossible because there's no way to tie an identity to a MAC address so Google wouldn't have any damn idea who to ask. Google has a database of Wifi router mac addresses and their locations. These things a) don't track back to a specific person b) don't move around. So calling this "tracking is nonsense". Wifi routers by default will *announce* their existence and their SSID. That announcement packet is meant for the public--it's how your laptop knows what networks are around you to try to connect to. If you want it to be private, you simply turn that broadcast off. All google did was make a list of what networks they could see broadcasting their existence and where they saw them. The idea that this is something people need an opt-out for is so silly as to be laughable and an opt-in wouldn't even be possible as there's no way to figure out who owns a network to contact them to ask them for permission because its already pretty much anonymous.
In fact, the reason why an opt-in wouldn't be possible is precisely the reason why this is a total non-issue.
You would think that, and you'd be sort of right. But this is basically a retroactive opt-out. Say your SSID was public and now you want it out of their database. I honestly cannot imagine why. There are literally 0 privacy implications here. It's pretty clear this was done just to shut up some European regulator who had no idea what the hell Google was actually doing but thought it *sounded* like something he should be concerned about.
Also, I think its not about SSID but rather MAC address of the router broadcasting an SSID. So if you changed your SSID, you wouldn't confuse the geolocation service, but if you stopped broadcasting your SSID and went stealth it should still serve as an opt-out.
There are a lot of people elsewhere who think this sort of crap makes sense--mostly people sick of cleaning up forums full of trolls. Even some major sites, like Techcrunch, have made the mistake of switching to Facebook for their blog comment system. It really makes me sad to see that kind of thing happen.
Sure, you cut back on trolling but you cut back on a lot of good stuff too when people don't feel free to speak honestly. I'm not willing to make a political statement of any sort attached to my real name on the internet. It's not that I don't have political views, I'm just afraid someday that I'll be at a job interview and somebody with opposite views will have Google'd me and I'll end up not getting the job.
Erm, I meant that the other way around. Serving Flash to devices that support it, and non-flash video to those who don't. In other words, Adobe's own server software doing exactly what you suggest it should do.
And what are those advantages, actually? As far as I can tell, the "advantage" is mainly to content producers who haven't updated their skill sets since around 2002. And these tools cost a pretty penny.
The advantage is that HTML5 video tags do not support anything with DRM, and sadly there are many content producers who will not allow their content to be available without DRM. As a result, there is always going to be video content exclusive to Flash that iOS devices miss out on. I don't actually know how Adobe expects to get around there here (since they are effectively serving up HTML5 video in h.264), but I suspect sites that are concerned about DRM simply won't use this feature.
P.S. I need to go to sleep.
Erm, I meant that the other way around. Serving Flash to devices that support it, and non-flash video to those who don't. In other words, Adobe's own server software doing exactly what you suggest it should do.
[quote]And what are those advantages, actually? As far as I can tell, the "advantage" is mainly to content producers who haven't updated their skill sets since around 2002. And these tools cost a pretty penny.[/quote]
The advantage is that HTML5 video tags do not support anything with DRM, and sadly there are many content producers who will not allow their content to be available without DRM. As a result, there is always going to be video content exclusive to Flash that iOS devices miss out on. I don't actually know how Adobe expects to get around there here (since they are effectively serving up HTML5 video in h.264), but I suspect sites that are concerned about DRM simply won't use this feature.
No, it's actually exactly what Adobe is trying to sell here. Read again. This is about server software serving up non-flash video to devices which do support flash, and flash to everyone else.
Well, Adobe blames flash problems with Macs on Apple's API lacking any sort of low level access to the graphics card. Flash doesn't seem to be a source of instabilities on non-Mac PC's, nor does it seem to cause performance issues.
On the other hand, I would have to uninstall Flash if I didn't have NoScript to keep it off when I didn't specifically turn it on.
I got the impression this was targeted to video, not games.
And something else would have all the problems with exploits. Flash was targeted for the same reason Internet Explorer *used* to be targeted--because its the largest common denominator. It's the single piece of software that more people than any other on the internet have installed on their machine. If you target a specific browser, you can only get a fraction of the people, but if you find a flash exploit you can get them all. So if you're going to spend your time finding exploits for one or the other, it makes sense to target Flash.
That doesn't necessarily excuse them for all the problems they've had, but its highly likely that anybody else would have had just as many problems discovered if they were was ubiquitous. Internet explorer didn't suddenly get way more secure, it just stopped being targeted as often (to be fair, Microsoft has made huge strides with security as well, so it was some of both).
That's like saying only meteorologists care about funnel clouds. Sure, they're the only ones who want to do in depth research and discussion, but you can be damn sure everybody else will suddenly care when there's one outside their house. It's just a matter of time.
Millions maybe, but that still leaves billions to say "No, thanks."
Steve Jobs took Apple in a money-making direction to be sure, one that has benefited consumers in certain ways--but one that has been detrimental in many others.