Nice sentiment, but Capitalism isn't the problem. Crony Capitalism is the problem. The wealthy gamble with the people's money. If they win, they keep all the profits. If they lose, politicians make sure the taxpayer bails them out. This needs to stop.
That's not "Crony Capitalism", that's just Capitalism. Capitalism done poorly, but still, plain old vanilla Capitalism.
Crony Capitalism is when you get the contract because of who you know (which is still plain old vanilla Capitalism, actually, just done poorly in a different way).
The problem isn't with Capitalism per se, the problem is with worshipping Capitalism as the highest ideal form of economic system. It's not. It's really good, but to blindly follow a rule of "Capitalism or bust" is doomed to failure.
The banking system fiasco is a perfect example of pure Capitalism at work. The banks got your money voluntarily. They then "invested" it voluntarily. They then lost it, all completely voluntarily. Although it should have happened much sooner, *that's* when the government finally stepped in to halt this perfectly valid form of Capitalism. Had they not stepped in, we would very likely be in a depression right now, instead of being in an actual state of economic improvement.
They should have stepped in sooner, and disallowed the high-risk gambling of something so precious as the savings and checking accounts of the American people. But the ruling party at the time has the motto of "Capitalism or Bust". The problem is they actually got both.
Now, the standard Capitalist response would be that, sure, *some* banks will gamble, and they will fail, but the smart banks will not and they will outcompete their competition and rise to the top, making the market even *better* than before.
The problem with that is that in some configurations, that doesn't really work. If it takes a long time for failure to occur. This is what happened with the banks, where it took about a decade for the house of cards to collapse. In the mean time, all the smart banks (of any significant size) *had* to follow suit with the risky practice for two reasons:
1. They *were* being outcompeted by their competitors. Those that took the risks were seeing the higher rewards immediately. Those that were playing it smart were not, and their boards and shareholders where at their throats if they didn't also see similar earnings. 2. The cancer of these bad investments where making their way all throughout the system. It's difficult to invest in anything without having it be involved, in some way, with this house of cards illusion.
Sure, there were a few small institutions that weren't a part of this scheme, but they were hardly capable of taking over the financial burdens of the US.
And once everything fell apart, *HUGE* amounts of American capital instantly disappeared. This left a huge vacuum, and as the *rest* of the economy began to collapse, the government, and specifically, the Federal Reserve, did the only thing it could to prevent full catastrophic failure. They filled in some of those gaps with printed money. This slowed the collapse and is in fact reversing it as we speak. But at a cost, a huge cost. The cost is inflation. With more dollars in existence, each dollar is worth less.
This is all thanks to Capitalism. Not Crony Capitalism, not Any-Other-Qualifier Capitalism. Just plain old Capitalism. Some things should not be allowed to happen. *Not* because government knows better than you or I, but because some things are traps. Traps where a profit seeking Capitalism, done completely correctly, has no choice but to fall into. Some traps may be acceptable, if they get us to a better state of affairs, and maybe it means horse and buggy dealers have to lose out to the automobile industry, or electric cars replace gasoline cars, or the Internet topples the current music industry configuration.
But some traps are far too devastation to be allowed to be sprung. And *any* trap which will inevitably lead to the decimation of our banking system one such trap. For the government to put into place restrictions protecting such a thing is *NOT* Communism. It's the government protecting the very fundamental building blocks of Capitalism.
I call it "spreading lies" because that's what the guy in TFA was doing - making up lies about Windows 7
No, he stated that Windows 7 used more memory than XP. This is true. However, it's extremely misleading because that memory is being used as a form of cache.
He didn't lie. He just seems to have been ignorant of how Windows 7 works.
to make it look inferior to OS X or Linux.
No, he made it look inferior to XP.
I'm also not "disparaging" anyone
The term "fanboy" *IS* disparaging.
I'm simply pointing out that you will only find people with a reason to make false claims about an OS in the fanboy camp of one of the other OS's.
That's not even remotely true.
I'm not defending anything
You're defending Windows 7 against "lying Mac or Linux fanboys".
merely pointing out that when you have 3 groups and one group is being attacked
There are many more than three groups from which to choose.
it's pretty fucking obvious that it's a member of one of the other two groups.
Even *if* there were only three groups, you haven't even shown that the person isn't from the same group being attacked. Specifically, a Windows user criticizing Windows 7. People criticize the products they prefer all the time.
For example, do you think that everyone who falsely claims that the iPhone can't multitask are Windows Mobile or Android fanboys? It's an absurd position to hold.
And you totally missed the point about "what two groups of people have cause to spread lies about MS".
No, that's exactly my point. You're disparaging two groups of people solely because they disagree with your choice of OS.
I don't call you a Windows fanboy, just because you like Windows (or are defending Windows, or whatever).
And calling it "spreading lies" is a bit thick. If that's the case, everyone who has ever stated Macs only have one mouse button over the past decade and change have been lie-spreading Windows fanboys?
A simple "no" would have sufficed as an answer for my last question.
Here's a hint: disliking Windows does not make one a fanboy of anything. You'll notice I didn't call *you* a fanboy just because you are praising Windows, did you?
But something you posted did make me laugh,
Windows 7, the best OS Microsoft has made
That's like saying the Twinkie is the best cake Hostess has ever made.
That was an observation, a bash would be: "Macs cannot play games". There is a difference.
Um, no. You most definitely bashed Mac users. Specifically, by saying they bash Windows (and Linux, but I'm pretty sure Windows was what you mainly had in mind) instead of promoting the virtues of the Mac (which also excludes them from being able to promote the virtue of not being Windows, but I digress).
Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.
I know you're joking, but MS has done shit like that in the past. I don't think that's the case here, but there's nothing in "The Shady, Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market" that MS hasn't done before.
You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases. They are very revealing.
Using terms like "Mac fanboy's[sic]" is enough to be off topic. And it's not a joke when you next say, essentially, "but it's probably true".
Your mom's a whore. I'm joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. You're a PC wanker, and if you mod me down, I'll just blame it on other PC wankers.
Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.
No, you can rest assured that Apple is not worried. They know they have a better product (and they're right).
Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.
You're *almost* saying it right. "It's pretty good for Windows" is what you're saying without coming right out and saying it. And that's true. But as a consumer OS, Mac OS X is better. As a server OS, Linux is better.
The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment, and gaming. In the office environment, Windows 7 isn't really any better than XP. Worse, in many ways, better in a few. For gaming, presently, XP is still better, but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard, so Windows 7 is a better choice, even if it currently isn't the better system for games.
Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.
This is not only factually incorrect, but it doesn't even make sense in any way. Are you saying that Windows is pretty good, for such a young OS? That's hardly praise.
Thing is, aside from games and an office setting, I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors. I know this is partially subjective, and other people will have other values and opinions, but really, taken in context of the broader computing realm, it's hard to call Windows "pretty good", or "actually good". When taken in the context solely of Windows itself, then sure, it's definitely getting better.
Unfortunately for MS, so is their competition, so it's not really a net win for them.
Let's see: IBM PC was 1982, and a competitor for the Apple II. In response, Apple brought out the Mac in 1984. Jobs's successors knew there would be a GUI challenger, but they did... nothing. Then, when it was nothing but a money-losing move, they brought out the clones and a thousand different models.
Not exactly right, but close enough for this discussion.
This is exactly my point. What Apple is doing now is very much *not* how they acted in the late '80s and throughout most of the '90s. The formula that led to MS Windows, after many years, finally surpassing the Mac OS market share is not in play today with the iPhone.
Apple has learned from their mistakes. Or really, they just got Jobs back, who learned from other mistakes, or whatever. Point being, Apple is most definitely *not* going down the same road as before.
Jobs, meanwhile, made a linux box that worked with Intel.
Umm.... Nextstep predates Linux by many years. You're thinking of BSD, perhaps, although even then, calling OS X "BSD" is woefully incomplete.
Just because a carrier tries to disable it doesn't mean you have to pay the extra $30-$60 a month they'd like to charge you for paying the same service as now. aka net neutrality issues all over again aka double dipping.
While there's some potential net neutrality issues involved, this is definitely not the straightforward, "blocking or slowing access to sites that don't pay up" type issue. I definitely disagree with how AT&T is handling this, but I can also understand it. Their network probably isn't up to handling even a fraction of iPhone users suddenly using their notebooks through their iPhone.
This is why smart users jailbreak. Why pay extra for an artificial scarcity? This concept is at the forefront of many an economic failure. Yes, it's not apple's fault. However, it's in apple's hands what to do with it too unless you jailbreak.
Apple is just about to sell their 10 billionth song. So, artificial scarcity isn't exactly something that people won't stand for.
As for "smart users jailbreak", that's absurd. For the specific topic of tethering, "smarts" doesn't play into it, it's more about willingness to violate the terms of your contract with AT&T. The propensity towards breaking a contract so arbitrarily is not strongly correlated with intelligence one way or the other.
In more general terms, I'd say it's smart to *not* jailbreak, which can lead to all sorts of issues like low memory, degraded battery life, and it also avoids the various hacks that have come out that have only affected jailbroken phones. But even there, I wouldn't go out of my way to say something like, "smart users don't jailbreak", as again, it's not so much about intelligence.
I have no clue your point with the process viewer.
I'm saying that if you give people a system where they will now have some need to keep track of what processes they are running, it better be *very* straightforward, or most people will just ignore it, having no idea really what to do.
Yes, flash won't be the same as the desktop, and HTML5 support will eventually be fine once HTML5 gains some traction and loses some proprietary (h264). HTML5 will not likely gain a lot of traction with h264 behind it.
Sorry, but HTML5 is already gaining a lot of traction and it does have h.264 behind it (not really an apt phrase, as h.264 is solely used for the video tag). But even with regards to h.264 (vs. Theora, I assume), it's already over for Theora. The issue will not be whether html5 will succeed without Theora, as it will do just fine, but whether Firefox will succeed if they remain steadfast against supporting h.264.
Also, the tethering options you have are not the same when the phone isn't jailbroke.
That's neither here nor there. If AT&T were to allow tethering today, at zero additional cost, a lot of people would would otherwise have jailbroken their iPhone will not do so, as the Bluetooth and USB tethering will be just fine. WiFi tethering is pretty handy, but not a universal deal breaker.
To my knowledge there has been no hard scientific study of iPhone usage. My experiences could be typical, there is no reliable data to prove one way or the other.
Therefor you are partially correct, it could suggest that everyone I have met has not been a typical iPhone user.
It could also suggest that the typical iPhone user does jail break their phones.
No, it can't.
I realize it's not proven, so using words like "could" might seem logical, but it implies a sense of "could go either way, really", not "technically, it is one possible outcome, until proven otherwise".
Simply put, for the typical iPhone to be jailbroken, the typical iPhone user would either need to have a certain level of technical sophistication far in excess of what is reasonably expected for such a mass market product, or have both access to someone with those skills and the desire to have them jailbreak their iPhone.
In other words, it's a bit of a long shot to think that 50%+1 of all iPhones are jailbroken.
It would be like thinking all Wiis are hacked because you and all your friends hacked yours. Assuming a scenario where this is true for you like your iPhone example, do you really think that extrapolates to all those millions of Wiis out there?
I'm telling you right now, most people can barely use their devices as it is, let alone go through the process of hacking them (and then going on to take advantage of any of that hacking).
There are only two bubbles Apple "forces" you into:
1. Mac OS X only runs (without hacking) on Apple hardware. 2. iPhones OS only runs (without hacking) App Store software.
Ummm...
You forgot how the Iphone OS locks you into Apple's distribution channel. That is pretty much it, no apple controls the supply of the Hardware, Software and Application stack from end to end so it is pretty much the dictionary definition of a vertical monopoly, where one company controls the entire product until the end of its life. In short, Apple is trying to and in most cases suceeding in controlling what you do
Ummm, I highlighted the part you quoted where I said just that (well, except for the part of Apple "controlling what I do").
If you think the walled garden is not coming to regular OS X then think again. Apple is changing from X86 to ARM with proprietary Apple extensions. Apple have learned from the Hackintoshes that using stock standard hardware will just make it easy for hackers to get around their walls. Apple also learned from the iphone that many consumers will happily take any kind of abuse and lockdown so long as the device is "cool". They will bring this knowledge into their computer line, very soon Macbooks and Imacs will be running the Iphone OS on ARM Processors.
| There are only two bubbles Apple "forces" you into: | | 1. Mac OS X only runs (without hacking) on Apple hardware. | 2. iPhones OS only runs (without hacking) App Store software. | | Everything else is very open.
Not quite accurate:
* To write code for the iPhone, you essentially need XCode running on Apple hardware.
Sort of. Objective C is the iPhone's native language. However, this falls within the App Store software item I mentioned.
* Code written for the iPhone (ObjC) is a PITA to port to any other OS other than OSX.
Not at all. However, code written against the Cocoa and Cocoa Touch frameworks are. But it's a silly argument, as Cocoa Touch is what the iPhone OS uses. And again, this is an App Store requirement.
* I still can't sync music to my iPhone from Linux on the new firmware.
That OS lacks drivers for the iPhone. On the topic of being forced into a bubble, I don't think it's all that valid. People don't complain about other companies forcing people into bubbles simply because their product doesn't work on one OS or another.
* I still can't play ogg files on the iPhone
Incorrect. There are apps to do just that.
So this 'Everything else' must not include much that I care about.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I was talking about being forced into bubbles. You're just listing your dislikes and the fact that it doesn't support your preferred OS. I don't complain that Linux forces me into a bubble because it won't run my favorite software, or support my preferred hardware. In fact, if I did, I'd get flamed quite thoroughly, I'm sure.
Basically, there wouldn't be jailbreaking if apple was actually giving their customers what they want.
If they gave users "what they want" (flash, multitasking (actually, the iPhone does this very well, I think you mean background apps), tethering (actually, the iPhone does this as well)), then they would be taking away what users *really* want, the thing which makes the iPhone such a hit, which is the refined user experience.
Trust me, the moment you add a process viewer, you instantly turn off more users than you lost by not having background apps. As for flash, while people want it, even if Apple put flash onto the iPhone, it would *not* be what people are thinking. It would not be like flash on their desktop, but instead a clunky, broken, crashy, battery hog, incompatible mess.
And tethering, really? Apple provides this. Carriers, on the other hand, disable it. It's their network and their terms. This sucks, and I don't support their decisions, but it's their decision to make.
This is obviously not a statistically relevant group (only about 15-25 persons) but since I have yet to meet someone who has not had their iPhone jail broken it does seem suggestive.
It only suggests that the people you know are not typical iPhone users.
"If you want to use a service, you have to play by that service's rules, unless in your outrage you find a cheaper, easier solution that costs the service profits."
I mean, let's not be idealistic here, this is what happens.
Except, not in this case. Apple doesn't make any notable profits from the iTunes Store. They have rules which make the App Store such an excellent experience (even with the occasional app that isn't allowed). That's the secret sauce of the App Store, and amazingly, all of the other stores are trying their hardest to *not* do that one thing that they could do to provide a similarly great user experience.
Of course, playing the logic out, Apple *is* protecting their profits of their iPhone and iPod touch by locking down their App Store, but they are not simply trying to protect their immediate profits, which is what you're getting at, and the same mistake far too many people make.
Apple doesn't steer you into the iTunes Store for profit, they steer you into the iTunes Store for the superior user experience, which leads to profit. The distinction is huge.
Christ almighty, it is 1986 all over again. "Yeah, Apple doesn't need all those people who just want to plug in any all video card. We aspire to a higher class of user." which, roughly translated meant "Okay, IBM and clone manufacturers, we seed 90%+ of market share to you to assure our purity."
Yeah, it's *just* like 1986 where Apple has ceded 90% of the market to it's competitors, the only difference being that they are leaders in market share (iPod), leaders in software available (iPhone) and by no means ceding market share to their competitors.
Nothing wrong with not buying Apple. Your logic is a bit flawed, but it's your money to spend, so it's your logic, for better or for worse.
I will not be forced into a little bubble
There are only two bubbles Apple "forces" you into:
1. Mac OS X only runs (without hacking) on Apple hardware. 2. iPhones OS only runs (without hacking) App Store software.
Everything else is very open.
like all of you cattle out there.
Does name-calling factor into your logic?
I have missed nothing as the result.
I'll suggest that your phone has fewer apps available than the iPhone (ironic that the more free device offers fewer choices). Also, you're missing out on a more refined user experience.
Not that you may care about such things, being a non-bovine entity yourself, and far superior to anyone who ever buys Apple products.
Impossible, unless you went into the future to perform your poll. I'm not talking about today. Today, people are making judgements on a product they haven't yet seen. I suspect it will only take a few moments on an iPad to convince people that they definitely do *want* one. They may still not buy one, but the form factor and interface are going to be very compelling in person, regardless of how it seems on paper.
I'm 46 years old, and doing fairly well. Of my geek friends who live at the country club, not one is considering buying an iPad. They all own iPhones (I'm a rebel - I've got a Nexus One), they all have ipods (me, too), and every one is dissapointed in the iPad.
That's because...
General consensus is they were hoping for a MacBook in a slate format, but what they got was an oversized iPod Touch. You never heard such whining!
Exactly! I promise you, an iPad running OS X would bomb. Hard. Tablet form factor and touch interface is *ABSOLUTE SHIT* for a traditional WIMP GUI. That's why Tablet PCs haven't taken off.
Consider what a Mac OS X tablet would require. It wouldn't be small. It wouldn't be fast. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be a hit at 16GB-64GB. It wouldn't be a hit at over $1000. It wouldn't be a hit at 13".
But the geeks would have gotten all the product features that they asked for.
Thinking of the iPad as a big iPod touch is ass-backwards. The iPod touch is a small iPad. That is to say that thinking of the iPad as a big iPod touch implies all the interface limitations of the iPod, just bigger. Instead, the iPod touch is an iPad, that is smaller, with extra limitations introduced by the smaller size.
It would be like calling a notebook just an oversized netbook. Fucking idiotic.
So, who knows, I could definitely be wrong, but I am *highly* confident that once using one for just a few seconds will trigger the "want!" impulse in most people.
Maybe not searing compared to direct sunlight, but still bright enough to cause eyestrain when reading black text on that hella bright white background most web sites etc. have...
That's absurd. There's no way whatsoever that in the daytime *ANY* LED LCD is going to be so bright as to cause eyestrain. Even on an overcast day. The brightness difference just isn't there.
Maybe you're used to shit panels that flicker. Those definitely *will* cause eyestrain, but not because of the brightness (although brightness will exacerbate it).
Take a glossy screen and a matte screen outside, place them side-by-side and rethink that statement. I've done it, and I call bullshit...
I've done this. Matte LCDs fade in bright environments. Glossy LCDs have reflections. Specular vs. diffuse. It's simple physics.
Maybe you're using crap products, or are overly sensitive to certain effects (for example, your eyes can't focus on the screen instead of the reflections, or they keep focussing back and forth, causing fatigue).
But your specific complaints fail, in the way you are interpreting them, under the laws of physics.
I think a lot of people would agree with his statement, myself included.
I think a lot will as well. The difference is that I think a lot *more* will disagree.
In a year's time, most people will want an iPad instead of a netbook. Only the geeks of the Linux variety will still want a netbook in greater numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice sentiment, but Capitalism isn't the problem. Crony Capitalism is the problem. The wealthy gamble with the people's money. If they win, they keep all the profits. If they lose, politicians make sure the taxpayer bails them out. This needs to stop.
That's not "Crony Capitalism", that's just Capitalism. Capitalism done poorly, but still, plain old vanilla Capitalism.
Crony Capitalism is when you get the contract because of who you know (which is still plain old vanilla Capitalism, actually, just done poorly in a different way).
The problem isn't with Capitalism per se, the problem is with worshipping Capitalism as the highest ideal form of economic system. It's not. It's really good, but to blindly follow a rule of "Capitalism or bust" is doomed to failure.
The banking system fiasco is a perfect example of pure Capitalism at work. The banks got your money voluntarily. They then "invested" it voluntarily. They then lost it, all completely voluntarily. Although it should have happened much sooner, *that's* when the government finally stepped in to halt this perfectly valid form of Capitalism. Had they not stepped in, we would very likely be in a depression right now, instead of being in an actual state of economic improvement.
They should have stepped in sooner, and disallowed the high-risk gambling of something so precious as the savings and checking accounts of the American people. But the ruling party at the time has the motto of "Capitalism or Bust". The problem is they actually got both.
Now, the standard Capitalist response would be that, sure, *some* banks will gamble, and they will fail, but the smart banks will not and they will outcompete their competition and rise to the top, making the market even *better* than before.
The problem with that is that in some configurations, that doesn't really work. If it takes a long time for failure to occur. This is what happened with the banks, where it took about a decade for the house of cards to collapse. In the mean time, all the smart banks (of any significant size) *had* to follow suit with the risky practice for two reasons:
1. They *were* being outcompeted by their competitors. Those that took the risks were seeing the higher rewards immediately. Those that were playing it smart were not, and their boards and shareholders where at their throats if they didn't also see similar earnings.
2. The cancer of these bad investments where making their way all throughout the system. It's difficult to invest in anything without having it be involved, in some way, with this house of cards illusion.
Sure, there were a few small institutions that weren't a part of this scheme, but they were hardly capable of taking over the financial burdens of the US.
And once everything fell apart, *HUGE* amounts of American capital instantly disappeared. This left a huge vacuum, and as the *rest* of the economy began to collapse, the government, and specifically, the Federal Reserve, did the only thing it could to prevent full catastrophic failure. They filled in some of those gaps with printed money. This slowed the collapse and is in fact reversing it as we speak. But at a cost, a huge cost. The cost is inflation. With more dollars in existence, each dollar is worth less.
This is all thanks to Capitalism. Not Crony Capitalism, not Any-Other-Qualifier Capitalism. Just plain old Capitalism. Some things should not be allowed to happen. *Not* because government knows better than you or I, but because some things are traps. Traps where a profit seeking Capitalism, done completely correctly, has no choice but to fall into. Some traps may be acceptable, if they get us to a better state of affairs, and maybe it means horse and buggy dealers have to lose out to the automobile industry, or electric cars replace gasoline cars, or the Internet topples the current music industry configuration.
But some traps are far too devastation to be allowed to be sprung. And *any* trap which will inevitably lead to the decimation of our banking system one such trap. For the government to put into place restrictions protecting such a thing is *NOT* Communism. It's the government protecting the very fundamental building blocks of Capitalism.
There's so much wrong with your post...
I call it "spreading lies" because that's what the guy in TFA was doing - making up lies about Windows 7
No, he stated that Windows 7 used more memory than XP. This is true. However, it's extremely misleading because that memory is being used as a form of cache.
He didn't lie. He just seems to have been ignorant of how Windows 7 works.
to make it look inferior to OS X or Linux.
No, he made it look inferior to XP.
I'm also not "disparaging" anyone
The term "fanboy" *IS* disparaging.
I'm simply pointing out that you will only find people with a reason to make false claims about an OS in the fanboy camp of one of the other OS's.
That's not even remotely true.
I'm not defending anything
You're defending Windows 7 against "lying Mac or Linux fanboys".
merely pointing out that when you have 3 groups and one group is being attacked
There are many more than three groups from which to choose.
it's pretty fucking obvious that it's a member of one of the other two groups.
Even *if* there were only three groups, you haven't even shown that the person isn't from the same group being attacked. Specifically, a Windows user criticizing Windows 7. People criticize the products they prefer all the time.
For example, do you think that everyone who falsely claims that the iPhone can't multitask are Windows Mobile or Android fanboys? It's an absurd position to hold.
And you totally missed the point about "what two groups of people have cause to spread lies about MS".
No, that's exactly my point. You're disparaging two groups of people solely because they disagree with your choice of OS.
I don't call you a Windows fanboy, just because you like Windows (or are defending Windows, or whatever).
And calling it "spreading lies" is a bit thick. If that's the case, everyone who has ever stated Macs only have one mouse button over the past decade and change have been lie-spreading Windows fanboys?
A simple "no" would have sufficed as an answer for my last question.
Here's a hint: disliking Windows does not make one a fanboy of anything. You'll notice I didn't call *you* a fanboy just because you are praising Windows, did you?
But something you posted did make me laugh,
Windows 7, the best OS Microsoft has made
That's like saying the Twinkie is the best cake Hostess has ever made.
That was an observation, a bash would be: "Macs cannot play games". There is a difference.
Um, no. You most definitely bashed Mac users. Specifically, by saying they bash Windows (and Linux, but I'm pretty sure Windows was what you mainly had in mind) instead of promoting the virtues of the Mac (which also excludes them from being able to promote the virtue of not being Windows, but I digress).
Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.
I know you're joking, but MS has done shit like that in the past. I don't think that's the case here, but there's nothing in "The Shady, Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market" that MS hasn't done before.
You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases. They are very revealing.
Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points.
Using terms like "Mac fanboy's[sic]" is enough to be off topic. And it's not a joke when you next say, essentially, "but it's probably true".
Your mom's a whore. I'm joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. You're a PC wanker, and if you mod me down, I'll just blame it on other PC wankers.
See what I'm getting at?
Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.
No, you can rest assured that Apple is not worried. They know they have a better product (and they're right).
Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.
You're *almost* saying it right. "It's pretty good for Windows" is what you're saying without coming right out and saying it. And that's true. But as a consumer OS, Mac OS X is better. As a server OS, Linux is better.
The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment, and gaming. In the office environment, Windows 7 isn't really any better than XP. Worse, in many ways, better in a few. For gaming, presently, XP is still better, but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard, so Windows 7 is a better choice, even if it currently isn't the better system for games.
Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.
This is not only factually incorrect, but it doesn't even make sense in any way. Are you saying that Windows is pretty good, for such a young OS? That's hardly praise.
Thing is, aside from games and an office setting, I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors. I know this is partially subjective, and other people will have other values and opinions, but really, taken in context of the broader computing realm, it's hard to call Windows "pretty good", or "actually good". When taken in the context solely of Windows itself, then sure, it's definitely getting better.
Unfortunately for MS, so is their competition, so it's not really a net win for them.
Yeah, it seems as though apple (and it's customers) are quicker to bash their competitors than explain the features of their own products.
Says the guy bashing Mac users...
Actually, that would be a contraction, so it's "lego's".
Let's see: IBM PC was 1982, and a competitor for the Apple II. In response, Apple brought out the Mac in 1984. Jobs's successors knew there would be a GUI challenger, but they did... nothing. Then, when it was nothing but a money-losing move, they brought out the clones and a thousand different models.
Not exactly right, but close enough for this discussion.
This is exactly my point. What Apple is doing now is very much *not* how they acted in the late '80s and throughout most of the '90s. The formula that led to MS Windows, after many years, finally surpassing the Mac OS market share is not in play today with the iPhone.
Apple has learned from their mistakes. Or really, they just got Jobs back, who learned from other mistakes, or whatever. Point being, Apple is most definitely *not* going down the same road as before.
Jobs, meanwhile, made a linux box that worked with Intel.
Umm.... Nextstep predates Linux by many years. You're thinking of BSD, perhaps, although even then, calling OS X "BSD" is woefully incomplete.
Just because a carrier tries to disable it doesn't mean you have to pay the extra $30-$60 a month they'd like to charge you for paying the same service as now. aka net neutrality issues all over again aka double dipping.
While there's some potential net neutrality issues involved, this is definitely not the straightforward, "blocking or slowing access to sites that don't pay up" type issue. I definitely disagree with how AT&T is handling this, but I can also understand it. Their network probably isn't up to handling even a fraction of iPhone users suddenly using their notebooks through their iPhone.
This is why smart users jailbreak. Why pay extra for an artificial scarcity? This concept is at the forefront of many an economic failure. Yes, it's not apple's fault. However, it's in apple's hands what to do with it too unless you jailbreak.
Apple is just about to sell their 10 billionth song. So, artificial scarcity isn't exactly something that people won't stand for.
As for "smart users jailbreak", that's absurd. For the specific topic of tethering, "smarts" doesn't play into it, it's more about willingness to violate the terms of your contract with AT&T. The propensity towards breaking a contract so arbitrarily is not strongly correlated with intelligence one way or the other.
In more general terms, I'd say it's smart to *not* jailbreak, which can lead to all sorts of issues like low memory, degraded battery life, and it also avoids the various hacks that have come out that have only affected jailbroken phones. But even there, I wouldn't go out of my way to say something like, "smart users don't jailbreak", as again, it's not so much about intelligence.
I have no clue your point with the process viewer.
I'm saying that if you give people a system where they will now have some need to keep track of what processes they are running, it better be *very* straightforward, or most people will just ignore it, having no idea really what to do.
Yes, flash won't be the same as the desktop, and HTML5 support will eventually be fine once HTML5 gains some traction and loses some proprietary (h264). HTML5 will not likely gain a lot of traction with h264 behind it.
Sorry, but HTML5 is already gaining a lot of traction and it does have h.264 behind it (not really an apt phrase, as h.264 is solely used for the video tag). But even with regards to h.264 (vs. Theora, I assume), it's already over for Theora. The issue will not be whether html5 will succeed without Theora, as it will do just fine, but whether Firefox will succeed if they remain steadfast against supporting h.264.
Also, the tethering options you have are not the same when the phone isn't jailbroke.
That's neither here nor there. If AT&T were to allow tethering today, at zero additional cost, a lot of people would would otherwise have jailbroken their iPhone will not do so, as the Bluetooth and USB tethering will be just fine. WiFi tethering is pretty handy, but not a universal deal breaker.
To my knowledge there has been no hard scientific study of iPhone usage. My experiences could be typical, there is no reliable data to prove one way or the other.
Therefor you are partially correct, it could suggest that everyone I have met has not been a typical iPhone user.
It could also suggest that the typical iPhone user does jail break their phones.
No, it can't.
I realize it's not proven, so using words like "could" might seem logical, but it implies a sense of "could go either way, really", not "technically, it is one possible outcome, until proven otherwise".
Simply put, for the typical iPhone to be jailbroken, the typical iPhone user would either need to have a certain level of technical sophistication far in excess of what is reasonably expected for such a mass market product, or have both access to someone with those skills and the desire to have them jailbreak their iPhone.
In other words, it's a bit of a long shot to think that 50%+1 of all iPhones are jailbroken.
It would be like thinking all Wiis are hacked because you and all your friends hacked yours. Assuming a scenario where this is true for you like your iPhone example, do you really think that extrapolates to all those millions of Wiis out there?
I'm telling you right now, most people can barely use their devices as it is, let alone go through the process of hacking them (and then going on to take advantage of any of that hacking).
Ummm...
You forgot how the Iphone OS locks you into Apple's distribution channel. That is pretty much it, no apple controls the supply of the Hardware, Software and Application stack from end to end so it is pretty much the dictionary definition of a vertical monopoly, where one company controls the entire product until the end of its life. In short, Apple is trying to and in most cases suceeding in controlling what you do
Ummm, I highlighted the part you quoted where I said just that (well, except for the part of Apple "controlling what I do").
If you think the walled garden is not coming to regular OS X then think again. Apple is changing from X86 to ARM with proprietary Apple extensions. Apple have learned from the Hackintoshes that using stock standard hardware will just make it easy for hackers to get around their walls. Apple also learned from the iphone that many consumers will happily take any kind of abuse and lockdown so long as the device is "cool". They will bring this knowledge into their computer line, very soon Macbooks and Imacs will be running the Iphone OS on ARM Processors.
You are insane.
| There are only two bubbles Apple "forces" you into:
|
| 1. Mac OS X only runs (without hacking) on Apple hardware.
| 2. iPhones OS only runs (without hacking) App Store software.
|
| Everything else is very open.
Not quite accurate:
* To write code for the iPhone, you essentially need XCode running on Apple hardware.
Sort of. Objective C is the iPhone's native language. However, this falls within the App Store software item I mentioned.
* Code written for the iPhone (ObjC) is a PITA to port to any other OS other than OSX.
Not at all. However, code written against the Cocoa and Cocoa Touch frameworks are. But it's a silly argument, as Cocoa Touch is what the iPhone OS uses. And again, this is an App Store requirement.
* I still can't sync music to my iPhone from Linux on the new firmware.
That OS lacks drivers for the iPhone. On the topic of being forced into a bubble, I don't think it's all that valid. People don't complain about other companies forcing people into bubbles simply because their product doesn't work on one OS or another.
* I still can't play ogg files on the iPhone
Incorrect. There are apps to do just that.
So this 'Everything else' must not include much that I care about.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I was talking about being forced into bubbles. You're just listing your dislikes and the fact that it doesn't support your preferred OS. I don't complain that Linux forces me into a bubble because it won't run my favorite software, or support my preferred hardware. In fact, if I did, I'd get flamed quite thoroughly, I'm sure.
Basically, there wouldn't be jailbreaking if apple was actually giving their customers what they want.
If they gave users "what they want" (flash, multitasking (actually, the iPhone does this very well, I think you mean background apps), tethering (actually, the iPhone does this as well)), then they would be taking away what users *really* want, the thing which makes the iPhone such a hit, which is the refined user experience.
Trust me, the moment you add a process viewer, you instantly turn off more users than you lost by not having background apps. As for flash, while people want it, even if Apple put flash onto the iPhone, it would *not* be what people are thinking. It would not be like flash on their desktop, but instead a clunky, broken, crashy, battery hog, incompatible mess.
And tethering, really? Apple provides this. Carriers, on the other hand, disable it. It's their network and their terms. This sucks, and I don't support their decisions, but it's their decision to make.
This is obviously not a statistically relevant group (only about 15-25 persons) but since I have yet to meet someone who has not had their iPhone jail broken it does seem suggestive.
It only suggests that the people you know are not typical iPhone users.
Fixed.
"If you want to use a service, you have to play by that service's rules, unless in your outrage you find a cheaper, easier solution that costs the service profits."
I mean, let's not be idealistic here, this is what happens.
Except, not in this case. Apple doesn't make any notable profits from the iTunes Store. They have rules which make the App Store such an excellent experience (even with the occasional app that isn't allowed). That's the secret sauce of the App Store, and amazingly, all of the other stores are trying their hardest to *not* do that one thing that they could do to provide a similarly great user experience.
Of course, playing the logic out, Apple *is* protecting their profits of their iPhone and iPod touch by locking down their App Store, but they are not simply trying to protect their immediate profits, which is what you're getting at, and the same mistake far too many people make.
Apple doesn't steer you into the iTunes Store for profit, they steer you into the iTunes Store for the superior user experience, which leads to profit. The distinction is huge.
Except you're not buying the device. You're buying the ability to interact with their software ecosystem.
Um, no. I'm pretty sure I bought both of those things.
Or it would be an effective way to encourage people to go Android.....
It's the 80's all over again......
Right, because Android is doing *so* much better than the iPhone...
Christ almighty, it is 1986 all over again. "Yeah, Apple doesn't need all those people who just want to plug in any all video card. We aspire to a higher class of user." which, roughly translated meant "Okay, IBM and clone manufacturers, we seed 90%+ of market share to you to assure our purity."
Yeah, it's *just* like 1986 where Apple has ceded 90% of the market to it's competitors, the only difference being that they are leaders in market share (iPod), leaders in software available (iPhone) and by no means ceding market share to their competitors.
Other than that, though, it's exactly the same...
This is why I do not buy anything from Apple.
Nothing wrong with not buying Apple. Your logic is a bit flawed, but it's your money to spend, so it's your logic, for better or for worse.
I will not be forced into a little bubble
There are only two bubbles Apple "forces" you into:
1. Mac OS X only runs (without hacking) on Apple hardware.
2. iPhones OS only runs (without hacking) App Store software.
Everything else is very open.
like all of you cattle out there.
Does name-calling factor into your logic?
I have missed nothing as the result.
I'll suggest that your phone has fewer apps available than the iPhone (ironic that the more free device offers fewer choices). Also, you're missing out on a more refined user experience.
Not that you may care about such things, being a non-bovine entity yourself, and far superior to anyone who ever buys Apple products.
and I am not banned from anything (except Apple).
Interestingly, neither am I, *including* Apple.
My own straw-poll doesn't agree with you.
Impossible, unless you went into the future to perform your poll. I'm not talking about today. Today, people are making judgements on a product they haven't yet seen. I suspect it will only take a few moments on an iPad to convince people that they definitely do *want* one. They may still not buy one, but the form factor and interface are going to be very compelling in person, regardless of how it seems on paper.
I'm 46 years old, and doing fairly well. Of my geek friends who live at the country club, not one is considering buying an iPad. They all own iPhones (I'm a rebel - I've got a Nexus One), they all have ipods (me, too), and every one is dissapointed in the iPad.
That's because...
General consensus is they were hoping for a MacBook in a slate format, but what they got was an oversized iPod Touch. You never heard such whining!
Exactly! I promise you, an iPad running OS X would bomb. Hard. Tablet form factor and touch interface is *ABSOLUTE SHIT* for a traditional WIMP GUI. That's why Tablet PCs haven't taken off.
Consider what a Mac OS X tablet would require. It wouldn't be small. It wouldn't be fast. It wouldn't be cheap. And it wouldn't be a hit at 16GB-64GB. It wouldn't be a hit at over $1000. It wouldn't be a hit at 13".
But the geeks would have gotten all the product features that they asked for.
Thinking of the iPad as a big iPod touch is ass-backwards. The iPod touch is a small iPad. That is to say that thinking of the iPad as a big iPod touch implies all the interface limitations of the iPod, just bigger. Instead, the iPod touch is an iPad, that is smaller, with extra limitations introduced by the smaller size.
It would be like calling a notebook just an oversized netbook. Fucking idiotic.
So, who knows, I could definitely be wrong, but I am *highly* confident that once using one for just a few seconds will trigger the "want!" impulse in most people.
Maybe not searing compared to direct sunlight, but still bright enough to cause eyestrain when reading black text on that hella bright white background most web sites etc. have...
That's absurd. There's no way whatsoever that in the daytime *ANY* LED LCD is going to be so bright as to cause eyestrain. Even on an overcast day. The brightness difference just isn't there.
Maybe you're used to shit panels that flicker. Those definitely *will* cause eyestrain, but not because of the brightness (although brightness will exacerbate it).
Take a glossy screen and a matte screen outside, place them side-by-side and rethink that statement. I've done it, and I call bullshit...
I've done this. Matte LCDs fade in bright environments. Glossy LCDs have reflections. Specular vs. diffuse. It's simple physics.
Maybe you're using crap products, or are overly sensitive to certain effects (for example, your eyes can't focus on the screen instead of the reflections, or they keep focussing back and forth, causing fatigue).
But your specific complaints fail, in the way you are interpreting them, under the laws of physics.
I think a lot of people would agree with his statement, myself included.
I think a lot will as well. The difference is that I think a lot *more* will disagree.
In a year's time, most people will want an iPad instead of a netbook. Only the geeks of the Linux variety will still want a netbook in greater numbers.