'Point is, you conform to a dress code even if you don't know it. The only way around it is to work out of your home... with the drapes closed. (Please.)
Not really. A "dress code" is a *code*. It has to be codified in some sense. Being fired for being "indecent" isn't really a dress code.
Even if it were codified that you couldn't be indecent, it's still below the threshold most people would have for calling something a dress code. The general distinction here is probably something like, "you have to wear clothes a normal person wouldn't generally chose to wear, or face disciplinary action", or inversely, "there are perfectly socially acceptable clothes that you *can't* wear to work". In either case, I'm sure there are exceptions, but such exceptions don't change the overall dynamic here.
Instead of the sad fanboy "Macs are overpriced" nonsense.
Please, play attention.
Facts:
1. Macs are not overpriced for the hardware they are made of. 2. PCs offer more choice.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. These are two different arguments. You jumped into the discussion about price with the choice response.
But you get even that wrong.
If you're buying a PC, then you have more than one choice.
There are multiple Macs, too. Just not nearly as many as there are PCs.
You don't have to be restricted to the i945 one year and then the nv9400 the next year.
There are current Macs that don't use the nVidia chipset, but more to the point, very few people care, as the chipset is extremely unimportant to most people. This isn't the Windows/Linux world where chipset choice is important to consider with regards to compatibility and driver quality.
I can "tweak" the CPU part of the spec to yield a machine for 1/3rd the price if my INDIVIDUAL requirements allow for that.
Um... The only machine where this is even *remotely* applicable to is the Mac Pro, where the CPU(s) makes up a *significant* portion of the price. Correct, you can't order a Mac Pro sans CPU. You can buy an iMac, or a Mac mini. Sure, *you* might want a Mac Pro with a low-end Core2Duo (actually, why would anyone really want such a combo? But I digress), but most people really don't care. On the contrary, they'd rather have the all-in-one styling of the iMac, or the impressive compactness of the Mac mini, over the expandability of a traditional desktop, as they'll never take advantage of that expandability.
I fully agree that Apple's hardware offerings are sorely lacking for someone like yourself, but you are not representative of the average PC buyer, and much, much more to the point, this has no bearing on the topic of whether Macs are overpriced.
The problem with the "specs games" that Apple fanboys like to play is the fact that a PC doesn't restrict you to one spec. One PC brand wont even do that.
Um, no, because that's only the argument that "PC fanboys" like to make after their initial argument, that Macs are more expensive but just use the same hardware, is disproved.
*For the same hardware*, Macs are almost always cheaper. Your argument is that PCs offer more choice. That is true, but it's a completely different argument.
No. This is a difficult thing to judge, and the benefits of an open platform are worth the risk.
How much benefit is there and how much risk? How much different would the available apps for the iPhone be were there no app approval process? And consider the fact that it's also possible to improve the process without scrapping it altogether.
Consider that Apple, imperfectly, filters for:
1. Spyware/malware 2. Bugs 3. UI issues 4. Core iPhone functionality duplication 5. Pornography 6. Disallows some cell network usage as per the telco's user contract
Of those, which do you think we'd see significant benefit from were Apple to, not just address them better, but ignore them altogether? 4, 5 and 6 can definitely be better addressed than they are now.
I would also argue that the iPhone user experience would be *nowhere near* as great as it is were Apple to not filter their app store. User complaints about buggy and ugly apps would skyrocket. The quality and ease of use of the app store is just as important to Apple as the smoothness of the multitouch, or the quality of their mobile web browser (which is so fully capable, it almost seems wrong to call it a "mobile" browser).
It's also really misleading that Palm is really "opening up" webOS development. You still have to send them your app, and *you* don't distribute *you* apple, you just send a link to download from Palm. You can do the exact same thing with iPhone apps. The only difference is that with the iPhone, you download from within iTunes, whereas with Palm, it sounds like you download a file that the user then has to install themselves. Palm's appears a *little* bit freer, but it's really just more complex and requires more steps.
I'm glad Palm is trying something different, but the superiority of their decisions is by no means clear.
Imagine how stupid they must have felt at the end of their six month project when they went to order their supply of N270's, unfolded the order sheet, and saw the 330 listed just a little further down...
From my perspective a netbook has 5 to 8+ hours of use out of its battery.
So, the new MacBook Pros are netbooks? And some (most?) netbooks aren't?
All these posts where people are telling "what a netbook means to me" demonstrates two things:
1. Netbooks are about a number of things. 2. Netbooks are subjective definitions, like "planet", and not conducive to objectively defined requirements.
C'mon - why is that a troll moderators? I was giving the guy a compliment.
Well, anonymity on the Internet has all but done away with people complimenting each other. Your compliment caused confusion and anxiety among the moderators, causing them to instinctively mod you down.
So, you see, you should take the negative moderation as a compliment. Oh, wait...
Tux, nor the Martinettis, are high-points in product promotion, but that Windows 7 Party ad is truly horrific, somewhere around the same level of awful as the Songsmith ad.
No, the Songsmith ad at least had had decent camera work and lacked blatant continuity errors (the clock is just one). So purely from the perspective of filming and editing the Songsmith ad was superior than the Windows 7 video.
And had my objections to the ads been technical, you'd have a point. But they weren't. My objections are aesthetic.
I guess the lesson is never declare an specific ad is "The worst EVAR!", unless you enjoy being painfully proven wrong.
Hmm... I never declared any ad as "The worst EVAR". I suppose that explains why I haven't been painfully proven wrong? Not really sure what your point is here.
I'm always fascinated by people who come to absurd conclusions from innocuous starting points. Thanks for providing a few moments of fascination today.
I took it to mean he was expecting to get flamed in response... one need not be a troll or fanboy to flame someone. I'd expect a 6-digit UIDer to know the difference.
Just put, ", etc." at the end of my statement then.
The point wasn't to be an exhaustive list, but to point out that "/me dons asbestos undies" is a rhetorical device meant to preemptively disparage disagreement as a flame. It puts any response on the defensive.
2 billion downloads for iPhone vrs more than 400 trillion downloads of unrestricted software applications....
hmmm, which of those sounds more impressive?
Every single human on the planet has downloaded over 66,000 apps each? That's every single human on Earth downloading 10 apps per day, every day, since 1989.
I'm a customer, and as far as I'm concerned the iTunes App Store a bland mush, not a smashing success. I'm coming up on the end of my contract with AT&T, and I'll be getting something different, something that serves me, not Apple and AT&T. I'm looking at the Android options and the Pre. I was hearing good things about the Pre, but this makes me very wary.
You are in the minority. Your facts are skewed/outdated/outright false.
But please, jump to one those other phones. The grass is always greener, as they say. What you'll find is the other phones are frustrating to the extreme compared to the iPhone, but hey, they are mildly freer than the iPhone.
No, it's very consumer-friendly. It's a compromise that degrades very little from the user experience. Of *all* the apps that have been denied/crippled, only two come to mind that have any form of wide appeal, and both are only crippled against using AT&T's network--Skype and SlingBox.
So, very little is lost, but *much* is gained. The user has a *gigantic* selection of inexpensive apps to choose from, all of them are all but guaranteed to be malware free, and the process of purchasing and installing is a breeze.
That's a lot of upside for very little downside. I think people are more opposed to the single-source app store more on principle than on any practical concerns.
A consumer-friendly approach would be one that allows open competition, even for apps that might cause Apple or its telco partners to lose some potential revenues.
None of the choices are about Apple losing money. Many *are* about the telcos concern about the usage of their network.
When you download an app, the phone asks for your iTunes password. It isn't just a "one click and you're done" thing like the GP posted. Or maybe it's the way I have my phone configured?
I was talking about buying through iTunes. That's what i meant by "Just click, and plug in your phone. Done."
This is called 1-Click, and is licensed from Amazon.
You're correct about the iPhone, and this is for, I would hope, obvious reasons. Additionally, rewording my post to address it from the perspective of buying on the iPhone, "Just click, and enter your password. Done," doesn't really change anything.
The rest of your post is pretty much right.
Of course "value for users" is a completely separate question from "value for developers"--the trade offs between the inconvenience of the "walled garden", paying the associated developer fees, and having to jump through the approval hoops have to be weighed against Apple handle the hosting, billing, and so forth.
I think it's fairly clear that what benefits the consumers here also benefits the developers. Making it easier to buy and find software means more software will be sold because the old method for mobile/PDA apps woefully under-served the market.
Locking down the device... it may not be useful to the *customers*
Apple has recently served up it's two billionth app (this number does not include updates).
More open devices like the old Palms and Windows Mobile may seem more consumer-friendly at first, but when you take a closer look, you'll see that Apple's approach is *far* more consumer-friendly. Far more apps have been sold through iTunes than ever would have been sold if developers had to peddle their wares independently. And even free apps are easier to find, download and install.
Do you even know how easy it is to get an app for the iPhone? Once you find an app that interests you, it just takes one click to acquire it and have it installed on your iPhone. One click! No downloading zip files, extracting them then installing via some menu system. Just click, and plug in your phone. Done.
Apple keeps your credit card information for iTunes when you set up your account. You don't have to enter anything in for each purchase, and Apple is more trustworthy than some random web site.
As far as the customers are concerned, the iTunes App Store is a smashing success.
I'm normally not a "blame the user" type, but the dialog in question is not tricky, hidden, or in any way misleading.
I agree that the only things that should be checked by default is software that is already installed (seriously, this is nothing near as bad as MS updates which install software without notification *and* it's hidden behind an "Customize" option), but in this case it really looks like a mistake. The iPhone Configuration Utility is not the sort of thing Apple has any motivation for pushing onto users. *Maybe* this was deliberate, but it doesn't really seem likely.
Whenever Apple does something controversial, their motives are almost always clear, and those motives are almost always with the goal of making things easier/better/safer for the end user (even the iPhone app store lunacy has that motive at its core), but in this case, I just don't see any motive. Mistake is the only thing that really makes sense here.
It wasn't "offered through iTunes". It was through Apple Software Update. I realize there's an argument to be made that people may not understand, even though what's happening is spelled out very clearly, and not at all hidden, what they're installing, but it is *not* presented as an iTunes update, nor does this update prompt even appear from iTunes itself.
"Patently false" and "here's a minor detail you left out" are *not* synonymous.
What's more, your "minor detail" is, itself (ironically) patently false. It wasn't in the "update" section, because there wasn't an update section at that time. The "Updates" and "New Software" sections were put in in response to people complaining (rightly so, but a bit hyperbolically in tone) about it.
This was a stupid move and Apple's not as innocent as you claim. Defaulting the box to checked is almost equivalent to installing it without consent and Apple knows it.
Um, no. You have to click "Install" (or "ok" or "update" or whatever), and what's being installed is visibly checked. You're making this out to be some sort of horrendously evil and deceptive plot to... what? Install a program of limited appeal? This isn't like Safari, where everyone who sees that update can actually make use of it (not that they necessarily want to, but they all use web browser). But something like this, Apple has really no incentive to push this onto people. So this sound like a mistake to me, not deliberate (as with the Safari case).
So that's why I get this "iPhone configuration utility" on my PC when I don't even have an iPhone.
Because you clicked install. Apple does not, ever, install things behind your back.
Obviously Apple has learned that installing software without user consent will only earn a slap on the wrist from the users at the very best.
Apple has never installed software without user consent. The worst that has ever happened is Apple has defaulted the checkmark to "checked" on Safari (rescinded after people complained), and now this software (which, given it's extremely limited scope and appeal, seems like a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to get the software out there).
Two other instances are iTunes bundles QuickTime (understandable, as iTunes depends on QuickTime), and the default download option for Safari is "Safari+QuickTime" (clearly visible on the download page, with an also clearly visible option to download just Safari).
But in every single case, two things have remained the same--the user has always had to initiate the install, and the user has always been able to uncheck any unneeded components.
...and yet, there's something like a 90% chance that you will buy their product
Far fewer than 90% of people actually ever buy a Windows product. They may buy a PC (still, nowhere near 90%, but I'm not going to quibble here), but they generally *aren't* particularly set on Windows specifically.
Does it matter that it's a horrible marketing attempt if the goal of the company is still accomplished?
MS's goal isn't met, hence the ads. They want everyone to run out and buy Windows 7. This won't happen. They want PC makers to not sell Linux. This won't happen. They want Apple to fail. This won't happen. Calling 90% (or whatever) to be MS's goal is like running with football, then drawing an end zone around the spot where you were tackled.
I've been using it for several months, it's definitely not as bad as their marketing.
I remember hearing this about Vista, pre-launch as well.
The only real difference here is that Windows 7 has Vista to compare against, which can only make it look good. Additionally, new PCs will really require Windows Vista/7 to take full advantage of the hardware (or, perhaps XP64, which is too problematic to be mainstream). I'd wager, though, that hardware consideration aside, average consumers would rather run XP than Windows 7.
Slashdot Mirror
'Point is, you conform to a dress code even if you don't know it. The only way around it is to work out of your home... with the drapes closed. (Please.)
Not really. A "dress code" is a *code*. It has to be codified in some sense. Being fired for being "indecent" isn't really a dress code.
Even if it were codified that you couldn't be indecent, it's still below the threshold most people would have for calling something a dress code. The general distinction here is probably something like, "you have to wear clothes a normal person wouldn't generally chose to wear, or face disciplinary action", or inversely, "there are perfectly socially acceptable clothes that you *can't* wear to work". In either case, I'm sure there are exceptions, but such exceptions don't change the overall dynamic here.
Like I said... the sad fanboy "specs game".
Instead of the sad fanboy "Macs are overpriced" nonsense.
Please, play attention.
Facts:
1. Macs are not overpriced for the hardware they are made of.
2. PCs offer more choice.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. These are two different arguments. You jumped into the discussion about price with the choice response.
But you get even that wrong.
If you're buying a PC, then you have more than one choice.
There are multiple Macs, too. Just not nearly as many as there are PCs.
You don't have to be restricted to the i945 one year and then the nv9400 the next year.
There are current Macs that don't use the nVidia chipset, but more to the point, very few people care, as the chipset is extremely unimportant to most people. This isn't the Windows/Linux world where chipset choice is important to consider with regards to compatibility and driver quality.
I can "tweak" the CPU part of the spec to yield a machine for 1/3rd the price if my INDIVIDUAL requirements allow for that.
Um... The only machine where this is even *remotely* applicable to is the Mac Pro, where the CPU(s) makes up a *significant* portion of the price. Correct, you can't order a Mac Pro sans CPU. You can buy an iMac, or a Mac mini. Sure, *you* might want a Mac Pro with a low-end Core2Duo (actually, why would anyone really want such a combo? But I digress), but most people really don't care. On the contrary, they'd rather have the all-in-one styling of the iMac, or the impressive compactness of the Mac mini, over the expandability of a traditional desktop, as they'll never take advantage of that expandability.
I fully agree that Apple's hardware offerings are sorely lacking for someone like yourself, but you are not representative of the average PC buyer, and much, much more to the point, this has no bearing on the topic of whether Macs are overpriced.
The problem with the "specs games" that Apple fanboys like to play is the fact that a PC doesn't restrict you to one spec. One PC brand wont even do that.
Um, no, because that's only the argument that "PC fanboys" like to make after their initial argument, that Macs are more expensive but just use the same hardware, is disproved.
*For the same hardware*, Macs are almost always cheaper. Your argument is that PCs offer more choice. That is true, but it's a completely different argument.
No. This is a difficult thing to judge, and the benefits of an open platform are worth the risk.
How much benefit is there and how much risk? How much different would the available apps for the iPhone be were there no app approval process? And consider the fact that it's also possible to improve the process without scrapping it altogether.
Consider that Apple, imperfectly, filters for:
1. Spyware/malware
2. Bugs
3. UI issues
4. Core iPhone functionality duplication
5. Pornography
6. Disallows some cell network usage as per the telco's user contract
Of those, which do you think we'd see significant benefit from were Apple to, not just address them better, but ignore them altogether? 4, 5 and 6 can definitely be better addressed than they are now.
I would also argue that the iPhone user experience would be *nowhere near* as great as it is were Apple to not filter their app store. User complaints about buggy and ugly apps would skyrocket. The quality and ease of use of the app store is just as important to Apple as the smoothness of the multitouch, or the quality of their mobile web browser (which is so fully capable, it almost seems wrong to call it a "mobile" browser).
It's also really misleading that Palm is really "opening up" webOS development. You still have to send them your app, and *you* don't distribute *you* apple, you just send a link to download from Palm. You can do the exact same thing with iPhone apps. The only difference is that with the iPhone, you download from within iTunes, whereas with Palm, it sounds like you download a file that the user then has to install themselves. Palm's appears a *little* bit freer, but it's really just more complex and requires more steps.
I'm glad Palm is trying something different, but the superiority of their decisions is by no means clear.
What can I do with this that I can't do with a dozen other dd-wrt routers?
You're absolutely right. There should only be a handful of open source routers, and no more. Any new open source routers must be actively discouraged.
Perhaps you can add something like "choice is tyranny", or "nothing new for me, thanks", or "we've got all the open source we need" to your sig?
Why wouldn't they just have used the Atom 330?
Imagine how stupid they must have felt at the end of their six month project when they went to order their supply of N270's, unfolded the order sheet, and saw the 330 listed just a little further down...
From my perspective a netbook has 5 to 8+ hours of use out of its battery.
So, the new MacBook Pros are netbooks? And some (most?) netbooks aren't?
All these posts where people are telling "what a netbook means to me" demonstrates two things:
1. Netbooks are about a number of things.
2. Netbooks are subjective definitions, like "planet", and not conducive to objectively defined requirements.
C'mon - why is that a troll moderators? I was giving the guy a compliment.
Well, anonymity on the Internet has all but done away with people complimenting each other. Your compliment caused confusion and anxiety among the moderators, causing them to instinctively mod you down.
So, you see, you should take the negative moderation as a compliment. Oh, wait...
And had they been like the Slashdot's creator-wannabes, there would've been no patents, because "information wants to be free".
So, how's the weather in False Dichotomyland?
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you were responding to. I can't find anything in my post which you have contradicted or disputed...
Tux, nor the Martinettis, are high-points in product promotion, but that Windows 7 Party ad is truly horrific, somewhere around the same level of awful as the Songsmith ad.
No, the Songsmith ad at least had had decent camera work and lacked blatant continuity errors (the clock is just one). So purely from the perspective of filming and editing the Songsmith ad was superior than the Windows 7 video.
And had my objections to the ads been technical, you'd have a point. But they weren't. My objections are aesthetic.
I guess the lesson is never declare an specific ad is "The worst EVAR!", unless you enjoy being painfully proven wrong.
Hmm... I never declared any ad as "The worst EVAR". I suppose that explains why I haven't been painfully proven wrong? Not really sure what your point is here.
I'm always fascinated by people who come to absurd conclusions from innocuous starting points. Thanks for providing a few moments of fascination today.
I took it to mean he was expecting to get flamed in response... one need not be a troll or fanboy to flame someone. I'd expect a 6-digit UIDer to know the difference.
Just put, ", etc." at the end of my statement then.
The point wasn't to be an exhaustive list, but to point out that "/me dons asbestos undies" is a rhetorical device meant to preemptively disparage disagreement as a flame. It puts any response on the defensive.
2 billion downloads for iPhone vrs more than 400 trillion downloads of unrestricted software applications....
hmmm, which of those sounds more impressive?
Every single human on the planet has downloaded over 66,000 apps each? That's every single human on Earth downloading 10 apps per day, every day, since 1989.
Wow, that *is* impressive!
I'm a customer, and as far as I'm concerned the iTunes App Store a bland mush, not a smashing success. I'm coming up on the end of my contract with AT&T, and I'll be getting something different, something that serves me, not Apple and AT&T. I'm looking at the Android options and the Pre. I was hearing good things about the Pre, but this makes me very wary.
You are in the minority. Your facts are skewed/outdated/outright false.
But please, jump to one those other phones. The grass is always greener, as they say. What you'll find is the other phones are frustrating to the extreme compared to the iPhone, but hey, they are mildly freer than the iPhone.
Skype crippled at Apple's request
At AT&T's demand.
This is not consumer-friendly.
No, it's very consumer-friendly. It's a compromise that degrades very little from the user experience. Of *all* the apps that have been denied/crippled, only two come to mind that have any form of wide appeal, and both are only crippled against using AT&T's network--Skype and SlingBox.
So, very little is lost, but *much* is gained. The user has a *gigantic* selection of inexpensive apps to choose from, all of them are all but guaranteed to be malware free, and the process of purchasing and installing is a breeze.
That's a lot of upside for very little downside. I think people are more opposed to the single-source app store more on principle than on any practical concerns.
A consumer-friendly approach would be one that allows open competition, even for apps that might cause Apple or its telco partners to lose some potential revenues.
None of the choices are about Apple losing money. Many *are* about the telcos concern about the usage of their network.
When you download an app, the phone asks for your iTunes password. It isn't just a "one click and you're done" thing like the GP posted. Or maybe it's the way I have my phone configured?
I was talking about buying through iTunes. That's what i meant by "Just click, and plug in your phone. Done."
This is called 1-Click, and is licensed from Amazon.
You're correct about the iPhone, and this is for, I would hope, obvious reasons. Additionally, rewording my post to address it from the perspective of buying on the iPhone, "Just click, and enter your password. Done," doesn't really change anything.
The rest of your post is pretty much right.
Of course "value for users" is a completely separate question from "value for developers"--the trade offs between the inconvenience of the "walled garden", paying the associated developer fees, and having to jump through the approval hoops have to be weighed against Apple handle the hosting, billing, and so forth.
I think it's fairly clear that what benefits the consumers here also benefits the developers. Making it easier to buy and find software means more software will be sold because the old method for mobile/PDA apps woefully under-served the market.
Locking down the device... it may not be useful to the *customers*
Apple has recently served up it's two billionth app (this number does not include updates).
More open devices like the old Palms and Windows Mobile may seem more consumer-friendly at first, but when you take a closer look, you'll see that Apple's approach is *far* more consumer-friendly. Far more apps have been sold through iTunes than ever would have been sold if developers had to peddle their wares independently. And even free apps are easier to find, download and install.
Do you even know how easy it is to get an app for the iPhone? Once you find an app that interests you, it just takes one click to acquire it and have it installed on your iPhone. One click! No downloading zip files, extracting them then installing via some menu system. Just click, and plug in your phone. Done.
Apple keeps your credit card information for iTunes when you set up your account. You don't have to enter anything in for each purchase, and Apple is more trustworthy than some random web site.
As far as the customers are concerned, the iTunes App Store is a smashing success.
Users don't read dialog boxes.
I'm normally not a "blame the user" type, but the dialog in question is not tricky, hidden, or in any way misleading.
I agree that the only things that should be checked by default is software that is already installed (seriously, this is nothing near as bad as MS updates which install software without notification *and* it's hidden behind an "Customize" option), but in this case it really looks like a mistake. The iPhone Configuration Utility is not the sort of thing Apple has any motivation for pushing onto users. *Maybe* this was deliberate, but it doesn't really seem likely.
Whenever Apple does something controversial, their motives are almost always clear, and those motives are almost always with the goal of making things easier/better/safer for the end user (even the iPhone app store lunacy has that motive at its core), but in this case, I just don't see any motive. Mistake is the only thing that really makes sense here.
It wasn't "offered through iTunes". It was through Apple Software Update. I realize there's an argument to be made that people may not understand, even though what's happening is spelled out very clearly, and not at all hidden, what they're installing, but it is *not* presented as an iTunes update, nor does this update prompt even appear from iTunes itself.
Hahaha. Patently false.
"Patently false" and "here's a minor detail you left out" are *not* synonymous.
What's more, your "minor detail" is, itself (ironically) patently false. It wasn't in the "update" section, because there wasn't an update section at that time. The "Updates" and "New Software" sections were put in in response to people complaining (rightly so, but a bit hyperbolically in tone) about it.
Defending Apple? In my slashdot?
Ego, much?
This was a stupid move and Apple's not as innocent as you claim. Defaulting the box to checked is almost equivalent to installing it without consent and Apple knows it.
Um, no. You have to click "Install" (or "ok" or "update" or whatever), and what's being installed is visibly checked. You're making this out to be some sort of horrendously evil and deceptive plot to... what? Install a program of limited appeal? This isn't like Safari, where everyone who sees that update can actually make use of it (not that they necessarily want to, but they all use web browser). But something like this, Apple has really no incentive to push this onto people. So this sound like a mistake to me, not deliberate (as with the Safari case).
So that's why I get this "iPhone configuration utility" on my PC when I don't even have an iPhone.
Because you clicked install. Apple does not, ever, install things behind your back.
Obviously Apple has learned that installing software without user consent will only earn a slap on the wrist from the users at the very best.
Apple has never installed software without user consent. The worst that has ever happened is Apple has defaulted the checkmark to "checked" on Safari (rescinded after people complained), and now this software (which, given it's extremely limited scope and appeal, seems like a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to get the software out there).
Two other instances are iTunes bundles QuickTime (understandable, as iTunes depends on QuickTime), and the default download option for Safari is "Safari+QuickTime" (clearly visible on the download page, with an also clearly visible option to download just Safari).
But in every single case, two things have remained the same--the user has always had to initiate the install, and the user has always been able to uncheck any unneeded components.
...and yet, there's something like a 90% chance that you will buy their product
Far fewer than 90% of people actually ever buy a Windows product. They may buy a PC (still, nowhere near 90%, but I'm not going to quibble here), but they generally *aren't* particularly set on Windows specifically.
Does it matter that it's a horrible marketing attempt if the goal of the company is still accomplished?
MS's goal isn't met, hence the ads. They want everyone to run out and buy Windows 7. This won't happen. They want PC makers to not sell Linux. This won't happen. They want Apple to fail. This won't happen. Calling 90% (or whatever) to be MS's goal is like running with football, then drawing an end zone around the spot where you were tackled.
wait until you try the OS.
I've been using it for several months, it's definitely not as bad as their marketing.
I remember hearing this about Vista, pre-launch as well.
The only real difference here is that Windows 7 has Vista to compare against, which can only make it look good. Additionally, new PCs will really require Windows Vista/7 to take full advantage of the hardware (or, perhaps XP64, which is too problematic to be mainstream). I'd wager, though, that hardware consideration aside, average consumers would rather run XP than Windows 7.