Microsoft should have been split up for the same reason. By the time the decision to unbundle IE came down, there was plenty of competition (Opera, Mozilla/Firefox) so the decision became moot.
Actually, the reason MS didn't get split up (or whatever fate they just barely dodged that was coming down the pike) was because 5 [federal] judges chose to meddle in Florida's [state] affairs in late 2000.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
It's called "monopoly". They are using their monopoly in computer operating systems to promote their product in the internet browser market. This is anticompetitive and illegal.
The reason Apple and Linux can do the same is that:
1. They aren't monopolies 2. Even if they were, they aren't being used to promote a secondary product in an anticompetitive manner
If MS didn't have a monopoly with Windows or if they didn't use that Windows monopoly to unfairly compete against Netscape, they wouldn't have been in trouble with the bundling.
Wow! When I'm looking for insight into discussions on the Internet, straw men and ad hominem are the first places I look.
Thanks for settling the discussion on the merits of IE vs Netscape by (falsely, I might add) accusing the judge as being an ancient technophobe.
Seriously, the point of bringing up court rulings is not because the rulings ruled which browser was better (they didn't), but because they ruled that MS's actions where anti-competitive and monopolistic. That is evidence to the fact that IE didn't beat Netscape by simply being better.
Spending $300 on a netbook and $200 elsewhere (new tires for their car, new music/movies, new clothes) may be better for the person than spending $500 on the computer and nothing on the other things. So yes, the netbook is not the best computing experience for the person, but it may be the best computer purchase.
But that's they're choice to make, not yours. They aren't asking you how to spend their money, they're asking you which computer will work best for them.
Now, if they say they are in super poor mode right now because they need tires for their care, you can say something like, "well, it won't be really fast or anything, and the screen's pretty cramped, etc., but you can get a netbook for $300, although for $200 more, you can get a low-end laptop that will be noticeably faster."
But unilaterally making the judgement that they should save that $200 and just outright suggesting a netbook is *extremely* poor advice. There's nothing wrong with tossing into the mix.
Look at it this way, if $200 is that important to a person, so is the initial $300 they've put into the netbook, and if they are unhappy with it, you've just tainted their $300 investment, and quite likely for just $200 more, they would have been able to buy a computer they'd actually enjoy using, even if they'd have to save up for four months to cover the difference.
For a netbook to be an economic necessity, like so many of you are presenting it as, the buyer in question would have to be so poor that even $300 is a hardship. While this sort of situation definitely can arise, it's not even close to the norm, and definitely not so common to justify all of you who are suggesting netbooks because they are "good enough" and will save you $200.
Let me ask you this. If you were going on a trip through Europe, would you be pleased if someone advised you to just visit 1 country instead of 3 if it meant you could get the trip for $300 instead of $500, because a 1 country trip is "good enough". After all, you've done just fine so far seeing no countries?
When someone asks for computer advice, unless they indicate otherwise, you should assume that they're ready to spend a good amount of money and are looking for the best machine they can buy, and *not* the cheapest computer they can possibly find.
Well ok, but back to the first point: monopolies aren't about products, they're about how much you can charge for them.
Not true. MS got in trouble for giving IE away for free.
It had nothing to do with the price, and in spite of what you keep saying, it had everything to do with the products. Specifically, the tying of IE to Windows.
Intel is not a company I see as a monopoly, but as something very close to one.
If you're telling someone what they should and shouldn't do with their money and they're trusting your judgment
That's what all you "netbooks are good enough" people are missing, you have no business telling people what they should and shouldn't do with their money, unless they're your children, or you're their accountant. If they ask for advice, you can advise on which computer you think will serve them *best*, but *best* should never ever mean "good enough".
And even if you think best and good enough are synonymous, it's still not your call. It's not your business to tell them how they spend their money, at most, it's about which computer you think they would be most happy with.
If you buy more than you ever need, you overpay.
If somebody wants a faster computer, even if they don't really "need" it, and they aren't going into hawk to buy it, what's your problem? They'll still see some benefit, even if all they ever do is read email and nothing more. You might thing it's a poor investment of money, but if it's not your money, it's not your call to make.
How exactly is that outrageous? The MTA might change their terms, and they will make an effort to let people know about it in various ways, although probably not by sending out mail to every MTA Fast Lane participant?
Oh! The horrors!
Most corporate terms of services have similar clauses, although the lack requirement for written notification isn't always included, there are many situations where it is. In fact, the only examples where I recall receiving terms changes via mail these days are from financial institutions, which makes me think it's most likely a legal requirement. Everyone else pretty much just tells you to keep your eye on some web page somewhere.
The problem is, the morons who are only going with AT&T because they simply MUST have an iPhone are the same type of idiots who won't read their bills, much less the contract before signing it.
Wow, Mister Xiado, how'd you come to that conclusion? Wanting an iPhone, and as a result, being tied to AT&T makes one an moron/idiot?
Did you know that if you call AT&T to complain about minute overages and data use charges, your service can be terminated without notice, immediately? I can assure you that it won't unless you start making threats over the phone, but it's in the damn contract, in which the only fine print is the names of the cities on the coverage map.
[Citation Needed] I've read the terms of service (not every word, but the gist of the various sections) and I'd be very surprised that there's anything that says what you've written.
Please, provide a link, or quote from, the relevant section that specifically states that merely complaining about charges allows them to terminate your contract immediately and without notice.
Or was this some sort of reverse idiot test? Where you see how many up mods you can get from idiots who merely like the idea that what you wrote might be true?
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
Monopolies aren't about products at all. They're about the ability of a company to charge monopoly rents
For access to products.
I fail to see how you can have a monopoly without some product (either goods or services) being involved.
if apple didn't have to worry about losing marketshare due to alternate products
I thought you just said it wasn't about products?
they'd have a monopoly. Note that this is a progressive scale - intel isn't a monopoly
Actually, Intel has been found guilty of engaging in monopolistic practices.
but they have a whole lot of clout and, if not for AMD, they could do pretty much what they like.
Monopoly doesn't mean you don't have competition, it means (in the sense that is generally accepted from a government regulation viewpoint) that you have "a whole lot of clout" (as you put it) and use that clout to engage in sufficiently anti-competitive practices.
You need both the clout and the abuse, and yes, this has to happen around some sort of product, be it OS's, CPUs, phone service or aluminum.
Lots of them, so long as you're willing to replace "crappy" with "low performance". You tell someone to buy a cheap commuter car instead of a Ford GT if they're just going to commute back and forth from work.
No you don't. You never fucking tell people to not buy a nice car, unless they are poor and you know their car payments are going to end up being a huge burden on them. You might suggest they don't need it, but to tell them they shouldn't buy what they want? What kind of crap is that?
You tell people to buy a cheaper cell phone and phone plan instead of the huge awesome everything setup when they only talk on the phone a small amount.
You never tell people to buy a plain phone unless they will have problems using a fancier one. As for plans, this is a different thing. Lower plans don't give you reduced performance. You're just paying for the amount of time you use, and if you end up needing more time, you just change your plan. With a netbook, you can't just pay a bit more this month when you decide to watch HD movies on the plane, or someone emails you some amusing web game or whatever.
You tell people to get a modest apartment instead of a huge luxury suite when they don't have a lot of stuff and the suite isn't free.
When did I say people should buy some sort of high-end luxury computer? I'm just saying don't buy a crap one. You don't tell people to rent a hovel unless that's literally all they can afford.
Now, if you want a low-end computer and if you're perfectly fine with the limitations, I'm not telling you to not buy one. What I am arguing against is all the high-and-mighty geeks that are going around telling people that they should just buy some crap computer because of how "simple" their needs are. It's damned insulting.
People compromise on quality ALL THE TIME because we don't need to and can't all afford to have all the best stuff all the time.
Yes, they do. But that's not what I'm suggesting. This is the condescension I'm talking about. Netbooks are the crappiest, low-endiest pieces of crap you can find. This isn't a dichotomy of "always buy the high-end, never a low-end computer", it's about not telling people that all they need is the low-end computer, and to not even buy a mid-range computer. The condescension comes in when you people go on about "that's all they need", as though most people are not worthy of a nice computer, or will not notice the difference between a choppy youtube video and a fluid HD video.
Seems you're saying people should get overkill systems, and not good enough. By that logic, everyone should spend $5,000 on a nice 5 drive SSD raid and tri GTX 285s on a core i7 extreme, just in case they'll need it. And hey, it loads the browser for youtube videos faster!
If I say people shouldn't buy a crap computer, then I'm logically stating they should buy and ultra high-end $5,000 computer?
Please explain how you came to that conclusion, I'm truly fascinated.
"... all of Apple's MacBook Pros... get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that."
Wow, that is massively not true. Under real use the new MBP barely get half that as well. My 17 gets 5.5 hours when doing essentially nothing.
Do you have one of the new unibody MacBook Pros? If not, you're comparing the wrong notebook. If you do have one of the new ones, there's something wrong with your battery, or you're lying about how you're using it.
Yes, with average use and Auto Power mode, my Asus EEEPC 901 HA goes for a day and a half easily. It really does get over 6 hours as claimed, which for a netbook is almost 2 days of use in my experience.
This is the exact sort of hyperbolic nonsense I'm talking about. 6 hours != 2 days. 6 hours is 6 hours.
And I play my daughter's 720p gymnastics videos all the time with no stuttering, but I have to put it in "High Power" mode to do that. Of course, I need to install the KLite Codec Pack first, but it works. YouTube is no problem at all, even HD clips.
Sorry, but I don't believe you. The fact that you mislead about battery life makes it hard for me to even give you the benefit of the doubt here.
The Atom processor and GMA945 chipset combination used in most netbooks just simply can't play 720p video, except perhaps some low-quality implementations. I've tried both a 720p mkv and 720p h.264 video on an Atom netbook, and neither could play without dropped frames.
Second test, youtube, the Internet Explorer S.H.Y.N.E.S.S commercial. regular quality, stutters if you don't let it load completely before playing. After letting it load, it plays without stuttering, but with what appears to be a reduced frame rate. The HD video cannot play clearly no matter what. For the question of, "can it play video", flash might seem like an unfair test, but for the question of "can it play video people want to play", it's crucial.
Are your gymnastic videos AVCHD from an actual traditional style video camera? Or a video from a still digicam or a Flip Video (or similar style) camera? I can believe there are some 720p videos that can play, but I cannot believe for an instant that standard 720p videos you'll find on iTunes or bittorrent can play without issue.
Actually, netbooks have pretty impressive battery life compared to regular laptops. My old EeePC 1000H, for instance, ran for about 6 hours (minimal screen brightness, WiFi on, regular office/note-taking type use) with the stock 6-cell battery - no protruding huge battery or anything. The newer models are even better (1000HE, for instance)...
And the MacBook Pros get 7-8 hours, with significantly increased system specs. This is my point. People go on about how impressive netbook's battery lives are, but I just can't get excited given the performance of even the best performing (battery-wise) netbooks (which are not the norm).
This is also with a 6 cell battery (which I'm not knocking, so long as it doesn't bulk up the netbook or increase the cost to above $400). Most netbooks I've seen come with much smaller batteries.
They have a 100% share of MacOS computers, they are a monopoly in that market.
Um, everyone has a monopoly of their own products, genius.
What you're saying is that Apple doesn't license Mac OS X to other computer makers. That's not the definition of a monopoly. Monopoly isn't about specific products, but about product categories. "Macs" isn't a product category (as regards monopolies), it's a brand and a product line.
Or, if you say that's not the case, that their computers are just PCs and compete with all the others, well then you are hard pressed to call MS a monopoly at that point.
MS wasn't a monopoly because they were the only source of MS Windows. They were a monopoly (and still are in many regards) because they sold the overwhelming majority of computer operating systems, and used that status to significantly abuse the market.
I really can't see a situation where MS is a monopoly, but Apple isn't.
You seriously can't see a difference? Both have a "monopoly" over their own products, but only one had a greater than 90% share of their particular market, and only one went on to abuse that market share sufficiently to trigger anti-trust investigations that resulted in conviction, and only one of them faces seemingly non-ending sanctions by the EU.
The other has had a few lawsuits filed against them, and an investigation here and there (mostly regarding the iPod and iTunes), but has never once been found guilty of being a monopoly.
How much more difference do you need?
If having a monopoly over your own product is sufficient similarity, then everyone has a monopoly, and the term is useless.
has much better battery life than the cheapest notebooks
I realize you qualified this by comparing it with "the cheapest notebooks", but do netbooks really get such great battery performance? Every netbook I've encountered has what I'd consider sub-par battery performance except for those with the oversized batteries. For example, all of Apple's MacBook Pros (yes, I realize this is not from the category of "the cheapest notebooks") get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that.
I suspect there's a lot of potential for longer lasting netbooks, but in order to get long battery life, you either need a very low powered chip system (Atom is not, mainly due to the rest of the chipset), or a larger and more expensive battery. The first is too underpowered to be really useful and the second is too expensive to fit into the netbook category (most people will not spend $500+ for a netbook, they'd just buy a larger notebook).
Which brings me to:
with the typical browsing/email most people do, having max processing power isn't the biggest concern although having enough obviously is.
I find this attitude to be extremely condescending. "Oh, this crap system is totally overkill for you". In what other realm of life is it normal to tell people to buy a crappy product because it's "good enough" for their simple needs? Most netbooks can't even play YouTube without stuttering often enough to be annoying. Who are these people that only check email and view a few static web pages that are perfectly viewable in 600 vertical pixels without annoyance? Netbooks are great as a secondary, crap computer for on-the-go, since a crap computer that's with you is better than a ultra-powerful computer that isn't. But just generally "good enough" is not a proper description for any netbook I've ever encountered (and yes, I do realize most people have lesser needs/demands from their computer than I (and most of us here) do, but netbooks go way beyond just being too slow for me (us) in general).
And yes, I did notice that, yet again, you carefully qualified your statement. "although having enough [power] obviously is [important]". But it's kind of like me saying I'm totally fast enough to run to wherever I need to go, for destinations that are sufficiently close.
No, no it isn't. What we have discovered is that 10" is actually too small. This is due to the fact that you look like a squinting hunched over idiot while using it, especially if you are over six feet tall.
That's, to an extent, what makes a netbook a netbook.
The way I look at it is, if its a perfectly usable, "just right" size computer for every day use without any severe complaints regarding size, hard drive speed, keyboard, etc, then it's not a netbook, it's just a notebook (regardless of the size). What makes a netbook a distinct category is that you're giving up on some (really, usually just about every) aspect of the computer in order to gain something that is extremely portable, and significantly cheaper than a regular notebook. That's what makes netbooks unique (hell, it even played a role in the origins of the name).
>Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue
That's what I'm trying to say.
Apple did not require the app to be censored. Period.
Now, in hindsight, knowing that OS 3 was released a month or so later, maybe waiting that month would have been better. But the developer had no way of knowing because Apple was intentionally NOT telling me that. From a business perspective, that's a choice between:
a) wait indefinitely, with no income, until another business does something, before you can make any money. And they won't tell you when they will do that 'something'. b) do some work, and after a semi-determinate time frame, make some income
THERE YOU GO. THEY HAD A CHOICE! You can't say they were required to censor, then say they didn't. If they had a choice, they were *CLEARLY* not required to censor the app.
As a small developer/shop, which option would you pick? IMHO, it would be suicide to pick option a.
Amazing. Had they chose option A, their app would probably have been released a month earlier than it did.
And it would not surprise me at all if he 'uncensored' the dictionary, resubmitted it as a bug fix version (still rated 17+), and have it rejected again by Apple, even with the conditioned quoted by Phil being met.
Doubtful. 17+ exists for this very reason.
But, again, Apple did not require the app to be censored, that was a completely voluntary choice of the developer.
As for Apple. They have no explanation as to why they refused so they are inventing an excuse. Hindsight is 20/20 and Apple is offering a plausible explanation unless you ask yourself this. If the developer was told that it would be approved in 30 to 60 days why would the developer spend extra time and money correcting something that will be corrected?
Apple would never, ever tell some random developer when their next OS is coming out if it's not yet public knowledge. It's likely not even their high-profile customers were told the date until the WWDC keynote.
Your main theme here is that parents need to be more responsible. Well, the age rating system gives them a tool to help them do just that! For fuck's sake, what do you think the age rating system is for in the first place?
Any such system is going to be problematic, given the subjectivity involved. But given that Apple has chosen to go with an age rating system, their actions are fully consistent with that decision.
Everything you're saying, in an apparent attempt to refute my post, is about the app approval process being terrible. Let me quote from my post to make things simpler here...
[me]: The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.
Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue.
There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?
Because Apple's App review process sucks. That doesn't make the original story true, however, which was that Apple required them to submit a censored version. All they said was submit it as a 17+ app, and it will be available when iPhone OS 3.0 is released (which happened about 1 month after they first submitted the app, and 1 month before the app even made it to the app store.
1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.
Which came to pass almost two months ago!. The app didn't even end up on the store until one month after iPhone OS 3.0 was released.
This story popped up over the last week. Ninja Words does not need to be censored. Any censoring is completely voluntary. What's worse, the story was originally portrayed as "Apple said we had to censor the dictionary and accept a 17+ rating!", which is downright false.
It did make for a big news cycle over the past week, though. I suppose it served its purpose, as everyone in these parts now knows about the Ninja Words dictionary app.
2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to by the reviewer included 'standard' swear words, and not just so-called 'urban slang' that Phil mentions in his response. And these exact same words are already in existing dictionary apps in the app store, with MUCH lower rating levels (Dictionary.com is rated 4+, and includes the specific example words the app reviewer listed).
The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.
Because a dictionary getting any age rating is a good idea how?
Apple isn't doing this because they think children shouldn't read dictionaries. In fact, any person of any age can run a 17+ app. The only limits are:
1. Parents can lock them out. 2. You get a warning, so that if you become offended, it's your own damned fault, not Apple's.
From Apple's point of view, this has nothing to do with dictionaries, it has to do with having an age rating system to begin with. Once you have such a system, and if the system is based, in part, on "vulgar" words, then dictionaries containing such words end up with an appropriate (under the rating criteria, at least) rating.
The only way to really end this whole mess is to do away with age ratings altogether, which is incompatible with Apple's intent for concerned parents (read: repressed fuckwads) to be able to buy their products without fear that it may despoil the minds of their children.
Ratings systems like these are inherently problematic, but given that, Apple really did act reasonably in this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft should have been split up for the same reason. By the time the decision to unbundle IE came down, there was plenty of competition (Opera, Mozilla/Firefox) so the decision became moot.
Actually, the reason MS didn't get split up (or whatever fate they just barely dodged that was coming down the pike) was because 5 [federal] judges chose to meddle in Florida's [state] affairs in late 2000.
I also think the EU's ruling that shipping windows with IE as illegal doesn't make a lot of sense, given all the other stuff they ship with windows and always have shipped with windows. Why is only one of them a bad thing? If the others are ok, why is the browser not?
It's called "monopoly". They are using their monopoly in computer operating systems to promote their product in the internet browser market. This is anticompetitive and illegal.
The reason Apple and Linux can do the same is that:
1. They aren't monopolies
2. Even if they were, they aren't being used to promote a secondary product in an anticompetitive manner
If MS didn't have a monopoly with Windows or if they didn't use that Windows monopoly to unfairly compete against Netscape, they wouldn't have been in trouble with the bundling.
Wow! When I'm looking for insight into discussions on the Internet, straw men and ad hominem are the first places I look.
Thanks for settling the discussion on the merits of IE vs Netscape by (falsely, I might add) accusing the judge as being an ancient technophobe.
Seriously, the point of bringing up court rulings is not because the rulings ruled which browser was better (they didn't), but because they ruled that MS's actions where anti-competitive and monopolistic. That is evidence to the fact that IE didn't beat Netscape by simply being better.
Spending $300 on a netbook and $200 elsewhere (new tires for their car, new music/movies, new clothes) may be better for the person than spending $500 on the computer and nothing on the other things. So yes, the netbook is not the best computing experience for the person, but it may be the best computer purchase.
But that's they're choice to make, not yours. They aren't asking you how to spend their money, they're asking you which computer will work best for them.
Now, if they say they are in super poor mode right now because they need tires for their care, you can say something like, "well, it won't be really fast or anything, and the screen's pretty cramped, etc., but you can get a netbook for $300, although for $200 more, you can get a low-end laptop that will be noticeably faster."
But unilaterally making the judgement that they should save that $200 and just outright suggesting a netbook is *extremely* poor advice. There's nothing wrong with tossing into the mix.
Look at it this way, if $200 is that important to a person, so is the initial $300 they've put into the netbook, and if they are unhappy with it, you've just tainted their $300 investment, and quite likely for just $200 more, they would have been able to buy a computer they'd actually enjoy using, even if they'd have to save up for four months to cover the difference.
For a netbook to be an economic necessity, like so many of you are presenting it as, the buyer in question would have to be so poor that even $300 is a hardship. While this sort of situation definitely can arise, it's not even close to the norm, and definitely not so common to justify all of you who are suggesting netbooks because they are "good enough" and will save you $200.
Let me ask you this. If you were going on a trip through Europe, would you be pleased if someone advised you to just visit 1 country instead of 3 if it meant you could get the trip for $300 instead of $500, because a 1 country trip is "good enough". After all, you've done just fine so far seeing no countries?
When someone asks for computer advice, unless they indicate otherwise, you should assume that they're ready to spend a good amount of money and are looking for the best machine they can buy, and *not* the cheapest computer they can possibly find.
Well ok, but back to the first point: monopolies aren't about products, they're about how much you can charge for them.
Not true. MS got in trouble for giving IE away for free.
It had nothing to do with the price, and in spite of what you keep saying, it had everything to do with the products. Specifically, the tying of IE to Windows.
Intel is not a company I see as a monopoly, but as something very close to one.
Actual courts of law have ruled otherwise.
If you're telling someone what they should and shouldn't do with their money and they're trusting your judgment
That's what all you "netbooks are good enough" people are missing, you have no business telling people what they should and shouldn't do with their money, unless they're your children, or you're their accountant. If they ask for advice, you can advise on which computer you think will serve them *best*, but *best* should never ever mean "good enough".
And even if you think best and good enough are synonymous, it's still not your call. It's not your business to tell them how they spend their money, at most, it's about which computer you think they would be most happy with.
If you buy more than you ever need, you overpay.
If somebody wants a faster computer, even if they don't really "need" it, and they aren't going into hawk to buy it, what's your problem? They'll still see some benefit, even if all they ever do is read email and nothing more. You might thing it's a poor investment of money, but if it's not your money, it's not your call to make.
How exactly is that outrageous? The MTA might change their terms, and they will make an effort to let people know about it in various ways, although probably not by sending out mail to every MTA Fast Lane participant?
Oh! The horrors!
Most corporate terms of services have similar clauses, although the lack requirement for written notification isn't always included, there are many situations where it is. In fact, the only examples where I recall receiving terms changes via mail these days are from financial institutions, which makes me think it's most likely a legal requirement. Everyone else pretty much just tells you to keep your eye on some web page somewhere.
The problem is, the morons who are only going with AT&T because they simply MUST have an iPhone are the same type of idiots who won't read their bills, much less the contract before signing it.
Wow, Mister Xiado, how'd you come to that conclusion? Wanting an iPhone, and as a result, being tied to AT&T makes one an moron/idiot?
Did you know that if you call AT&T to complain about minute overages and data use charges, your service can be terminated without notice, immediately? I can assure you that it won't unless you start making threats over the phone, but it's in the damn contract, in which the only fine print is the names of the cities on the coverage map.
[Citation Needed] I've read the terms of service (not every word, but the gist of the various sections) and I'd be very surprised that there's anything that says what you've written.
Please, provide a link, or quote from, the relevant section that specifically states that merely complaining about charges allows them to terminate your contract immediately and without notice.
Or was this some sort of reverse idiot test? Where you see how many up mods you can get from idiots who merely like the idea that what you wrote might be true?
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
Monopolies aren't about products at all. They're about the ability of a company to charge monopoly rents
For access to products.
I fail to see how you can have a monopoly without some product (either goods or services) being involved.
if apple didn't have to worry about losing marketshare due to alternate products
I thought you just said it wasn't about products?
they'd have a monopoly. Note that this is a progressive scale - intel isn't a monopoly
Actually, Intel has been found guilty of engaging in monopolistic practices.
but they have a whole lot of clout and, if not for AMD, they could do pretty much what they like.
Monopoly doesn't mean you don't have competition, it means (in the sense that is generally accepted from a government regulation viewpoint) that you have "a whole lot of clout" (as you put it) and use that clout to engage in sufficiently anti-competitive practices.
You need both the clout and the abuse, and yes, this has to happen around some sort of product, be it OS's, CPUs, phone service or aluminum.
Lots of them, so long as you're willing to replace "crappy" with "low performance". You tell someone to buy a cheap commuter car instead of a Ford GT if they're just going to commute back and forth from work.
No you don't. You never fucking tell people to not buy a nice car, unless they are poor and you know their car payments are going to end up being a huge burden on them. You might suggest they don't need it, but to tell them they shouldn't buy what they want? What kind of crap is that?
You tell people to buy a cheaper cell phone and phone plan instead of the huge awesome everything setup when they only talk on the phone a small amount.
You never tell people to buy a plain phone unless they will have problems using a fancier one. As for plans, this is a different thing. Lower plans don't give you reduced performance. You're just paying for the amount of time you use, and if you end up needing more time, you just change your plan. With a netbook, you can't just pay a bit more this month when you decide to watch HD movies on the plane, or someone emails you some amusing web game or whatever.
You tell people to get a modest apartment instead of a huge luxury suite when they don't have a lot of stuff and the suite isn't free.
When did I say people should buy some sort of high-end luxury computer? I'm just saying don't buy a crap one. You don't tell people to rent a hovel unless that's literally all they can afford.
Now, if you want a low-end computer and if you're perfectly fine with the limitations, I'm not telling you to not buy one. What I am arguing against is all the high-and-mighty geeks that are going around telling people that they should just buy some crap computer because of how "simple" their needs are. It's damned insulting.
People compromise on quality ALL THE TIME because we don't need to and can't all afford to have all the best stuff all the time.
Yes, they do. But that's not what I'm suggesting. This is the condescension I'm talking about. Netbooks are the crappiest, low-endiest pieces of crap you can find. This isn't a dichotomy of "always buy the high-end, never a low-end computer", it's about not telling people that all they need is the low-end computer, and to not even buy a mid-range computer. The condescension comes in when you people go on about "that's all they need", as though most people are not worthy of a nice computer, or will not notice the difference between a choppy youtube video and a fluid HD video.
Seems you're saying people should get overkill systems, and not good enough. By that logic, everyone should spend $5,000 on a nice 5 drive SSD raid and tri GTX 285s on a core i7 extreme, just in case they'll need it. And hey, it loads the browser for youtube videos faster!
If I say people shouldn't buy a crap computer, then I'm logically stating they should buy and ultra high-end $5,000 computer?
Please explain how you came to that conclusion, I'm truly fascinated.
"... all of Apple's MacBook Pros ... get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that."
Wow, that is massively not true. Under real use the new MBP barely get half that as well. My 17 gets 5.5 hours when doing essentially nothing.
Do you have one of the new unibody MacBook Pros? If not, you're comparing the wrong notebook. If you do have one of the new ones, there's something wrong with your battery, or you're lying about how you're using it.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3580&p=4
Yes, with average use and Auto Power mode, my Asus EEEPC 901 HA goes for a day and a half easily. It really does get over 6 hours as claimed, which for a netbook is almost 2 days of use in my experience.
This is the exact sort of hyperbolic nonsense I'm talking about. 6 hours != 2 days. 6 hours is 6 hours.
And I play my daughter's 720p gymnastics videos all the time with no stuttering, but I have to put it in "High Power" mode to do that. Of course, I need to install the KLite Codec Pack first, but it works. YouTube is no problem at all, even HD clips.
Sorry, but I don't believe you. The fact that you mislead about battery life makes it hard for me to even give you the benefit of the doubt here.
The Atom processor and GMA945 chipset combination used in most netbooks just simply can't play 720p video, except perhaps some low-quality implementations. I've tried both a 720p mkv and 720p h.264 video on an Atom netbook, and neither could play without dropped frames.
Second test, youtube, the Internet Explorer S.H.Y.N.E.S.S commercial. regular quality, stutters if you don't let it load completely before playing. After letting it load, it plays without stuttering, but with what appears to be a reduced frame rate. The HD video cannot play clearly no matter what. For the question of, "can it play video", flash might seem like an unfair test, but for the question of "can it play video people want to play", it's crucial.
Are your gymnastic videos AVCHD from an actual traditional style video camera? Or a video from a still digicam or a Flip Video (or similar style) camera? I can believe there are some 720p videos that can play, but I cannot believe for an instant that standard 720p videos you'll find on iTunes or bittorrent can play without issue.
Actually, netbooks have pretty impressive battery life compared to regular laptops. My old EeePC 1000H, for instance, ran for about 6 hours (minimal screen brightness, WiFi on, regular office/note-taking type use) with the stock 6-cell battery - no protruding huge battery or anything. The newer models are even better (1000HE, for instance)...
And the MacBook Pros get 7-8 hours, with significantly increased system specs. This is my point. People go on about how impressive netbook's battery lives are, but I just can't get excited given the performance of even the best performing (battery-wise) netbooks (which are not the norm).
This is also with a 6 cell battery (which I'm not knocking, so long as it doesn't bulk up the netbook or increase the cost to above $400). Most netbooks I've seen come with much smaller batteries.
They have a 100% share of MacOS computers, they are a monopoly in that market.
Um, everyone has a monopoly of their own products, genius.
What you're saying is that Apple doesn't license Mac OS X to other computer makers. That's not the definition of a monopoly. Monopoly isn't about specific products, but about product categories. "Macs" isn't a product category (as regards monopolies), it's a brand and a product line.
Or, if you say that's not the case, that their computers are just PCs and compete with all the others, well then you are hard pressed to call MS a monopoly at that point.
MS wasn't a monopoly because they were the only source of MS Windows. They were a monopoly (and still are in many regards) because they sold the overwhelming majority of computer operating systems, and used that status to significantly abuse the market.
I really can't see a situation where MS is a monopoly, but Apple isn't.
You seriously can't see a difference? Both have a "monopoly" over their own products, but only one had a greater than 90% share of their particular market, and only one went on to abuse that market share sufficiently to trigger anti-trust investigations that resulted in conviction, and only one of them faces seemingly non-ending sanctions by the EU.
The other has had a few lawsuits filed against them, and an investigation here and there (mostly regarding the iPod and iTunes), but has never once been found guilty of being a monopoly.
How much more difference do you need?
If having a monopoly over your own product is sufficient similarity, then everyone has a monopoly, and the term is useless.
has much better battery life than the cheapest notebooks
I realize you qualified this by comparing it with "the cheapest notebooks", but do netbooks really get such great battery performance? Every netbook I've encountered has what I'd consider sub-par battery performance except for those with the oversized batteries. For example, all of Apple's MacBook Pros (yes, I realize this is not from the category of "the cheapest notebooks") get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that.
I suspect there's a lot of potential for longer lasting netbooks, but in order to get long battery life, you either need a very low powered chip system (Atom is not, mainly due to the rest of the chipset), or a larger and more expensive battery. The first is too underpowered to be really useful and the second is too expensive to fit into the netbook category (most people will not spend $500+ for a netbook, they'd just buy a larger notebook).
Which brings me to:
with the typical browsing/email most people do, having max processing power isn't the biggest concern although having enough obviously is.
I find this attitude to be extremely condescending. "Oh, this crap system is totally overkill for you". In what other realm of life is it normal to tell people to buy a crappy product because it's "good enough" for their simple needs? Most netbooks can't even play YouTube without stuttering often enough to be annoying. Who are these people that only check email and view a few static web pages that are perfectly viewable in 600 vertical pixels without annoyance? Netbooks are great as a secondary, crap computer for on-the-go, since a crap computer that's with you is better than a ultra-powerful computer that isn't. But just generally "good enough" is not a proper description for any netbook I've ever encountered (and yes, I do realize most people have lesser needs/demands from their computer than I (and most of us here) do, but netbooks go way beyond just being too slow for me (us) in general).
And yes, I did notice that, yet again, you carefully qualified your statement. "although having enough [power] obviously is [important]". But it's kind of like me saying I'm totally fast enough to run to wherever I need to go, for destinations that are sufficiently close.
No, no it isn't.
What we have discovered is that 10" is actually too small.
This is due to the fact that you look like a squinting hunched over idiot while using
it, especially if you are over six feet tall.
That's, to an extent, what makes a netbook a netbook.
The way I look at it is, if its a perfectly usable, "just right" size computer for every day use without any severe complaints regarding size, hard drive speed, keyboard, etc, then it's not a netbook, it's just a notebook (regardless of the size). What makes a netbook a distinct category is that you're giving up on some (really, usually just about every) aspect of the computer in order to gain something that is extremely portable, and significantly cheaper than a regular notebook. That's what makes netbooks unique (hell, it even played a role in the origins of the name).
>Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue
That's what I'm trying to say.
Apple did not require the app to be censored. Period.
Now, in hindsight, knowing that OS 3 was released a month or so later, maybe waiting that month would have been better. But the developer had no way of knowing because Apple was intentionally NOT telling me that. From a business perspective, that's a choice between:
a) wait indefinitely, with no income, until another business does something, before you can make any money. And they won't tell you when they will do that 'something'.
b) do some work, and after a semi-determinate time frame, make some income
THERE YOU GO. THEY HAD A CHOICE! You can't say they were required to censor, then say they didn't. If they had a choice, they were *CLEARLY* not required to censor the app.
As a small developer/shop, which option would you pick? IMHO, it would be suicide to pick option a.
Amazing. Had they chose option A, their app would probably have been released a month earlier than it did.
And it would not surprise me at all if he 'uncensored' the dictionary, resubmitted it as a bug fix version (still rated 17+), and have it rejected again by Apple, even with the conditioned quoted by Phil being met.
Doubtful. 17+ exists for this very reason.
But, again, Apple did not require the app to be censored, that was a completely voluntary choice of the developer.
As for Apple. They have no explanation as to why they refused so they are inventing an excuse. Hindsight is 20/20 and Apple is offering a plausible explanation unless you ask yourself this. If the developer was told that it would be approved in 30 to 60 days why would the developer spend extra time and money correcting something that will be corrected?
Apple would never, ever tell some random developer when their next OS is coming out if it's not yet public knowledge. It's likely not even their high-profile customers were told the date until the WWDC keynote.
Your main theme here is that parents need to be more responsible. Well, the age rating system gives them a tool to help them do just that! For fuck's sake, what do you think the age rating system is for in the first place?
Any such system is going to be problematic, given the subjectivity involved. But given that Apple has chosen to go with an age rating system, their actions are fully consistent with that decision.
Everything you're saying, in an apparent attempt to refute my post, is about the app approval process being terrible. Let me quote from my post to make things simpler here...
[me]: The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.
Unless you're trying to say that Apple required the app be censored, there's no need to argue.
There very well may have been other examples that were sent to the developer. That doesn't change the fact that those standard swear words were sent to him as at minimum part of the reason it was being rejected. These words are not objectionable in the other dictionary applications, so why were they sent to the developer as examples of objectionable content?
Because Apple's App review process sucks. That doesn't make the original story true, however, which was that Apple required them to submit a censored version. All they said was submit it as a 17+ app, and it will be available when iPhone OS 3.0 is released (which happened about 1 month after they first submitted the app, and 1 month before the app even made it to the app store.
1. He was given an either-or situation. Either self-censor the dictionary, including some helpful "examples" from the app store reviewer, OR wait an unknown period of time for Apple to implement a new rating level. Effectively, he was told he had to censor the app if he wanted it in the app store in any foreseeable timeframe.
Which came to pass almost two months ago!. The app didn't even end up on the store until one month after iPhone OS 3.0 was released.
This story popped up over the last week. Ninja Words does not need to be censored. Any censoring is completely voluntary. What's worse, the story was originally portrayed as "Apple said we had to censor the dictionary and accept a 17+ rating!", which is downright false.
It did make for a big news cycle over the past week, though. I suppose it served its purpose, as everyone in these parts now knows about the Ninja Words dictionary app.
2. The specific examples the developer quoted as being objected to by the reviewer included 'standard' swear words, and not just so-called 'urban slang' that Phil mentions in his response. And these exact same words are already in existing dictionary apps in the app store, with MUCH lower rating levels (Dictionary.com is rated 4+, and includes the specific example words the app reviewer listed).
The App Store review process sucks. There's nothing unique in this story about that. But the whole censorship angle is rubbish.
Because a dictionary getting any age rating is a good idea how?
Apple isn't doing this because they think children shouldn't read dictionaries. In fact, any person of any age can run a 17+ app. The only limits are:
1. Parents can lock them out.
2. You get a warning, so that if you become offended, it's your own damned fault, not Apple's.
From Apple's point of view, this has nothing to do with dictionaries, it has to do with having an age rating system to begin with. Once you have such a system, and if the system is based, in part, on "vulgar" words, then dictionaries containing such words end up with an appropriate (under the rating criteria, at least) rating.
The only way to really end this whole mess is to do away with age ratings altogether, which is incompatible with Apple's intent for concerned parents (read: repressed fuckwads) to be able to buy their products without fear that it may despoil the minds of their children.
Ratings systems like these are inherently problematic, but given that, Apple really did act reasonably in this situation.
In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.
No, there'd just be a sticker that says "Rated 17+" and if your parents wanted, *they* could bar you from reading it, not Apple.