Are tyrants and warlords really worse than the current situation?
I commend you for being honest. Insane, but honest.
At least with warlords there is a meritocracy of sorts. (The strongest are in charge).
You are right that it's a form of meritocracy, but it's a meritocracy of the worst kind. It's a meritocracy of "might makes right".
In absence of any other form of equality or meritocratic society, might makes right is at least something, but it's the worst of all possible somethings. The only thing it has going for it is that it is, at least, something, but that's it. We can do so much better than that. Democracy is all but infinitely better than a "might makes right" system.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
..., you will find that without governments to enforce their law, cartels and mobs and the like will rise and enforce their laws...
But if the only laws the government makes are to prevent cartels and mobs, but no other law, isn't there then a "Free Market"?
Absolutely not. I do agree that the government should work to prevent cartels and mobs, as well as minimizing the impact the government has on a market, but any laws whatsoever, by definition, are not a free market.
That's the fundamental flaw of the libertarians. I agree a lot with their end desires, but they pretend to be ideologically pure. But reality is their ideals can never be achieved. If you believe you can be ideologically pure, you try to enforce an impossible policy. That can never end well.
I've never quite understood this type of "single issue" consumer. Although I don't fly very much, of all the major airlines, I've found AA to provide the best service. Even if I would be someone who blamed AA for the checked baggage fee (as though all the other airlines aren't responsible for their own actions!), I don't see how choosing a less enjoyable flight is going to change anything. It won't eliminate baggage fees, and it will simply reward worse service. I really can't see any upside to this.
Although I mostly agree with AA's stance here (with what little I know about the whole situation), the court is enforcing a contract AA has with Orbitz. This isn't the court simply telling them they have to deal with Orbitz, but that they have to honor their contract with them.
Also, airlines are subject to greater regulatory restrictions than most other industries for, what I think should be fairly obvious reasons. Those reasons don't directly apply here, but it's not like this industry is as free to do as it wishes as is normal for the rest of the private sector.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
Can't I sell my goods and services where I want?
Yes, but within the law (well, technically you also can at least try outside of the law, but that's a different matter).
Now, in some sort of hypothetical anarchist/libertarian nation, you will find that without governments to enforce their law, cartels and mobs and the like will rise and enforce their laws.
At least with proper democratic governments, the laws are more subject to the will of the governed. Maybe not so much these days (and really, maybe not even in the olden days), but it's still better than having the laws set by kings, warlords, and mob bosses.
But either way, you still never end up with a Free Market or Free Trade.
Who the hell only releases demo's to pre orders, maybe if they let me play the game I might pre order it but I'm not going to pre order so I can play the freaking demo. Honestly what marketing idiot thought that up. Anyone got a torrent for the demo?
Pre-ordering gives you early access to the demo. I'm sure it will be generally available after launch.
Also, limiting the demo to pre-orders means people who pre-ordered can begin to play the game before everyone else, providing additional value in pre-ordering.
The other reality is, Android being free as in beer, leads people to a better phone experience than their standard feature phone.
You have yet to demonstrated that this is "reality". All you've done is asserted it as such.
The reason Android provides a better "experience than their standard feature phone" is because it has a touch screen and can run third party apps. That has nothing to do with being "free as in beer" (which is different from being "open", which is what you first wrote). iOS isn't free as in beer *OR* open, and it provides a better experience than a standard feature phone.
However. My impression is that if most android users were told the reason why their android phone beats their old flip or candy bar feature phone was because it was open, they'd be largely thankful.
Yes, if you lie to them, they may very will be tricked into being thankful.
Aside from a very small number of nerds who get worked up over "open", *nobody* cares. The only reasons Android is doing as well as it is are that it was the only OS remotely comparable to iOS and it is more widely available.
The first part has nothing to do with being "open". Zilch. The second part does in a very small way: Google's licensing is more open than other offerings. I don't mean "open source", as in anybody can just take Android and put it on their phone. That has almost no impact on sales. I mean, Google was able to offer Android for much cheaper, sometimes "cheaper than free" (by sharing revenue with handset makers), because Android isn't the product. The user is the product and Android is just a vehicle for delivering ads.
So, no. Being open has essentially nothing to do with Android's success. C.f. Symbian & Meego (and, for that matter, Linux in general).
Poor design is a design you have to work around. iOS's multitasking requires a lot less working around than Android's. That's the whole point of this story.
The problem is that you want your phone to act like a PC. Most people don't. You are the old guard complaining that the avant garde is leaving things out of the new design when leaving those things out are deliberate design choices meant to make the device better. You might as well complain that new cars don't have a choke knob.
The only reason top exists is to solve a problem. Android, due to its poor legacy design, brings along this problem from the PC world. iOS, on the other hand, simply does away with that problem altogether.
The thing is, Google just really isn't all that good at designing operating systems. That's nothing to be ashamed of, OS design is *hard*, and they haven't been at it very long. All they are really able to do is hobble together existing components, and reimplement a few others, and that they do quite well. In fact, I'd say they are among the best in this regard.
Apple, on the other hand, is in their fifth decade of designing full computer systems, and they've shown something of a knack for it during that entire time.
You claim that iOS does things so much better than Android. But what's the key difference between the approach of iOS and the approach of Android in this respect that makes iOS so much better?
What makes iOS so much better in terms of not needing something like top is that it doesn't need something like top.
As for why I think iOS doesn't need something like top, I'd say it's because of the curated App Store, coupled with the way iOS implements multitasking.
It's clearly immoral to one who isn't an apologist.
Yawn... You disagree with me, so I must be an "apologist". At least you didn't call me a fanboy, so I guess that's something.
They sold the device to do two things
Yes: Play games and play Blu-ray discs. Other OS was NEVER a major reason for people to buy a PS3. You keep acting like this is something more than an absolutely *minute* number of PS3 owners even *knew* about, let alone *used*.
then decide offhand to turn one off so you have to buy a second to get what you paid for the first time?
It wasn't "offhand", and it wasn't in order to sell a second PS3. If every person who used both the gaming side and the Other OS side of the PS3 bought a second one, that would be an increase of *far* less than 1 tenth of 1% additional sales. Sony has lost much more in their downtime than they ever made due to the Other OS feature.
Your concept of morality is a frightening thing.
Why, because I think there has to be an actual negative impact for something to be immoral? Or that people who buy a PS3 have the right to tell Sony they can't drop a feature in an optional update that addresses a severe security flaw in their gaming console, a feature that is neither for gaming nor for playing Blu-ray discs? A feature which very few ever used, and of those that do, can continue to do so just fine?
Yeah, how "frightening" my morality allows corporations to make their own decisions, just as consumers are allowed to make theirs.
Sony did nothing illegal (although the courts can decide that for themselves) nor did they do anything immoral. They just did something that YOU DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF. That's not the basis for morality. You're not the center of the universe, others are allowed to do things that you don't like.
Contrary to the sensitive egos around here, it's not immoral to piss off someone, not even nerds.
The sad thing is the average slashdotter will still think Android has surpassed iOS, as far too many have been saying here for over a year now. Android isn't even *close* to iOS's market share, and as Android's growth has settled down, it's not certain that it ever will.
That won't stop the endless postings that somehow people are flocking to Android because of "freedom", as though the average phone buyer gives two shits.
They aren't orthogonal. They just aren't identical. They are, however, related.
That's arguable. At best, they occasionally intersect.
I'd say more than occasionally. And their intersection isn't mere chance. Regardless, that's not the behavior of two things which are orthogonal. Law is heavily influenced by a sense of morality.
If you want to claim Sony did something wrong/immoral, and there isn't consumer outcry, and it isn't illegal, you're going to have a hard time convincing me it's something they need to be punished over.
Based on your "they were free not to update" comment, I doubt anything is going to convince you, so I'll simply counter that, just as right/wrong isn't determined by legality, nor is it determined by popular opinion.
All three are highly linked. However, that's neither here nor there. Sony didn't do anything illegal, and if they did, they should be brought to trial.
They also did nothing immoral, but legal. If they did, consumers should hold them to account. That they aren't, in fact, that they don't even care, makes the case that they have done something immoral a bit difficult to defend.
And if you were using Other OS, you were completely free to not update the firmware.
And not actually be able to use the other primary feature, i.e. actually playing games. That wouldn't be such a non-option if they didn't force upgrades on you for no reason. No, "This game does NOT require FW 6.0"
Life's full of tough choices. This, however, is a rather simple one. If you really want both, you can buy two consoles. Otherwise, you can choose: new games or Other OS. It's really simple, and neither illegal nor immoral.
The silliest part of all this is that almost nobody actually ever *used* Other OS. Outside of making a supercomputer out of a cluster of PS3s, it's pretty much just a thing for nerds to fuck around with. This has NOTHING to do with morality or legality, and everything to do with the fact that a bunch of nerds who will NEVER use Other OS don't like the IDEA that it was removed.
That's really all it boils down to. The idea that this is a moral issue is absolutely silly.
This CEO is whining about apps being resource hogs.
top won't make them any less resource hogs. Your solution is to address the symptom instead of curing the problem in the first place.
THAT is what top is for: to tell you what the offending party is rather than just randomly b*tch and moan about it and act like nothing can be done.
Clearly something can be done. See: iOS.
Top may be too "geeky" for you but something needs to fill it's role.
Not if you make the role obsolete. Computing is marching on, in spite of reactionaries like yourself.
Something needs to be there to answer the call when the end user asks: "What the h*ll is sucking the life out of this thing? Can I kill it and erase it?".
Funny, iOS has no such need. Too bad Android is so poorly designed that is needs something like this.
I honestly thought you were being ironic at first.
Phones *aren't* getting "closer to computers", they *are* computers. They just aren't PCs. PCs need utilities like top. Phones shouldn't, and it definitely shouldn't be something desirable!
The post that started this thread incorrectly said "iOS", it wasn't until the linux geek's reply that he altered it to the awkwardly phrased "iPhone OS".
And the open sourcing of Android was accomplished how?
Tell me I dont have to explain this to you.
The Wikipedia article should explain it (HINT: Android has been open source since it's release).
Unless you count the current version, that is. Or if you want the proper version, with all the Google services. Android isn't as open as most people here would think.
The openness of Android is a big part of why Android has better marketshare than iOS, so maybe they shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Openness has almost *nothing* to do with Android's market share. The number of people who care is inconsequential. And besides, iOS has, and has always had, a greater market share than Android. Some time this quarter (it may have already happened, it may happen next month) Apple will have sold its 200 millionth iOS device. Android will be lucky to have half that.
A company passing blame on another company for its failings...
Yeah, it's strange that Motorola didn't take the blame when non-bundled third party apps cause problems with their phones. I suppose next you'll tell me Dell doesn't take the blame when your internet goes out or Microsoft doesn't take the blame when a third-party video driver causes your system to become unstable!
They aren't orthogonal. They just aren't identical. They are, however, related.
Besides, I covered "wrong as in not moral" when I wrote:
If it was something Sony needed to "learn a lesson" over, it would have resulted in loss of market share.
If you want to claim Sony did something wrong/immoral, and there isn't consumer outcry, and it isn't illegal, you're going to have a hard time convincing me it's something they need to be punished over.
People here are acting like this is some sort of horrible moral outrage. "Oh no, Sony removed a feature!" A feature that no one ever uses, including 99% of the people bitching about it! A feature that was being exploited to hack the system.
And if you were using Other OS, you were completely free to not update the firmware.
So..... If your car manufacturer (this is/. after all) removed the tow point on your car when you had it in for service, without giving you a choice, it would be fine with you? After all, only a tiny fraction of drivers would know about it, and even fewer use it...
I'm quite certain FAR more people know about and use the tow than know about or use Other OS.
But it's a red herring anyway. If there was a reason to remove it, sure. But there's no reason to. On the other hand, there was a very good reason for Sony to remove Other OS. Specifically, it was being used to hack the PS3.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. I'm not making a logical chain to prove a fact. That's what "logical fallacies" refer to. I'm saying the impact is extremely minimal, something for which ad populum applies rather well.
Apple is not turning Mac OS X into iOS. They are not going to force their users to use the Mac App Store. The very idea is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, and anyone who thinks this is even remotely likely is mad. Mad enough, it would seem, to save up some sort of nonsensical response and toss it in where it is entirely off topic.
Apple will never, EVER, lock down Mac OS X like iOS. NEVER. It makes no sense, no matter what your paranoid delusion leads you to believe.
Re:What are they trying to prove at this point?
on
Sony Compromised, Again
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Sony continues to be a target because Sony refuses to learn its lesson. And make no mistake, that lesson is about the consequences of abusing your customers, not about network security.
And what lesson is that? There are legitimate, legal, recourses is Sony did anything wrong. Shit, they didn't even do something that even 1/10th of 1% of their users even knew about, let alone had any expectation of ever using.
Seriously, walk up to anyone on the street, ask if them they have a PS3, then if so, ask them if they either:
A. Knew was "Other OS" was. B. Ever used it, or had plans to.
If it was something Sony needed to "learn a lesson" over, it would have resulted in loss of market share. All this really is is a bunch of juvenile criminals who think they have the right to do whatever they want. I can only imagine how sad their lives must truly be to think this as some kind of moral crusade.
I think its a rather reasonable expectations to expect a company like Sony to protect its user information.
Recent history seems to disagree.
Which "recent history"? The one where ONE such company got targeted by the most notorious hackers on the web? Or the thousands of other companies in "recent history" where no such breach has occurred?
Historically speaking, this sort of data tends to be quite safe, just not without risk. But, then again, a life without risk is impossible, and trying too much to live such a life is essentially a waste of a perfectly good life.
I'd MUCH rather have my credit card information potentially at risk, but have the convenience of things like PSN, XBL, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc., than keep my credit card info under lock and key for fear of possibly having to change my password, cancel my card and get a new card number (oh my!).
Slashdot Mirror
Are tyrants and warlords really worse than the current situation?
I commend you for being honest. Insane, but honest.
At least with warlords there is a meritocracy of sorts. (The strongest are in charge).
You are right that it's a form of meritocracy, but it's a meritocracy of the worst kind. It's a meritocracy of "might makes right".
In absence of any other form of equality or meritocratic society, might makes right is at least something, but it's the worst of all possible somethings. The only thing it has going for it is that it is, at least, something, but that's it. We can do so much better than that. Democracy is all but infinitely better than a "might makes right" system.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
But if the only laws the government makes are to prevent cartels and mobs, but no other law, isn't there then a "Free Market"?
Absolutely not. I do agree that the government should work to prevent cartels and mobs, as well as minimizing the impact the government has on a market, but any laws whatsoever, by definition, are not a free market.
That's the fundamental flaw of the libertarians. I agree a lot with their end desires, but they pretend to be ideologically pure. But reality is their ideals can never be achieved. If you believe you can be ideologically pure, you try to enforce an impossible policy. That can never end well.
I've never quite understood this type of "single issue" consumer. Although I don't fly very much, of all the major airlines, I've found AA to provide the best service. Even if I would be someone who blamed AA for the checked baggage fee (as though all the other airlines aren't responsible for their own actions!), I don't see how choosing a less enjoyable flight is going to change anything. It won't eliminate baggage fees, and it will simply reward worse service. I really can't see any upside to this.
Although I mostly agree with AA's stance here (with what little I know about the whole situation), the court is enforcing a contract AA has with Orbitz. This isn't the court simply telling them they have to deal with Orbitz, but that they have to honor their contract with them.
Also, airlines are subject to greater regulatory restrictions than most other industries for, what I think should be fairly obvious reasons. Those reasons don't directly apply here, but it's not like this industry is as free to do as it wishes as is normal for the rest of the private sector.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
Can't I sell my goods and services where I want?
Yes, but within the law (well, technically you also can at least try outside of the law, but that's a different matter).
Now, in some sort of hypothetical anarchist/libertarian nation, you will find that without governments to enforce their law, cartels and mobs and the like will rise and enforce their laws.
At least with proper democratic governments, the laws are more subject to the will of the governed. Maybe not so much these days (and really, maybe not even in the olden days), but it's still better than having the laws set by kings, warlords, and mob bosses.
But either way, you still never end up with a Free Market or Free Trade.
Who the hell only releases demo's to pre orders, maybe if they let me play the game I might pre order it but I'm not going to pre order so I can play the freaking demo. Honestly what marketing idiot thought that up. Anyone got a torrent for the demo?
Pre-ordering gives you early access to the demo. I'm sure it will be generally available after launch.
Also, limiting the demo to pre-orders means people who pre-ordered can begin to play the game before everyone else, providing additional value in pre-ordering.
The other reality is, Android being free as in beer, leads people to a better phone experience than their standard feature phone.
You have yet to demonstrated that this is "reality". All you've done is asserted it as such.
The reason Android provides a better "experience than their standard feature phone" is because it has a touch screen and can run third party apps. That has nothing to do with being "free as in beer" (which is different from being "open", which is what you first wrote). iOS isn't free as in beer *OR* open, and it provides a better experience than a standard feature phone.
Normally id be on your side
However. My impression is that if most android users were told the reason why their android phone beats their old flip or candy bar feature phone was because it was open, they'd be largely thankful.
Yes, if you lie to them, they may very will be tricked into being thankful.
Aside from a very small number of nerds who get worked up over "open", *nobody* cares. The only reasons Android is doing as well as it is are that it was the only OS remotely comparable to iOS and it is more widely available.
The first part has nothing to do with being "open". Zilch. The second part does in a very small way: Google's licensing is more open than other offerings. I don't mean "open source", as in anybody can just take Android and put it on their phone. That has almost no impact on sales. I mean, Google was able to offer Android for much cheaper, sometimes "cheaper than free" (by sharing revenue with handset makers), because Android isn't the product. The user is the product and Android is just a vehicle for delivering ads.
So, no. Being open has essentially nothing to do with Android's success. C.f. Symbian & Meego (and, for that matter, Linux in general).
Poor design is a design you have to work around. iOS's multitasking requires a lot less working around than Android's. That's the whole point of this story.
The problem is that you want your phone to act like a PC. Most people don't. You are the old guard complaining that the avant garde is leaving things out of the new design when leaving those things out are deliberate design choices meant to make the device better. You might as well complain that new cars don't have a choke knob.
The only reason top exists is to solve a problem. Android, due to its poor legacy design, brings along this problem from the PC world. iOS, on the other hand, simply does away with that problem altogether.
The thing is, Google just really isn't all that good at designing operating systems. That's nothing to be ashamed of, OS design is *hard*, and they haven't been at it very long. All they are really able to do is hobble together existing components, and reimplement a few others, and that they do quite well. In fact, I'd say they are among the best in this regard.
Apple, on the other hand, is in their fifth decade of designing full computer systems, and they've shown something of a knack for it during that entire time.
You claim that iOS does things so much better than Android. But what's the key difference between the approach of iOS and the approach of Android in this respect that makes iOS so much better?
What makes iOS so much better in terms of not needing something like top is that it doesn't need something like top.
As for why I think iOS doesn't need something like top, I'd say it's because of the curated App Store, coupled with the way iOS implements multitasking.
It's clearly immoral to one who isn't an apologist.
Yawn... You disagree with me, so I must be an "apologist". At least you didn't call me a fanboy, so I guess that's something.
They sold the device to do two things
Yes: Play games and play Blu-ray discs. Other OS was NEVER a major reason for people to buy a PS3. You keep acting like this is something more than an absolutely *minute* number of PS3 owners even *knew* about, let alone *used*.
then decide offhand to turn one off so you have to buy a second to get what you paid for the first time?
It wasn't "offhand", and it wasn't in order to sell a second PS3. If every person who used both the gaming side and the Other OS side of the PS3 bought a second one, that would be an increase of *far* less than 1 tenth of 1% additional sales. Sony has lost much more in their downtime than they ever made due to the Other OS feature.
Your concept of morality is a frightening thing.
Why, because I think there has to be an actual negative impact for something to be immoral? Or that people who buy a PS3 have the right to tell Sony they can't drop a feature in an optional update that addresses a severe security flaw in their gaming console, a feature that is neither for gaming nor for playing Blu-ray discs? A feature which very few ever used, and of those that do, can continue to do so just fine?
Yeah, how "frightening" my morality allows corporations to make their own decisions, just as consumers are allowed to make theirs.
Sony did nothing illegal (although the courts can decide that for themselves) nor did they do anything immoral. They just did something that YOU DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF. That's not the basis for morality. You're not the center of the universe, others are allowed to do things that you don't like.
Contrary to the sensitive egos around here, it's not immoral to piss off someone, not even nerds.
Nice, I missed that.
The sad thing is the average slashdotter will still think Android has surpassed iOS, as far too many have been saying here for over a year now. Android isn't even *close* to iOS's market share, and as Android's growth has settled down, it's not certain that it ever will.
That won't stop the endless postings that somehow people are flocking to Android because of "freedom", as though the average phone buyer gives two shits.
They aren't orthogonal. They just aren't identical. They are, however, related.
That's arguable. At best, they occasionally intersect.
I'd say more than occasionally. And their intersection isn't mere chance. Regardless, that's not the behavior of two things which are orthogonal. Law is heavily influenced by a sense of morality.
If you want to claim Sony did something wrong/immoral, and there isn't consumer outcry, and it isn't illegal, you're going to have a hard time convincing me it's something they need to be punished over.
Based on your "they were free not to update" comment, I doubt anything is going to convince you, so I'll simply counter that, just as right/wrong isn't determined by legality, nor is it determined by popular opinion.
All three are highly linked. However, that's neither here nor there. Sony didn't do anything illegal, and if they did, they should be brought to trial.
They also did nothing immoral, but legal. If they did, consumers should hold them to account. That they aren't, in fact, that they don't even care, makes the case that they have done something immoral a bit difficult to defend.
And if you were using Other OS, you were completely free to not update the firmware.
And not actually be able to use the other primary feature, i.e. actually playing games. That wouldn't be such a non-option if they didn't force upgrades on you for no reason. No, "This game does NOT require FW 6.0"
Life's full of tough choices. This, however, is a rather simple one. If you really want both, you can buy two consoles. Otherwise, you can choose: new games or Other OS. It's really simple, and neither illegal nor immoral.
The silliest part of all this is that almost nobody actually ever *used* Other OS. Outside of making a supercomputer out of a cluster of PS3s, it's pretty much just a thing for nerds to fuck around with. This has NOTHING to do with morality or legality, and everything to do with the fact that a bunch of nerds who will NEVER use Other OS don't like the IDEA that it was removed.
That's really all it boils down to. The idea that this is a moral issue is absolutely silly.
Sure there is a need.
Not on a well designed OS, like iOS.
This CEO is whining about apps being resource hogs.
top won't make them any less resource hogs. Your solution is to address the symptom instead of curing the problem in the first place.
THAT is what top is for: to tell you what the offending party is rather than just randomly b*tch and moan about it and act like nothing can be done.
Clearly something can be done. See: iOS.
Top may be too "geeky" for you but something needs to fill it's role.
Not if you make the role obsolete. Computing is marching on, in spite of reactionaries like yourself.
Something needs to be there to answer the call when the end user asks: "What the h*ll is sucking the life out of this thing? Can I kill it and erase it?".
Funny, iOS has no such need. Too bad Android is so poorly designed that is needs something like this.
I honestly thought you were being ironic at first.
Phones *aren't* getting "closer to computers", they *are* computers. They just aren't PCs. PCs need utilities like top. Phones shouldn't, and it definitely shouldn't be something desirable!
I dunno.
You plug in the phone, a file mangler window pops up, you drag and drop some stuff, you unplug the phone.
That all seems remarkably more simple and straightforward than what Apple makes you do.
It's no longer 1999 and you're no longer competiting against the Nomad.
What Apple makes you do is plug in your phone, then unplug your phone. *That* seems a lot simpler.
The post that started this thread incorrectly said "iOS", it wasn't until the linux geek's reply that he altered it to the awkwardly phrased "iPhone OS".
And the open sourcing of Android was accomplished how?
Tell me I dont have to explain this to you.
The Wikipedia article should explain it (HINT: Android has been open source since it's release).
Unless you count the current version, that is. Or if you want the proper version, with all the Google services. Android isn't as open as most people here would think.
The openness of Android is a big part of why Android has better marketshare than iOS, so maybe they shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Openness has almost *nothing* to do with Android's market share. The number of people who care is inconsequential. And besides, iOS has, and has always had, a greater market share than Android. Some time this quarter (it may have already happened, it may happen next month) Apple will have sold its 200 millionth iOS device. Android will be lucky to have half that.
A company passing blame on another company for its failings...
Yeah, it's strange that Motorola didn't take the blame when non-bundled third party apps cause problems with their phones. I suppose next you'll tell me Dell doesn't take the blame when your internet goes out or Microsoft doesn't take the blame when a third-party video driver causes your system to become unstable!
They aren't orthogonal. They just aren't identical. They are, however, related.
Besides, I covered "wrong as in not moral" when I wrote:
If it was something Sony needed to "learn a lesson" over, it would have resulted in loss of market share.
If you want to claim Sony did something wrong/immoral, and there isn't consumer outcry, and it isn't illegal, you're going to have a hard time convincing me it's something they need to be punished over.
People here are acting like this is some sort of horrible moral outrage. "Oh no, Sony removed a feature!" A feature that no one ever uses, including 99% of the people bitching about it! A feature that was being exploited to hack the system.
And if you were using Other OS, you were completely free to not update the firmware.
So..... If your car manufacturer (this is /. after all) removed the tow point on your car when you had it in for service, without giving you a choice, it would be fine with you? After all, only a tiny fraction of drivers would know about it, and even fewer use it...
I'm quite certain FAR more people know about and use the tow than know about or use Other OS.
But it's a red herring anyway. If there was a reason to remove it, sure. But there's no reason to. On the other hand, there was a very good reason for Sony to remove Other OS. Specifically, it was being used to hack the PS3.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum for why your argument is bullshit.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. I'm not making a logical chain to prove a fact. That's what "logical fallacies" refer to. I'm saying the impact is extremely minimal, something for which ad populum applies rather well.
Are you an actual moron, or is it just an act?
Apple is not turning Mac OS X into iOS. They are not going to force their users to use the Mac App Store. The very idea is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, and anyone who thinks this is even remotely likely is mad. Mad enough, it would seem, to save up some sort of nonsensical response and toss it in where it is entirely off topic.
Apple will never, EVER, lock down Mac OS X like iOS. NEVER. It makes no sense, no matter what your paranoid delusion leads you to believe.
Sony continues to be a target because Sony refuses to learn its lesson. And make no mistake, that lesson is about the consequences of abusing your customers, not about network security.
And what lesson is that? There are legitimate, legal, recourses is Sony did anything wrong. Shit, they didn't even do something that even 1/10th of 1% of their users even knew about, let alone had any expectation of ever using.
Seriously, walk up to anyone on the street, ask if them they have a PS3, then if so, ask them if they either:
A. Knew was "Other OS" was.
B. Ever used it, or had plans to.
If it was something Sony needed to "learn a lesson" over, it would have resulted in loss of market share. All this really is is a bunch of juvenile criminals who think they have the right to do whatever they want. I can only imagine how sad their lives must truly be to think this as some kind of moral crusade.
I think its a rather reasonable expectations to expect a company like Sony to protect its user information.
Recent history seems to disagree.
Which "recent history"? The one where ONE such company got targeted by the most notorious hackers on the web? Or the thousands of other companies in "recent history" where no such breach has occurred?
Historically speaking, this sort of data tends to be quite safe, just not without risk. But, then again, a life without risk is impossible, and trying too much to live such a life is essentially a waste of a perfectly good life.
I'd MUCH rather have my credit card information potentially at risk, but have the convenience of things like PSN, XBL, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc., than keep my credit card info under lock and key for fear of possibly having to change my password, cancel my card and get a new card number (oh my!).