Unless there were multiple lawsuits, Apple and Microsoft settled their suit around 1997 when Steve Jobs came back to Apple. MS invested $150 million in Apple and committed to continue developing Office for the Mac. Apple agreed to drop the suit and bundle IE with Mac OS.
No it isn't. Controlling the trade and importation of goods is in general not enforced by copyright law.
Who is talking about the import/export of the discs? I'm talking about the playback of the discs. Playback involves copyright (even though, imo, it shouldn't).
If I buy 1000 DVDs and then carry them with me to another country, it has nothing to do with "copying" now does it, numbskull.
If you're going to call someone a numbskull, at least get the premise of your argument correct.
The region coding of DVD is simply using technology (poorly) to try to get around the fact that the law in most areas won't help the publishing industry manipulate global trade of their shit (especially in the mid 90s).
Region coding is using technology to enforce regional copyright.
You're correct that there's more to it than copyright, but pretending that it has nothing to do with copyright is fantasy.
>>>The country restrictions are there due to copyright law.
Close but not quite true. When DVDs were first introduced with Region coding, it was done to prevent citizens from buying products from overseas, like Japan or China, for less money than the home versions. The companies wanted to make that impossible, and thereby "break" the global free market. Sell the DVD for $1 in China, and $20 in the EU or US.
Which is enforced by copyright. Ergo, it's due to copyright law.
Through contract law, just like every other contract ever written.
Excellent. So, since I have never signed a contract with Paramount, I can legally distribute Iron Man 2 throughout the world? I wish you would have told me this sooner!
>>>It is hard to think about copyright as something that helps spread and disseminate culture anymore.
That was NEVER its purpose. The purpose was to provide incentive (money from sales) to the writers to make new works.
Um, how is the financial incentive to create new works not about spreading and disseminating culture? It's inherent to the process, unless you think it's meant to encourage people to write books and then keep them in a vault?
there are no international laws (or even local ones) prohibiting content from being shown on GoogleTV devices.
Yes there is. In fact, it's the exact same sets of laws: copyright and contract.
Hulu primarily has the rights to stream content over the Internet to computers. They have different licensing terms for display on mobile devices and different terms still for display on televisions.
- Desktops. - Interoperability with the outside Windows world. - Sometimes absolutely shitty hardware support. - Sometimes kludgy solutions to problems that are elegantly solved by proprietary software.
I don't mean to say that you can't make an all Linux solution work, but you can also make an all Windows solution work, and an all Mac solution work. For all the problems I listed, there are ways to work around them, but that doesn't make them non-problems, just like every single Windows and Mac problem can be worked around as well.
There are also scenarios where going monoculture can be no problem. For example an ISP could go 100% Linux, no problem. An art studio could go 100% Mac, no problem. And a stock broker could go 100% Windows, no problem.
But just as it's the hard and honest truth that going all Windows or all Mac can be problematic, the truth is that going all Linux brings with it its own problems.
Well, perhaps businesses will understand that, and understand that going all Mac has problems because of that.
That's a silly conclusion to come to. No one suggests that business go "all Mac", except maybe small businesses which are wholly unaffected by this.
Similarly, it would be problematic for businesses to go all Linux (in fact, that's more problematic than going all Mac, although still feasible on smaller scales, and very feasible if limited solely to the data center, although Solaris and AIX have a place there too).
Going all Windows is somewhat more feasible, but even that breaks down as server needs increase.
Pardon me, what happens if there is a controller error with the CD drive? How exactly would you diagnose this?
USB, FireWire, network DVD sharing, netboot. All of which are available without the need for a BIOS or BIOS-like menu system.
On the other hand, if all those options fail as well (an exceptionally unlikely scenario, but could certainly happen), I don't see how a BIOS/EFI menu system is going to be of much help.
The simple fact is that if you run Mac OS X on Apple hardware, you have no need for access to the EFI system (and I can think of no reasonable scenario where one would even want that, but if you have an example, please elaborate). If you want to run Linux on a Mac, or triple-boot on the same drive, then you can run rEFIt. If you want to run Mac OS X on PC hardware, then BIOS access is quite often essential.
And if you try to claim that THATS impossible, then im sorry, I agree with GP-- you havent troubleshot many computers.
The first sentence was something I meant to reword, but forgot to until I hit "Submit". My sentiment stands, but my wording was too sharp. My point was that Sycraft-fu is making an issue on the Mac out of ignorance of how Macs work. It's kind of like complaining that you can't get at the spark plugs on a diesel engine. Not a perfect analogy, but car analogies never are.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Apple hardware, but lack of BIOS or EFI access is not one of them. Reasons for them on the PC do not apply to Macs, and when people assert their ignorance so strongly, it's annoying.
Mac? I had to support a Mac only environment for the past two years, on to a better job now thank you. When a Mac dies, there's no options. Power supply? $200+. Power supply for a PC ? $50. Mac lovers can worship their shiny white... equipment... The reality of the professional working world is the Mac is eye candy, and only useful for performing work the same way a cooper mini is useful for hauling lumber. It's compact and cute, but don't expect to move much in it.
You were a PC support employee who found himself out of his element when tasked with supporting Macs. Clearly your preconceived notions cannot be false, so therefore Macs can be nothing other than overpriced toys.
Once you strip out the pretentious apple worship, what's left is the same old 'it can't break...' until it does fallacy.
"Pretentious Apple worship"? WTF? The only thing that even remotely matches that is when I called out Yet Another PC user who thinks his PC knowledge applies to Macs. This is no different than a Windows user snobbing about Linux, or yes, Mac users talking about PCs, etc. It wasn't about Macs being superior, but someone talking about something they are ignorant of.
I wasn't being the pretentious one. I was just calling it out, although probably not terribly tactfully.
1. you don't use the bios config screen to troubleshoot. you use it to SET boot options.
I never said you do. In fact, I wrote:
"On the PC, the BIOS settings program is fundamentally used to set motherboard options."
apple does not 'create' the hardware.
Yes, they do.
No more than HP or dell or any other oem creates hardware.
Yet Another PC user syndrome strikes again. Apple engineers their hardware far more than Dell and HP do. They certainly don't create each part, and I never said they did. In fact, this is a completely irrelevant sidetrack from my point which is that Apple decides the exact specifications for each Mac, and they write their own operating system, which makes the usual need for BIOS settings entirely unnecessary. You don't have to tweak settings to correct strange boot problems or address stability issues. Granted, you don't have to do this on PCs that much anymore either, but Sycraft-fu's point was that when you *do* need it, it's there, and by your statement that "what's left is the same old 'it can't break...' until it does fallacy", you are continuing it.
Macs just simply don't break in the way that benefits from those BIOS options. They do break, but never in that way. If you have a counter-example, I'm open to hearing it.
A user accessible EFI would be a boon to techies who end up having to deal with their nontechnical friends/familys' apple products.
Not really. But like I said, an example would help settle this instead of simply making vague assertions.
You show significant ignorance in how Macs work. I suggest refraining from mistaking your presumably vast PC knowledge as though it's similarly applicable to the Mac.
On the Mac, you never, ever find yourself in a situation where access to equivalent of the BIOS would be helpful to troubleshoot Mac OS X boot problems. Ever. Situations where Mac OS X won't boot are very, very rare, and in those cases, all you have to do is boot from an OS X CD to begin troubleshooting.
On the PC, the BIOS settings program is fundamentally used to set motherboard options. Boot drive options, SATA/IDE modes, RAM settings, PnP, sleep, etc. On the Mac, these options are meaningless because Apple creates the hardware, so there's no reason to disable AHCI mode for SATA drives, you control sleep modes from OS X, and so on.
If you can come up with a scenario where BIOS-like access to EFI would be useful on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, I'm open to hearing them.
And, worse case, you can just use rEFIt, which is exactly what some people use to run Linux on their Macs.
How exactly VPN can help there? You're still passing unencrypted data to Facebook.
I was going to answer your question, but you already did:
All the gain is that it's less likely than someone listens to the traffic between the VPN provider and Facebook compared to the unpalatable liquid venue you're in.
*Less likely* is the key. That's how a VPN helps. Security nerds seem to think you have to be 100% secure (conveniently ignoring the fact that 100% security is impossible) or you're not secure at all. That's a good mindset for finding security holes, but it's a horrible mindset for worrying about one's own personal security. In the real world, you do what you can to reasonably reduce your risks and take your chances.
It's at least a little ironic that you don't think VPNs go far enough. To me, such a solution is extremely overboard. What average person is going to set up a VPN? Might as well suggest they drive to Facebook HQ and post directly from there.
I'm not sure how you describe "I'm not taking security precautions and I don't care about the implications" as anything *BUT* stupid and ignorant.
Do you ever leave your house with the front door unlocked (say, run over to the neighbors' real quick) or leave your windows rolled down a crack on hot days or keep your wallet in your back pocket or hand your credit card to the waitstaff or... ?
It's not stupidity or ignorance. It's just, "you can only do so much".
In fact, I'd go further than that, and if you actively take precautions for all the things I listed, going through so much effort and living life so vigilantly seems far more stupid to me than the people you are painting as stupid and ignorant. It's like covering your furniture in plastic. Yes, it keeps your furniture in better condition, but it also means you are spending your life sitting on plastic instead of enjoying your furniture to its fullest.
Who's the more stupid? The one who has beat up furniture but got great use out of it, or the person with pristine furniture who never really got to use it?
The things you do with one set of friends is not necessarily something you want known to another set or with your family, etc. But with Facebook, the only way to accomplish this is to not use Facebook in the first place.
No, this can be accomplished using Facebook's "groups" feature.
Not between mutual friends. You can't limit what your friends share about you.
How can we be sure what is in the public's interest?
That's a form of nihilism that is inherent in every moral/legal/should discussion.
My point isn't to make the distinction in any particular case, just that the distinction exists, and is why "information wants to be free" and "I want my privacy" are not contradictory or hypocritical.
Facebook isn't the same as letting people into your house (although to follow that analogy, it's basically letting anyone you know into your house, whether meth-head or saint), it's the same as being their friend (really, anything between acquaintance (or even just a business relationship) all they way up to family/loved ones). The things you do with one set of friends is not necessarily something you want known to another set or with your family, etc. But with Facebook, the only way to accomplish this is to not use Facebook in the first place.
There are plenty of people who take this extreme option, but on the other hand, Facebook is huge and avoiding it can mean sacrificing a large amount of social interaction (probably why Slashdotters are more likely to cry "delete Facebook!" than the general populace). It's a very useful site, and entirely rational to use it, even if the privacy implications are worse than you are comfortable with. And it's also entirely rational to complain about those privacy issues in the hopes that they will be addressed.
Stalking can be illegal, even if the individual actions aren't. It's all about the effects you are having on another person.
I don't know about IndustrialComplex's specific example, but his point stands. Privacy is pretty important and shouldn't just be ceded because it's difficult to objectively define where the line should be drawn between invasion of privacy and public knowledge.
Hang on, what happened to the Geek's warcry of "Information wants to be free"?
There's a difference between information that is in the public's interest (which is the sort of information that phrase refers to: i.e., how to hack your own hardware, trade secrets, etc.) and personal information that can harm (ID theft) or embarrass (personal email) someone.
I) Apple shifted purposes in the previous decade. Their move to Intel was a key indicator, but there are many others. Apple is not designing anything beyond aesthetics - China is doing all the rest. Look at the impact this had on the 'iPhone 4'. This wasn't always the case, but is today.
What are you talking about? Apple designs the hell out of their hardware. If you think the unibody enclosure, the A4 chip, or the internal battery design are all about aesthetics, you're off your rocker.
II) Apple's App store concept is still in the honeymoon phase. They can and will ramp up their profit margins as their lock in increases. Every company on the face of the planet has done this, and to assume that Apple is somehow too cool to do so isn't exactly the pinnacle of intellectual honesty.
What's intellectually dishonest is to pretend, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that Apple is planning on locking in the Mac App Store. It's absurd--the moment they did that, they would instantly lose customers. Why would they give up the tens of billions per year they get from the Mac in order to make maybe hundreds of millions on software (in revenue. in profits, much, much less)? And for how much longer will they be able to sell Mac Apps if no one is buying Macs?
Didn't they announce something exactly like a 'locked down app store' for the Mac JUST the other day? And didn't His Jobsness specifically say that it 'was not the only way, but the best way'?
You've got to be joking. How is it "exactly like a locked down app store" if it's "not the only way"?
All that's required to make my assessment 100% current is to drop that former portion of the statement. And seriously, how long does Jobs typically ALLOW the plebeians to use the not-best way?
Jobs isn't some super-villian. He doesn't "typically ALLOW the plebes", he makes a product the best he thinks he can. Control isn't done for control's sake, it's done when it makes the product better. Locking down the Mac App Store in no what whatsoever makes the Mac better. It makes it worse. Your assertion is based on the idea that Jobs will deliberately make the Mac worse, losing precious hardware sales, for the sole purpose of control? It's madness.
I'm exaggerating. But only a little.
Exaggeration is still exaggeration. Reality is what it actually is, and it's never an exaggerated version of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless there were multiple lawsuits, Apple and Microsoft settled their suit around 1997 when Steve Jobs came back to Apple. MS invested $150 million in Apple and committed to continue developing Office for the Mac. Apple agreed to drop the suit and bundle IE with Mac OS.
No it isn't. Controlling the trade and importation of goods is in general not enforced by copyright law.
Who is talking about the import/export of the discs? I'm talking about the playback of the discs. Playback involves copyright (even though, imo, it shouldn't).
If I buy 1000 DVDs and then carry them with me to another country, it has nothing to do with "copying" now does it, numbskull.
If you're going to call someone a numbskull, at least get the premise of your argument correct.
The region coding of DVD is simply using technology (poorly) to try to get around the fact that the law in most areas won't help the publishing industry manipulate global trade of their shit (especially in the mid 90s).
Region coding is using technology to enforce regional copyright.
You're correct that there's more to it than copyright, but pretending that it has nothing to do with copyright is fantasy.
>>>The country restrictions are there due to copyright law.
Close but not quite true. When DVDs were first introduced with Region coding, it was done to prevent citizens from buying products from overseas, like Japan or China, for less money than the home versions. The companies wanted to make that impossible, and thereby "break" the global free market. Sell the DVD for $1 in China, and $20 in the EU or US.
Which is enforced by copyright. Ergo, it's due to copyright law.
Through contract law, just like every other contract ever written.
Excellent. So, since I have never signed a contract with Paramount, I can legally distribute Iron Man 2 throughout the world? I wish you would have told me this sooner!
>>>It is hard to think about copyright as something that helps spread and disseminate culture anymore.
That was NEVER its purpose. The purpose was to provide incentive (money from sales) to the writers to make new works.
Um, how is the financial incentive to create new works not about spreading and disseminating culture? It's inherent to the process, unless you think it's meant to encourage people to write books and then keep them in a vault?
there are no international laws (or even local ones) prohibiting content from being shown on GoogleTV devices.
Yes there is. In fact, it's the exact same sets of laws: copyright and contract.
Hulu primarily has the rights to stream content over the Internet to computers. They have different licensing terms for display on mobile devices and different terms still for display on televisions.
- Desktops.
- Interoperability with the outside Windows world.
- Sometimes absolutely shitty hardware support.
- Sometimes kludgy solutions to problems that are elegantly solved by proprietary software.
I don't mean to say that you can't make an all Linux solution work, but you can also make an all Windows solution work, and an all Mac solution work. For all the problems I listed, there are ways to work around them, but that doesn't make them non-problems, just like every single Windows and Mac problem can be worked around as well.
There are also scenarios where going monoculture can be no problem. For example an ISP could go 100% Linux, no problem. An art studio could go 100% Mac, no problem. And a stock broker could go 100% Windows, no problem.
But just as it's the hard and honest truth that going all Windows or all Mac can be problematic, the truth is that going all Linux brings with it its own problems.
Well, perhaps businesses will understand that, and understand that going all Mac has problems because of that.
That's a silly conclusion to come to. No one suggests that business go "all Mac", except maybe small businesses which are wholly unaffected by this.
Similarly, it would be problematic for businesses to go all Linux (in fact, that's more problematic than going all Mac, although still feasible on smaller scales, and very feasible if limited solely to the data center, although Solaris and AIX have a place there too).
Going all Windows is somewhat more feasible, but even that breaks down as server needs increase.
Pardon me, what happens if there is a controller error with the CD drive? How exactly would you diagnose this?
USB, FireWire, network DVD sharing, netboot. All of which are available without the need for a BIOS or BIOS-like menu system.
On the other hand, if all those options fail as well (an exceptionally unlikely scenario, but could certainly happen), I don't see how a BIOS/EFI menu system is going to be of much help.
The simple fact is that if you run Mac OS X on Apple hardware, you have no need for access to the EFI system (and I can think of no reasonable scenario where one would even want that, but if you have an example, please elaborate). If you want to run Linux on a Mac, or triple-boot on the same drive, then you can run rEFIt. If you want to run Mac OS X on PC hardware, then BIOS access is quite often essential.
And if you try to claim that THATS impossible, then im sorry, I agree with GP-- you havent troubleshot many computers.
Why would I claim that's impossible?
The first sentence was something I meant to reword, but forgot to until I hit "Submit". My sentiment stands, but my wording was too sharp. My point was that Sycraft-fu is making an issue on the Mac out of ignorance of how Macs work. It's kind of like complaining that you can't get at the spark plugs on a diesel engine. Not a perfect analogy, but car analogies never are.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Apple hardware, but lack of BIOS or EFI access is not one of them. Reasons for them on the PC do not apply to Macs, and when people assert their ignorance so strongly, it's annoying.
Mac? I had to support a Mac only environment for the past two years, on to a better job now thank you. When a Mac dies, there's no options. Power supply? $200+. Power supply for a PC ? $50. Mac lovers can worship their shiny white ... equipment... The reality of the professional working world is the Mac is eye candy, and only useful for performing work the same way a cooper mini is useful for hauling lumber. It's compact and cute, but don't expect to move much in it.
You were a PC support employee who found himself out of his element when tasked with supporting Macs. Clearly your preconceived notions cannot be false, so therefore Macs can be nothing other than overpriced toys.
Once you strip out the pretentious apple worship, what's left is the same old 'it can't break...' until it does fallacy.
"Pretentious Apple worship"? WTF? The only thing that even remotely matches that is when I called out Yet Another PC user who thinks his PC knowledge applies to Macs. This is no different than a Windows user snobbing about Linux, or yes, Mac users talking about PCs, etc. It wasn't about Macs being superior, but someone talking about something they are ignorant of.
I wasn't being the pretentious one. I was just calling it out, although probably not terribly tactfully.
1. you don't use the bios config screen to troubleshoot. you use it to SET boot options.
I never said you do. In fact, I wrote:
"On the PC, the BIOS settings program is fundamentally used to set motherboard options."
apple does not 'create' the hardware.
Yes, they do.
No more than HP or dell or any other oem creates hardware.
Yet Another PC user syndrome strikes again. Apple engineers their hardware far more than Dell and HP do. They certainly don't create each part, and I never said they did. In fact, this is a completely irrelevant sidetrack from my point which is that Apple decides the exact specifications for each Mac, and they write their own operating system, which makes the usual need for BIOS settings entirely unnecessary. You don't have to tweak settings to correct strange boot problems or address stability issues. Granted, you don't have to do this on PCs that much anymore either, but Sycraft-fu's point was that when you *do* need it, it's there, and by your statement that "what's left is the same old 'it can't break...' until it does fallacy", you are continuing it.
Macs just simply don't break in the way that benefits from those BIOS options. They do break, but never in that way. If you have a counter-example, I'm open to hearing it.
A user accessible EFI would be a boon to techies who end up having to deal with their nontechnical friends/familys' apple products.
Not really. But like I said, an example would help settle this instead of simply making vague assertions.
You show significant ignorance in how Macs work. I suggest refraining from mistaking your presumably vast PC knowledge as though it's similarly applicable to the Mac.
On the Mac, you never, ever find yourself in a situation where access to equivalent of the BIOS would be helpful to troubleshoot Mac OS X boot problems. Ever. Situations where Mac OS X won't boot are very, very rare, and in those cases, all you have to do is boot from an OS X CD to begin troubleshooting.
On the PC, the BIOS settings program is fundamentally used to set motherboard options. Boot drive options, SATA/IDE modes, RAM settings, PnP, sleep, etc. On the Mac, these options are meaningless because Apple creates the hardware, so there's no reason to disable AHCI mode for SATA drives, you control sleep modes from OS X, and so on.
If you can come up with a scenario where BIOS-like access to EFI would be useful on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, I'm open to hearing them.
And, worse case, you can just use rEFIt, which is exactly what some people use to run Linux on their Macs.
How exactly VPN can help there? You're still passing unencrypted data to Facebook.
I was going to answer your question, but you already did:
All the gain is that it's less likely than someone listens to the traffic between the VPN provider and Facebook compared to the unpalatable liquid venue you're in.
*Less likely* is the key. That's how a VPN helps. Security nerds seem to think you have to be 100% secure (conveniently ignoring the fact that 100% security is impossible) or you're not secure at all. That's a good mindset for finding security holes, but it's a horrible mindset for worrying about one's own personal security. In the real world, you do what you can to reasonably reduce your risks and take your chances.
It's at least a little ironic that you don't think VPNs go far enough. To me, such a solution is extremely overboard. What average person is going to set up a VPN? Might as well suggest they drive to Facebook HQ and post directly from there.
I'm not sure how you describe "I'm not taking security precautions and I don't care about the implications" as anything *BUT* stupid and ignorant.
Do you ever leave your house with the front door unlocked (say, run over to the neighbors' real quick) or leave your windows rolled down a crack on hot days or keep your wallet in your back pocket or hand your credit card to the waitstaff or ... ?
It's not stupidity or ignorance. It's just, "you can only do so much".
In fact, I'd go further than that, and if you actively take precautions for all the things I listed, going through so much effort and living life so vigilantly seems far more stupid to me than the people you are painting as stupid and ignorant. It's like covering your furniture in plastic. Yes, it keeps your furniture in better condition, but it also means you are spending your life sitting on plastic instead of enjoying your furniture to its fullest.
Who's the more stupid? The one who has beat up furniture but got great use out of it, or the person with pristine furniture who never really got to use it?
The things you do with one set of friends is not necessarily something you want known to another set or with your family, etc. But with Facebook, the only way to accomplish this is to not use Facebook in the first place.
No, this can be accomplished using Facebook's "groups" feature.
Not between mutual friends. You can't limit what your friends share about you.
How can we be sure what is in the public's interest?
That's a form of nihilism that is inherent in every moral/legal/should discussion.
My point isn't to make the distinction in any particular case, just that the distinction exists, and is why "information wants to be free" and "I want my privacy" are not contradictory or hypocritical.
I defend my internet from my RL and my RL from my internet as best I can.
For many (especially here), the Internet is RL. What you call RL is just <AFK>...
Facebook isn't the same as letting people into your house (although to follow that analogy, it's basically letting anyone you know into your house, whether meth-head or saint), it's the same as being their friend (really, anything between acquaintance (or even just a business relationship) all they way up to family/loved ones). The things you do with one set of friends is not necessarily something you want known to another set or with your family, etc. But with Facebook, the only way to accomplish this is to not use Facebook in the first place.
There are plenty of people who take this extreme option, but on the other hand, Facebook is huge and avoiding it can mean sacrificing a large amount of social interaction (probably why Slashdotters are more likely to cry "delete Facebook!" than the general populace). It's a very useful site, and entirely rational to use it, even if the privacy implications are worse than you are comfortable with. And it's also entirely rational to complain about those privacy issues in the hopes that they will be addressed.
And if do or say anything that you are ashamed for(or will be ashamed for in some years), you should not have done it in the first place.
What a horrific waste of the handful of decades were are granted in this world such a mindset would lead to!
Stalking can be illegal, even if the individual actions aren't. It's all about the effects you are having on another person.
I don't know about IndustrialComplex's specific example, but his point stands. Privacy is pretty important and shouldn't just be ceded because it's difficult to objectively define where the line should be drawn between invasion of privacy and public knowledge.
Hang on, what happened to the Geek's warcry of "Information wants to be free"?
There's a difference between information that is in the public's interest (which is the sort of information that phrase refers to: i.e., how to hack your own hardware, trade secrets, etc.) and personal information that can harm (ID theft) or embarrass (personal email) someone.
You seem to be confused. Just because you'd like to keep something from general knowledge doesn't mean it's incriminating.
You are exaggerating more than a little. I'll remember to mock you in a few years when macs are still as open as ever.
I'll hold you to that, because it works both ways.
When have you ever predicted anything accurate about Apple? I can only guess the number of already failed predictions you've made about the iPad.
Need I do a search?
I) Apple shifted purposes in the previous decade. Their move to Intel was a key indicator, but there are many others. Apple is not designing anything beyond aesthetics - China is doing all the rest. Look at the impact this had on the 'iPhone 4'. This wasn't always the case, but is today.
What are you talking about? Apple designs the hell out of their hardware. If you think the unibody enclosure, the A4 chip, or the internal battery design are all about aesthetics, you're off your rocker.
II) Apple's App store concept is still in the honeymoon phase. They can and will ramp up their profit margins as their lock in increases. Every company on the face of the planet has done this, and to assume that Apple is somehow too cool to do so isn't exactly the pinnacle of intellectual honesty.
What's intellectually dishonest is to pretend, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that Apple is planning on locking in the Mac App Store. It's absurd--the moment they did that, they would instantly lose customers. Why would they give up the tens of billions per year they get from the Mac in order to make maybe hundreds of millions on software (in revenue. in profits, much, much less)? And for how much longer will they be able to sell Mac Apps if no one is buying Macs?
Didn't they announce something exactly like a 'locked down app store' for the Mac JUST the other day? And didn't His Jobsness specifically say that it 'was not the only way, but the best way'?
You've got to be joking. How is it "exactly like a locked down app store" if it's "not the only way"?
All that's required to make my assessment 100% current is to drop that former portion of the statement. And seriously, how long does Jobs typically ALLOW the plebeians to use the not-best way?
Jobs isn't some super-villian. He doesn't "typically ALLOW the plebes", he makes a product the best he thinks he can. Control isn't done for control's sake, it's done when it makes the product better. Locking down the Mac App Store in no what whatsoever makes the Mac better. It makes it worse. Your assertion is based on the idea that Jobs will deliberately make the Mac worse, losing precious hardware sales, for the sole purpose of control? It's madness.
I'm exaggerating. But only a little.
Exaggeration is still exaggeration. Reality is what it actually is, and it's never an exaggerated version of itself.