First off, calling iOS a "phone os" when its core is the same as that of Mac OS is showing that your not really thinking about the difference. The difference between the approaches has nothing to do with the core of the OS
/contradiction
It was pretty clear he said that calling iOS a "phone OS" misses the fact that the core of the OS is mostly the same as Mac OS X, but it's the interface that makes the difference.
You know how I figured that out? Because I read the rest of the sentence you cut short. It continued:
and everything to do with the displace and interface levels of the OS.
You don't get to just chop people's sentences apart and pretend like they said something completely different.
Uh, no, you said those artists didn't consider money at all
Uh, no. The context is the video in question.
From my original post: "They are doing it out of the desire to create." The "it" here is the video.
Quit being such a fucking asshat about it. Even after I corrected your misinterpretation of my words, you continued to act like your initial reading was what I was saying. That's not a way to act.
Even if my initial phrasing was wrong (it wasn't), when someone corrects their position, you don't continue acting like they didn't. What the hell is wrong with you?
But, fine, what you said and what you meant to say (after being called on it) are two different things. That's cool. Pity we're now a fair distance from where we started.
I said "never" in regards to the specific movie being made. Not "never" that these people never work for money.
This whole "you didn't say what you meant" bullshit is condescending and insulting. I said what I meant, and you weren't just "calling me out" on a misstatement, you were continually misrepresenting what I wrote even after I repeatedly corrected you.
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
Mm hmm.
That doesn't say they are extremists, that they don't need/want money, that wanting money is bad, that they never want money, *NOTHING* like you are saying I'm saying.
All it says is that when they created this, the motives of money didn't factor into it. Nothing more, nothing less. I could very well be wrong about this specific case. Maybe they *are* getting paid for it, or were motivated by the potential for selling it, etc. But it doesn't change my overall point that people can create without the need to worry about money, and that the drive to create can be, and often is, independent of the drive to acquire money.
Actually, FFO, original EQ(pre-WoWing of the experience system), and some other games are more like Foxconn than WoW. WoW is like working at Hot Dog on a Stick
I *never* said the Blender artists where some sort of extremist, I never said they don't need money, I never said that wanting money was bad, I never said *any* of the things you are going on about like a raving lunatic.
Putting a roof over you and your family's head and keeping everybody comfortable isn't a 'profit motive'.
It's the very definition of the profit motive.
Artists want to be successful. Nothing wrong with that.
Not all do. Regardless, I never said there was anything wrong with that. All I've stated is that one can create for creation's sake, not caring one whit about being paid for it.
What I don't get is why you're putting artists like us on such a high pedestal.
I fail to see where you got this idea from. I just said some people can be motivated by the desire to create. If you think that's some sort of pedestal, I question the content of your soul, because otherwise you'd know that that's not some sort of grand anthropological sacrifice, it's just the thing that can drive a person.
For a lot of artists, and in fact I'd say for *most* artists, it's their creation that drives them and they're just happy if they can make something that others enjoy.
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
... and then every single one of them puts it on their demo reels and resume.
Why wouldn't someone do that? Your resume is meant to show what you've done. The point still stands that the motive for making the film need not involve profits, either immediate or future.
What I can't figure out is why there are some people who seem hell bent on trying to attach profit motives to every instance of every act of human endeavor. They always say things like, "feed their families" and "out of the goodness of their heart?" as though every action a person can take and every motive a person can have must be framed in either, "will I starve if I do this?" and "am I doing this because I'm some sort of impossible person who does things because I'm *kind*?"
The world just doesn't fucking work like that. People have all sorts of motives. Money is just one of them, and in terms of what makes for a fulfilling life, one of the least effective.
What's your point? Mine is that the desire to create can be a motive all on its own, without the motive for money to enter into it. Are you saying this is not true?
Yeah but how well are the Blender Foundation Artists living?
Do they have health insurance? Can they pay their rent? Or at they doing this largely out the kindness of their hearts?
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
They don't need to have a say in the matter, it provides a free alternative to their paid service. Obviously they aren't going to like that.
Pretty much by definition they *do* need some say in the matter to have the impact you are suggesting. Otherwise whether or not they like it doesn't amount to shit. Or do you think Steve Jobs would pull GV simply because it would make some other company unhappy with otherwise no repercussions?
Well you tell me why then. And don't give me that 'degrading the user experience' bullshit, because installation and usage is optional.
Pre-emptively calling it bullshit doesn't make it so.
Your if-then is not logically sound. Fart apps do not alter how you use the phone function of the iPhone (nor does it replace any other function of the iPhone).
Neither does google voice, you don't have to use it. Obviously if you don't like it or don't want it anymore you can uninstall it.
Whether it alters the phone function of the iPhone is not affected by it being optional. It is meant as a replacement means to place calls, send txts and manage your contacts. It's difficult to see how that's *not* a fundamental alteration of the phone functionality.
You needn't agree with Apple's choices or even with their reasoning, but they've been fairly consistent about trying to manage the user experience of their products far in excess of other companies, including going so far as to limit options that are seen as having a negative impact on that experience.
On the other hand, trying to portray this as being done to protect AT&T requires a tenuous line of reasoning and is out of character for Apple.
In other words, what's good for Apple, is good for the consumer?
I'm absolutely certain I said nothing of the sort.
But, in other words, I *did* say what's good for the iOS platform is good for the consumer is good for Apple. By focusing on the quality of the product, Apple trusts that the users will choose their product which will lead to market success. Most other companies fail to realize this dynamic which is one of the reasons why Apple tends to be so unique in their offerings.
I see... a walled garden & company store monopoly is highly beneficial for Apple, therefore consumers ought to give it to them. It's in their own best interest.
No, a walled garden and company store monopoly is good for the iPhone platform, which is why the consumers *choose* the iPhone.
It's bizarre logic, but I admit, it's probably what a lot of Apple fans think, and a reason for its success.
Yes, it *is* bizarre logic. I doubt it's what many Apple fans think, though. It is something that a lot of Apple detractors seem to think, though. The problem is that they are so hung on choice, they fail to realize that many people would rather have a product with fewer but better choices, than one with more but worse choices.
Obviously it takes profit from AT&T, harming their relationship with Apple.
Except AT&T has no say whatsoever in the matter. They disallowed, until a while back, VOIP apps using the cell network, but Google Voice isn't VOIP. You're grasping at straws.
Which is why they removed it for 'duplicating core functionality',
No, that is most definitely *not* why they removed it (more accurately, never approved it in the first place).
otherwise you would just let the consumer decide what's best for them.
How do you possibly come to this conclusion? Apple is notorious for nixing options that they think degrade the overall user experience of a product. And it appears to work out very well for them.
If they were worried about the idea of an user-installed app making their platform less appealing they would get rid of all the ifart rubbish.
Your if-then is not logically sound. Fart apps do not alter how you use the phone function of the iPhone (nor does it replace any other function of the iPhone).
Who is easier to satisfy than the person who believes he has bought status?
I'm not sure which Internet you've been using this whole time, but on the one I'm on, Apple users tend to be the least easy to satisfy.
Your mistake is in thinking that Apple products serve merely (or primarily) as status symbols and are not valued in their own right. False premises often lead to absurd conclusions.
Google Voice was great for the consumer, not so great for apple.
Do explain how so. In direct terms, GV helped Apple. But indirectly it was seen as making iOS worse, which would harm Apple in the long term. Whether their reasoning was right or wrong, their motives aren't as immediately selfish as some people seem to think.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, calling iOS a "phone os" when its core is the same as that of Mac OS is showing that your not really thinking about the difference. The difference between the approaches has nothing to do with the core of the OS
/contradiction
It was pretty clear he said that calling iOS a "phone OS" misses the fact that the core of the OS is mostly the same as Mac OS X, but it's the interface that makes the difference.
You know how I figured that out? Because I read the rest of the sentence you cut short. It continued:
and everything to do with the displace and interface levels of the OS.
You don't get to just chop people's sentences apart and pretend like they said something completely different.
Who cares if there will be a Win7 based tablet. By then there'll be 20 Android based tablets.
Or the wildly successful iPad which actually exists right now.
Uh, no, you said those artists didn't consider money at all
Uh, no. The context is the video in question.
From my original post: "They are doing it out of the desire to create." The "it" here is the video.
Quit being such a fucking asshat about it. Even after I corrected your misinterpretation of my words, you continued to act like your initial reading was what I was saying. That's not a way to act.
Even if my initial phrasing was wrong (it wasn't), when someone corrects their position, you don't continue acting like they didn't. What the hell is wrong with you?
Going to the dentist.
Fair enough. At least, not for the patient. For the dentist, however...
And which of those hats were you wearing that muffled the "whoosh" sound coming from overhead :)
That doesn't say they are extremists...
Heh. Yes it does, you used the word 'never'.
But, fine, what you said and what you meant to say (after being called on it) are two different things. That's cool. Pity we're now a fair distance from where we started.
I said "never" in regards to the specific movie being made. Not "never" that these people never work for money.
This whole "you didn't say what you meant" bullshit is condescending and insulting. I said what I meant, and you weren't just "calling me out" on a misstatement, you were continually misrepresenting what I wrote even after I repeatedly corrected you.
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
Mm hmm.
That doesn't say they are extremists, that they don't need/want money, that wanting money is bad, that they never want money, *NOTHING* like you are saying I'm saying.
All it says is that when they created this, the motives of money didn't factor into it. Nothing more, nothing less. I could very well be wrong about this specific case. Maybe they *are* getting paid for it, or were motivated by the potential for selling it, etc. But it doesn't change my overall point that people can create without the need to worry about money, and that the drive to create can be, and often is, independent of the drive to acquire money.
Actually, FFO, original EQ(pre-WoWing of the experience system), and some other games are more like Foxconn than WoW. WoW is like working at Hot Dog on a Stick
I thought it was TF2 that had the funny hats.
WoW is juts a Skinner Box for humans.
What isn't?
I *never* said the Blender artists where some sort of extremist, I never said they don't need money, I never said that wanting money was bad, I never said *any* of the things you are going on about like a raving lunatic.
I never said artists should not be paid. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
Putting a roof over you and your family's head and keeping everybody comfortable isn't a 'profit motive'.
It's the very definition of the profit motive.
Artists want to be successful. Nothing wrong with that.
Not all do. Regardless, I never said there was anything wrong with that. All I've stated is that one can create for creation's sake, not caring one whit about being paid for it.
What I don't get is why you're putting artists like us on such a high pedestal.
I fail to see where you got this idea from. I just said some people can be motivated by the desire to create. If you think that's some sort of pedestal, I question the content of your soul, because otherwise you'd know that that's not some sort of grand anthropological sacrifice, it's just the thing that can drive a person.
For a lot of artists, and in fact I'd say for *most* artists, it's their creation that drives them and they're just happy if they can make something that others enjoy.
I'm saying that you can't create shit if you don't receive any compensation for your work at all.
That's amazingly absurd. One proof is the very post you created, with no compensation whatsoever.
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
... and then every single one of them puts it on their demo reels and resume.
Why wouldn't someone do that? Your resume is meant to show what you've done. The point still stands that the motive for making the film need not involve profits, either immediate or future.
What I can't figure out is why there are some people who seem hell bent on trying to attach profit motives to every instance of every act of human endeavor. They always say things like, "feed their families" and "out of the goodness of their heart?" as though every action a person can take and every motive a person can have must be framed in either, "will I starve if I do this?" and "am I doing this because I'm some sort of impossible person who does things because I'm *kind*?"
The world just doesn't fucking work like that. People have all sorts of motives. Money is just one of them, and in terms of what makes for a fulfilling life, one of the least effective.
What's your point? Mine is that the desire to create can be a motive all on its own, without the motive for money to enter into it. Are you saying this is not true?
Yeah but how well are the Blender Foundation Artists living?
Do they have health insurance? Can they pay their rent? Or at they doing this largely out the kindness of their hearts?
They are doing it out of the desire to create. The motives involving money, either making it ("health insurance and rent"), or spending it ("out of the kindness of their hearts") never enter into it.
Moving the goalposts anyone?
They don't need to have a say in the matter, it provides a free alternative to their paid service. Obviously they aren't going to like that.
Pretty much by definition they *do* need some say in the matter to have the impact you are suggesting. Otherwise whether or not they like it doesn't amount to shit. Or do you think Steve Jobs would pull GV simply because it would make some other company unhappy with otherwise no repercussions?
Well you tell me why then. And don't give me that 'degrading the user experience' bullshit, because installation and usage is optional.
Pre-emptively calling it bullshit doesn't make it so.
Your if-then is not logically sound. Fart apps do not alter how you use the phone function of the iPhone (nor does it replace any other function of the iPhone).
Neither does google voice, you don't have to use it. Obviously if you don't like it or don't want it anymore you can uninstall it.
Whether it alters the phone function of the iPhone is not affected by it being optional. It is meant as a replacement means to place calls, send txts and manage your contacts. It's difficult to see how that's *not* a fundamental alteration of the phone functionality.
You needn't agree with Apple's choices or even with their reasoning, but they've been fairly consistent about trying to manage the user experience of their products far in excess of other companies, including going so far as to limit options that are seen as having a negative impact on that experience.
On the other hand, trying to portray this as being done to protect AT&T requires a tenuous line of reasoning and is out of character for Apple.
In other words, what's good for Apple, is good for the consumer?
I'm absolutely certain I said nothing of the sort.
But, in other words, I *did* say what's good for the iOS platform is good for the consumer is good for Apple. By focusing on the quality of the product, Apple trusts that the users will choose their product which will lead to market success. Most other companies fail to realize this dynamic which is one of the reasons why Apple tends to be so unique in their offerings.
I see... a walled garden & company store monopoly is highly beneficial for Apple, therefore consumers ought to give it to them. It's in their own best interest.
No, a walled garden and company store monopoly is good for the iPhone platform, which is why the consumers *choose* the iPhone.
It's bizarre logic, but I admit, it's probably what a lot of Apple fans think, and a reason for its success.
Yes, it *is* bizarre logic. I doubt it's what many Apple fans think, though. It is something that a lot of Apple detractors seem to think, though. The problem is that they are so hung on choice, they fail to realize that many people would rather have a product with fewer but better choices, than one with more but worse choices.
Obviously it takes profit from AT&T, harming their relationship with Apple.
Except AT&T has no say whatsoever in the matter. They disallowed, until a while back, VOIP apps using the cell network, but Google Voice isn't VOIP. You're grasping at straws.
Which is why they removed it for 'duplicating core functionality',
No, that is most definitely *not* why they removed it (more accurately, never approved it in the first place).
otherwise you would just let the consumer decide what's best for them.
How do you possibly come to this conclusion? Apple is notorious for nixing options that they think degrade the overall user experience of a product. And it appears to work out very well for them.
If they were worried about the idea of an user-installed app making their platform less appealing they would get rid of all the ifart rubbish.
Your if-then is not logically sound. Fart apps do not alter how you use the phone function of the iPhone (nor does it replace any other function of the iPhone).
Who is easier to satisfy than the person who believes he has bought status?
I'm not sure which Internet you've been using this whole time, but on the one I'm on, Apple users tend to be the least easy to satisfy.
Your mistake is in thinking that Apple products serve merely (or primarily) as status symbols and are not valued in their own right. False premises often lead to absurd conclusions.
what happens if there is an emergency in your theater and the people inside have no way of getting in touch with the outside world?
Not exactly the most common of scenarios.
Maybe it's not common right now because people inside have the ability to contact the outside world?
I'm fairly certain that's not the reason for the rarity of such events.
what happens if there is an emergency in your theater and the people inside have no way of getting in touch with the outside world?
Not exactly the most common of scenarios.
There's no reason they should be allowed to text as a passenger while the vehicle is moving either.
Wow...
Google Voice was great for the consumer, not so great for apple.
Do explain how so. In direct terms, GV helped Apple. But indirectly it was seen as making iOS worse, which would harm Apple in the long term. Whether their reasoning was right or wrong, their motives aren't as immediately selfish as some people seem to think.