That is actually a very accurate interpretation of AT&T's slide. Their monopoly on the iPhone was a big part of their downfall. Relying upon a popular phone as a draw to customers decreased their incentive to provide good customer service.
So the Treo was a dumbphone? I had that before Apple's iPhone. I had a SonyErricson smart phone before the iPhone. The Sony phone had pretty good speech recognition, too. The Android phone has been a hotbed of innovation without any patent protection and they executed the product rather well with plenty of money behind it.
You seem to be making a giant assumption about whether or not a company would execute on the idea of a smart phone without patents. There is no conclusive evidence that innovation would fail to occur absent patents. Near as I can tell, most of the innovation we have witnessed so far has been in spite of patents. For some interesting documentation on this point, check out "Against Intellectual Monopoly", by Boldrin and Levine.
Take away the patents and innovation will sprout once again. The small startups simply don't have the deep pockets required to defend against the private monopolies riding on patents.
There is one risk that few have discussed: superbugs. Like the bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics, viruses are very likely to evolve faster than vaccine development can keep up with. Ultimately human health comes down to nutrition and the environment. Judging by the way we treat the environment and how we're marginalizing nutrition in food, the trends for human health are not very positive.
I think ownership of stock reflects a philosophical value. I would only invest in that which I believe in. Maybe you're different, investing for different reasons.
The "war" I observe is widely documented in the press. For example, quotes from Steve Jobs' biography indicated that he wanted to "destroy" Android. That fairly smacks of war. The relationship I observe is not between operating systems, it's between humans who have made certain decisions about how to live with software.
If you want to belittle me for the point I wish to make, that is your choice. I only wanted to see if you recognize any connection between your investments and their effect on software freedom and if you wished to share your thoughts on that relationship. Clearly, you are not interested in sharing your views and I respect that.
So, you own both Microsoft and Apple. As a shareholder, how do you feel about their war against Android and Linux? Do you, as a shareholder, feel that you are contributing to that war by owning the stock? Do you feel a personal investment in the battle against Linux and software freedom pursued by Apple and Microsoft?
I ask this because I believe that people who own stock in Apple and Microsoft have little interest in software freedom and would rather trade that freedom for a nice dividend.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my observations. I feel that it's also worth noting that the eye candy works better without the proprietary drivers installed on this Nvidia graphics adapter. Same is true for machines with AMD processors and ATI graphics.
Have you tried Debian Sid with Gnome 3? I've been curious about that, but haven't had the nerve to try it yet. I guess I'm a little intimidated that Debian is harder to set up with the codecs and other stuff I like for media. It's unfortunate that we'll have to sort out the patent mess to be free of the proprietary codecs and blobs, but this is just something I accept until humanity learns to get along.
Yes, Gnome3 is responsive. It does what I need to do and gets out of the way when my application is open. As a long time Ubuntu user, it was the best alternative i could find to Unity and Gnome 2.x running the new window manager on Mint. Gone were the wobbly windows, the rotating cube and all the other cool compiz effects. Believe me, I mourned the loss (ok, I could still go back to an older desktop on another distro like , but how long would that last?)
When I found Fedora 15, I didn't think I would like it, but wanted to try it. I found it easy to configure the simple stuff. I also found that tweaking the desktop was a bit more of a challenge. The only thing missing was Ubuntu. During my search for alternatives, I recalled the post from another user here on Slashdot with his struggles to make the desktop do what he wanted until he gave up and bought a mac. He just wanted something that worked.
That is what Gnome 3 is for me. It just works. It has a little animation, easy to use interface, far easier than navigating through a maze of menus to get to the application I wanted. When I play music with Rhythmbox (god only knows why Ubuntu switched to Banshee for a default music player), I get little pop-ups indicating the song that is starting and I can roll my mouse down to the bottom hot corner to control the music or switch to the app.
Gnome3 has desktops that I actually use now. A roll to the upper left hot corner and my desktops appear and I can move any open apps on this desktop to another. Desktops are dynamically added as needed. The same roll lets me switch desktops and use the application dock for the stuff I use the most and that includes the terminal. This system is a lot more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing to me than what Gnome 2.x was doing.
Gnome 2.x tries to emulate the Windows metaphors where Gnome 3 makes a break from those same metaphors in the places where it counts for me, and I don't like Unity, never will. Unity is only supported by one distribution while Gnome 3 is growing in adoption by more distributions as the months roll by. For now, Gnome 3 on Ubuntu 11.10 is for me and it wasn't even that hard to install.
There, I've said what I wanted to say. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here, but with all the bashing of Gnome 3, I felt that it's important for new users to know that Gnome 3 can be more than just a palatable choice for a desktop.
That is one area where I heartily agree with the states rights movement. I think it's only a matter of time before states realize that federal jurisdiction is not a requirement, it's invited by each state:
I'm not any better than you, friend. I was only recounting what I read here before and making a statement based on that. I'm pretty sure we're not in a position to manage something like that, though. I haven't read any news to the contrary, either.
I think we're far from able to manage energy like this. Some time ago, there was concern expressed about geothermal energy actually causing eruptions. I think they mentioned Krakathoa or something like that. It was a interesting discussion because someone posted a very cool analysis of the impact of geothermal energy on the temperature of the core of the earth. In any case, we simply lack the experience and know-how to tap into energy from a super-volcano to prevent an eruption.
I'll go one step further: all patent licensing agreements must be made public and include terms for a refund from the date of the agreement should a patent be invalidated. Patents are a public good issued by the government and their trade and licensing should be highly regulated.
Apple is gaming the system, not playing by the rules. How many ways could this be implemented in code? Thousands? Millions? There is no clear boundary with this patent and Apple is sure to apply this to Android phones as a few of them use a very similar method to unlock the phone.
This patent is sure to hinder innovation and competition as Apple engages in business combat, not simple competition. Competition is about creating choice in the marketplace, not destroying it. Apple seems bent on destroying choice, just like Microsoft.
Speaking of TOC, Ballmer's comments seem rather ironic considering that each "patent licensing agreement" he signs with a competitor actually creates an incentive to Microsoft to sell more Android phones. Hmmm. $15 a phone x 100k phones a day? A nice chunk of change for mystery patents that will only be revealed in a lawsuit with Barnes and Noble should they choose not to settle.
Slashdot Mirror
That is actually a very accurate interpretation of AT&T's slide. Their monopoly on the iPhone was a big part of their downfall. Relying upon a popular phone as a draw to customers decreased their incentive to provide good customer service.
So the Treo was a dumbphone? I had that before Apple's iPhone. I had a SonyErricson smart phone before the iPhone. The Sony phone had pretty good speech recognition, too. The Android phone has been a hotbed of innovation without any patent protection and they executed the product rather well with plenty of money behind it.
You seem to be making a giant assumption about whether or not a company would execute on the idea of a smart phone without patents. There is no conclusive evidence that innovation would fail to occur absent patents. Near as I can tell, most of the innovation we have witnessed so far has been in spite of patents. For some interesting documentation on this point, check out "Against Intellectual Monopoly", by Boldrin and Levine.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
And no, I'm not nuts. I simply hold a viewpoint you disagree with.
Take away the patents and innovation will sprout once again. The small startups simply don't have the deep pockets required to defend against the private monopolies riding on patents.
Patents divide us. Free ideas unite us.
There is one risk that few have discussed: superbugs. Like the bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics, viruses are very likely to evolve faster than vaccine development can keep up with. Ultimately human health comes down to nutrition and the environment. Judging by the way we treat the environment and how we're marginalizing nutrition in food, the trends for human health are not very positive.
Noam Chomsky was right. We're near the end of our 100,000 year dominance of our planet.
That's just a virus. No one has said anything about food yet.
I think ownership of stock reflects a philosophical value. I would only invest in that which I believe in. Maybe you're different, investing for different reasons.
The "war" I observe is widely documented in the press. For example, quotes from Steve Jobs' biography indicated that he wanted to "destroy" Android. That fairly smacks of war. The relationship I observe is not between operating systems, it's between humans who have made certain decisions about how to live with software.
If you want to belittle me for the point I wish to make, that is your choice. I only wanted to see if you recognize any connection between your investments and their effect on software freedom and if you wished to share your thoughts on that relationship. Clearly, you are not interested in sharing your views and I respect that.
Good day to you, too.
So, you own both Microsoft and Apple. As a shareholder, how do you feel about their war against Android and Linux? Do you, as a shareholder, feel that you are contributing to that war by owning the stock? Do you feel a personal investment in the battle against Linux and software freedom pursued by Apple and Microsoft?
I ask this because I believe that people who own stock in Apple and Microsoft have little interest in software freedom and would rather trade that freedom for a nice dividend.
What are your thoughts?
Maybe we need something like this:
http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2011/11/patent-transparency.html
Compensation for R&D? That's called First Mover Advantage.
Cool. Thanks for the tips.
First mover advantage and execution.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my observations. I feel that it's also worth noting that the eye candy works better without the proprietary drivers installed on this Nvidia graphics adapter. Same is true for machines with AMD processors and ATI graphics.
Have you tried Debian Sid with Gnome 3? I've been curious about that, but haven't had the nerve to try it yet. I guess I'm a little intimidated that Debian is harder to set up with the codecs and other stuff I like for media. It's unfortunate that we'll have to sort out the patent mess to be free of the proprietary codecs and blobs, but this is just something I accept until humanity learns to get along.
What are you thoughts on Debian Sid with Gnome 3?
Well said.
Yes, Gnome3 is responsive. It does what I need to do and gets out of the way when my application is open. As a long time Ubuntu user, it was the best alternative i could find to Unity and Gnome 2.x running the new window manager on Mint. Gone were the wobbly windows, the rotating cube and all the other cool compiz effects. Believe me, I mourned the loss (ok, I could still go back to an older desktop on another distro like , but how long would that last?)
When I found Fedora 15, I didn't think I would like it, but wanted to try it. I found it easy to configure the simple stuff. I also found that tweaking the desktop was a bit more of a challenge. The only thing missing was Ubuntu. During my search for alternatives, I recalled the post from another user here on Slashdot with his struggles to make the desktop do what he wanted until he gave up and bought a mac. He just wanted something that worked.
That is what Gnome 3 is for me. It just works. It has a little animation, easy to use interface, far easier than navigating through a maze of menus to get to the application I wanted. When I play music with Rhythmbox (god only knows why Ubuntu switched to Banshee for a default music player), I get little pop-ups indicating the song that is starting and I can roll my mouse down to the bottom hot corner to control the music or switch to the app.
Gnome3 has desktops that I actually use now. A roll to the upper left hot corner and my desktops appear and I can move any open apps on this desktop to another. Desktops are dynamically added as needed. The same roll lets me switch desktops and use the application dock for the stuff I use the most and that includes the terminal. This system is a lot more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing to me than what Gnome 2.x was doing.
Gnome 2.x tries to emulate the Windows metaphors where Gnome 3 makes a break from those same metaphors in the places where it counts for me, and I don't like Unity, never will. Unity is only supported by one distribution while Gnome 3 is growing in adoption by more distributions as the months roll by. For now, Gnome 3 on Ubuntu 11.10 is for me and it wasn't even that hard to install.
There, I've said what I wanted to say. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here, but with all the bashing of Gnome 3, I felt that it's important for new users to know that Gnome 3 can be more than just a palatable choice for a desktop.
That is one area where I heartily agree with the states rights movement. I think it's only a matter of time before states realize that federal jurisdiction is not a requirement, it's invited by each state:
http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html
Microsoft deploys more than software donations. They employ political power. Note here how Hilary Clinton works hand in hand with Microsoft:
http://techrights.org/2011/01/02/vietnam-with-proprietary-software/
And that is just one country.
Well said. This is why I believe that the drug war is a proxy war for big pharma.
The mantras of those in power are:
Do noting.
Stay the course.
Passive aggression comes in many forms. We're witnessing one of them now.
I'm not any better than you, friend. I was only recounting what I read here before and making a statement based on that. I'm pretty sure we're not in a position to manage something like that, though. I haven't read any news to the contrary, either.
I think we're far from able to manage energy like this. Some time ago, there was concern expressed about geothermal energy actually causing eruptions. I think they mentioned Krakathoa or something like that. It was a interesting discussion because someone posted a very cool analysis of the impact of geothermal energy on the temperature of the core of the earth. In any case, we simply lack the experience and know-how to tap into energy from a super-volcano to prevent an eruption.
I'll go one step further: all patent licensing agreements must be made public and include terms for a refund from the date of the agreement should a patent be invalidated. Patents are a public good issued by the government and their trade and licensing should be highly regulated.
Apple is gaming the system, not playing by the rules. How many ways could this be implemented in code? Thousands? Millions? There is no clear boundary with this patent and Apple is sure to apply this to Android phones as a few of them use a very similar method to unlock the phone.
This patent is sure to hinder innovation and competition as Apple engages in business combat, not simple competition. Competition is about creating choice in the marketplace, not destroying it. Apple seems bent on destroying choice, just like Microsoft.
Speaking of TOC, Ballmer's comments seem rather ironic considering that each "patent licensing agreement" he signs with a competitor actually creates an incentive to Microsoft to sell more Android phones. Hmmm. $15 a phone x 100k phones a day? A nice chunk of change for mystery patents that will only be revealed in a lawsuit with Barnes and Noble should they choose not to settle.
What is he smoking?