Can you really blame them? Scouting out music is hard, you listen to a lot of stuff you don't like, and to find something new that you really like takes a lot of commitment. It usually takes several listenings for me to really know if I like an artist, so I can't really give every musician the chance they may deserve. No one can.
Well I don't blame customers per se, but the point is that it is consumers that create the situation. When the only means to reach customers effectively is the mass media, the only way you can reach those customers is by spending a lot of money. The industry does NOT create that situation, it is a fundamental problem whenever demand for public attention outstrips supply by so much.
It would help if our public airwaves weren't held by corporations who play corporate music, but then I mostly just listen to college stations now.
Corporate music? They are for profit corporations that consumers CHOOSE to listen to. The music they play is simply that which makes them the most money; they don't care whose money it is. The radio station owners and record industry owners are seperate parties and they have divergent interests. The problem, again, is that popular air time is very finite. Not everyone can get played. Those that want to get played must pay for the opportunity.
While I do enjoy some public radio, the fact of the matter is that the public shows a clear preference for corporate owned stations.
But it's just hard. It's like you have a make a lifestyle out of finding new music (and we all know the people for whom it's not just a hobby, but their primary identity). So normal people end up finding music by word of mouth and the radio. That doesn't make them ignorant and they don't deserve to be reviled for it.
I don't revile them, I frankly don't care that much. The point is simply that if anyone has the power to change the situation, it is the customers. Killing the labels will solve nothing, because, as a result of consumer behavior, there is a need for such parties. They may not behave the exact same way, but the concerns would largely be the same.
No, I did read what the previous message had to say. My message was well directed. Your message contained a strong implication that all the good artists, being defenceless and incapable of thinking clearly, signed ironclad agreements long before anyone else could give them an alternative, rather than facing up to the reality that what sets those big-name artists apart from the hundred other no-named artists is (record company) money to begin with. In other words, the money creates big names, by and large (it's not generally sufficient by any means, but it is what sets them apart), they're not merely _all_ ensared in the recording companies nets. Thus, far from agreeing with either of you, if the.com's and startups had sufficient resources (both capital and connections), they could make similar stars of their own stars, as opposed to sitting back mp3.com-style, and hoping consumers browsing habits will make a star.
That said, virtually all the.coms fundamentally lacked an understanding of their environment, never mind the fact that a little VC money is not enough to create a major artist. [Maybe enough to create one if they got lucky, but it's a numbers game. You invest enough in a bunch of artists, in the hopes that just one or two will be a hit.]
Um, gee, maybe it was because all the big names are already under contract with the "big 5" music companies. Did you ever think of that? Do you even know how the music industry works? Nearly all the major recording artists had to start as "independent artists" you seem to dislike so much. Talent spotters from the major labels then offer contracts to these artists, giving them money up front if the artist agrees to release a certain number of albums on that label. The contracts are usually worded in such a way that the artist is prohibited from recording under any other label, or from prematurely terminating the contract. Ergo your narrow-minded rant is completely inapplicable in most cases.
Umm gee, so because the 100 or so profitable artists are permanently contracted to the big labels, therefore all the talent is signed? I don't think so, there are at least a thousand unsigned talented artists for every signed artist. The difference between the two is not talent or the means to distribute their music from point A (themselves) to point B (the end customers), after all, any one can go to mp3.com, ship their music by CD-R, sign up with other independent labels, etc. The difference is promotion/marketing, plain and simple.
If anyone is to blame for the status quo, it is consumers and those FEW artists that CHOOSE to sign. The consumers CLEARLY want music that is packaged up neatly for them. Consumers will buy music, but generally only if they're barraged by enough of it to find an "artist" that they (grow to) like; very few people spend the time to scout for talent themselves. Thus, it takes both cash and knowledge, to bring it to the consumers' ears. Popular radio, television, and other sources have finite air time, and thus will always be expensive. As long as this is true, any artist that wants access to the _mass markets_ will require the _resources_ of some large _entity_ (currently called the label).
The labels are not good. The labels are not evil. They're simply filling a need. In other words, do not blame the labels. This is just the way things are. Unless consumers suddenly change their habits, preferring to be truely unique and finding music of their own, it's going to be the same situation, perhaps just different individuals players. The economics are simply such that there is only room for a few players. Furthermore, the economics are setup in such a way that few artists will even break even. Save your cries for someone else.
The labels are, however, operating within the bounds of copyright law and the artists within the bounds of contract law, thus they deserve to be respected. If you want to change things, _create_ another _better_ alternative, rather than _destroying_ that which you happen to disagree with.
All he really needs is a decent thermal pot, so he can scrap the heating element entirely (not to mention the cost of his product). A good thermal pot will keep the coffee hot for hours, without that after taste associated with glass carafes. What use is an LED to measure just how bad your coffee is? As long as it's sitting on a warmer some time, bad coffee is basically inevitable. I haven't really read about his brewing technique, but using a sensor to monitor the badness of bad coffee seems almost comedic.
I don't care what he's using to brew his coffee, but using a glass carafe and keeping it warm on a hot plate is quickest and easiest way to get bad coffee. If he was serious, he'd at least use a thermal/insulated coffee pot and scrap the heating element. A good thermal pot can keep your coffee hot for hours. Of course, Krups seems to be the only decent manufacturer of thermal coffee brewers that sells in the US and there is some kind of import restriction against that product:(
PS: If anyone knows of an online retailer that sells Krups thermal coffee brewers (without that new fangled "Aroma" crap), please reply! Thanks
Re:But I have a God Given Right to cheap gas!!
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
We are not doing this at expense of anybody. People in these "poor" countries wouldn't be using their resources anyway if it weren't for western technology.
BTW. Should we slow down progress simply because others are not able to keep up with us?
I agree, we are, for the most part, not consuming at the expense of the rest of the world. However, burning more fuel than we need to does certainly effect US society. The point of the tax would not be to slow US progress down or raise tax revenues, rather the target would be to have consumers make choices that are more environmentally (not to mention, developmentally) sound. When prices are as low they are in the US (even today), few people have much economic incentive to change their habits, to not waste fuel by driving SUVs and such. Sure, people bitch about prices, but the proof is in the pudding--look at what most Americans are driving. Only when prices are sufficiently high(say, 4 dollars) will we find consumers really weighing off the costs and the benefits of: living 45 minutes away from their places of work, owning an SUV, not carpooling, not taking advantage of mass-transit, etc.
These reduction of those things would have other added benefits too, like reduced traffic, less suburban sprawl, revitalizing urban areas/cities, etc.
Re:But I have a God Given Right to cheap gas!!
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
I completely agree with the premise of using taxes to cut consumption, but unfortunately that isn't the opinion of any of our elected officials. Instead we've got the Republicans who claim we have some sort of "right" to our consumptive lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the planet) and who claim we can't do anything remotely environmental because it might jeapordize our precious economy. On the other side we've got the Dems who pay lipservice to environmental causes, but in the end don't really have the spine to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
This isn't really a Republican, Democrat, or even independent issue, because virtually every politician is doing the same thing about taxing gas, _nothing_. However, while I would hope that our politicians would actually take some initiative, lead and take a little risk, there is no denying the fact that US citizens do not care enough to demand it. Otherwise you can be sure that there would be politicians of various stripes backing it. I'm not really an environmentalist-type, I believe very much in business and freedom, but I do believe intellectual honesty. If we really are going to try to clean up the environment, then lets do it in a way that is most effective and, ultimately, less costly for society. The only practical way is by making sure that gas costs at least as much as its consumption costs society.
How in the hell can we complain about $2.00/gallon gas when we gleefully spend $8.00/gallon for CocaCola (0.75c/12oz), or $1.29 for 1/2 liter of fucking water!
Well that's a strange analogy;) It's pretty clear to me that Americans are not paying enough for fuel, when virtually no one takes the trouble to buy an honest to god econobox. If gas prices are really that much of an issue for most Americans, they would have purchased more efficient cars to begin with; If gas were running 3 to 4 dollars a gallon, you can be sure that very few people would be driving SUVs. They would weigh the costs and the benefits of owning one, and decide that it's just not worth it. The same would go for many other sources of waste (even more significant).
SUVs aren't the problem, gas prices are.
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 3
The solution is pretty simple, raise gas prices with gas taxes. Europe's gas prices are not magical, they're entirely the result of taxes. It works remarkably well. For instance, placing various restrictions against SUVs may reduce the number of SUVs on the road, but the fact of the matter is that Americans will still burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they need to for a number of reasons. First, and probably even more significant than SUV consumption, is the fact that most Americans commute further than they need to to work and other places. Second, relatively few Americans use mass transit. Third, most Americans, including most so-called environments drive excessively wasteful cars of various sorts. From sports cars, to cars with more HP than it takes to get the job done, to those 20+ year old cars, to Cadillaces, and others. Fourth, many Americans drive simply because they like to drive, rather than taking the train, for instance, they'll drive. Fifth, American car companies have little incentive to develop and manufature highly efficient cars _today_ because Americans express little demand for it. Fifth, few Americans carpool and share rides.
Raising gas prices by means of levying a significant tax on gas would make great strides to solve these problems, and do it in a far more equitable and reasonable manner than burdensome regulations. This way, those who really really do need or enjoy a more intensive vehicle, can still have it, for the most part, they'll just have to pay for it. This is the way everything else in our society works; the right to burn cheap fuel at cost to our highways, health, and the evironment is not written a right at all. It may hurt some people, namely the "poor", but not as much as you might expect. Many people can and would move, finding the costs of living somewhere else exceed the costs. What's more, the demand for mass-transit would rise, making it more accessible, cheaper, and easier for all.
What I would suggest is gradually scaling in taxes over a period of 10 years or so. Enough so that the various parties (e.g., transit authorities, builders, consumers, employers, etc) can plan around it.
/BEGIN RANT
Of course, most Americans would disagree, they would rather blame someone else than admit that they themselves are very much of the problem. They're all for the environment, until it comes to having to make sacrifice more significant than lip service; as long as (they think) someone else has to do the sacrificing it is fine with them.
Me, I drive an SUV (97' Pathfinder), albeit a fairly low-impact one, so I'm hardly a saint. But then again, I'm not running around throwing stones at SUVs that happen to be twice as large and gas consuming as mine. Your car (whomever flames me) may be 60% more efficient than mine, but I'd be willing to bet that you fall into almost every one of my earlier points (hell, you may even waste more fuel than me when all is said and done). Nonetheless, I would support any politician that was honestly willing to tax gas, because it makes sense and it is ultimately necessary. Whereas bitching and whining about how I, or any other SUV driver, my car is 60% worse than yours, ignoring that you personally consume 5000% more energy than almost every other person on this earth is just plain silly, not to mention the fact that it misses the bigger picture.
/END RANT
Hrm, well, Mr Businessman stud, show me your accomplishments. 98% of business school graduates couldn't sell themselves out of a paper bag.
That may well be true, but you certainly implied that I knew nothing about business. I just responded in kind. Anyways, my primary focus lately has been developing software, but give me a couple years...;)
I glanced over your message and its pomposity was striking. Why bother fighting me? I am irrelevant.
Because I can. Because I wanted to. Because I had the time. Why bother replying to me?
I come up with a back-of-the-napkin idea that I thought was pretty cool, and you go ahead and deconstruct it into utter meaninglessness.
You can dream all you want, but if you want to sell it to others or convince people like myself that the management of Palm is composed of idiots, then you should expect a little vigorous debate. My intention was not to strike you down for your lack of credentials, but rather to engage you in reasoned debate.
I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. The idea of having a palm application running on top of a linux handheld would be very cool. I would want one.
It may be cool, to people you and I, but that does not mean that 99% of the population would have any use for it. Since you have so little appreciation for PalmOS, why bother with Palm at all, when you have the likes of Agenda and such out there?
If Palm's move to Linux means that it now appeals to the 1% of the population called geeks, while raising their price by 50% (memory, CPU, etc), for instance, [assume for a minute that it's otherwise the same to the end-user], how does this help them? Consider also that many geeks may choose Agenda et. al instead, and that many have no use for a PDA at all. The actual people that would buy as a result would be small, while many more (average users) may be be discouraged because of price. Even if the price were exactly the same (meaning none of the existing buyers would be discouraged), consider it financially. It would require a relatively large cash outlay (say 10m dollars, excluding marketing costs), given a relatively small group of buyers and profit margin, it's hardly worth it. I would be very suprised if Palm could sell enough additional sales to make that expenditure as profitable one. Even if it were, ask yourself if this would offer a greater return than targeting the rest of the population with WinCE-like features.
You could rewrite it from scratch in a few weeks/month. PalmOS is a very very simple application, there is nothing complex at all about it.
Maybe not to write a quick hack, but to make it as stable as Palm, as easy to develop for, as small of a memory footprint, and to do it in a cost effective manner, that is non-trivial. Some complex issues are: database and memory management (they're intertwined in Palm), synchronization, power management, boot-time, sleep-mode, event handling, custom UI (designed to minimize user-interaction), grafitti, LCD control, etc. These ideas may seem easy, but even mimicking them is much harder than you think, never mind writing them from scratch. I'd be extremely suprised if Agenda and others even approximate this in its totality.
And I think it bears repeating. The amount of money saved per device is irrelevant if your goal is to sell 2x as many devices, however remote that may possibly be. I'm
Fine, then explain in a coherant fashion how Palm saves that money? How does spending money converting to Linux save them any money whatsoever? Palm has already has a pretty fine OS, for all intents and purposes it is FREE now, whereas converting to Linux today would COST them more money.
I'm not passing myself off as Palm upper management, although you so arrogantly presume to have that kind of expertise.
Where do I proclaim myself an expert in the minutia of running Palm Inc? I speak from general experience with manufacturing, developing software, and financial experience, not to mention development (and deployment) experience on PalmOS, these allow me to be reasonably sure that moving to Linux would be a stupid move, without being terribly familiar with Palm's operations [though I did actually hear Palm's founders/developers speak at Penn Engineering's entreprenuership class recently]. Some problems are simply so fundamental and so simple as not to require real expert knowledge.
If you know anything about business, business decisions aren't made solely on cost benefit analysis. The best businessmen work from intuition and a keen, personalized intimacy with the details of their situation.
Actually, yes, I do. I went to business school, watched my parents startup and run many hi-tech corporations successfully and I have an entreprenuerial leaning myself. While I do agree that not everything can or should be quantified or formally analyzed [many things clearly should not be] that does not mean that some kind of cost/benefit is no longer important. Everything the company does has a cost of some sort, you either recieve a benefit or you do not. It may be hard to measure, it may come in the form of good will from customers, or what have you, but it's still there, at least in the mind of the business person. If you can't at least verbalize and support your view of the cost and the benefit, then you probably should not be persuing a major change.
Aside from that, cost-benefit is important, and the strategic implications of the move to linux are based on long-term profitability; the thrust being that more marketshare ubiquitous use can only happen when the price is low enough relative to the commodity hardware in question.
What magic price might this be? Less than 3 dollars? Consumers drop more for a cup of coffee these days, do you really think this is going to dissuade them? I don't think so, not that much, especially when no other alternatives exist. [Sorry, but I don't believe those Linux handhelds will ever reach the mass market] Furthermore, you are presuming that Linux has near zero cost, this is demonstratively untrue. Linux as is, in all its current forms, is both il-equipped and needing of many changes to support PalmOS like performance, compatibility, etc. I would venture to say that it would cost as much as Linux itself. Given the fact that the community has not yet done it, I see no reason to believe that they will do it in the near future. Thus, it will come out of Palm's pockets. Whether those costs come in the development of Linux or PalmOS is irrelevant, it still costs money. That money must come from somewhere.
Of course I am not the CEO of palm and am not intimately familiar with the details of their operations, so a cost benefit analysis from _me_ would be utterly worthless. Likewise with yourself, but I wont stop you from trying.
First, this is exactly what _you_ are saying. You are second guessing Palm's management, not to mention the Sony's, Handspring's, TRG's, and others. If that's the argument you're going to make, then at least be consistent. Second, some decisions are plainly stupid, one need not necessarily be an insider to know that. For instance, of Palm were to spend 500m dollars convert to MS-DOS, most sufficiently educated and reasonable people would agree that is stupid. Likewise, when Palm embarks on a program where they cannot name a significant and true benefit, then I say it is stupid, especially when they clearly do not understand the overall environment.
Now that I have some time, I'll name (or re-iterate) a couple flaws with the conversion to Linux.
1) The most it could possibly save is 2 or 3 dollars per device.
2) It would require significant investment, almost certainly more than adding the few desired features into PalmOS.
3) Linux offers very little to handheld devices.
4) PalmOS is very much up to the tasks that are demanded of it, all the monies that funded its development are sunk. Meaning that it's impossible to recover them. Converting to Linux, on the other hand, would certainly cost money. Are you really going to tell me that adding those few demanded features to the EXISTING PalmOS would cost more than practically starting from scratch with Linux? Or do you really believe that the community is going to do this for Palm? Please.
5) Linux is MUCH MUCH more demanding of the CPU and memory, many of those are a result of its feature set (e.g., multithreading). This means that despite whatever devices commodity status, it will probably cost more than a competing PalmOS device.
6) Palm would have a very difficult time building in Linux without getting suckered into the GPL. This is bad for a couple reasons. First, the bulk of their work could be adopted by the competition for free. Meaning that, not only could the competition avoid paying the PalmOS licensing fees, but that control could certainly drift away from Palm Inc. What happens when some vendor, say Sony, decides they want to add a new feature in. Sure, that may go GPL, but then you eventually end up with competiting alternatives, hardly desirable to developers. Furthermore, that would make Palm into much more of a hardware company than it really is. If the market truely goes commodity, that is hardly a desirable market for Palm. The only way they could compete is with larger economies of scale.
7) Palm could license and acquire other OSes, if they really wanted, which are far less restrictive and would be ultimately cheaper to adapt.
So, again, I ask you, what are the benefits and how much is it going to cost, even off the hip?
No, I don't think it's a zero-sum game. You asserted that PalmOS should be scrapped because it's outdated, or something to that effect. I am simply asserting that the reasons for PalmOS's design are still largely valid today and thus it should not be scrapped. Namely, lack of input devices and _necessarily_ small screens. The only thing that has really changed is better battery life and cheaper memory, but these don't really matter that much given the limitations [Though it would make developing Palm applications a bit easier, not having to worry so much about the use of global variables and such, it's still overall a pleasure to design for.] What's more, I think there is still another year or so before memory and battery technologies improve to a point where making drastic updates to PalmOS would make sense.
You may argue that Palm could have and should have emulated the approach of IPAQ, while still maintaining the status quo with their bread and butter PalmOS / PDA. I simply do not believe it is this simple, despite whatever vestiges of 3com may remain in Palm. First, their is something to be said for mindshare. Does Palm really want to confuse customers and pirate their existing customers? It's one thing to make those moves for the future, but making a brash move for flashy applications, is hardly a win-win move. Especially when you consider that Palm must fight the considerable resources of the likes of MS. MS would love nothing better than a feature war, where everything can be neatly captured on a X by X matrix. Also consider that they'd risk splintering their considerable developer community. I'm not speaking so much of all the random shareware/free developers online, but corporate, military and industrial application developers. Plus they'd have to start playing a near-commodity hardware pricing game, not a good game to play. Lastly, I think IPAQ success is sort of flukish--few people really predicted this one would take off--and those that have have been predicting each WinCE device would--despite all their failures. It's basically a different market, in my opinion. A new one, one in which people are willing to spend a considerably more money on a device that they really can't (or rather, aren't going to) DO anything more with.
So why not put linux where it isn't seen. Nobody has to know that linux is running your embedded device, or your web-station, or set top box. The windows of the non-pc future does not look like windows (except for obvious branding). There wont be the win32 look and feel because it will function differently. I guess my thesis is that operating systems of the future will branch out into areas that are not so demanding of the user (like the pc is). These new areas will eventually crowd out pc in terms of market share, revenue, and development resources. Why would you want a proprietary operating system on a $50-$100 hardware device? It doesn't make sense. If the future doesn't contain a *majority* of $50-100 devices that run commodity/Free operating systems I will be very surprised.
No matter which way computing goes, software still needs to be developed, maintained, and supported. While it is true that, all things being equal, consumers and hardware developers would prefer a free alternative, consumers will stick with commercially developed OSs, APIs, and applications because there simply will not be equal free alternatives, by and large. Your problem is that you confuse and associate all of MS's issues with commercial and proprietary software, in general. Just because it is proprietary does not mean that it needs to be expensive or buggy. Alternatively, just because it is Open/Free does not mean all problems magically go away.
Palm is fighting a losing battle. And needs to get rid of the PalmOS and make the PalmAPI that runs on linux, windriver, qnx, whatever, and sell it CHEAP. And DONT get rid of your hardware business.
I disagree with you completely. First, what little Palm has "lost", it has lost not to "free", "open", or "commodity" pricing, it has lost to flashy and _more_ expensive devices and software. Second, Palm alone is still outselling WinCE and Linux devices (though these are practically insignificant) combined in terms of units--Ipaq has only outsold in terms of revenue in the short term. When you combine this with Sony and Handspring, their combined revenue is probably much higher--hardly an indictment of PalmOS. Incidentally, PalmOS is cheap, part of the reason why Palm's revenue looks less than stellar lately, and also part of the reason why Sony, Handspring, and others have chosen Palm over the other, supposed, competition. The applications (HotSync Manager, PalmOS, conduits, etc), OS, and API is going for about 2 dollars a unit, hardly the 20 dollars you imply. In addition, a good part of Palm's "problems" have nothing to do with the competition and more to do with the fact that the economy crapped out on them and their inventories were too high.
Furthermore, speaking as a present PalmOS developer (not that I'm wedded to PalmOS in any sense), it is clear to me that both the WinCE devices and especially the Linux devices are ill-concieved. What practical applications are there that most users can actually use that they can do better with WinCE and/or Linux? Why use it? Palm's has had a very clear vision, PalmOS is not limited because they're lazy, it's limited by design. The Ipaq buyers seem primarily motived by novelty and coolness than by real functionality. Just because they're selling well today, does not mean they'll continue to sell well, or make any headway in the work place.
A yopi with linux running a PalmAPI Shell? Jesus christ that sounds attractive. I fucking want one. I'll fscking pay $25 extra for that palm software too. Fucking bring it on baby! It's certainly better than the $70 MS tax on ipaq, is more functional (PalmAPI interoperating with other linux apps), and has more developer interest.
Haha, are you kidding me? Why on earth would you want this? More developer interest? Not mine, not my companies, not that of others. PalmOS has thousands of developers out there, very few of them have flocked to Linux.
s linux a long shot? Fuck I dont know. You seem skeptical without much analytical thought, kind of gut reaction. At least I argue my case. You give predictions and opinions based on a few seconds of thought. Skepticism aint bad, but it's a two-way street, and require analitical thinking to flesh out a possible scenerio framework backed up by meaningful figures. I'm not asking for a dissertation, just something that more approaches the skeptic's ideal.
No, I simply did not have the time or the energy to bring forth all the arguments and evidence in a clear and coherant manner. However, I'll throw a couple of them out right now. First, despite Linux's limited success, Open Source has hardly demonstrated that it's capable of matching multi-million dollar development efforts. Linux has had the benefit of riding in the shadow of Windows, various Unixes, and many other OSes. Linux has had the benefit of being able to copy features, design, code, and other things. It's much much harder to be first, to truely innovate. When you actually have to do it from scratch, it requires a lot more work to get it right. Second, Linux is limited in scope, it's just a kernel and that kernel has attracted the lions share of Open/Free developer mindshare.
What happens when you need to _truely_ match the world of windows? Not just a kernel, installers, applications, help menus, full featured GUIs, etc. How many bright talented open source developers do you know that are willing to work on these less inspiring projects? What's more, maybe a great many idealistic young developers are just working to prove that Linux can "do it",...what happens when Linux has done it. Are they really willing to go that extra mile, to make sure that hundreds of millions more lines of code get written with reasonable quality, to really match the users experience in windows?
Even if all those developers are willing and able to write all that other code, who is going to organize it? To place resources where they need to be placed, rather than in the more exciting or popular projects. Who is going to assign themselves the task of debugging and reviewing code? While you may argue that Linux does this, it also benefits from its limited scope, limited size, modularity, great mindshare, and the fact that it's derived from previous work--it's not the same thing.
Even if people are _willing_, they still need to work. Someone like myself, even though I might have the skills to contribute to Linux, and the desire to develop certain pet projects, I lack the time to really commit to something as large scale as Linux. Working a couple hours here and there is NOT at all the same thing as working full time at it, without interruption. If I had to develop code for work like that, I would't be nearly as productive. Most of the truely productive Linux, and other open source developers, are also those that work few hours, if at all. This represents a very small part of the population.
In summary, my concerns are: will, desire, size, focus, and organization. All of them are very daunting tasks in and of themselves.
I'd love to see MS fail (due to competition or _fair_ justicial action against them) and I'd also like, in theory, to see Linux succeed. My problem is simply that I think Linux and Open Source/Free software is way way over-sold. Yes, Linux and some of these others packages do their jobs pretty well. But just because they do their jobs pretty well does not mean that, therefore, the Open Source model is fully capable of competing with propreitary software en masse. Frankly, I see a lot of problems both empirically and theoretically in Free/Open development in general. Not to mention the fact that there is very little that, in my opinion that really suggests that it's capable of scaling the kinds of development hurdles that even MS has managed to scale.
You add all these issues to the mix and I think Linux is, at best, a long shot.
While I too dislike the GPL and think it is bound to fail (in the sense that it will never reach its inspirations), I must say that your point of view is simply ridiculous.
First, the economic gains that we have made have not (for the most par) been in the form of increased employment of programmers and related staff. It is based on increased productivity. If GPL were to ever replace propreitary software in the work place, it would surely do it on the basis of increased efficiency. In other words, GPLs success would not hurt the economy, if anything it would help it, because it would have to be better to succeed. The number of lost shrink-wrapped programming positions would be relatively nominal and those programmers would almost certainly find other programming jobs developing software for corporations (which is where most programmers work).
Second, this point of view is simply ridiculous, assuming you do indeed believe in the free market. The free market is about letting the best product, service, or person win, free from arbitrary regulations, tarrifs, and the like. If it has enough staying power to really hurt programming positions, it is better, let it succeed. In the long run, we would all benefit.
That said, my reasons for disliking the GPL is as follows: First, I think advocates and defenders of its license are rather disingenuous in their defense. They claim GPL is a gift. Well fine, it is a gift, no one is making any one use it. But it is a limited gift, in the sense that it puts all sorts of stipulations on its use that do not exist naturally, in any shape, way, or form. What's more, their authority to enforce those limitations (which is really the only way they differentiate GPL from any other number of open licenses) is based on the same laws that proprietary software is based on. Second, its current sofware is of limited use to the vast majority of the public, not to mention myself. [The proof is in the pudding, how many people actually use it? Baring daemons like sendmail, apache, and the like, which are being replaced]. Third, it does its damnest to prevent investment in software, since the backers have very little chance of making a satisfactory return. [Yes, we've all heard the support argument, but how does _actually_ funding software development entitle you to "support" any better than anyone else? Sure, RedHat, IBM, and the like have made some, but it's chump change, not nearly as much as propreitary software gets per user hour.]. Fourth, it's organization is severely hampered by its openness. As contradictory as that sounds, there is real value in having CENTRALIZED control. While de-centralization itself can be a virtue, I judge this to be far less valuable than loss of centralization.
In other words, I don't see GPL as a credible threat to programmers. I also don't see it as a credible threat or benefit to consumers. Some companies may try it, a handful of people may lose their jobs, some GPL (or free) software may be thrown into the laps of consumers, but, by and large, it will not reach large enough proprortions to be terribly relevant to anyone.
"In a survey of 523 elementary schools by the National Association of Elementary School Principals, more than one-third said that lawsuits and problems with insurance had forced them either to modify or drop recess. Some schools have stripped play areas of any equipment, to pre-empt lawsuits from people who fall off swings when they break in after hours."
Yeah well, you also don't hear about all the settlements. If you really want a good feel for how much medical malpractice cases _really_ cost, look at the going rates for malpractice insurance. In Philadelphia, it _averages_ in excess of 100k in many fields of medicine. Yes, that's for just ONE physician.
Sure, if the doctor or the hospital is negligent then the doctor and/or hospital should pay. However, be aware that accidents DO happen, many are simply unavoidable. Many of these awards are awarded when there is virtually nothing the doctor or the hospital could reasonably do to prevent them from occurring in the future. As long as this is true, the practice of arbitrarily awarding punitive damages is simply ridiculous. Besides just being unfair to the medical profession, it really HURTS everyone (other than the crooked ambulance chasers and such). Many doctors in Philadelphia, for instance, have been unable to generate the volume to cover the malpractice insurance premiums, forcing them to retire or move out of the city.
The current system is really screwed up. While I will not claim that doctors and hospitals do not make mistakes, these are the exceptions to the rule. The current tort system (if you could call it that) with its unpredictable juries, often poorly educated judges, "professional witnesses", arbitrary awarding of punitive damages, and other things does very little to actually discourage real negligence. Meanwhile it effectively taxes everyone. Because it's so unpredictable, costly (in terms of lawyer fees), and time consuming, the insurers, hospitals, and doctors have no choice but to settle the vast majority of the time. It is a system that is ripe for fraud.
Do you not find those adds on TV just a little ridiculous? "Have you been injured?...." Translation: "Can you concieve of any injury or trauma, no matter how little it has effected you (or whether or not it really happened), that we can play the malpractice lotto with?"
There are many fields in the business community that require an MBA to even land the job, never mind having a reasonable chance of getting ahead. For instance, to: become a venture capitalist with a well respected firm, make partner (or MD) at a respectable investment banking firm, land an upepr management position at (most) large corporations, CFO at mid-to-upper level corporations, etc, etc, etc.
Anyways, I have a degree in Finance and I'm seriously considering getting an MBA, and not because I love school [I happen to think that much of it is redundant, unnecessary, or flaky]. Stupid? Hardly. Maybe if you want to work in a staff position your entire life it's fine, but for many of the better paying / more rewarding jobs out there, it's extremely helpful.
No, it is not their strategy. Do you have any proof other than mere accusations? You never even bothered to explain how such an investment could possibly return a profit. If they spend a couple million building a Wal-mart in a small town, it will take a couple years to re-coup that investment. If the town economy actually (not that it would) goes South within those first couple years, they lose money. Plain and simple.
The support services (doctors, lawyers, and so on) will follow when the business dries up. If too many people leave, the town dies, end of story.
Again, you're misguided. Neither Wal-mart nor the mom and pop retail stores are capable of driving a local economy. Towns need a more substantial industry, like agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Where do you think all the money comes from?
Furthermore, Wal-mart employs people too. They also, clearly, still largely provide the same services. Just because Wal-mart now owns the majority of the retail operations in town does not mean the economy goes "poof".
Bad money drives out good. If you drop a megastore into a small town where most businesses, the mom and pops (which usually provide better service) go under. Since these people can't easily relocate within town, they leave. The support services (doctors, lawyers, and so on) will follow when the business dries up. If too many people leave, the town dies, end of story.
No, this is not the end of the story. You neglected the part where thousands of customers REPEATEDLY shop at Wal-mart, by choice, despite the fact that the "better" mom and pops exist. You suppose this is mind control or something. It comes down to the fact that most consumers would rather have more variety, cheaper, and faster, then what the mom and pops offer (better service in some ways, but not in many ways).
I do not shop at WalMart.
Nor do I, that is your right. But that does not mean that you should attempt to stifle free trade in favor of protectionist policies.
they spend millions constructing a Wal-mart in a town so feeble that the bulk of its economy falls when the competing mom and pops go out of business. Besides the fact that this runs against economic wisdom, namely that their increased efficiency would ultimately BENEFIT the local economy [even in the short run, a mom and pop is but a drop in the bucket of the markets that they invest in], it simply does not make financial sense to invest in such a town. Their margins are not that high and the cash outlays are too great for them to even break even in the situation that you suggest.
Wal-mart may not be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that Wal-mart serves these towns better than the competition. The proof is in the pudding, people vote with their feet. They may like a few unique goods and services that only the mom and pop can provide, but they do not enjoy it enough to effectively subsidize them by paying consistently higher prices. Thus, Wal-mart continues to thrive, while many mom and pops dwindle away.
It's Forward-Looking InfraRed. While I'm inclined to agree with the Supreme Court majority on this one, it is a PASSIVE technology, meaning that it does no more than pickup infrared emitted from the houses. Is this really any different than, say, using cannines to pickup a scent?
Speaking for myself, at least, it depends on the circumstances. If the police are combing neighborhoods with such intensive methods (be they dogs, FLIR, or what have you), then yes, this strikes me as being an abuse of privacy. On the other hand, if it is a suspected growing location, a very specific target, then I'm not ready to rush to their defense.
and that is the problem. Listen, you can dismiss this poster if you wish, but that does not mean that everything is just peachy. The litigousness of this country is, in my view, one of the greatest threats to this country. You may think it has no impact, but if you were either in a position of a responsibility or a little more perspective you'd realize that it impacts you too. These are much more than just isolated incidents.
For instance, 10 to 20 years ago, you could go to a neighborhood pool and have a reasonable chance of finding a diving board or a slide. These days, they're almost entirely gone.
You want a cup of coffee? Sorry, you can't have that as hot as you like, restraunts have reacted too.
I know physicians with unblemished records, in Philadelphia, that pay in excess of 100k dollars a year in malpractice insurance. The average is somewhere around 60k a year. Guess where that money comes from? Out the physicians pocket? Ultimately, much of it comes out of yours. Though many of them simply cannot manage it and have been effectively been forced to close down.
You want to startup a medical devices or biotech company? Better checkout the insurance costs there.
I could go on, better let me lay it out for you. It discourages people from investing money. It makes hard working people that much less wealthy, because they have to pay high premiums just to stay in business. It creates watered down products. It takes away the consumers right to decide matters for himself, since everything will eventually get watered down so that the biggest idiots can not possibly hurt themselves (or even claim that they did). Even charities and non-profits have had to make cutbacks of all sorts, just to minimize their exposure.
These effects are real and undeniable. I do not see how anyone can defend it. It does little to help those that are truely injured--it is too slow and too inefficient, too much of the money ends up in the lawyers pockets too.
Ah! Now I understand your argument, to which I must then point out that RMS has been invited on numerous occasions to speak publicly about free software, whereas Bill Gates hasn't. He has a record of publicly being able to defend his ideas simply becuase the Free Software movement has always been perceived as "fringe", whereas Bill Gate's performance in the courtroom in defending himself has been terribly lackluster.
Umm, may I have some of what you're smoking? You are comparing YOUR ability to be impressed with RMS, whose philosophy you clearly agree with, in a favorable environment to like minded individuals against Bill Gates' HOSTILE questioning, in a court of law, where the stakes are high, where MS is quite clearly in the wrong, and other such factors? I'm sorry, but the very fact that, yes, GNU IS still fringe, after so many years, speaks very clearly about RMS' ability to persuade (especially when it comes to the GPL and IP). The vast majority of people would LIKE to be able to use free software, if it were all RMS proclaims it to be, for no other reason then the fact that it tends to be free or, at least, much cheaper.
In any event, I have heard all sorts of RMS speeches, I'm not the least bit impressed with his speaking ability. While I am hardly blown away with Bill Gates' abilities (granted, most of the speaking that I've heard from him is for public consumption/marketing), reading between the lines, it is quite clear to me that he has a reasonable facility to get his point across, even when his position is not terribly strong. I believe that if you gave this man something as well studied, documented, and supported as intellectual property (in general, remember, not defending MS' crime(s))., that he would wipe RMS off the floor, at least so far as 99% of the audience is concerned. You should at least recognize that RMS is an idealist in the extreme, this severely constrains his ability to be a persuasive speaker, especially when the audience is so clearly opposed to his position. He does not have the credibility.
As for being an academic or not, that quality correlates with the ability to form coherent arguments, although that correlation may be weak.
Umm, I'd say this depends entirely on what kind of academic you're talking about. Furthermore, merely being coherant is not enough, one can be coherant without being a persuasive or correct. Whereas it's very hard to be a succesfull business leader without having that serious powers of persuasion, not to mention the ability to read, write, and think coherantly, the ability to get to the point quickly, etc.
No, I don't think Gates is any sort of visionary. Yes, I think MS is a monopoly and such. In short, I would not put Gates on top of the list of best business leaders, not by a long short. But I have to give the man some credit...Even MS takes considerable skill to run. It is a very large organization and it hasn't stayed where it is magically, even with a strong monopoly position. Contrast this with RMS, he can afford to simply state his opinion and let it stand. Furthermore, I would argue that RMS' role in propping up free software has had less to do with him, then with the likes of Torvalds, Cox, and others. If it weren't for them, I think GNU would be very obscure these days. Not only can he afford to simply state "that is the way it is, it's my way or the highway", but he's been doing it for years. Enough said, bye
Slashdot Mirror
Corporate music? They are for profit corporations that consumers CHOOSE to listen to. The music they play is simply that which makes them the most money; they don't care whose money it is. The radio station owners and record industry owners are seperate parties and they have divergent interests. The problem, again, is that popular air time is very finite. Not everyone can get played. Those that want to get played must pay for the opportunity.
While I do enjoy some public radio, the fact of the matter is that the public shows a clear preference for corporate owned stations.
I don't revile them, I frankly don't care that much. The point is simply that if anyone has the power to change the situation, it is the customers. Killing the labels will solve nothing, because, as a result of consumer behavior, there is a need for such parties. They may not behave the exact same way, but the concerns would largely be the same.
No, I did read what the previous message had to say. My message was well directed. Your message contained a strong implication that all the good artists, being defenceless and incapable of thinking clearly, signed ironclad agreements long before anyone else could give them an alternative, rather than facing up to the reality that what sets those big-name artists apart from the hundred other no-named artists is (record company) money to begin with. In other words, the money creates big names, by and large (it's not generally sufficient by any means, but it is what sets them apart), they're not merely _all_ ensared in the recording companies nets. Thus, far from agreeing with either of you, if the .com's and startups had sufficient resources (both capital and connections), they could make similar stars of their own stars, as opposed to sitting back mp3.com-style, and hoping consumers browsing habits will make a star.
.coms fundamentally lacked an understanding of their environment, never mind the fact that a little VC money is not enough to create a major artist. [Maybe enough to create one if they got lucky, but it's a numbers game. You invest enough in a bunch of artists, in the hopes that just one or two will be a hit.]
That said, virtually all the
If anyone is to blame for the status quo, it is consumers and those FEW artists that CHOOSE to sign. The consumers CLEARLY want music that is packaged up neatly for them. Consumers will buy music, but generally only if they're barraged by enough of it to find an "artist" that they (grow to) like; very few people spend the time to scout for talent themselves. Thus, it takes both cash and knowledge, to bring it to the consumers' ears. Popular radio, television, and other sources have finite air time, and thus will always be expensive. As long as this is true, any artist that wants access to the _mass markets_ will require the _resources_ of some large _entity_ (currently called the label).
The labels are not good. The labels are not evil. They're simply filling a need. In other words, do not blame the labels. This is just the way things are. Unless consumers suddenly change their habits, preferring to be truely unique and finding music of their own, it's going to be the same situation, perhaps just different individuals players. The economics are simply such that there is only room for a few players. Furthermore, the economics are setup in such a way that few artists will even break even. Save your cries for someone else.
The labels are, however, operating within the bounds of copyright law and the artists within the bounds of contract law, thus they deserve to be respected. If you want to change things, _create_ another _better_ alternative, rather than _destroying_ that which you happen to disagree with.
All he really needs is a decent thermal pot, so he can scrap the heating element entirely (not to mention the cost of his product). A good thermal pot will keep the coffee hot for hours, without that after taste associated with glass carafes. What use is an LED to measure just how bad your coffee is? As long as it's sitting on a warmer some time, bad coffee is basically inevitable. I haven't really read about his brewing technique, but using a sensor to monitor the badness of bad coffee seems almost comedic.
I don't care what he's using to brew his coffee, but using a glass carafe and keeping it warm on a hot plate is quickest and easiest way to get bad coffee. If he was serious, he'd at least use a thermal/insulated coffee pot and scrap the heating element. A good thermal pot can keep your coffee hot for hours. Of course, Krups seems to be the only decent manufacturer of thermal coffee brewers that sells in the US and there is some kind of import restriction against that product :(
PS: If anyone knows of an online retailer that sells Krups thermal coffee brewers (without that new fangled "Aroma" crap), please reply! Thanks
These reduction of those things would have other added benefits too, like reduced traffic, less suburban sprawl, revitalizing urban areas/cities, etc.
Well that's a strange analogy
The solution is pretty simple, raise gas prices with gas taxes. Europe's gas prices are not magical, they're entirely the result of taxes. It works remarkably well. For instance, placing various restrictions against SUVs may reduce the number of SUVs on the road, but the fact of the matter is that Americans will still burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they need to for a number of reasons. First, and probably even more significant than SUV consumption, is the fact that most Americans commute further than they need to to work and other places. Second, relatively few Americans use mass transit. Third, most Americans, including most so-called environments drive excessively wasteful cars of various sorts. From sports cars, to cars with more HP than it takes to get the job done, to those 20+ year old cars, to Cadillaces, and others. Fourth, many Americans drive simply because they like to drive, rather than taking the train, for instance, they'll drive. Fifth, American car companies have little incentive to develop and manufature highly efficient cars _today_ because Americans express little demand for it. Fifth, few Americans carpool and share rides.
Raising gas prices by means of levying a significant tax on gas would make great strides to solve these problems, and do it in a far more equitable and reasonable manner than burdensome regulations. This way, those who really really do need or enjoy a more intensive vehicle, can still have it, for the most part, they'll just have to pay for it. This is the way everything else in our society works; the right to burn cheap fuel at cost to our highways, health, and the evironment is not written a right at all. It may hurt some people, namely the "poor", but not as much as you might expect. Many people can and would move, finding the costs of living somewhere else exceed the costs. What's more, the demand for mass-transit would rise, making it more accessible, cheaper, and easier for all.
What I would suggest is gradually scaling in taxes over a period of 10 years or so. Enough so that the various parties (e.g., transit authorities, builders, consumers, employers, etc) can plan around it.
/BEGIN RANT
Of course, most Americans would disagree, they would rather blame someone else than admit that they themselves are very much of the problem. They're all for the environment, until it comes to having to make sacrifice more significant than lip service; as long as (they think) someone else has to do the sacrificing it is fine with them.
Me, I drive an SUV (97' Pathfinder), albeit a fairly low-impact one, so I'm hardly a saint. But then again, I'm not running around throwing stones at SUVs that happen to be twice as large and gas consuming as mine. Your car (whomever flames me) may be 60% more efficient than mine, but I'd be willing to bet that you fall into almost every one of my earlier points (hell, you may even waste more fuel than me when all is said and done). Nonetheless, I would support any politician that was honestly willing to tax gas, because it makes sense and it is ultimately necessary. Whereas bitching and whining about how I, or any other SUV driver, my car is 60% worse than yours, ignoring that you personally consume 5000% more energy than almost every other person on this earth is just plain silly, not to mention the fact that it misses the bigger picture.
/END RANT
Because I can. Because I wanted to. Because I had the time. Why bother replying to me?
You can dream all you want, but if you want to sell it to others or convince people like myself that the management of Palm is composed of idiots, then you should expect a little vigorous debate. My intention was not to strike you down for your lack of credentials, but rather to engage you in reasoned debate.
It may be cool, to people you and I, but that does not mean that 99% of the population would have any use for it. Since you have so little appreciation for PalmOS, why bother with Palm at all, when you have the likes of Agenda and such out there?
If Palm's move to Linux means that it now appeals to the 1% of the population called geeks, while raising their price by 50% (memory, CPU, etc), for instance, [assume for a minute that it's otherwise the same to the end-user], how does this help them? Consider also that many geeks may choose Agenda et. al instead, and that many have no use for a PDA at all. The actual people that would buy as a result would be small, while many more (average users) may be be discouraged because of price. Even if the price were exactly the same (meaning none of the existing buyers would be discouraged), consider it financially. It would require a relatively large cash outlay (say 10m dollars, excluding marketing costs), given a relatively small group of buyers and profit margin, it's hardly worth it. I would be very suprised if Palm could sell enough additional sales to make that expenditure as profitable one. Even if it were, ask yourself if this would offer a greater return than targeting the rest of the population with WinCE-like features.
Maybe not to write a quick hack, but to make it as stable as Palm, as easy to develop for, as small of a memory footprint, and to do it in a cost effective manner, that is non-trivial. Some complex issues are: database and memory management (they're intertwined in Palm), synchronization, power management, boot-time, sleep-mode, event handling, custom UI (designed to minimize user-interaction), grafitti, LCD control, etc. These ideas may seem easy, but even mimicking them is much harder than you think, never mind writing them from scratch. I'd be extremely suprised if Agenda and others even approximate this in its totality.
Fine, then explain in a coherant fashion how Palm saves that money? How does spending money converting to Linux save them any money whatsoever? Palm has already has a pretty fine OS, for all intents and purposes it is FREE now, whereas converting to Linux today would COST them more money.
Where do I proclaim myself an expert in the minutia of running Palm Inc? I speak from general experience with manufacturing, developing software, and financial experience, not to mention development (and deployment) experience on PalmOS, these allow me to be reasonably sure that moving to Linux would be a stupid move, without being terribly familiar with Palm's operations [though I did actually hear Palm's founders/developers speak at Penn Engineering's entreprenuership class recently]. Some problems are simply so fundamental and so simple as not to require real expert knowledge.
Enough said, bye.
What magic price might this be? Less than 3 dollars? Consumers drop more for a cup of coffee these days, do you really think this is going to dissuade them? I don't think so, not that much, especially when no other alternatives exist. [Sorry, but I don't believe those Linux handhelds will ever reach the mass market] Furthermore, you are presuming that Linux has near zero cost, this is demonstratively untrue. Linux as is, in all its current forms, is both il-equipped and needing of many changes to support PalmOS like performance, compatibility, etc. I would venture to say that it would cost as much as Linux itself. Given the fact that the community has not yet done it, I see no reason to believe that they will do it in the near future. Thus, it will come out of Palm's pockets. Whether those costs come in the development of Linux or PalmOS is irrelevant, it still costs money. That money must come from somewhere.
First, this is exactly what _you_ are saying. You are second guessing Palm's management, not to mention the Sony's, Handspring's, TRG's, and others. If that's the argument you're going to make, then at least be consistent. Second, some decisions are plainly stupid, one need not necessarily be an insider to know that. For instance, of Palm were to spend 500m dollars convert to MS-DOS, most sufficiently educated and reasonable people would agree that is stupid. Likewise, when Palm embarks on a program where they cannot name a significant and true benefit, then I say it is stupid, especially when they clearly do not understand the overall environment.
Now that I have some time, I'll name (or re-iterate) a couple flaws with the conversion to Linux.
1) The most it could possibly save is 2 or 3 dollars per device.
2) It would require significant investment, almost certainly more than adding the few desired features into PalmOS.
3) Linux offers very little to handheld devices.
4) PalmOS is very much up to the tasks that are demanded of it, all the monies that funded its development are sunk. Meaning that it's impossible to recover them. Converting to Linux, on the other hand, would certainly cost money. Are you really going to tell me that adding those few demanded features to the EXISTING PalmOS would cost more than practically starting from scratch with Linux? Or do you really believe that the community is going to do this for Palm? Please.
5) Linux is MUCH MUCH more demanding of the CPU and memory, many of those are a result of its feature set (e.g., multithreading). This means that despite whatever devices commodity status, it will probably cost more than a competing PalmOS device.
6) Palm would have a very difficult time building in Linux without getting suckered into the GPL. This is bad for a couple reasons. First, the bulk of their work could be adopted by the competition for free. Meaning that, not only could the competition avoid paying the PalmOS licensing fees, but that control could certainly drift away from Palm Inc. What happens when some vendor, say Sony, decides they want to add a new feature in. Sure, that may go GPL, but then you eventually end up with competiting alternatives, hardly desirable to developers. Furthermore, that would make Palm into much more of a hardware company than it really is. If the market truely goes commodity, that is hardly a desirable market for Palm. The only way they could compete is with larger economies of scale.
7) Palm could license and acquire other OSes, if they really wanted, which are far less restrictive and would be ultimately cheaper to adapt.
So, again, I ask you, what are the benefits and how much is it going to cost, even off the hip?
No, I don't think it's a zero-sum game. You asserted that PalmOS should be scrapped because it's outdated, or something to that effect. I am simply asserting that the reasons for PalmOS's design are still largely valid today and thus it should not be scrapped. Namely, lack of input devices and _necessarily_ small screens. The only thing that has really changed is better battery life and cheaper memory, but these don't really matter that much given the limitations [Though it would make developing Palm applications a bit easier, not having to worry so much about the use of global variables and such, it's still overall a pleasure to design for.] What's more, I think there is still another year or so before memory and battery technologies improve to a point where making drastic updates to PalmOS would make sense.
You may argue that Palm could have and should have emulated the approach of IPAQ, while still maintaining the status quo with their bread and butter PalmOS / PDA. I simply do not believe it is this simple, despite whatever vestiges of 3com may remain in Palm. First, their is something to be said for mindshare. Does Palm really want to confuse customers and pirate their existing customers? It's one thing to make those moves for the future, but making a brash move for flashy applications, is hardly a win-win move. Especially when you consider that Palm must fight the considerable resources of the likes of MS. MS would love nothing better than a feature war, where everything can be neatly captured on a X by X matrix. Also consider that they'd risk splintering their considerable developer community. I'm not speaking so much of all the random shareware/free developers online, but corporate, military and industrial application developers. Plus they'd have to start playing a near-commodity hardware pricing game, not a good game to play. Lastly, I think IPAQ success is sort of flukish--few people really predicted this one would take off--and those that have have been predicting each WinCE device would--despite all their failures. It's basically a different market, in my opinion. A new one, one in which people are willing to spend a considerably more money on a device that they really can't (or rather, aren't going to) DO anything more with.
I disagree with you completely. First, what little Palm has "lost", it has lost not to "free", "open", or "commodity" pricing, it has lost to flashy and _more_ expensive devices and software. Second, Palm alone is still outselling WinCE and Linux devices (though these are practically insignificant) combined in terms of units--Ipaq has only outsold in terms of revenue in the short term. When you combine this with Sony and Handspring, their combined revenue is probably much higher--hardly an indictment of PalmOS. Incidentally, PalmOS is cheap, part of the reason why Palm's revenue looks less than stellar lately, and also part of the reason why Sony, Handspring, and others have chosen Palm over the other, supposed, competition. The applications (HotSync Manager, PalmOS, conduits, etc), OS, and API is going for about 2 dollars a unit, hardly the 20 dollars you imply. In addition, a good part of Palm's "problems" have nothing to do with the competition and more to do with the fact that the economy crapped out on them and their inventories were too high.
Furthermore, speaking as a present PalmOS developer (not that I'm wedded to PalmOS in any sense), it is clear to me that both the WinCE devices and especially the Linux devices are ill-concieved. What practical applications are there that most users can actually use that they can do better with WinCE and/or Linux? Why use it? Palm's has had a very clear vision, PalmOS is not limited because they're lazy, it's limited by design. The Ipaq buyers seem primarily motived by novelty and coolness than by real functionality. Just because they're selling well today, does not mean they'll continue to sell well, or make any headway in the work place.
Haha, are you kidding me? Why on earth would you want this? More developer interest? Not mine, not my companies, not that of others. PalmOS has thousands of developers out there, very few of them have flocked to Linux.
No, I simply did not have the time or the energy to bring forth all the arguments and evidence in a clear and coherant manner. However, I'll throw a couple of them out right now. First, despite Linux's limited success, Open Source has hardly demonstrated that it's capable of matching multi-million dollar development efforts. Linux has had the benefit of riding in the shadow of Windows, various Unixes, and many other OSes. Linux has had the benefit of being able to copy features, design, code, and other things. It's much much harder to be first, to truely innovate. When you actually have to do it from scratch, it requires a lot more work to get it right. Second, Linux is limited in scope, it's just a kernel and that kernel has attracted the lions share of Open/Free developer mindshare.
What happens when you need to _truely_ match the world of windows? Not just a kernel, installers, applications, help menus, full featured GUIs, etc. How many bright talented open source developers do you know that are willing to work on these less inspiring projects? What's more, maybe a great many idealistic young developers are just working to prove that Linux can "do it",...what happens when Linux has done it. Are they really willing to go that extra mile, to make sure that hundreds of millions more lines of code get written with reasonable quality, to really match the users experience in windows?
Even if all those developers are willing and able to write all that other code, who is going to organize it? To place resources where they need to be placed, rather than in the more exciting or popular projects. Who is going to assign themselves the task of debugging and reviewing code? While you may argue that Linux does this, it also benefits from its limited scope, limited size, modularity, great mindshare, and the fact that it's derived from previous work--it's not the same thing.
Even if people are _willing_, they still need to work. Someone like myself, even though I might have the skills to contribute to Linux, and the desire to develop certain pet projects, I lack the time to really commit to something as large scale as Linux. Working a couple hours here and there is NOT at all the same thing as working full time at it, without interruption. If I had to develop code for work like that, I would't be nearly as productive. Most of the truely productive Linux, and other open source developers, are also those that work few hours, if at all. This represents a very small part of the population.
In summary, my concerns are: will, desire, size, focus, and organization. All of them are very daunting tasks in and of themselves.
Haha, funny!
I'd love to see MS fail (due to competition or _fair_ justicial action against them) and I'd also like, in theory, to see Linux succeed. My problem is simply that I think Linux and Open Source/Free software is way way over-sold. Yes, Linux and some of these others packages do their jobs pretty well. But just because they do their jobs pretty well does not mean that, therefore, the Open Source model is fully capable of competing with propreitary software en masse. Frankly, I see a lot of problems both empirically and theoretically in Free/Open development in general. Not to mention the fact that there is very little that, in my opinion that really suggests that it's capable of scaling the kinds of development hurdles that even MS has managed to scale.
You add all these issues to the mix and I think Linux is, at best, a long shot.
I'll be that smug in 10+ years when it's basically where it is now.
While I too dislike the GPL and think it is bound to fail (in the sense that it will never reach its inspirations), I must say that your point of view is simply ridiculous.
First, the economic gains that we have made have not (for the most par) been in the form of increased employment of programmers and related staff. It is based on increased productivity. If GPL were to ever replace propreitary software in the work place, it would surely do it on the basis of increased efficiency. In other words, GPLs success would not hurt the economy, if anything it would help it, because it would have to be better to succeed. The number of lost shrink-wrapped programming positions would be relatively nominal and those programmers would almost certainly find other programming jobs developing software for corporations (which is where most programmers work).
Second, this point of view is simply ridiculous, assuming you do indeed believe in the free market. The free market is about letting the best product, service, or person win, free from arbitrary regulations, tarrifs, and the like. If it has enough staying power to really hurt programming positions, it is better, let it succeed. In the long run, we would all benefit.
That said, my reasons for disliking the GPL is as follows: First, I think advocates and defenders of its license are rather disingenuous in their defense. They claim GPL is a gift. Well fine, it is a gift, no one is making any one use it. But it is a limited gift, in the sense that it puts all sorts of stipulations on its use that do not exist naturally, in any shape, way, or form. What's more, their authority to enforce those limitations (which is really the only way they differentiate GPL from any other number of open licenses) is based on the same laws that proprietary software is based on. Second, its current sofware is of limited use to the vast majority of the public, not to mention myself. [The proof is in the pudding, how many people actually use it? Baring daemons like sendmail, apache, and the like, which are being replaced]. Third, it does its damnest to prevent investment in software, since the backers have very little chance of making a satisfactory return. [Yes, we've all heard the support argument, but how does _actually_ funding software development entitle you to "support" any better than anyone else? Sure, RedHat, IBM, and the like have made some, but it's chump change, not nearly as much as propreitary software gets per user hour.]. Fourth, it's organization is severely hampered by its openness. As contradictory as that sounds, there is real value in having CENTRALIZED control. While de-centralization itself can be a virtue, I judge this to be far less valuable than loss of centralization.
In other words, I don't see GPL as a credible threat to programmers. I also don't see it as a credible threat or benefit to consumers. Some companies may try it, a handful of people may lose their jobs, some GPL (or free) software may be thrown into the laps of consumers, but, by and large, it will not reach large enough proprortions to be terribly relevant to anyone.
"No time for play", The Economist
Irrelevant? Hardly.
Yeah well, you also don't hear about all the settlements. If you really want a good feel for how much medical malpractice cases _really_ cost, look at the going rates for malpractice insurance. In Philadelphia, it _averages_ in excess of 100k in many fields of medicine. Yes, that's for just ONE physician.
Sure, if the doctor or the hospital is negligent then the doctor and/or hospital should pay. However, be aware that accidents DO happen, many are simply unavoidable. Many of these awards are awarded when there is virtually nothing the doctor or the hospital could reasonably do to prevent them from occurring in the future. As long as this is true, the practice of arbitrarily awarding punitive damages is simply ridiculous. Besides just being unfair to the medical profession, it really HURTS everyone (other than the crooked ambulance chasers and such). Many doctors in Philadelphia, for instance, have been unable to generate the volume to cover the malpractice insurance premiums, forcing them to retire or move out of the city.
The current system is really screwed up. While I will not claim that doctors and hospitals do not make mistakes, these are the exceptions to the rule. The current tort system (if you could call it that) with its unpredictable juries, often poorly educated judges, "professional witnesses", arbitrary awarding of punitive damages, and other things does very little to actually discourage real negligence. Meanwhile it effectively taxes everyone. Because it's so unpredictable, costly (in terms of lawyer fees), and time consuming, the insurers, hospitals, and doctors have no choice but to settle the vast majority of the time. It is a system that is ripe for fraud.
Do you not find those adds on TV just a little ridiculous? "Have you been injured?...." Translation: "Can you concieve of any injury or trauma, no matter how little it has effected you (or whether or not it really happened), that we can play the malpractice lotto with?"
blah
There are many fields in the business community that require an MBA to even land the job, never mind having a reasonable chance of getting ahead. For instance, to: become a venture capitalist with a well respected firm, make partner (or MD) at a respectable investment banking firm, land an upepr management position at (most) large corporations, CFO at mid-to-upper level corporations, etc, etc, etc.
Anyways, I have a degree in Finance and I'm seriously considering getting an MBA, and not because I love school [I happen to think that much of it is redundant, unnecessary, or flaky]. Stupid? Hardly. Maybe if you want to work in a staff position your entire life it's fine, but for many of the better paying / more rewarding jobs out there, it's extremely helpful.
Again, you're misguided. Neither Wal-mart nor the mom and pop retail stores are capable of driving a local economy. Towns need a more substantial industry, like agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Where do you think all the money comes from?
Furthermore, Wal-mart employs people too. They also, clearly, still largely provide the same services. Just because Wal-mart now owns the majority of the retail operations in town does not mean the economy goes "poof".
No, this is not the end of the story. You neglected the part where thousands of customers REPEATEDLY shop at Wal-mart, by choice, despite the fact that the "better" mom and pops exist. You suppose this is mind control or something. It comes down to the fact that most consumers would rather have more variety, cheaper, and faster, then what the mom and pops offer (better service in some ways, but not in many ways).
Nor do I, that is your right. But that does not mean that you should attempt to stifle free trade in favor of protectionist policies.
they spend millions constructing a Wal-mart in a town so feeble that the bulk of its economy falls when the competing mom and pops go out of business. Besides the fact that this runs against economic wisdom, namely that their increased efficiency would ultimately BENEFIT the local economy [even in the short run, a mom and pop is but a drop in the bucket of the markets that they invest in], it simply does not make financial sense to invest in such a town. Their margins are not that high and the cash outlays are too great for them to even break even in the situation that you suggest.
Wal-mart may not be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that Wal-mart serves these towns better than the competition. The proof is in the pudding, people vote with their feet. They may like a few unique goods and services that only the mom and pop can provide, but they do not enjoy it enough to effectively subsidize them by paying consistently higher prices. Thus, Wal-mart continues to thrive, while many mom and pops dwindle away.
It's Forward-Looking InfraRed. While I'm inclined to agree with the Supreme Court majority on this one, it is a PASSIVE technology, meaning that it does no more than pickup infrared emitted from the houses. Is this really any different than, say, using cannines to pickup a scent?
Speaking for myself, at least, it depends on the circumstances. If the police are combing neighborhoods with such intensive methods (be they dogs, FLIR, or what have you), then yes, this strikes me as being an abuse of privacy. On the other hand, if it is a suspected growing location, a very specific target, then I'm not ready to rush to their defense.
and that is the problem. Listen, you can dismiss this poster if you wish, but that does not mean that everything is just peachy. The litigousness of this country is, in my view, one of the greatest threats to this country. You may think it has no impact, but if you were either in a position of a responsibility or a little more perspective you'd realize that it impacts you too. These are much more than just isolated incidents.
For instance, 10 to 20 years ago, you could go to a neighborhood pool and have a reasonable chance of finding a diving board or a slide. These days, they're almost entirely gone.
You want a cup of coffee? Sorry, you can't have that as hot as you like, restraunts have reacted too.
I know physicians with unblemished records, in Philadelphia, that pay in excess of 100k dollars a year in malpractice insurance. The average is somewhere around 60k a year. Guess where that money comes from? Out the physicians pocket? Ultimately, much of it comes out of yours. Though many of them simply cannot manage it and have been effectively been forced to close down.
You want to startup a medical devices or biotech company? Better checkout the insurance costs there.
I could go on, better let me lay it out for you. It discourages people from investing money. It makes hard working people that much less wealthy, because they have to pay high premiums just to stay in business. It creates watered down products. It takes away the consumers right to decide matters for himself, since everything will eventually get watered down so that the biggest idiots can not possibly hurt themselves (or even claim that they did). Even charities and non-profits have had to make cutbacks of all sorts, just to minimize their exposure.
These effects are real and undeniable. I do not see how anyone can defend it. It does little to help those that are truely injured--it is too slow and too inefficient, too much of the money ends up in the lawyers pockets too.
In any event, I have heard all sorts of RMS speeches, I'm not the least bit impressed with his speaking ability. While I am hardly blown away with Bill Gates' abilities (granted, most of the speaking that I've heard from him is for public consumption/marketing), reading between the lines, it is quite clear to me that he has a reasonable facility to get his point across, even when his position is not terribly strong. I believe that if you gave this man something as well studied, documented, and supported as intellectual property (in general, remember, not defending MS' crime(s))., that he would wipe RMS off the floor, at least so far as 99% of the audience is concerned. You should at least recognize that RMS is an idealist in the extreme, this severely constrains his ability to be a persuasive speaker, especially when the audience is so clearly opposed to his position. He does not have the credibility.
Umm, I'd say this depends entirely on what kind of academic you're talking about. Furthermore, merely being coherant is not enough, one can be coherant without being a persuasive or correct. Whereas it's very hard to be a succesfull business leader without having that serious powers of persuasion, not to mention the ability to read, write, and think coherantly, the ability to get to the point quickly, etc.
No, I don't think Gates is any sort of visionary. Yes, I think MS is a monopoly and such. In short, I would not put Gates on top of the list of best business leaders, not by a long short. But I have to give the man some credit...Even MS takes considerable skill to run. It is a very large organization and it hasn't stayed where it is magically, even with a strong monopoly position. Contrast this with RMS, he can afford to simply state his opinion and let it stand. Furthermore, I would argue that RMS' role in propping up free software has had less to do with him, then with the likes of Torvalds, Cox, and others. If it weren't for them, I think GNU would be very obscure these days. Not only can he afford to simply state "that is the way it is, it's my way or the highway", but he's been doing it for years. Enough said, bye