Because the hardware is (unnecessarily) so expensive. People recognize that the hardware does not contribute to the Mac experience, and want to make one themselves (or have one made for them) to save some cash.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a hackintosh?
Unfortunately your argument relies on the fact that the person talking is the Sony CEO. Some independent artist could have said exactly the same speech -- then you'd be left with nothing. Here's my take.
And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.
Not going to deny that.
The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.
He's still making a good case.
Yes, I'll agree that HE is unhappy because he will be making less money. But it's pretty naive to think that independent artists' content would not have been pirated just as much as major business content.
I tried with Linux. It works, after a fashion, but you get really tired of constantly working around glitches and gotchas.
Thank you! Someone understands!
I want an OS that just works. For me, Windows just works. There has not been a time when I've use a Linux machine and not had some glitch or workaround to overcome.
Do governments assume that there is some inherent advantage to the source code being kept secret and copyrightedâ"security through obscurity, perhaps?
People usually go with the familiar. When your entire workforce knows how to use Microsoft software already, you aren't going to dump FOSS on them. Any money you saved would be lost to person hours learning the new software.
Does it seem irrational that your state continues to contract the same company to produce police cruisers? No, they just go with what already works.
I am tired of these implicit assumptions that FOSS is better than proprietary/closed source. You assume that because you have an FOSS product that you automatically have more people testing your it.
A large company just released a RC for their new OS. It's a closed source and proprietary product and it's being tested for free by more people than your product is (admittedly). You should check it out.
Furthermore, open source only matters for testing when your testers are actually doing white box. Unless your free testers are staring at code all day trying to force defects, it's all in vein.
As I understand, one of the main reasons Final Fantasy was exclusive for PS1 was because of the space available on CD media for cut scenes as opposed to cartridge media.
Exclusivity is fine, but exclusivity DEALS are not. The Final Fantasy exclusivity was more because Square needed the technology. This is different from a deal, where there is no real reason for it besides the console maker's benefit.
What about Halo? I believe it was originally a Mac only title, then Microsoft bought it. We could say that Microsoft wouldn't be where they are today without exclusivity deals.
Imagine the marketplace being flooded with choices, of phones that can do as much as the iPhone, yet cost hundreds less (unlocked of course) and including features not currently found in most phones (open hardware*, dual-sim slots, etc). The USA could easily be first in the technology market, if our lawmakers weren't in the pocketbooks of the RIAA, MPAA and other backwards lobby groups.
You're basically saying that it's OK for a company to work on a product for years, only to release it and make no revenue because someone else created knock-offs on the cheap.
Now, imagine that every company is doing this. Now we have two types of companies: the ones innovating and inventing, but not making any money, and the ones ripping off everyone else, who may or may not be making money.
It doesn't take a genius to find out that this model of market would not succeed.
Statistical results, being correct or not, do not in any way justify racist beliefs. Whether or not it's true that are race scores higher than another in an area does not make a statement like:
The kids will do poorly because African-American culture rejects learning -- and rejects Western culture in general.
acceptable in any way.
If you're drawing conclusions from the results of the ENTIRE standardized testing results from one year and notice that (all other things being equal) one race scores consistently higher than another, it's perfectly valid to use those results in a discussion however unfair those results seem.
Open your eyes -- things aren't equal. And thus the results aren't justification at all.
The whole point of Facebook is to make what used to be an open field day on private information (geocities then myspace, etc.) a more private and protected one.
But this model of privacy miserably fails when people use Facebook the way they do today. People add whoever the hell asks to their friends list. That's why you see 200+ friends and the person barely knows most of them, having no idea who the rest are.
Furthermore not everyone has their profile as a private one -- the public are viewable by all.
A lot of people here are complaining that the plagarism detection tools aren't fair.
Tell me, has anyone here actually been punished for plargarism incorrectly due to one of these tools? And I mean punished, not just wrongly accused.
I really think that nobody has anything to complain about. Sure, debate over which tools are better, but don't say they are unfair. It's far better for professors to err on the side of caution.
On another note, it's a good thing that these tools are not transparent. Transparency may give people the ability to get around plagarism detection.
The same thing happened to me in a programming class I took last year.
My friend and I had worked together on every group programming assignment/project through university, and we took the exact same courses, too. When we handed in an individual assignment one time, the prof thought we had collaborated on the work.
We thought so much alike that we made the exact same errors in our programs, which is what caused the prof to target us. Luckily we explained the situation and the professor let us off the hook.
What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers. As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world.
I would say that Apple, not Verizon, is the major reason that Verizon still won't get the iPhone for awhile.
Apple has a history of only wanting to support one option for its customers, for unknown reasons. Most likely because they can reduce testing and development strain while still having a high quality product. I think Apple would only want to make one version of the iPhone because it's just easier.
Not to say that Apple couldn't do it. They just won't. Just like we've seen them leave out simple features that customers want (cut & paste), just because it's easier for them. RIM has made differently networked BlackBerry models for carriers many times before, mostly with flawless results. So it is perfectly possible.
... adding unneeded [innovation] to certain games is not justifiable.
Why is it not justifiable? Innovation is added to attract other gamers, much like the newest special effects are meant to attract other moviegoers. It is one of many ways of making a game stand out from others. If developers found that their innovation was going nowhere (ie: not increasing the value of their company) they would have stopped by now.
Games are becoming more complicated than ever. I for one welcome innovation, as I think it is required to make the newest games playable.
I guess the author must like to see the same menus, with the same mechanics, and the same screens in every game he plays.
It's one thing to just steal a CD from a store. It's completely different to go ahead and upload those tracks to the internet for free distribution to millions of people.
The whole point here is that customers should have the choice of their OS on a computer and not have it bundled with a particular OS. If you start bundling with one OS, obviously Vista here, you're automatically producing an unbalanced market in an already dominated one.
In this case the market isn't unbalanced, but simply unfair to the customers.
OS Development is an industry of its own. Such a move of bundling Vista, Linux, or any other OSX with nearly every customer available computer on the market would be considered antitrust in other industries.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Because the hardware is (unnecessarily) so expensive. People recognize that the hardware does not contribute to the Mac experience, and want to make one themselves (or have one made for them) to save some cash.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a hackintosh?
I was just making a point: The grandparent conveniently scoots around the issue that piracy is wrong, and instead attacks the Sony CEO.
Yes, large businesses essentially leech off of content producers, but that doesn't make stealing from them right.
Unfortunately your argument relies on the fact that the person talking is the Sony CEO. Some independent artist could have said exactly the same speech -- then you'd be left with nothing. Here's my take.
And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.
Not going to deny that.
The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.
He's still making a good case.
Yes, I'll agree that HE is unhappy because he will be making less money. But it's pretty naive to think that independent artists' content would not have been pirated just as much as major business content.
-z9, how user-friendly!
I tried with Linux. It works, after a fashion, but you get really tired of constantly working around glitches and gotchas.
Thank you! Someone understands!
I want an OS that just works. For me, Windows just works. There has not been a time when I've use a Linux machine and not had some glitch or workaround to overcome.
Dogs have to stick together to fight the true evil: cars driving by their property!
Do governments assume that there is some inherent advantage to the source code being kept secret and copyrightedâ"security through obscurity, perhaps?
People usually go with the familiar. When your entire workforce knows how to use Microsoft software already, you aren't going to dump FOSS on them. Any money you saved would be lost to person hours learning the new software.
Does it seem irrational that your state continues to contract the same company to produce police cruisers? No, they just go with what already works.
I am tired of these implicit assumptions that FOSS is better than proprietary/closed source. You assume that because you have an FOSS product that you automatically have more people testing your it.
A large company just released a RC for their new OS. It's a closed source and proprietary product and it's being tested for free by more people than your product is (admittedly). You should check it out.
Furthermore, open source only matters for testing when your testers are actually doing white box. Unless your free testers are staring at code all day trying to force defects, it's all in vein.
As I understand, one of the main reasons Final Fantasy was exclusive for PS1 was because of the space available on CD media for cut scenes as opposed to cartridge media.
Exclusivity is fine, but exclusivity DEALS are not. The Final Fantasy exclusivity was more because Square needed the technology. This is different from a deal, where there is no real reason for it besides the console maker's benefit.
What about Halo? I believe it was originally a Mac only title, then Microsoft bought it. We could say that Microsoft wouldn't be where they are today without exclusivity deals.
Imagine the marketplace being flooded with choices, of phones that can do as much as the iPhone, yet cost hundreds less (unlocked of course) and including features not currently found in most phones (open hardware*, dual-sim slots, etc). The USA could easily be first in the technology market, if our lawmakers weren't in the pocketbooks of the RIAA, MPAA and other backwards lobby groups.
You're basically saying that it's OK for a company to work on a product for years, only to release it and make no revenue because someone else created knock-offs on the cheap.
Now, imagine that every company is doing this. Now we have two types of companies: the ones innovating and inventing, but not making any money, and the ones ripping off everyone else, who may or may not be making money.
It doesn't take a genius to find out that this model of market would not succeed.
Statistical results, being correct or not, do not in any way justify racist beliefs. Whether or not it's true that are race scores higher than another in an area does not make a statement like:
The kids will do poorly because African-American culture rejects learning -- and rejects Western culture in general.
acceptable in any way.
If you're drawing conclusions from the results of the ENTIRE standardized testing results from one year and notice that (all other things being equal) one race scores consistently higher than another, it's perfectly valid to use those results in a discussion however unfair those results seem.
Open your eyes -- things aren't equal. And thus the results aren't justification at all.
The whole point of Facebook is to make what used to be an open field day on private information (geocities then myspace, etc.) a more private and protected one.
But this model of privacy miserably fails when people use Facebook the way they do today. People add whoever the hell asks to their friends list. That's why you see 200+ friends and the person barely knows most of them, having no idea who the rest are.
Furthermore not everyone has their profile as a private one -- the public are viewable by all.
In the BlackBerry browser if a phone number is displayed it becomes underlined. Select it and you will be given the option to call.
BlackBerry has all of the features of the iPhone and more -- they just don'y excessively flaunt everything they have like Apple does.
I love how Apple is always like "We have X feature... BOOM" and I'm like "I could do that on my 5 year old device."
Nice interface, but how do you select stuff? I mean you can highlight whatever you want, but where's the push/click/activate?
If they added a bit of gesture recognition, that would be awesome.
A lot of people here are complaining that the plagarism detection tools aren't fair.
Tell me, has anyone here actually been punished for plargarism incorrectly due to one of these tools? And I mean punished, not just wrongly accused.
I really think that nobody has anything to complain about. Sure, debate over which tools are better, but don't say they are unfair. It's far better for professors to err on the side of caution.
On another note, it's a good thing that these tools are not transparent. Transparency may give people the ability to get around plagarism detection.
The same thing happened to me in a programming class I took last year.
My friend and I had worked together on every group programming assignment/project through university, and we took the exact same courses, too. When we handed in an individual assignment one time, the prof thought we had collaborated on the work.
We thought so much alike that we made the exact same errors in our programs, which is what caused the prof to target us. Luckily we explained the situation and the professor let us off the hook.
What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers. As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world.
I would say that Apple, not Verizon, is the major reason that Verizon still won't get the iPhone for awhile.
Apple has a history of only wanting to support one option for its customers, for unknown reasons. Most likely because they can reduce testing and development strain while still having a high quality product. I think Apple would only want to make one version of the iPhone because it's just easier.
Not to say that Apple couldn't do it. They just won't. Just like we've seen them leave out simple features that customers want (cut & paste), just because it's easier for them. RIM has made differently networked BlackBerry models for carriers many times before, mostly with flawless results. So it is perfectly possible.
The Army gets their apps from the Appory! Get it? Armory... Appory... OK, that was a horrible pun.
Yes. This is yet another article which attempts to get reads by forcefully going against popular opinion, through the stretching of word definitions.
Individual or Eco-System!? I've got a better idea: I'm going to sleep to give my individually ecological ecosystem a rest. Yawn...
... adding unneeded [innovation] to certain games is not justifiable.
Why is it not justifiable? Innovation is added to attract other gamers, much like the newest special effects are meant to attract other moviegoers. It is one of many ways of making a game stand out from others. If developers found that their innovation was going nowhere (ie: not increasing the value of their company) they would have stopped by now.
Games are becoming more complicated than ever. I for one welcome innovation, as I think it is required to make the newest games playable.
I guess the author must like to see the same menus, with the same mechanics, and the same screens in every game he plays.
It's one thing to just steal a CD from a store. It's completely different to go ahead and upload those tracks to the internet for free distribution to millions of people.
I would say no.
In Canada about 5 years ago the price of a newly released game was $80 CAD. Now it's $50-60 CAD. And now the games have more content than ever!
We've had this tech working in Ontario Canada for years now on highway 407.
The whole point here is that customers should have the choice of their OS on a computer and not have it bundled with a particular OS. If you start bundling with one OS, obviously Vista here, you're automatically producing an unbalanced market in an already dominated one.
In this case the market isn't unbalanced, but simply unfair to the customers.
OS Development is an industry of its own. Such a move of bundling Vista, Linux, or any other OSX with nearly every customer available computer on the market would be considered antitrust in other industries.