From the Yahoo! article: ``under stringent control, adult products have been available through Yahoo! Shopping for more than two years.''
Seems that they're more interested in covering their rears in terms of non-adult access, as well as getting some free advertising via "reports" on news sites.
The real answer to your question goes like this: No one (other than maybe some Slashdot reader) buys operating systems. People buy applications and then chose the operating system that best runs those applications.
I think at this stage of the game, the mass appeal of new PCs are because of "OS-independent" applications, such as browsing the WWW, e-mail, ICQ/AIM, etc. A combination of market pervasiveness, familiarity, and majority exposure drives these customers to pick a Windows PC over a Mac/Linux box.
Also, I find it interesting that MS spent plenty of time making sure their anti-piracy system will work for Win XP but they didn't have enough extra programmers to integrate USB 2.0 (which has been highly hyped for well over a year now).
When management on high decrees a RTM date, and when the time/value-add ratio is low enough, it's pushed back to a service pack. I mean, I'd love a 3D shell, integrated VR visualizations, and a Pokemon screensaver, but I'm in the minority, and MS has to target a majority of the OSs current + future users.
Ironic that this is the same tenent that thousands of HCI/UI researchers preach to their students (and understudies) every day.
The idea of a great product is that it makes something easier for the end user. UIs have made or broken otherwise functionally excellent apps simply because they were hard as hell to use.
If MS's evil is to sell to the lazy, then what company appeals to the Rube Goldbergs of the world?
IMHO, this is another case of the tech bubble bursting as a result of too much supply over slow growth in demand. DSL customers are out there and want service, and these numbers will grow (unless new technology is better/faster/cheaper). Unfortunately, too many ISPs jumped on the bandwidth bandwagon to provide high speed access.
Many thought they could purchase enough unbundled network elements (UNEs) to steal away competition from the big names. This practice, much like purchasing UNEs to undercut long distance competitors, has caused the demise of many small telecoms. The added technological complications of DSL has made it even more difficult for small competitors to turn a profit.
However, I don't see the entire DSL supply chain imploding over this weed-out session.
Save the telecom act of '96, lots of our current regulations are based off of the original 1934 act (which was based on the Radio act of some years before). I agree that the laws are dated; however, the FCC has done a fairly good job of updating its Titles/Sections to handle new technologies (cable, for example).
A change in the spectrum layout may increase efficiency, but requires lots of time, effort, and money to make sure the least number of parties are negatively affected as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Yahoo! article:
``under stringent control, adult products have been available through Yahoo! Shopping for more than two years.''
Seems that they're more interested in covering their rears in terms of non-adult access, as well as getting some free advertising via "reports" on news sites.
The real answer to your question goes like this: No one (other than maybe some Slashdot reader) buys operating systems. People buy applications and then chose the operating system that best runs those applications.
I think at this stage of the game, the mass appeal of new PCs are because of "OS-independent" applications, such as browsing the WWW, e-mail, ICQ/AIM, etc. A combination of market pervasiveness, familiarity, and majority exposure drives these customers to pick a Windows PC over a Mac/Linux box.
Also, I find it interesting that MS spent plenty of time making sure their anti-piracy system will work for Win XP but they didn't have enough extra programmers to integrate USB 2.0 (which has been highly hyped for well over a year now).
When management on high decrees a RTM date, and when the time/value-add ratio is low enough, it's pushed back to a service pack. I mean, I'd love a 3D shell, integrated VR visualizations, and a Pokemon screensaver, but I'm in the minority, and MS has to target a majority of the OSs current + future users.
Well, way to go for them to be abstract and modular in the design of their code...oh wait... =)
Don't sell people short - think of all of these poor idiots...
I've found a nice, gullible, pizza-loving roommate will reboot my machines as often as necessary and for rather trivial amounts of food.
Sorry, he's not open-source. =)
They sell to "we make it easier for you".
Ironic that this is the same tenent that thousands of HCI/UI researchers preach to their students (and understudies) every day.
The idea of a great product is that it makes something easier for the end user. UIs have made or broken otherwise functionally excellent apps simply because they were hard as hell to use.
If MS's evil is to sell to the lazy, then what company appeals to the Rube Goldbergs of the world?
Yes, they are, and I cringe every time I see them. Just because something is common doesn't make it "right".
IMHO, this is another case of the tech bubble bursting as a result of too much supply over slow growth in demand. DSL customers are out there and want service, and these numbers will grow (unless new technology is better/faster/cheaper). Unfortunately, too many ISPs jumped on the bandwidth bandwagon to provide high speed access.
Many thought they could purchase enough unbundled network elements (UNEs) to steal away competition from the big names. This practice, much like purchasing UNEs to undercut long distance competitors, has caused the demise of many small telecoms. The added technological complications of DSL has made it even more difficult for small competitors to turn a profit.
However, I don't see the entire DSL supply chain imploding over this weed-out session.
Don't forget the lobbyists!
Save the telecom act of '96, lots of our current regulations are based off of the original 1934 act (which was based on the Radio act of some years before). I agree that the laws are dated; however, the FCC has done a fairly good job of updating its Titles/Sections to handle new technologies (cable, for example).
A change in the spectrum layout may increase efficiency, but requires lots of time, effort, and money to make sure the least number of parties are negatively affected as a result.
But, but...as Independence Day showed us, all aliens use Macs. There's no way we'll break MacOS encryption!