This continued on well into the 1990's even after Linux became a viable OS. Basically MS would make deals with (or rather threaten) people that stated that if they sold ANY COMPUTER with anything other than Windows they would go out of their way to make it next to impossible for them to sell Windows by jacking up their bulk Windows rate to the point where no one would buy hardware from them.
Even if an OEM sold 1000:1 Windows preinstalls to Linux preinstalls, they would hold the OEM license hostage in an effort to squash other OS's from entering the marketplace fairly and squarely.
Again, they were using their OS monopoly to bully OEMs into playing their game. If they didn't play ball, they would go out of their way to crush them. Monopoly abuse. Plain and simple.
We live in a very connected world and the tools necessary to create media are inexpensive and plentiful. The opportunity to generate revenue from media is also becoming pervasive.
This is also a post-modern world where media is lifted from it's original context and reused to the point where the original work rarely has meaning anymore. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa, but very few people have actually seen it in person. people make judgments on the Mona Lisa as a work of art after having seen it reprinted in books, magazines, on websites... you name it. They have opinions on the work of art without ever having actually seen it in person.
To remove copyright and place all artistic creations into the public domain would be a huge social and economic shift. If any artistic creation goes into the public domain and anyone can use and re-use artistic works not of their creation for monetary gain, you would see less creation of works of art. Artists would still do their artwork because they need to scratch that creative itch, but their output would be far less frequent and the quality would probably be lower as they would not hone their technique as much because they are busy working day jobs.
Worse yet, the public probably wouldn't see or hear any of this because it would displayed only for friends and family only most likely.
In a capitalist society, people want to make a buck for the least amount of effort. With the ability to copy, deconstruct and redistribute creative works so easily, the masses of creatively untalented people with computers could very easily manipulate the works of artists, repackage it and make money off of it while the artists themselves make nothing or very little.
Decry copyright all you want, but if creative types can't protect their work from other people making money off of it with them seeing nothing in return, the incentive to create and publicize your work diminishes drastically.
Where do you separate art from commerce? Does a commercial photographer who does food shots have to release their work into the public domain just because it's a photograph? Does the client who purchased the photographer's services and product not claim a right for the sole use of those images?
Why should an artist ever lose control of their work during their lifetime? To enrich society? Maybe I'm just jaded, but why would I want to hand over the use of my works of art to a culture so enamored of disposable pop music, pituitary cases running after balls and fast food?
Why should someone with a computer and some software be able to take a I song, a painting, a photograph that I wrote and redistribute it without my knowledge and make money at it?
Going back to original intent of copyright and state's rights and all that is fine as a historical study in governmental theory, but what everyone (I'm looking at you Ron Paul) needs to realize is that the Constitution and many of the "protections and societal guarantees" we enjoy come from a very old document that has not been overhauled in a very long time and is getting long in the tooth due to over-legislation.
Art is not like a road or any type of infrastructure that is used by the public. It's goal is to enrich society and if we make it so that artists cannot protect their work and put a roof over their heads and stay fed, well, what is the incentive to create art AND make it public.
A patron style system won't really work either as patrons tend to hoard art and only the patron, the artist and the family and friends of the patron benefit from the creations. While I believe in public, government support of the arts is a worthwhile endeavor, I don't believe it can be the only incentive and protection for creative work. If that's the only incentive, it becomes a job and only a certain few will be able to reap any sort of monetary reward from their works as they will need to be chosen by a bureaucracy. Nothing more could de-incentivize art than
So again... for music. When it's released, it sells well. As it gets older, the demand for it drops off. So... the older it gets, the less money it makes, the more you have to pay to protect it.
Might as well abolish copyright altogether and just let everyone rip off everyone else's work whenever they want.
So if the Melvins put out a new album, could afford the copyright for 10 years and then at year eleven, you have people grabbing the songs and slapping 'em on compilations and selling them for cheap and the band sees none of that money... that is somehow right and justified?
I'm sorry, but that is the definition of WRONG to me./. really needs to get off copyright issues because the discussion is far too polluted with "I want to be able to use Mickey Mouse's likeness" and "I refuse to pay for software and deserve to have Photoshop for free on Linux with Adobe sending me a meat and cheese sampler every month for the rest of my life. I mean. Come on. I DESERVE at least that."
The signal to noise ratio is too far out of whack.
So, let's take the Jagger/Richards songwriting team. They have music that is over 40 years old. Some of their stuff is 10-15 years out of copyright according to this definition. They are still alive, still performing this music.
Should newer bands be able to flat out use Jagger/Richards songs for free and make a profit at it even when these two are still alive? (Whether or not Richards is still actually alive is another debate altogether!)
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that on principle. The Stones are legends and are massive influences on rock and pop music as we currently know it. For them not to be able to reap the benefits of that for at least their lifetime just seems wrong to me.
Why should a band who doesn't have what it takes to write original music be able to wholesale benefit/profit from the musical talent of The Stones while they're still alive?
Too much of the anti-copyright rhetoric smacks of self-entitlement. "I want to be able to use Mickey Mouse's likeness rather than create my own animated character." "I want to re-write Paint It Black because writing my own material is too hard." "I want to buy a $10 used DVD and start a movie theater in my garage with my $200 projector because creating a real theater experience is just too expensive." "I deserve this!"
So much of this smacks of wanting to make a fast buck off of someone else's labor.
I agree that current copyright law is a mess, but most of the propositions people are making are so unrealistic.
If you were making something that captured the imagination of the world, trust me... I don't care how OSS you are... you would want it protected and would want to reap the rewards of your creativity and hard work for at least as long as it remains relevant and/or entertaining in the eyes of the audience.
Demanding that the source code be published for all software copyrights? Yeah right! I'm all for open source software as a business practice, but mandating that all companies operate this way is just too interventionist even for me.
A) It's a piece of garbage compared to Final Cut B) Final Cut Express killed it with better features at a lower price point C) Adobe screwed themselves over in the Mac market by killing it and the bringing it back when Apple went to Intel D) Everyone was switching to Final Cut Pro anyway back in 2002 because even though it cost more, you could actually efficiently cut a feature length film in it E) Final Cut Pro (v3 on) actually imported and dealt with Adobe file formats better than Premiere did!
Adobe would have been better off rolling the timeline editing aspects of Premiere into AfterEffects to create a true competitor to the Discreet (now Autodesk) line of applications rather than go toe to toe with Apple and Avid in straight up non-linear digital video editing.
For my editing students who insist on working in a Windows world, I urge them to learn Avid over Premiere as Avid is still the industry heavyweight on both platforms in Hollywood and a far more robust editing platform to boot.
Actually, the/. crowd is pretty good at using the term monopoly properly. Monopolies are not illegal. MS having a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems was never illegal. It was the result of aggressive business practices.
It was when they leveraged their OS monopoly to push Netscape out of the browser market that they got themselves into a legal bind. They used their market dominating power in the field of desktop operating systems to crush competition in the burgeoning market for web browsers. They didn't have a product that held a candle to a much smaller and less cash flush competitor, so rather than create a competitive product, they bolted IE into the operating system and gave it away for free thus hamstringing Netscape's ability to compete and essentially cut off any revenue stream they had to keep them afloat.
This was a flagrant violation of antitrust law. They used the power of their legal monopoly in one market to very aggressively crush competition in a market in which they were unable to compete fairly.
There is nothing finely honed about this definition of a monopoly. Microsoft was accused, tried and convicted of antitrust violations and were basically let off the hook by the Bush Administration's DoJ.
If Google tried to acquire Yahoo! or Apple tried to acquire Adobe, trust me, you'd see Microsoft screaming ANTITRUST VIOLATION so loud, we'd all go deaf. And they'd probably be justified in those claims as either of those acquisitions would really radically change the face of the software world.
There are very few companies in the world that wield a level of monopoly power even close to what Microsoft has. I can't think of a single software company that even comes close.
For all intents and purposes, Windows runs the world's computers. Like it or not. Entire industries... not just individual companies... but entire industries are tied into MS wholesale and if MS wants to change the game on these people, they either have to take it, or suffer some very serious growing pains switching to OSS alternatives or Apple alternatives. Transitions which can devastate a company. The companies that are voluntarily doing this... bravo. Smart bunch!
That is A LOT of power and the potential for abuse is huge and MS has proven they are not above abusing that power. They have been tried and convicted for it already. There is precedent, but a lack of enforcement.
Back in the mid to late 90's... pre iMac and pre iPod MS actually grossed more cash off their peripheral sales than Apple did in actual computer sales.
It is a discussion of the merits of OS X Server and BSD and I'm asking you to make an argument based off of specific points.
OS X is Mach based with some BSD therefore you should use BSD is not a very well thought out argument.
Point by point what makes BSD the better server OS?
I'm not making a case for either BSD or OS X Server. I would honestly like to know why you think BSD would be preferable to OS X server, but I need more than what you offered.
Re:The best indicator of my enjoyment of a film...
on
Iron Man Released
·
· Score: 1
The biggest problem with Transformers was a severe lacking of Transformers in the film.
There just weren't enough of them and they got way too little screen time.
List your points. Make an argument. Detail your opinion.
What you said pretty much amounts to something like, "Cake is pointless because I like pie".
Re:I have mixed feelings about this.
on
Iron Man Released
·
· Score: 1
I guess this is the beginning of people not wanting the Big Screen experience. It's sad.
Some movies are just meant to be seen 80 feet wide by 45 feet tall (or some variation of the 16:9 aspect ration). It's usually the big blockbusters too that are insanely graphically rich.
The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, any comic book movie, etc. True, any of these will be decent on a large screen at home, but you don't get the overwhelming experience that you get when you watch something from the 9th row center at a huge-screened movie theater.
It's called typecasting... been around since the birth of theater and film.
Get used to it.
If a "type" played by a specific actor is bankable... count on that actor playing that part A LOT.
Re:Screen credits aren't just there to annoy you
on
Iron Man Released
·
· Score: 1
I work in film/video production and post production and have had gaffer and best boy jobs and those are the two credits I wanted more than my editor, producer or directing credits.
Working in film production is actually pretty brutal work especially if you work in the grip, electric or camera departments... especially grip. The grips are the hardest working people on any set!
And the production assistants should never be overlooked. PA's are like indentured servants; being asked to do all the crap jobs on set that no one else wants to... and they do it for crap pay with very little thanks.
Q: How many grips does it take to change a lightbulb? A: None. That's electric.
If you get that, you work in film/video production.
"3rd reserve gaffer to the animal trainer's assistant coffee-wench"
I was really excited when I got my first best boy and gaffer credits. Those are actually pretty tough jobs. I REALLY want this position now. 3rd reserve gaffer?!?!?!?! Daily rate and the chance to probably never have to work at all and just hang out at the craft services table. AWESOME!
The idea of a gaffer working with an animal trainer assistant coffee wench is a sublimely absurd idea.
So the gaffer is responsible for managing the electrical planning for a production as well as the execution of the director of photography's lighting plans.
So this position would be the 3rd.. no 4th actually... person called in to manage the electrical and lighting needs of the animal trainer's assistant coffee wench.
What a brilliantly specific and pointless job. I love it!
I read comic books as a pre-teen and teenager. It was fun reading and got my imagination going. Iron Man, Daredevil and X-Men were my favorites. Then literature, trade periodicals and technical manuals started to dominate my reading. My tastes changed as I got older.
I'm not quite what all this whining about Johnny-Come-Lately fans is about. I probably haven't read an Iron Man comic in 20 years, but I'm excited about this movie and can claim to be a fan of the comic book, though not currently an active reader.
I don't understand why people get so possessive about their comic books, cartoons, music, etc. I heard and enjoyed Metallica, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Jane's Addiction and The Red Hot Chili Peppers LONG before any of those bands were popular and didn't get upset when most of those bands got popular.
True, they were no longer the little underground band that I could trot out to impress people with, but as long as they were making good music, who cares if they're popular? Metallica and RHCP pissed me off not by becoming wildly successful and popular, but because they stopped writing music that I enjoyed and started catering to the new fans with less underground or alternative tastes.
So, I'm sorry that the world is now crowded with new "long time" Iron Man fans, but really... get over it. Judge the movie by watching it and forming your own opinions and stop whining about the Johnny Come Latelies. It's all very inconsequential to anything.
The point is about support. If the average Mac user or Windows convert gets wind of this and starts buying it and has troubles with it and can't get reasonable support, it undercuts what getting an OS X box is supposed to be about... just being able to get work done with little hassle.
If some Windows convert gets one of these for it's price and it doesn't work like a Mac is supposed to... it undermines Apple's efforts at creating a positive and constructive computing environment.
If these things are as flaky as Windows on a bargain basement PC... that's not good. I'm not talking about inexpensive yet high performance home-built PC's made by professional techies. I'm talking about Windows users who, for budgetary reasons, buy the cheapest PC they can find to run Windows. If it behaves like those, that's not good and will harm Apple and OS X which are currently marketed as ridiculously easy to set up and use with a support system in place to help.
This thing is great for hobbyists who know what they're doing under the hood, but for the vast majority of casual users... this thing could be a nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
If you plan on publishing those photos anywhere, you need a release from that person or you're opening yourself up to a whole lot of legal trouble.
This continued on well into the 1990's even after Linux became a viable OS. Basically MS would make deals with (or rather threaten) people that stated that if they sold ANY COMPUTER with anything other than Windows they would go out of their way to make it next to impossible for them to sell Windows by jacking up their bulk Windows rate to the point where no one would buy hardware from them.
Even if an OEM sold 1000:1 Windows preinstalls to Linux preinstalls, they would hold the OEM license hostage in an effort to squash other OS's from entering the marketplace fairly and squarely.
Again, they were using their OS monopoly to bully OEMs into playing their game. If they didn't play ball, they would go out of their way to crush them. Monopoly abuse. Plain and simple.
We live in a very connected world and the tools necessary to create media are inexpensive and plentiful. The opportunity to generate revenue from media is also becoming pervasive.
This is also a post-modern world where media is lifted from it's original context and reused to the point where the original work rarely has meaning anymore. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa, but very few people have actually seen it in person. people make judgments on the Mona Lisa as a work of art after having seen it reprinted in books, magazines, on websites... you name it. They have opinions on the work of art without ever having actually seen it in person.
To remove copyright and place all artistic creations into the public domain would be a huge social and economic shift. If any artistic creation goes into the public domain and anyone can use and re-use artistic works not of their creation for monetary gain, you would see less creation of works of art. Artists would still do their artwork because they need to scratch that creative itch, but their output would be far less frequent and the quality would probably be lower as they would not hone their technique as much because they are busy working day jobs.
Worse yet, the public probably wouldn't see or hear any of this because it would displayed only for friends and family only most likely.
In a capitalist society, people want to make a buck for the least amount of effort. With the ability to copy, deconstruct and redistribute creative works so easily, the masses of creatively untalented people with computers could very easily manipulate the works of artists, repackage it and make money off of it while the artists themselves make nothing or very little.
Decry copyright all you want, but if creative types can't protect their work from other people making money off of it with them seeing nothing in return, the incentive to create and publicize your work diminishes drastically.
Where do you separate art from commerce? Does a commercial photographer who does food shots have to release their work into the public domain just because it's a photograph? Does the client who purchased the photographer's services and product not claim a right for the sole use of those images?
Why should an artist ever lose control of their work during their lifetime? To enrich society? Maybe I'm just jaded, but why would I want to hand over the use of my works of art to a culture so enamored of disposable pop music, pituitary cases running after balls and fast food?
Why should someone with a computer and some software be able to take a I song, a painting, a photograph that I wrote and redistribute it without my knowledge and make money at it?
Going back to original intent of copyright and state's rights and all that is fine as a historical study in governmental theory, but what everyone (I'm looking at you Ron Paul) needs to realize is that the Constitution and many of the "protections and societal guarantees" we enjoy come from a very old document that has not been overhauled in a very long time and is getting long in the tooth due to over-legislation.
Art is not like a road or any type of infrastructure that is used by the public. It's goal is to enrich society and if we make it so that artists cannot protect their work and put a roof over their heads and stay fed, well, what is the incentive to create art AND make it public.
A patron style system won't really work either as patrons tend to hoard art and only the patron, the artist and the family and friends of the patron benefit from the creations. While I believe in public, government support of the arts is a worthwhile endeavor, I don't believe it can be the only incentive and protection for creative work. If that's the only incentive, it becomes a job and only a certain few will be able to reap any sort of monetary reward from their works as they will need to be chosen by a bureaucracy. Nothing more could de-incentivize art than
I work at a post-production house... trust me. The opinion in the industry regarding Premiere is not pretty.
Bridge has a lot of potential as a very useful asset management tool. Would be nice to see them step it up a bit.
Good point. I forgot about the OEM dealings. Thanks for bringing that up.
So again... for music. When it's released, it sells well. As it gets older, the demand for it drops off. So... the older it gets, the less money it makes, the more you have to pay to protect it.
/. really needs to get off copyright issues because the discussion is far too polluted with "I want to be able to use Mickey Mouse's likeness" and "I refuse to pay for software and deserve to have Photoshop for free on Linux with Adobe sending me a meat and cheese sampler every month for the rest of my life. I mean. Come on. I DESERVE at least that."
Might as well abolish copyright altogether and just let everyone rip off everyone else's work whenever they want.
So if the Melvins put out a new album, could afford the copyright for 10 years and then at year eleven, you have people grabbing the songs and slapping 'em on compilations and selling them for cheap and the band sees none of that money... that is somehow right and justified?
I'm sorry, but that is the definition of WRONG to me.
The signal to noise ratio is too far out of whack.
So, let's take the Jagger/Richards songwriting team. They have music that is over 40 years old. Some of their stuff is 10-15 years out of copyright according to this definition. They are still alive, still performing this music.
Should newer bands be able to flat out use Jagger/Richards songs for free and make a profit at it even when these two are still alive? (Whether or not Richards is still actually alive is another debate altogether!)
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that on principle. The Stones are legends and are massive influences on rock and pop music as we currently know it. For them not to be able to reap the benefits of that for at least their lifetime just seems wrong to me.
Why should a band who doesn't have what it takes to write original music be able to wholesale benefit/profit from the musical talent of The Stones while they're still alive?
Too much of the anti-copyright rhetoric smacks of self-entitlement. "I want to be able to use Mickey Mouse's likeness rather than create my own animated character." "I want to re-write Paint It Black because writing my own material is too hard." "I want to buy a $10 used DVD and start a movie theater in my garage with my $200 projector because creating a real theater experience is just too expensive." "I deserve this!"
So much of this smacks of wanting to make a fast buck off of someone else's labor.
I agree that current copyright law is a mess, but most of the propositions people are making are so unrealistic.
If you were making something that captured the imagination of the world, trust me... I don't care how OSS you are... you would want it protected and would want to reap the rewards of your creativity and hard work for at least as long as it remains relevant and/or entertaining in the eyes of the audience.
Demanding that the source code be published for all software copyrights? Yeah right! I'm all for open source software as a business practice, but mandating that all companies operate this way is just too interventionist even for me.
And those of us who use Avid and FCP legally just keep laughing at people who either wasted their money or time (illegally downloading) on Premiere.
It's the CorelDraw of the editing world.
Premiere is really not a good example as:
A) It's a piece of garbage compared to Final Cut
B) Final Cut Express killed it with better features at a lower price point
C) Adobe screwed themselves over in the Mac market by killing it and the bringing it back when Apple went to Intel
D) Everyone was switching to Final Cut Pro anyway back in 2002 because even though it cost more, you could actually efficiently cut a feature length film in it
E) Final Cut Pro (v3 on) actually imported and dealt with Adobe file formats better than Premiere did!
Adobe would have been better off rolling the timeline editing aspects of Premiere into AfterEffects to create a true competitor to the Discreet (now Autodesk) line of applications rather than go toe to toe with Apple and Avid in straight up non-linear digital video editing.
For my editing students who insist on working in a Windows world, I urge them to learn Avid over Premiere as Avid is still the industry heavyweight on both platforms in Hollywood and a far more robust editing platform to boot.
Actually, the /. crowd is pretty good at using the term monopoly properly. Monopolies are not illegal. MS having a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems was never illegal. It was the result of aggressive business practices.
It was when they leveraged their OS monopoly to push Netscape out of the browser market that they got themselves into a legal bind. They used their market dominating power in the field of desktop operating systems to crush competition in the burgeoning market for web browsers. They didn't have a product that held a candle to a much smaller and less cash flush competitor, so rather than create a competitive product, they bolted IE into the operating system and gave it away for free thus hamstringing Netscape's ability to compete and essentially cut off any revenue stream they had to keep them afloat.
This was a flagrant violation of antitrust law. They used the power of their legal monopoly in one market to very aggressively crush competition in a market in which they were unable to compete fairly.
There is nothing finely honed about this definition of a monopoly. Microsoft was accused, tried and convicted of antitrust violations and were basically let off the hook by the Bush Administration's DoJ.
If Google tried to acquire Yahoo! or Apple tried to acquire Adobe, trust me, you'd see Microsoft screaming ANTITRUST VIOLATION so loud, we'd all go deaf. And they'd probably be justified in those claims as either of those acquisitions would really radically change the face of the software world.
There are very few companies in the world that wield a level of monopoly power even close to what Microsoft has. I can't think of a single software company that even comes close.
For all intents and purposes, Windows runs the world's computers. Like it or not. Entire industries... not just individual companies... but entire industries are tied into MS wholesale and if MS wants to change the game on these people, they either have to take it, or suffer some very serious growing pains switching to OSS alternatives or Apple alternatives. Transitions which can devastate a company. The companies that are voluntarily doing this... bravo. Smart bunch!
That is A LOT of power and the potential for abuse is huge and MS has proven they are not above abusing that power. They have been tried and convicted for it already. There is precedent, but a lack of enforcement.
Was I trying to invalidate your point? No I wasn't. Just adding an interesting historical tidbit. Lighten up.
Huh?
I was just trying to put historical context to this thread. Lighten up.
Win!
Back in the mid to late 90's... pre iMac and pre iPod MS actually grossed more cash off their peripheral sales than Apple did in actual computer sales.
It is a discussion of the merits of OS X Server and BSD and I'm asking you to make an argument based off of specific points.
OS X is Mach based with some BSD therefore you should use BSD is not a very well thought out argument.
Point by point what makes BSD the better server OS?
I'm not making a case for either BSD or OS X Server. I would honestly like to know why you think BSD would be preferable to OS X server, but I need more than what you offered.
The biggest problem with Transformers was a severe lacking of Transformers in the film.
There just weren't enough of them and they got way too little screen time.
List your points. Make an argument. Detail your opinion.
What you said pretty much amounts to something like, "Cake is pointless because I like pie".
I guess this is the beginning of people not wanting the Big Screen experience. It's sad.
Some movies are just meant to be seen 80 feet wide by 45 feet tall (or some variation of the 16:9 aspect ration). It's usually the big blockbusters too that are insanely graphically rich.
The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, any comic book movie, etc. True, any of these will be decent on a large screen at home, but you don't get the overwhelming experience that you get when you watch something from the 9th row center at a huge-screened movie theater.
It's called typecasting... been around since the birth of theater and film.
Get used to it.
If a "type" played by a specific actor is bankable... count on that actor playing that part A LOT.
I work in film/video production and post production and have had gaffer and best boy jobs and those are the two credits I wanted more than my editor, producer or directing credits.
Working in film production is actually pretty brutal work especially if you work in the grip, electric or camera departments... especially grip. The grips are the hardest working people on any set!
And the production assistants should never be overlooked. PA's are like indentured servants; being asked to do all the crap jobs on set that no one else wants to... and they do it for crap pay with very little thanks.
Q: How many grips does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. That's electric.
If you get that, you work in film/video production.
"3rd reserve gaffer to the animal trainer's assistant coffee-wench"
I was really excited when I got my first best boy and gaffer credits. Those are actually pretty tough jobs. I REALLY want this position now. 3rd reserve gaffer?!?!?!?! Daily rate and the chance to probably never have to work at all and just hang out at the craft services table. AWESOME!
The idea of a gaffer working with an animal trainer assistant coffee wench is a sublimely absurd idea.
So the gaffer is responsible for managing the electrical planning for a production as well as the execution of the director of photography's lighting plans.
So this position would be the 3rd.. no 4th actually... person called in to manage the electrical and lighting needs of the animal trainer's assistant coffee wench.
What a brilliantly specific and pointless job. I love it!
I read comic books as a pre-teen and teenager. It was fun reading and got my imagination going. Iron Man, Daredevil and X-Men were my favorites. Then literature, trade periodicals and technical manuals started to dominate my reading. My tastes changed as I got older.
I'm not quite what all this whining about Johnny-Come-Lately fans is about. I probably haven't read an Iron Man comic in 20 years, but I'm excited about this movie and can claim to be a fan of the comic book, though not currently an active reader.
I don't understand why people get so possessive about their comic books, cartoons, music, etc. I heard and enjoyed Metallica, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Jane's Addiction and The Red Hot Chili Peppers LONG before any of those bands were popular and didn't get upset when most of those bands got popular.
True, they were no longer the little underground band that I could trot out to impress people with, but as long as they were making good music, who cares if they're popular? Metallica and RHCP pissed me off not by becoming wildly successful and popular, but because they stopped writing music that I enjoyed and started catering to the new fans with less underground or alternative tastes.
So, I'm sorry that the world is now crowded with new "long time" Iron Man fans, but really... get over it. Judge the movie by watching it and forming your own opinions and stop whining about the Johnny Come Latelies. It's all very inconsequential to anything.
Oh come on mods! Informative? Really? This is nothing more than knee-jerk opinion and hardly informative.
Flamebait award of the day!
The point is about support. If the average Mac user or Windows convert gets wind of this and starts buying it and has troubles with it and can't get reasonable support, it undercuts what getting an OS X box is supposed to be about... just being able to get work done with little hassle.
If some Windows convert gets one of these for it's price and it doesn't work like a Mac is supposed to... it undermines Apple's efforts at creating a positive and constructive computing environment.
If these things are as flaky as Windows on a bargain basement PC... that's not good. I'm not talking about inexpensive yet high performance home-built PC's made by professional techies. I'm talking about Windows users who, for budgetary reasons, buy the cheapest PC they can find to run Windows. If it behaves like those, that's not good and will harm Apple and OS X which are currently marketed as ridiculously easy to set up and use with a support system in place to help.
This thing is great for hobbyists who know what they're doing under the hood, but for the vast majority of casual users... this thing could be a nightmare.