They should, but they don't have to, because they don't have a monopoly nor have they been caught abusing that monopoly to restrain competition; there are still Windows mobile, Symbian, and RIMM platforms that have significantly larger market share than Apple.
There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It is in abusing the monopoly in an anticompetitive manner that is illegal. So Intel's monopoly is fine until it has been "caught" and found guilty of using it's monopoly to stifle competition...
You've never been able to understand why the government doesn't go after Apple because you don't understand why they went after Microsoft.
Microsoft abused their monopoly, Apple has not. Microsoft threatened to terminate all Windows 95 licenses to Compaq because Compaq was bundling Netscape. They were using their OS monopoly in an anti-competitive way.
Apple cannot do the same here; they cannot "threaten" to withhold iPhones or iPods to Mozilla, or Skype, or someone developing Skype, or whatnot. While their behavior is anticompetitive, they are not using an existing monopoly (iPods/iTunes) in an anticompetitive manner to kill the competition (RIMM, Windows Mobile, Symbian).
Skype competes with AT&T, so you may argue that AT&T is abusing it's monopoly, but that would be about it here.
Except that the very post you linked to says nothing of what you mean. Nothing in that post lends credence to your theory that Apple leverages it's MP3 monopoly to extend dominance into the phone market. The only comment close was, "With the iPhone, you get an iPod as well." Except the iPhone's "iPod" is a branding exercise as the player has no similarity to the iPod at all; no scroll wheel, different UI, etc. The only similarity is the ability to play FairPlay files.
And you should re-read the decision against Microsoft. They "abused their monopoly" by threatening Compaq and IBM, respectively, by terminating Windows licenses for bundling Netscape and raising prices for Windows license for developing OS/2.
This would be similar if Apple "stopped" providing iPods to Mozilla or Sun...
To be fair, this is anticompetitive of Apple, but considering that the iPhone/iPod touch is a marginal product and not a monopoly product, anticompetitive is okay.
Well, Safari on Windows, from last night, performed the test in 8654ms seconds, compared to Firefox2 at 24549ms on my system.
Since the article posts a 29376ms score on their system, my system is just a tad faster, which means they should see a score of about 9000ms for Safari.
I mean, we might as well compare like to like, right? Safari nightly vs Firefox nightly gives us approximately 9kms vs 8219ms, and I think as soon as Safari approaches release candidate it too will be seeing some optimizations too.
Nope. Bandwidth is bandwidth though, from an ISP standpoint.
P2P reduces the bandwidth requirement from the originating host but pushes it out to the edges instead; the ISP still has to support it, and instead of a single pipe of high quality they need multiple individual pipes instead. Caching moves the bandwidth to a different host.
My response was to a post about a person asking why people didn't compare the MacBook Air to a Dell M1330, or why Apple didn't make something like the M1330. My reply was to compare the Dell M1330 to the MacBook instead of the Air since the specs and prices were comparable.
The only difference is that the MacBook is slightly cheaper (gasp!) while the Dell is slightly lighter.
I was comparing to the Dell M1330. Give the M1330 a 2.2GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 802.11n, bluetooth, and 55WHr battery, and it is actually slightly more expensive than the MacBook, but that is actually okay since it is also slightly lighter. Or did you not even read the parent post talking about the M1330?
Because for the size and weight it is closer to a MacBook than a MacBook Air?
For $1100 you get a refurbished MacBook with 2.2GHz CPU, 120GB drive, 8x DVD-RW, and 1GB of RAM. It is 5 pounds, though, which is 1 pound heavier than your M1330, which itself is 1 pound heavier than the MacBook Air and Lenovo X300.
This isn't a data-protection issue (her power button was broken by the way, how do you power up and back up your laptop then?)
This is an identity theft issue. Best Buy had a laptop with personal information. Rather than inform her in a timely manner and then pay for identity theft protection, they misled her and she had to get her own, as well as a lawyer to even get Best Buy to play ball.
So rethink your point: If this is an identity theft issue (with potential credit card and social security related issues), how much is the lawsuit worth?
Imagine this: Cheap PCs cost $79, like a DVD player. Windows costs $5, Office $10. Even at these disposable prices, people still don't buy more than three PCs per household and each PC has a three year lifespan, which translates to roughly 3 PCs per 4 people. This severely caps Microsoft's income if Windows/PCs become commodities.
Google, on the other hand, now controls advertising. Billboards, print ads, online ads, in game ads, TV ads, YouTube ads, etc. Their annual profit now, instead of being just $3b, is now $30b a year.
So they've spent $40b... what was their return? A record profit of $4.5b?
So it will take them about 6.5 years to recoup the lost cash reserve. On the other hand, they would have made more money dumping that $40b into an index fund; they would have $80b by now instead.
Totally agree with everything you say... except for the fact that to a 1 year old, a tennis racket and tennis ball is way too fast, way too heavy. My daughter already scribbles with crayons and pens and pencils. She can't build anything because she doesn't have the manual dexterity to assemble anything more complex than stacking 5 blocks on top of each other, can't yet visualize puzzle pieces (and besides, she tears them up trying to force them together/apart).
My point, and almost counter to yours, is that video games allow young children an opportunity at a much earlier age to explore a world they physically cannot interact with yet. Before she is two she will be able to bowl, golf, and play tennis even if she can't physically hold a bowling ball, a tennis racket, or a golf club. She will be able to explore the deep sea even though she can't scuba dive, much less hold her breath under water. She can roll a katamari around town and see cars, giraffes, trucks, benches, seals, flowers, balloons, trash cans, hot pots, screwdrivers, spatulas, and all manner of "toys" that she is not physically old enough to play with. I would never let her walk up to a car to examine the wheels, yet she can do so in the game Katamri Damacy. I would never let her run from rooftop to rooftop, yet she can do so in the game Kingdom Hearts.
Games, as applied to children, have all the same values, positives, and negatives, that they have to gaming adults.
We must play different JRPGs then. The ones I played did NOT have me doing the same thing over and over and over again.
Final Fantasy 7: Different enemies have different weaknesses. An optimal strategy might involve equiping appropriate "status" inflicting weapons, paired with status inflicting materia, and casting appropriate magic spells to elimiate the monsters.
Final Fantasy Tactics: Besides the above strategy, another strategy might be to inflict a generic status, such as poison, on an enemy, casting haste and regenerate on yourself, and slow or sleep on the enemy.
Xenogears: This was simpler, you had to cast the right ether or attack an enemy weakness. In this game you optimized your character and mecha with items to be "strong" to enemy attack while at the same time making your character either strong for faster kills or fast for more attacks.
Yes, you can "grind" naively by just doing the same thing over and over again, but on the other hand you could learn enemy weaknesses, learn your weaknesses (and strengths), optimize your characters and attacks, and maximize your damage.
Things that you "learn" while playing, slowly improving your characters as the game progresses.
If you didn't learn that by playing, then you weren't learning. Sorry. Perhaps you needed better teachers.
The point is that a game that has grinding teaches kids that practice makes perfect, and that as you get better at something you become able to perform more specialized tasks as well.
It is far more laborious and time consuming to learn that fact by mastering a real skill such as paper-folding (arguably another game), woodworking (which can take YEARS), or carving (which can also take years).
If you can learn, in a week or two, that practice makes perfect, then you have learned an important and valuable piece of information; that skills can be improved with continuous and sustained effort.
My 1 and 1/2 year old daughter loves Wii Tennis, especially the "training" modes where the points don't matter. The same with Wii golf and bowling, though she will watch me play since she doesn't have the motor skills yet.
Give the Wii a shot. Then there are other games that she might be good at; Tetris, Mario Kart, etc.
You ask about fine motor skills: Most little kids don't have the strength or coordination to take up billards, foosball, table-tennis, golf, etc.
Games are really a concrete example of simulators, exercises to prepare yourself for real life. All games (and probably why playing them is hardwired into us) teach us things, and as we get good at certain things we try to find more challenging things.
Is a race-car simulator a game? Is a racing game a simulator? Is a flight simulator a game? How about a game where you fly a jet? How about a game that simulates bowling, like Wii-bowling? How about the actual game, bowling?
As long as the child extracts value from the exercise, then the game is good. Gross motor skills, fine motor control, coordination, spatial recognition, timing, problem solving, resource allocation, visual acuity, prediction, abstraction, and reaction time can all be "taught" by playing games.
Slashdot Mirror
They should, but they don't have to, because they don't have a monopoly nor have they been caught abusing that monopoly to restrain competition; there are still Windows mobile, Symbian, and RIMM platforms that have significantly larger market share than Apple.
It's harder to get Apple to label your computer for you, however. The EULA does not say, "Peter Cooper-labeled computer", after all.
There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It is in abusing the monopoly in an anticompetitive manner that is illegal. So Intel's monopoly is fine until it has been "caught" and found guilty of using it's monopoly to stifle competition...
You've never been able to understand why the government doesn't go after Apple because you don't understand why they went after Microsoft.
Microsoft abused their monopoly, Apple has not. Microsoft threatened to terminate all Windows 95 licenses to Compaq because Compaq was bundling Netscape. They were using their OS monopoly in an anti-competitive way.
Apple cannot do the same here; they cannot "threaten" to withhold iPhones or iPods to Mozilla, or Skype, or someone developing Skype, or whatnot. While their behavior is anticompetitive, they are not using an existing monopoly (iPods/iTunes) in an anticompetitive manner to kill the competition (RIMM, Windows Mobile, Symbian).
Skype competes with AT&T, so you may argue that AT&T is abusing it's monopoly, but that would be about it here.
Except that the very post you linked to says nothing of what you mean. Nothing in that post lends credence to your theory that Apple leverages it's MP3 monopoly to extend dominance into the phone market. The only comment close was, "With the iPhone, you get an iPod as well." Except the iPhone's "iPod" is a branding exercise as the player has no similarity to the iPod at all; no scroll wheel, different UI, etc. The only similarity is the ability to play FairPlay files.
And you should re-read the decision against Microsoft. They "abused their monopoly" by threatening Compaq and IBM, respectively, by terminating Windows licenses for bundling Netscape and raising prices for Windows license for developing OS/2.
This would be similar if Apple "stopped" providing iPods to Mozilla or Sun...
To be fair, this is anticompetitive of Apple, but considering that the iPhone/iPod touch is a marginal product and not a monopoly product, anticompetitive is okay.
Why not? There are plenty of proposals for skintight suits.
The only problem is the helmets, but I'm sure that can be addressed with a 360 degree glass bubble.
Well, Safari on Windows, from last night, performed the test in 8654ms seconds, compared to Firefox2 at 24549ms on my system.
Since the article posts a 29376ms score on their system, my system is just a tad faster, which means they should see a score of about 9000ms for Safari.
I mean, we might as well compare like to like, right? Safari nightly vs Firefox nightly gives us approximately 9kms vs 8219ms, and I think as soon as Safari approaches release candidate it too will be seeing some optimizations too.
Ain't competition grand?
I perfectly understand how people were confused. Unfortunately I can't retroactively change the original post.
Nope. Bandwidth is bandwidth though, from an ISP standpoint.
P2P reduces the bandwidth requirement from the originating host but pushes it out to the edges instead; the ISP still has to support it, and instead of a single pipe of high quality they need multiple individual pipes instead. Caching moves the bandwidth to a different host.
My response was to a post about a person asking why people didn't compare the MacBook Air to a Dell M1330, or why Apple didn't make something like the M1330. My reply was to compare the Dell M1330 to the MacBook instead of the Air since the specs and prices were comparable.
The only difference is that the MacBook is slightly cheaper (gasp!) while the Dell is slightly lighter.
I was comparing to the Dell M1330. Give the M1330 a 2.2GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 802.11n, bluetooth, and 55WHr battery, and it is actually slightly more expensive than the MacBook, but that is actually okay since it is also slightly lighter. Or did you not even read the parent post talking about the M1330?
I was comparing the MacBook to the Dell M1330, which only has 1 GB of RAM itself.
Because for the size and weight it is closer to a MacBook than a MacBook Air?
For $1100 you get a refurbished MacBook with 2.2GHz CPU, 120GB drive, 8x DVD-RW, and 1GB of RAM. It is 5 pounds, though, which is 1 pound heavier than your M1330, which itself is 1 pound heavier than the MacBook Air and Lenovo X300.
What? They already did, it's called a MacBook. Prices are roughly comparable though the MacBook is slightly heavier.
This isn't a data-protection issue (her power button was broken by the way, how do you power up and back up your laptop then?)
This is an identity theft issue. Best Buy had a laptop with personal information. Rather than inform her in a timely manner and then pay for identity theft protection, they misled her and she had to get her own, as well as a lawyer to even get Best Buy to play ball.
So rethink your point: If this is an identity theft issue (with potential credit card and social security related issues), how much is the lawsuit worth?
But how about in 10 years?
Imagine this: Cheap PCs cost $79, like a DVD player. Windows costs $5, Office $10. Even at these disposable prices, people still don't buy more than three PCs per household and each PC has a three year lifespan, which translates to roughly 3 PCs per 4 people. This severely caps Microsoft's income if Windows/PCs become commodities.
Google, on the other hand, now controls advertising. Billboards, print ads, online ads, in game ads, TV ads, YouTube ads, etc. Their annual profit now, instead of being just $3b, is now $30b a year.
So they've spent $40b... what was their return? A record profit of $4.5b?
So it will take them about 6.5 years to recoup the lost cash reserve. On the other hand, they would have made more money dumping that $40b into an index fund; they would have $80b by now instead.
LOL, I wouldn't inflict Dragon Warrior I (or Final Fantasy I) on my children, except for nostalgia.
Anyway, "just in time" adaptation is just as important to learn as stratagey: "Oh no, this boss is immune to fire and all my weapons are fire based!".
Totally agree with everything you say... except for the fact that to a 1 year old, a tennis racket and tennis ball is way too fast, way too heavy. My daughter already scribbles with crayons and pens and pencils. She can't build anything because she doesn't have the manual dexterity to assemble anything more complex than stacking 5 blocks on top of each other, can't yet visualize puzzle pieces (and besides, she tears them up trying to force them together/apart).
My point, and almost counter to yours, is that video games allow young children an opportunity at a much earlier age to explore a world they physically cannot interact with yet. Before she is two she will be able to bowl, golf, and play tennis even if she can't physically hold a bowling ball, a tennis racket, or a golf club. She will be able to explore the deep sea even though she can't scuba dive, much less hold her breath under water. She can roll a katamari around town and see cars, giraffes, trucks, benches, seals, flowers, balloons, trash cans, hot pots, screwdrivers, spatulas, and all manner of "toys" that she is not physically old enough to play with. I would never let her walk up to a car to examine the wheels, yet she can do so in the game Katamri Damacy. I would never let her run from rooftop to rooftop, yet she can do so in the game Kingdom Hearts.
Games, as applied to children, have all the same values, positives, and negatives, that they have to gaming adults.
We must play different JRPGs then. The ones I played did NOT have me doing the same thing over and over and over again.
Final Fantasy 7: Different enemies have different weaknesses. An optimal strategy might involve equiping appropriate "status" inflicting weapons, paired with status inflicting materia, and casting appropriate magic spells to elimiate the monsters.
Final Fantasy Tactics: Besides the above strategy, another strategy might be to inflict a generic status, such as poison, on an enemy, casting haste and regenerate on yourself, and slow or sleep on the enemy.
Xenogears: This was simpler, you had to cast the right ether or attack an enemy weakness. In this game you optimized your character and mecha with items to be "strong" to enemy attack while at the same time making your character either strong for faster kills or fast for more attacks.
Yes, you can "grind" naively by just doing the same thing over and over again, but on the other hand you could learn enemy weaknesses, learn your weaknesses (and strengths), optimize your characters and attacks, and maximize your damage.
Things that you "learn" while playing, slowly improving your characters as the game progresses.
If you didn't learn that by playing, then you weren't learning. Sorry. Perhaps you needed better teachers.
The point is that a game that has grinding teaches kids that practice makes perfect, and that as you get better at something you become able to perform more specialized tasks as well.
It is far more laborious and time consuming to learn that fact by mastering a real skill such as paper-folding (arguably another game), woodworking (which can take YEARS), or carving (which can also take years).
If you can learn, in a week or two, that practice makes perfect, then you have learned an important and valuable piece of information; that skills can be improved with continuous and sustained effort.
My 1 and 1/2 year old daughter loves Wii Tennis, especially the "training" modes where the points don't matter. The same with Wii golf and bowling, though she will watch me play since she doesn't have the motor skills yet.
Give the Wii a shot. Then there are other games that she might be good at; Tetris, Mario Kart, etc.
You ask about fine motor skills: Most little kids don't have the strength or coordination to take up billards, foosball, table-tennis, golf, etc.
Games are really a concrete example of simulators, exercises to prepare yourself for real life. All games (and probably why playing them is hardwired into us) teach us things, and as we get good at certain things we try to find more challenging things.
Is a race-car simulator a game? Is a racing game a simulator? Is a flight simulator a game? How about a game where you fly a jet? How about a game that simulates bowling, like Wii-bowling? How about the actual game, bowling?
As long as the child extracts value from the exercise, then the game is good. Gross motor skills, fine motor control, coordination, spatial recognition, timing, problem solving, resource allocation, visual acuity, prediction, abstraction, and reaction time can all be "taught" by playing games.
Are books taboo too, then?
The issue the coach addresses is not "When are video games okay?" but "What is a healthy lifestyle?"
Why is "grinding" a bad skill to learn? It teaches patience and the rewards of practice.
Just like real life.