Okay but hold up a second, communism kind of equals sharing with everyone. In a roundabout, very simplified manner.. So opensource may be akin to communism/socialism. I really don't see that as much of a bad thing, socialism may be good in some instances. The only reason that most people seem to claim that opensource is not communism is because most idiots look at communism and think *whoah that's bad, i don't want to be aligned with anything like that*, which is kind of sad really.
Alright seriously people. As a company, apple makes most of it's money off of computer sales if i'm not mistaken (which i might be, but we'll ignore that for now). That's why their computers are more expensive, but they have the mac-fanatics out there to buy them. What this means is: the clones were good for consumers, however bad for apple, because they could produce cheaper computers, which's where most of apple's money comes from. So it's fairly obvious why Apple *did* get rid of them, so atleast from Apple's perspective this wasn't quite the *bad* move you seem to think it was.
Re:The worst part of it is:
on
Brian West Update
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Okay i can agree that some officials (cops etc.) may not quite know what they're talking about. I did believe him when this story first came about, and i felt it was wrong because of the idiocy of these aforementioned officials. However, i somehow doubt that the facts presented have been completely fabricated by the DoJ (ie he *HAD* the perl scripts on his computer and was porting it to php).
I'm prolly gonna be smacked around for saying this, but come on people seriously..
of course, whoever had the hardware first is irrelevant, unless it's apple. I must say i'm a former apple advocate (raving-fanatic), and there's nothing we love more than to regurgitate apple's accomplishments (ie yell and scream at windows users). USB, Firewire, the first GUI (even though it really wasn't)... all the good stuff like that.
Why would it be *so* wrong for the company that makes the software to make the hardware? That position gives them an advantage to *innovate* (please insert your favorite marketing keywords).. and in doing so they can basically try out new and better technologies. If the OS just supported existing hardware, and hardware manufacturers just created hardware based on what the OS supported, we'd get nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
But should we get rid of those who clean telephone headsets we'd just leave ourselves open to some lethal bacteria transmitted by telephone headsets.
Okay but hold up a second, communism kind of equals sharing with everyone. In a roundabout, very simplified manner.. So opensource may be akin to communism/socialism. I really don't see that as much of a bad thing, socialism may be good in some instances. The only reason that most people seem to claim that opensource is not communism is because most idiots look at communism and think *whoah that's bad, i don't want to be aligned with anything like that*, which is kind of sad really.
Alright seriously people. As a company, apple makes most of it's money off of computer sales if i'm not mistaken (which i might be, but we'll ignore that for now). That's why their computers are more expensive, but they have the mac-fanatics out there to buy them. What this means is: the clones were good for consumers, however bad for apple, because they could produce cheaper computers, which's where most of apple's money comes from. So it's fairly obvious why Apple *did* get rid of them, so atleast from Apple's perspective this wasn't quite the *bad* move you seem to think it was.
Okay i can agree that some officials (cops etc.) may not quite know what they're talking about. I did believe him when this story first came about, and i felt it was wrong because of the idiocy of these aforementioned officials. However, i somehow doubt that the facts presented have been completely fabricated by the DoJ (ie he *HAD* the perl scripts on his computer and was porting it to php).
I'm prolly gonna be smacked around for saying this, but come on people seriously..
of course, whoever had the hardware first is irrelevant, unless it's apple. I must say i'm a former apple advocate (raving-fanatic), and there's nothing we love more than to regurgitate apple's accomplishments (ie yell and scream at windows users). USB, Firewire, the first GUI (even though it really wasn't)... all the good stuff like that.
Why would it be *so* wrong for the company that makes the software to make the hardware? That position gives them an advantage to *innovate* (please insert your favorite marketing keywords).. and in doing so they can basically try out new and better technologies. If the OS just supported existing hardware, and hardware manufacturers just created hardware based on what the OS supported, we'd get nowhere.