Yeah, because the Apple Store sells SO many books. They're a real power in the book retail business.
I never argued for a completely unregulated market. In fact, I think that strong (STRONG!) anti-monopoly legislation is required for a market to continue to be free.
However, for any non-monopoly free market actor, they should be as free as possible from legislation.
I would agree with you that individual actors and corporate actors are fundamentally different, and moral dicta for the two are not the same. However, one company declining to patronize another company for WHATEVER reason, wise or not, well-intentioned or not, should be a free choice.
How do you know? Were you at the board meetings? Do you think it's remotely possible that somebody in those meetings thought "Gosh, this might increase sales for this book." and that didn't wind up mattering?
Your idea of making a law constraining the behavior of any free market actor is STILL a bad one.
If you say something I don't like, I don't have a legal, ethical, or moral obligation to keep letting you use my microphone. I may elect to let you continue, or I might not. You have no right to my stuff, ever.
"While it is difficult for me to take an assertion in the form of a psychiatric diagnosis based on a single indicator which any reasonable person would agree is merely a matter of opinion, have you considered that Jobs is not without his faults?"
Didn't say he didn't have his faults. Did say that he's put Apple in the driver's seat. What is Microsoft selling Longhorn (and selling it hard!) against? Mac OS. Apple is the state of the art.
"Jobs' kid-gloves attitude towards Microsoft in hopes of getting another handout (did I say handout? I mean "investment," yeah, that's the ticket) "
You're high. That "investment" was a lawsuit settlement. (Hint: Apple won.)
"This kind of personal bullshit is bad enough, but the fact that Jobs doesn't put the security risks and security record of Microsoft operating systems and applications into every other Apple ad is just inexcusable"
He doesn't have to, and it could easily backfire. You get one...ONE...major virus outbreak (which is far from impossible. OSX security is good, but it's not infallible) and Microsoft's FUD machine goes into high gear.
Apple is selling their products based on image and lifestyle. I don't give a good goddamn about their advertising campaigns as long as the product stays superior.
"I'm sure Jobs would be happier at Pixar full-time."
I'm sure that Jobs can do whatever the hell he wants, so I feel safe in assuming that he wants to be doing the things he's doing.
"What is all this crap about suing everyone in sight who doesn't obey every NDA whether or not they ever knew about it let alone signed it? "
That's not what happened, although I would agree that this lawsuit binge is indicative of Mr. Jobs' apparent monomania, which is the evil twin of being a visionary.
"but alienating journalists is just plain stupid for manufacturing hardware or software."
I don't know. Journos have been dumping on Apple for 30 years. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Jobs wants to put the shoe on the other foot. Again, I think his strategy is a dumb one, but it's not unmotivated.
He wants to be the one who introduces the surprises. He wants everybody else to shut their cake holes. You can debate whether or not that's a good marketing strategy or a bad one, but it's the one he's picked.
And, you know what? He's made more good decisions than bad ones. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. I wouldn't invite him to my house for dinner. But I sure am glad he's building computers, because there's nobody else in the industry that knows how to build them to my satisfaction.
I disagree with you on that point. I've got a 12" Powerbook that I bought about six months ago. Were I buying a machine today, it would probably be a 12" iBook. The only substantial difference is a) lack of a superdrive and b) no video mirroring (which seems to be hack-able).
The G4 iBook is a hell of a good value. I got a great deal on my Powerbook, but I'm not sure it was THAT great of a deal. I'll find out for sure when my gf's iBook gets here in, oh, twelve hours or so.
"own adgenda than we should respond by letting them know we don't approve."
Whose agenda? Not mine. Speak for yourself.
"The fact that it could improve sales is a complete non-issue since that was certainly not the intention behind apple's actions nor is it the result in the vast majority of cases such as this."
Gosh. I wonder if it's a matter of principle.
"I'm saying we as consumers should look at these corporations when they do something to stifle speech and let them know of our disapproval.."
You say what you want. I say that publishing tell-all biographies is not appropriate, and I will vote accordingly with my dollars. Apple is doing the same thing.
"What of a law that a retailer cannot choose to drop books of a publisher due to books the publisher chooses to publish"
Anytime you think you've got an idea that increases freedom, and it involves making a law, you've already got a bad idea.
Say we implement your law. Now you're requiring (by law, which is backed up by guys with guns) that a retailer stock whatever the publisher decides to foist on them.
This is an irretrievably, catastrophically, really really really horrible idea.
As long as customers are free to vote with their feet, which is the case in all but the most egregious monopoly cases, laws should not be involved.
Organize a boycott. Knock yourself out. But you don't speak for me.
So Apple should be forced to carry books on its shelves that, for whatever reason, it finds unsuitable?
They're not stopping the publishing of this work. They're not even making a meaningful dent in sales. Hell, I betcha this little pissing contest will improve sales.
How do you propose to force somebody to sell books that they don't want to sell, without infringing on their rights? I certainly wouldn't argue that any corporation has any right to free speech whatsoever, but how is it OK for one publisher to speak, but not OK for a retail outlet to not provide them with a microphone?
If you think that making MacOS into Unix is the thing that makes Apple the mindshare leader it is today, you don't understand the problem.
If you think Apple would be in the (incredibly good) position it's in today without Jobs' leadership, you're delusional.
Love him or hate him (me, I'm not a real big fan: He comes across as an egomaniac and a bit of a dick) he's got a vision, and the strength of will to implement it. Whatever his personal shortcomings, I admire that.
You mean that I ought to reserve judgement, and decide for myself whether it's good or not, and not base my preconceptions on what other people tell me to think?
Historically, standing armies tend to stand with the people, against their governments. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I think that it would be pretty surprising if the US Army put down a large-scale rebellion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because the Apple Store sells SO many books. They're a real power in the book retail business.
I never argued for a completely unregulated market. In fact, I think that strong (STRONG!) anti-monopoly legislation is required for a market to continue to be free.
However, for any non-monopoly free market actor, they should be as free as possible from legislation.
I would agree with you that individual actors and corporate actors are fundamentally different, and moral dicta for the two are not the same. However, one company declining to patronize another company for WHATEVER reason, wise or not, well-intentioned or not, should be a free choice.
How do you know? Were you at the board meetings? Do you think it's remotely possible that somebody in those meetings thought "Gosh, this might increase sales for this book." and that didn't wind up mattering?
Your idea of making a law constraining the behavior of any free market actor is STILL a bad one.
If you say something I don't like, I don't have a legal, ethical, or moral obligation to keep letting you use my microphone. I may elect to let you continue, or I might not. You have no right to my stuff, ever.
I think that getting into a pissing contest with MS's FUD engine is a losing proposition.
Who cares about market share? Apple has enough market share to be viable. I don't care if they ever take market share away from Windows.
How many services does Windows load, "whether you need them or not"? By my count, about a million.
WinAmp is great, until I want to use it to organize a 100gb library. Then, it is teh sux.
Hey, use what you like. But iTunes' database is THE killer feature of any music player/organizer, and Winamp ain't got one.
"discussion on why the show's creators chose this term."
I'm just spitballin' here, but maybe it's because the writer initially imagined the rebel forces wearing coats that were brown?
Call me crazy.
I'd like to vote for Wing Commander about a million times.
My favorite scene was when the space bulldozer pushed the crippled fighter plane not into the hangar, but off the side of the runway. And it FELL.
And I thought that John Travolta in Battlefield Earth was a more convincing giant-cat-alien-guy.
"While it is difficult for me to take an assertion in the form of a psychiatric diagnosis based on a single indicator which any reasonable person would agree is merely a matter of opinion, have you considered that Jobs is not without his faults?"
Didn't say he didn't have his faults. Did say that he's put Apple in the driver's seat. What is Microsoft selling Longhorn (and selling it hard!) against? Mac OS. Apple is the state of the art.
"Jobs' kid-gloves attitude towards Microsoft in hopes of getting another handout (did I say handout? I mean "investment," yeah, that's the ticket) "
You're high. That "investment" was a lawsuit settlement. (Hint: Apple won.)
"This kind of personal bullshit is bad enough, but the fact that Jobs doesn't put the security risks and security record of Microsoft operating systems and applications into every other Apple ad is just inexcusable"
He doesn't have to, and it could easily backfire. You get one...ONE...major virus outbreak (which is far from impossible. OSX security is good, but it's not infallible) and Microsoft's FUD machine goes into high gear.
Apple is selling their products based on image and lifestyle. I don't give a good goddamn about their advertising campaigns as long as the product stays superior.
"I'm sure Jobs would be happier at Pixar full-time."
I'm sure that Jobs can do whatever the hell he wants, so I feel safe in assuming that he wants to be doing the things he's doing.
"What is all this crap about suing everyone in sight who doesn't obey every NDA whether or not they ever knew about it let alone signed it? "
That's not what happened, although I would agree that this lawsuit binge is indicative of Mr. Jobs' apparent monomania, which is the evil twin of being a visionary.
"but alienating journalists is just plain stupid for manufacturing hardware or software."
I don't know. Journos have been dumping on Apple for 30 years. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Jobs wants to put the shoe on the other foot. Again, I think his strategy is a dumb one, but it's not unmotivated.
He wants to be the one who introduces the surprises. He wants everybody else to shut their cake holes. You can debate whether or not that's a good marketing strategy or a bad one, but it's the one he's picked.
And, you know what? He's made more good decisions than bad ones. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. I wouldn't invite him to my house for dinner. But I sure am glad he's building computers, because there's nobody else in the industry that knows how to build them to my satisfaction.
"Is this trailer like a LOT more interesting if you watched the show?"
Yeah. A lot.
Might not be to your taste, but it's the best TV show I've seen since Babylon 5. (Although Battlestar Galactica has definite possibilities...)
Did iTunes touch you in your bathing suit place? Wow. Why the ire?
"ibook/powerbook difference"
I disagree with you on that point. I've got a 12" Powerbook that I bought about six months ago. Were I buying a machine today, it would probably be a 12" iBook. The only substantial difference is a) lack of a superdrive and b) no video mirroring (which seems to be hack-able).
The G4 iBook is a hell of a good value. I got a great deal on my Powerbook, but I'm not sure it was THAT great of a deal. I'll find out for sure when my gf's iBook gets here in, oh, twelve hours or so.
"own adgenda than we should respond by letting them know we don't approve."
Whose agenda? Not mine. Speak for yourself.
"The fact that it could improve sales is a complete non-issue since that was certainly not the intention behind apple's actions nor is it the result in the vast majority of cases such as this."
Gosh. I wonder if it's a matter of principle.
"I'm saying we as consumers should look at these corporations when they do something to stifle speech and let them know of our disapproval.."
You say what you want. I say that publishing tell-all biographies is not appropriate, and I will vote accordingly with my dollars. Apple is doing the same thing.
"What of a law that a retailer cannot choose to drop books of a publisher due to books the publisher chooses to publish"
Anytime you think you've got an idea that increases freedom, and it involves making a law, you've already got a bad idea.
Say we implement your law. Now you're requiring (by law, which is backed up by guys with guns) that a retailer stock whatever the publisher decides to foist on them.
This is an irretrievably, catastrophically, really really really horrible idea.
As long as customers are free to vote with their feet, which is the case in all but the most egregious monopoly cases, laws should not be involved.
Organize a boycott. Knock yourself out. But you don't speak for me.
YOU think it's a shitty thing to do. I think publishing tell-all biographies is a shitty thing to do.
The Constitution IS irrelevant. This is NOT a free speech issue. It's not even a restraint of trade issue.
This is one entity declining to patronize another entity, and that's completely fine.
Me, I'm mad at Apple because their damn auto-dialer called my mobile phone and tried to sell me a fucking computer. That pissed me RIGHT OFF.
So Apple should be forced to carry books on its shelves that, for whatever reason, it finds unsuitable?
They're not stopping the publishing of this work. They're not even making a meaningful dent in sales. Hell, I betcha this little pissing contest will improve sales.
How do you propose to force somebody to sell books that they don't want to sell, without infringing on their rights? I certainly wouldn't argue that any corporation has any right to free speech whatsoever, but how is it OK for one publisher to speak, but not OK for a retail outlet to not provide them with a microphone?
"They're trying to forcefully strongarm the actions of another company"
Huh? When did THIS happen? Did somebody go with guns to the publishers' homes and forcefully strongarm them into doing something?
Hell no.
Wiley is free to publish. Nobody's stopping them. They are not entitled to Apple's shelf space in the copy of the Constitution I'm looking at.
If you think that making MacOS into Unix is the thing that makes Apple the mindshare leader it is today, you don't understand the problem.
If you think Apple would be in the (incredibly good) position it's in today without Jobs' leadership, you're delusional.
Love him or hate him (me, I'm not a real big fan: He comes across as an egomaniac and a bit of a dick) he's got a vision, and the strength of will to implement it. Whatever his personal shortcomings, I admire that.
You mean that I ought to reserve judgement, and decide for myself whether it's good or not, and not base my preconceptions on what other people tell me to think?
You're talkin' crazy talk.
AHA! Now that's a LOT funnier, and I totally failed to notice it.
Thank you for clarifying. : )
"invented"? It's an element.
Mr. Davy may well have come up with some clever ways to refine and produce it, but he hardly "invented" it.
On the other hand, I think you're taking my joke rather a bit too seriously.
OK, I think the person that rated me "redundant" doesn't know what that word means.
I'd like the moderation scheme, if it weren't BLINDINGLY STUPID.
"I think it's more of an accessory than a necessity"
Gosh, you're absolutely right. I'm absolutely certain that zero Rwandan refugees are going to be whippin' out the old credit card to purchase this.
Or, in other words, "No duh."
Yeah, they put the specifications on the specs page. Wonder what they were thinking?
That, and the part where Bill Gates was controlling Apple at the end of the movie, were when it was lying to you.
Decent counterexample, but the United States was far less nationalist at the time.
I certainly wouldn't argue that it's ALWAYS that way, but historically Navies side with governments, and Armies with people.
I have a good imagination.
Historically, standing armies tend to stand with the people, against their governments. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I think that it would be pretty surprising if the US Army put down a large-scale rebellion.