Gates: Why didn't we think of that? What better way to publicize Microsoft!? We'll make some kind of food product; we could call it 'Bolus', that's a great name!
And we can add a widget to Windows (fully embedded so it can't be removed without breaking IE) so that people can order Bolus online! Any time! Electronically! It'll be a wonderful service! Electronic Bolus on demand! And we can call this new service E-Bolus!
There's one problem at the root of all of this. And Sony's rootkit hijinx and crappy advertising techniques, Microsoft's monopolistic practices, and the despicable actions of dozens of other megalithic companies are all symptoms of it. Look at the common factor among all cases (size), and you'll see:
Modern justice lacks scalability.
Think about it. We have these immature, almost psychopathic corporate constructs wandering the landscape. They're greedy like children, live in their own world like children, and have an unnatural knack for breaking things like children. They're gigantic, amoral, know only enough to get into trouble, and don't think much about consequences. And why should they? In this case, it's taking a whole gaggle of government lawyers bearing class action suits to spank them, and even then they're doing a poor job of it. Admittedly, it might help if the government didn't dote over them so, tsking at them for running roughshod over their toys (customers), but ever so happy with them when they perform vital household duties like collecting information and marketing government policies.
The death penalty exists for individuals who are convicted of crimes. (Note: guilt never enters into it; the only important aspect is the conviction.) For corporations, legal contrivances that they are, the best the government can do is dissolution. The last time they did that was the breakup of Ma Bell, and we know what happened there: the individual enterprises have each grown up in their own special, horrid ways.
And the mallet needed to properly smack them down and make them stay down we can't trust in the government's hands. So how do you spank a toddler that big?
It's a billboard in slightly different kind of ink. Big deal. If you haven't previously noticed that advertising can be deceptive, cheapen the arts, and degrade the aesthetics of our living spaces, then you have been numbed.
So I guess your position is that we've lost the war and should just give up. Who's the one that's been numbed again?
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the parent was comparing modern billboard advertising to the Sonyfitti in order to drag both down to the lowest level.
Some of us would like to keep our streets clean, and keep the advertising in areas where it's, you know, allowed. The issue this article is talking about is putting advertising up without a permit. Sorry to tell some of the other people in here, but in every city I know of, it is illegal to sell advertising on your property without a permit.
Again, I think the parent's point, and the point made by many comments under this write-up, is that advertising has become ubiquitous, in a very bad, can't-spit-without-hitting-it (and I hope you brought a lot of spit) way. The comment is that there's too much advertising, and not only shouldn't it be where it shouldn't be (not the tautology it seems to be, given the topic), but it probably shouldn't be in some of the places where it's currently allowed.
Under the circumstances, c'mon, who wouldn't be numbed? Companies have to resort to these "guerilla" tactics (note the sneer-quotes; it can never be an edgy, independent tactic if a major conglomerate is doing it) because people have become so familiar with conventional commercial placement that they instinctively ignore the ads. Penetration drops, the ads lose effectiveness, and they have to resort to one of two things:
Create more entertaining advertisements, or
Find new places to advertise.
To justify it, they probably have a Formula: If the benefits of advertising (increased sales and mindshare) outweigh the costs of advertising (materials, placement, penalties for illegal tactics, loss of life and limb), then it is a "good" advertising campaign.
The company has no conscience, and feels little pain. The Formula is one of the few nerve endings it has. We need to spank it there.
They think they're being cute and getting their product into the public memespace, whatever the hell that is. They kind of are, but it's backfiring.
The problem is, it's not backfiring quickly enough to suit me. So I propose we help them. We need to co-opt and corrupt the vacant-eyed gamins, in their style, and make them completely abhorrent to the general public. Only then will Sony achieve the vicious, visceral backlash and legal ass-reaming that these jokers are begging for.....
...say. Ass-reaming? I think I know where to depict the PSP being played with in this new campaign...
If the community knows what's good for it, YES.
on
Do LUGs Still Matter?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Linux is now mainstream, it's being spread by slick corporate marketing, and with most distros, installation is a snap. So the question arises, do LUGs still matter?
I remember my days in a user group. It attracted lots of people because there were always things to learn. Even experts could pick up tidbits of valuable information, and more often than not the novices picked up help from the experts. In that way, everyone became a little more expert. And lemme tell you, there are few things more satisfying than telling people something they don't know, and watching their jaws literally drop.
That "slick corporate marketing" will convince you to buy into a particular software and hardware solution, but buy-in and installation are only the beginning. There's later configuration, installations on top of your existing system, new peripherals, and plus you may just want to do new things with it. The original seller can't afford to hold the hand of every novice that comes along and gets their system. Trust me on this, in that case the user group is a godsend.
And now for the twist: note that at no time did I actually mention Linux. That's because the user group I was talking about dealt with a different platform, one that still values its user group network.
Take the hint: easy to set up and easy to install, and it still supports its user groups. There is power in community.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
So, this is California trying to pass a law restricting freedom of speech. A state. Why is it now allowed under the first amendment?
You have to understand, they've become so weak in recent years that they and many other terms co-opted as buzzwords have to be enclosed in quotation marks to convey the disdain that many hold for them. Here, try these examples:
Bill of "Rights"
First amendment "protections"
"Freedom" of Speech
See how that works? Simple.
Note that last case; "Freedom" is bandied about so much that it's attained almost commercial status. In lieu of quotation marks, the "trademark" symbol would also be appropriate.
As for how they can justify that kind of legislation, the reasoning goes, "Hey, we legislate practically everything else! Wait'll you see our plans to tax them into oblivion!"
And while you are parking it in your garage it will plant a $sys$camera to make sure you are not using any other types of cars in its place.
Oh, too true! Why, if we saw them driving around in some other cars, we'd have to take careful note of them! They might have stolen them. There will have to be investigations and all manner of inconveniences to make sure they're legitimate. Every time they drive any other vehicle.
Yes, I know that there's a chance that they legitimately paid for that other car, but if there's any chance at all that we can catch a car thief in the process, it'll all be worth it. Maybe with enough backing from the auto industry and law enforcement agencies, we can fine them for their indiscretions... say, $7,000,000 per car? That's what I estimate it costs to get an assembly line put together.
I wonder how hard it'd be to get EFF buy-in on this...?
Our society of no responsibility (created by lawyers, so they can make money off of every single thing that harms a person, every time it happens) allows addicts a whole range of excuses they can use instead of fixing the problem.
Hey, let's call these people irresponsibility addicts! Then we can blame the lawyers for getting them hooked on quick money for being irresponsible!
On a slightly more serious note, therein lies the whole philosophical conundrum: to prevent what appears to be an easily preventable tragedy, the one person whose actual responsibility it is to prevent it has no desire to do so. At that point, people start wringing their hands and saying someone else should take up the responsibility instead. And it's unconscionable that nobody should handle the problem, because it appears so preventable.
That, sadly, is the keystone for the founding of the nanny state. That's where the state gets invited in to watch for people doing this one thing irresponsibly. And while they're there, someone will almost certainly reason, they could watch out for this other thing, and maybe those things as well. It's people thrusting power and responsibility onto the state, and the state is only too happy to receive it.
And the ultimate twist? Those people who want the state to protect the irresponsible are themselves giving up responsibility for whatever the problem may be.
And frankly - I'm getting mighteeeee tired of all this hand-wringing over music sales - why don't we all just go out and buy the L.A."industry" folks some new Mercedes - it's the very LEAST we can do to show our support.
You know something? That's not a bad idea! We should show them our appreciation. We could chip in and buy them some really nice vehicles. But... (MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)
First, we need to build in some special safeguards, yes we do. We need to weld the passenger doors shut, for starters. No, these cars are just for these music industry executives, no free rides for their friends. They probably already have their own cars anyway. We add in a fingerprint lock on the ignition so only one person can start it up, and that should have the angle of no unauthorized riders covered.
Next, let's look at authorized use. We wire a GPS system directly to the engine and the lock on the gas tank. That way we can make sure the car isn't used to drive on any of the wrong roads, or fill up at any of the wrong gas stations. How it's maintained and driven will have an effect on its lifespan, so we have to make sure they take appropriate cautions.
Because we're buying the cars for them, we get to pick the color. I heartily recommend turquoise, teal, periwinkle, lime green, or peach with mauve racing stripes. Music industry executives like distinctive colors, don't they?
It'll take some effort, but I'm sure we can produce (or at least buy and modify) a car for these music industry executives as satisfying to drive as their companies' music is satisfying to listen to.
They've got it coming and I don't really care about the P2P issues.
That's unfortunate, because if they do get prosecuted and jailed over anything, the record companies doing the prosecuting are not going to be crowing about jailing a spyware manufacturer. They'll be celebrating the jailing of the developers of a peer-to-peer software client that we both know has non-infringing uses.
And the message they're sending out won't be that "spyware is bad," it'll be that "file sharing is bad." (Optionally insert a ", mmmmmkay?" after each for the full effect.) Between the two, which do you really think will be chilled if this prosecution goes through?
As fallacious as the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme may be, this may be an occasion to let it slide. Should they be jailed? Probably, but let it at least be for the right reason, and let it send the right message.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?"
Lemme put it this way: this cannot be adequately explained by incompetence.
They're not simply missing the point, they're brushing it aside as they forge ahead with their own plans to convolute the "OpenDoc" information space. Then, when everyone's confused, they try to make theirs look as good and reliable as possible compared to that other, "lesser" standard to snatch what market share they can.
They get their all-important lock-in, government gets sold a bill of goods, and outsiders are screwed. Everybody (read: Microsoft) wins!
I don't know if it was being marketed in my area at the time, but I was at a convention in a neighboring city, and saw it in a store as I was buying up practically every other soda they had. (It was that kind of convention.)
Unfortunately, as I was trying to severely restrict my sugar intake at the time, I never actually tasted much of it and can't remember how good or swill-like it was. The terrible, ironic tragedy is that if they'd come out with a diet version at the time, I would have jumped on it, and may even have bought up much more.
[a well known S.V. hardware company Marketing Exec] convinced me that it was a two way street. That there is no shortage of good ideas and products out there, and the ONLY reason some succeed over others is becuase people like him and Sales people make it happen. They sell products that they know aren't quite ready yet (vaporware) because the company needs the revenue. They sell products that they know are inferior to the competition because their Scientists and Engineers made a stupid mistake early on in the product development lifecycle that didn't get caught until too late and the company can't afford to start over.
Basically he convinced me (a seasoned Engineer) that we need them as much as they need us.
In other words, a high-ranking Marketing expert managed to convince you (nay, sell you!) regarding the importance of marketing experts?
Ladies and gentlemen, suddenly I have an idea how the whole marketers-before-employees meme got started!!
Sony BMG would not comment on whether it plans to explore digital rights management techniques that are less intrusive than XCP.
Translation: Sony BMG needs to research how to make their next crippling system-level crack more undetectable before they try this exact same crap again. They don't give a second thought b0rk1ng their customer's computers, but they absolutely hategetting caught.
'Lawyers don't have any better understanding of technology than a cow does algebra.'
Is that right? [Please see parent comment for link]
That's why I like to avoid absolute statements and generalizations: all it takes is one case to refute, even though the statement may be accurate for the majority and there may only be one or two cases that can refute it. It's like what they say about congressmen: the dishonest 534 make the rest look bad.
Still, wouldn't it be cool to discover that one supersmart cow? And kill it? And eat it and learn algebra? Mmmmmmm!
Except the only device that plays HD media that people actually look forward to is the Playstation 3.
Can you assure me that this fancy new console (touted as a "media center" in some circles) won't try to rootkit my computer through my home network? Because, y'know, they have to "protect their property" any unnecessarily aggressive way they can, through any system that might be used to "steal" it.
If you can't make that guarantee (and I'm pretty sure you can't), then trust me: I'm not looking forward to it. In fact, that controller on the Nintendo Revolution is starting to look better and better.
Yes, it says "software", but it doesn't say "I agree to allow Sony to install software commonly associated with hackers that may infringe upon my computer's security". And I think that'll make a bit of a difference.
They couldn't say that! Their sales would plummet!
Contrast Microsoft's utility with the Aspyr Game Agent, which does approximately the same thing but is a self-contained application that doesn't require a specific browser to work. And it's gone through numerous revisions for new games.
Granted, it only works on certain uncool systems, and only compares the system against the requirements for the one manufacturer/developer house, but it still seems like they have a more elegant solution.
In fact, Sharn has a whole book dedicated to it, its personalities and quirks, and its vertically stacked and striated neighborhoods.
And then up the Lightning Rail a ways, you'll reach Wroat, Starilaskur, and finally, the crown jewel of the continent of Khorvaire, the Mournland. That ought to be a trip.
I'm sorry to hear that, CaseM, but let's face it, you did feed their false hope by buying a PSP and at least one UMD movie. It's only (somewhat) natural that they're counting on you to buy more. And then, remember that there are a great many people who have bought more.
The larger a business gets, the less likely it is to see its customers as anything but statistics, customer turnover and market penetration. They see positive numbers and frisk about happily because they're succeeding. They see negative numbers and scowl and desperately feel the need to change something to make the numbers positive again, even if it shoots future success in the foot.
I've actually seen only one thing that could convince me to buy a PSP: the promise of an eventual Naughty Dog release for it. Before I shell out the bucks for a $250 console that I can misplace, I want to see more.
Worst-case? Imagine turning your key and hearing this pre-recorded message:
"We're sorry, but we have activated the kill-switch on your engine. On a recent routine maintenance scan, we have detected the use of unauthorized repair or after-market parts in your GM vehicle. This is not allowed by the terms of your ownership license because it may create an unsafe or highly altered driving experience. Please contact an authorized Mr. Goodwrench service representative to correct these problems."
The biggest problem with constant communication with the manufacturer is that the manufacturer has the temptation to add further controls. Imagine DRM for cars. And imagine the cost for service going transorbital because only certain service stations can afford to get with that particular program.
Alarmist? Absolutely. This is the realm of not only the tinfoil hat, but the tinfoil pauldrons, kneecops, and codpiece to match. But if I thought this up, the possibility could also be forseen by someone more...opportunistic.
Slashdot Mirror
And we can add a widget to Windows (fully embedded so it can't be removed without breaking IE) so that people can order Bolus online! Any time! Electronically! It'll be a wonderful service! Electronic Bolus on demand! And we can call this new service E-Bolus!
There's one problem at the root of all of this. And Sony's rootkit hijinx and crappy advertising techniques, Microsoft's monopolistic practices, and the despicable actions of dozens of other megalithic companies are all symptoms of it. Look at the common factor among all cases (size), and you'll see:
Modern justice lacks scalability.
Think about it. We have these immature, almost psychopathic corporate constructs wandering the landscape. They're greedy like children, live in their own world like children, and have an unnatural knack for breaking things like children. They're gigantic, amoral, know only enough to get into trouble, and don't think much about consequences. And why should they? In this case, it's taking a whole gaggle of government lawyers bearing class action suits to spank them, and even then they're doing a poor job of it. Admittedly, it might help if the government didn't dote over them so, tsking at them for running roughshod over their toys (customers), but ever so happy with them when they perform vital household duties like collecting information and marketing government policies.
The death penalty exists for individuals who are convicted of crimes. (Note: guilt never enters into it; the only important aspect is the conviction.) For corporations, legal contrivances that they are, the best the government can do is dissolution. The last time they did that was the breakup of Ma Bell, and we know what happened there: the individual enterprises have each grown up in their own special, horrid ways.
And the mallet needed to properly smack them down and make them stay down we can't trust in the government's hands. So how do you spank a toddler that big?
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the parent was comparing modern billboard advertising to the Sonyfitti in order to drag both down to the lowest level.
Again, I think the parent's point, and the point made by many comments under this write-up, is that advertising has become ubiquitous, in a very bad, can't-spit-without-hitting-it (and I hope you brought a lot of spit) way. The comment is that there's too much advertising, and not only shouldn't it be where it shouldn't be (not the tautology it seems to be, given the topic), but it probably shouldn't be in some of the places where it's currently allowed.
Under the circumstances, c'mon, who wouldn't be numbed? Companies have to resort to these "guerilla" tactics (note the sneer-quotes; it can never be an edgy, independent tactic if a major conglomerate is doing it) because people have become so familiar with conventional commercial placement that they instinctively ignore the ads. Penetration drops, the ads lose effectiveness, and they have to resort to one of two things:
To justify it, they probably have a Formula: If the benefits of advertising (increased sales and mindshare) outweigh the costs of advertising (materials, placement, penalties for illegal tactics, loss of life and limb), then it is a "good" advertising campaign.
The company has no conscience, and feels little pain. The Formula is one of the few nerve endings it has. We need to spank it there.
They think they're being cute and getting their product into the public memespace, whatever the hell that is. They kind of are, but it's backfiring.
The problem is, it's not backfiring quickly enough to suit me. So I propose we help them. We need to co-opt and corrupt the vacant-eyed gamins, in their style, and make them completely abhorrent to the general public. Only then will Sony achieve the vicious, visceral backlash and legal ass-reaming that these jokers are begging for.....
...say. Ass-reaming? I think I know where to depict the PSP being played with in this new campaign...
I remember my days in a user group. It attracted lots of people because there were always things to learn. Even experts could pick up tidbits of valuable information, and more often than not the novices picked up help from the experts. In that way, everyone became a little more expert. And lemme tell you, there are few things more satisfying than telling people something they don't know, and watching their jaws literally drop.
That "slick corporate marketing" will convince you to buy into a particular software and hardware solution, but buy-in and installation are only the beginning. There's later configuration, installations on top of your existing system, new peripherals, and plus you may just want to do new things with it. The original seller can't afford to hold the hand of every novice that comes along and gets their system. Trust me on this, in that case the user group is a godsend.
And now for the twist: note that at no time did I actually mention Linux. That's because the user group I was talking about dealt with a different platform, one that still values its user group network.
Take the hint: easy to set up and easy to install, and it still supports its user groups. There is power in community.
You have to understand, they've become so weak in recent years that they and many other terms co-opted as buzzwords have to be enclosed in quotation marks to convey the disdain that many hold for them. Here, try these examples:
See how that works? Simple.
Note that last case; "Freedom" is bandied about so much that it's attained almost commercial status. In lieu of quotation marks, the "trademark" symbol would also be appropriate.
As for how they can justify that kind of legislation, the reasoning goes, "Hey, we legislate practically everything else! Wait'll you see our plans to tax them into oblivion!"
Oh, too true! Why, if we saw them driving around in some other cars, we'd have to take careful note of them! They might have stolen them. There will have to be investigations and all manner of inconveniences to make sure they're legitimate. Every time they drive any other vehicle.
Yes, I know that there's a chance that they legitimately paid for that other car, but if there's any chance at all that we can catch a car thief in the process, it'll all be worth it. Maybe with enough backing from the auto industry and law enforcement agencies, we can fine them for their indiscretions... say, $7,000,000 per car? That's what I estimate it costs to get an assembly line put together.
I wonder how hard it'd be to get EFF buy-in on this...?
Hey, let's call these people irresponsibility addicts! Then we can blame the lawyers for getting them hooked on quick money for being irresponsible!
On a slightly more serious note, therein lies the whole philosophical conundrum: to prevent what appears to be an easily preventable tragedy, the one person whose actual responsibility it is to prevent it has no desire to do so. At that point, people start wringing their hands and saying someone else should take up the responsibility instead. And it's unconscionable that nobody should handle the problem, because it appears so preventable.
That, sadly, is the keystone for the founding of the nanny state. That's where the state gets invited in to watch for people doing this one thing irresponsibly. And while they're there, someone will almost certainly reason, they could watch out for this other thing, and maybe those things as well. It's people thrusting power and responsibility onto the state, and the state is only too happy to receive it.
And the ultimate twist? Those people who want the state to protect the irresponsible are themselves giving up responsibility for whatever the problem may be.
You know something? That's not a bad idea! We should show them our appreciation. We could chip in and buy them some really nice vehicles. But... (MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)
First, we need to build in some special safeguards, yes we do. We need to weld the passenger doors shut, for starters. No, these cars are just for these music industry executives, no free rides for their friends. They probably already have their own cars anyway. We add in a fingerprint lock on the ignition so only one person can start it up, and that should have the angle of no unauthorized riders covered.
Next, let's look at authorized use. We wire a GPS system directly to the engine and the lock on the gas tank. That way we can make sure the car isn't used to drive on any of the wrong roads, or fill up at any of the wrong gas stations. How it's maintained and driven will have an effect on its lifespan, so we have to make sure they take appropriate cautions.
Because we're buying the cars for them, we get to pick the color. I heartily recommend turquoise, teal, periwinkle, lime green, or peach with mauve racing stripes. Music industry executives like distinctive colors, don't they?
It'll take some effort, but I'm sure we can produce (or at least buy and modify) a car for these music industry executives as satisfying to drive as their companies' music is satisfying to listen to.
That's unfortunate, because if they do get prosecuted and jailed over anything, the record companies doing the prosecuting are not going to be crowing about jailing a spyware manufacturer. They'll be celebrating the jailing of the developers of a peer-to-peer software client that we both know has non-infringing uses.
And the message they're sending out won't be that "spyware is bad," it'll be that "file sharing is bad." (Optionally insert a ", mmmmmkay?" after each for the full effect.) Between the two, which do you really think will be chilled if this prosecution goes through?
As fallacious as the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme may be, this may be an occasion to let it slide. Should they be jailed? Probably, but let it at least be for the right reason, and let it send the right message.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?"
Lemme put it this way: this cannot be adequately explained by incompetence.
They're not simply missing the point, they're brushing it aside as they forge ahead with their own plans to convolute the "OpenDoc" information space. Then, when everyone's confused, they try to make theirs look as good and reliable as possible compared to that other, "lesser" standard to snatch what market share they can.
They get their all-important lock-in, government gets sold a bill of goods, and outsiders are screwed. Everybody (read: Microsoft) wins!
I don't know if it was being marketed in my area at the time, but I was at a convention in a neighboring city, and saw it in a store as I was buying up practically every other soda they had. (It was that kind of convention.)
Unfortunately, as I was trying to severely restrict my sugar intake at the time, I never actually tasted much of it and can't remember how good or swill-like it was. The terrible, ironic tragedy is that if they'd come out with a diet version at the time, I would have jumped on it, and may even have bought up much more.
This could be a variation of the "Law of Unintended Consequences."
Invent something new. There will be at least one person, each, who:
In other words, a high-ranking Marketing expert managed to convince you (nay, sell you! ) regarding the importance of marketing experts?
Ladies and gentlemen, suddenly I have an idea how the whole marketers-before-employees meme got started!!
Loose change? They should be so lucky. They'll probably just get lots of unwanted CDs again. Only these will be more unwanted than ever before.
Translation: Sony BMG needs to research how to make their next crippling system-level crack more undetectable before they try this exact same crap again. They don't give a second thought b0rk1ng their customer's computers, but they absolutely hate getting caught.
That's why I like to avoid absolute statements and generalizations: all it takes is one case to refute, even though the statement may be accurate for the majority and there may only be one or two cases that can refute it. It's like what they say about congressmen: the dishonest 534 make the rest look bad.
Still, wouldn't it be cool to discover that one supersmart cow? And kill it? And eat it and learn algebra? Mmmmmmm!
Can you assure me that this fancy new console (touted as a "media center" in some circles) won't try to rootkit my computer through my home network? Because, y'know, they have to "protect their property" any unnecessarily aggressive way they can, through any system that might be used to "steal" it.
If you can't make that guarantee (and I'm pretty sure you can't), then trust me: I'm not looking forward to it. In fact, that controller on the Nintendo Revolution is starting to look better and better.
They couldn't say that! Their sales would plummet!
Contrast Microsoft's utility with the Aspyr Game Agent, which does approximately the same thing but is a self-contained application that doesn't require a specific browser to work. And it's gone through numerous revisions for new games.
Granted, it only works on certain uncool systems, and only compares the system against the requirements for the one manufacturer/developer house, but it still seems like they have a more elegant solution.
Yes! Absolutely, help him! Refill his meds and make sure he actually takes them and doesn't spit them down the sink again!
Obviously, they must instead be manure-tinted glasses. They make everyone and everything look like fertile ground for lawsuits.
"Sharn, City of Towers."
In fact, Sharn has a whole book dedicated to it, its personalities and quirks, and its vertically stacked and striated neighborhoods.
And then up the Lightning Rail a ways, you'll reach Wroat, Starilaskur, and finally, the crown jewel of the continent of Khorvaire, the Mournland. That ought to be a trip.
I'm sorry to hear that, CaseM, but let's face it, you did feed their false hope by buying a PSP and at least one UMD movie. It's only (somewhat) natural that they're counting on you to buy more. And then, remember that there are a great many people who have bought more.
The larger a business gets, the less likely it is to see its customers as anything but statistics, customer turnover and market penetration. They see positive numbers and frisk about happily because they're succeeding. They see negative numbers and scowl and desperately feel the need to change something to make the numbers positive again, even if it shoots future success in the foot.
I've actually seen only one thing that could convince me to buy a PSP: the promise of an eventual Naughty Dog release for it. Before I shell out the bucks for a $250 console that I can misplace, I want to see more.
Worst -case? Imagine turning your key and hearing this pre-recorded message:
The biggest problem with constant communication with the manufacturer is that the manufacturer has the temptation to add further controls. Imagine DRM for cars. And imagine the cost for service going transorbital because only certain service stations can afford to get with that particular program.
Alarmist? Absolutely. This is the realm of not only the tinfoil hat, but the tinfoil pauldrons, kneecops, and codpiece to match. But if I thought this up, the possibility could also be forseen by someone more ...opportunistic.