In a way, it is selfish, but it's for their own good. As you said, after a short intro to the Mac, they're able to figure out most stuff by themselves and hardly ever bother you anymore, except when they video-iChat you to tell you how much they love their Macs and how they made this awesome song with Garage Band today or a movie of their cute little cat or something. Besides, Windows support calls grew to a point where it just wasn't viable for me to fix all of them anymore, especially when I finished studying and got a job.
There's something else which is kind of an issue for me here: if you got a friend who's a medical doctor, you don't harass him with the fungus growing out of your ass while at a party. You don't expect free medical advice for your weird problem. What makes people think that computer experts are different?
That's where you're wrong. They're not protecting "a small portion of the user base", they're protecting themselves. And unless you're Nintendo, you simply do not know how small (or, most likely, big) the amount of children using their service is.
You know, if you don't want to chat, simply don't chat, but don't force everybody else to stop chatting just because you don't like it.
There's no connection between friend codes and chatting. As I've said, Animal Crossing (which uses friend codes) allows for chatting. And no, you can't just not participate in the communication if you're playing a game which provides it.
we can't act on the information. If we knew for sure that we humans are causing changes, then we should mend our ways rapidly
This I disagree with. I doesn't matter whether we know that the temperature change is (partially) man-made. Let's assume that the probability that human behaviour can't influence the climate chance towards a more positive outcome is 80%. That means the probability that we can make a difference is 20%. Isn't 20% enough to at least try?
The simple fact is that whether we have proof of our influence doesn't matter at all. The people who could "mend our ways" won't do it regardless of whether we know that the climate change is our fault. There's simply too much money involved.
If all it took was proof, by now they would have more than enough to act on it.
It is stilly because it cripples the online experience a lot without a good reason.
There is a good reason. Apple doesn't want children to be contacted by strangers online.
Nothing wrong with Nintendo doing some child-protection, but then please do so without pissing of all the older gamers around.
As I already said, they don't piss of all the older gamers. I'm definitely an older gamer, and I like friend codes and anonymous online gaming because I don't want to be harassed by 15-years-olds who have nothing better to do than scream swear words and tell me how gay I am if I beat them in Mario Kart.
its really no different then playing against some intelligent bots
First of all, this is exactly what I want. Second, you're wrong: This is not an inherent issue with friend codes. Animal Crossing uses friend codes and is nothing at all like playing against intelligent bots.
No, they don't. I fixed that "hey, I have trouble with my computer, can you quickly drop by and fix it?" problem quite easily: I don't support Windows boxes. Buy a Mac or don't call me. Those who bought a Mac hardly ever have to call, and those who kept Windows boxes eventually found somebody else to harass.
For Macs, if there actually is an issue that some simple troubleshooting steps can't fix (which is quite unlikely), I use DiskWarrior and the Apple-provided Tech Tools Deluxe. Finally, Mac OS X provides a nice "Archive and Install" function which allows you to install a clean version of Mac OS X over a broken version, fixing all problems while keeping user data and dropping files that were installed into the system into a special folder.
Using friend codes isn't a silly choice. It's something Nintendo did to protect younger players. It's also something I like. I use online play as a kind of "hardest" setting for games after I've beaten them offline. I don't care who I'm playing against.
Obviously, there's lots of room for improvement for people who want different things from online games, but that doesn't make Nintendo's decision "silly". They're simply not aiming their online service at hardcore gamers, and that works for me.
If you laud Apple for including more and more useful apps in System Software, then you can't turn around and troll Microsoft for doing the same thing.
Uhm, yes, you can. Four points:
First, lots of people are forced to use Microsoft's systems. Often, there's simply no way around Microsoft. This is hardly ever the case with Macs
Second, if Apple bundles an app, you can remove it. You can remove iChat, Safari, Webkit without breaking anything. Jeez, you can even remove the whole Finder and make it so it never gets started
Third, Mac users tend to not run the default apps. Most Windows users simply click on the IE icon, while most Mac users I know have at least two or three browsers on their System. Mac users are simply more likely to try stuff outside of what Apple provides
And finally, Apple has never been convicted or even sued for abusing its "monopoly"
So yeah, you can be annoyed at Microsoft's behaviour and still think that Apple's behaviour is okay or even good.
Actually, even Apple doesn't believe that line. That's why it's shipping software for widget design
Yes, if youre next big idea is a digital clock for your Mac's desktop, then you can realize it without being a programmer.
We're talking about ideas for new software applications here, not about AppleScripts that you use and then throw away. Even if you create your apps using Apple's Widget Studio (or whatever he heck it was called), you need to know how to program unless you're using one of Apple's templates. Not to mention that you're locked in Apple's Widget Sandbox, so good luck implementing your awesome ideas as widgets and AppleScripts.
all the big tasks are staked out by well-known apps
No, they're not, and that's the whole point. There are constantly new apps coming out of the left field. Some of them from big vendors (Apple had a few in recent years: stuff like iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band; Exposé could have been a shareware app if somebody outside of Apple had come up with the idea), some of them from smaller ones (again, check macupdate.com for tons of examples).
The promise of widgets, I'm sorry to report, is to make you redundant
Hah, I'm glad I had no coffee in my mouth right now. So you're going to create account opening software using Mac OS X Widgets? You're going to destroy our workflow application with your clock widget based on Apple's templates? I'm telling you, I'm shaking in my booths.
And again, I must end this by saying that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. We're discussing a competition where people can send ideas for new software applications. My argument was that non-programmers should send their ideas, because they're not going to make any money with these ideas anyway.
Your argument seems to be that first, yes they are going to make money because they can implement their ideas (no matter what they are) as widgets (because magically, you don't have to program if you want to implement your idea as a Widget). Second, nobody is going to make money with software because all the applications that ever need to exist already do exist. And third, programmers are going to make money after all because users are stupid, contradicting everything you just said. Oh, and fourth, Delicious Library is a useless piece of crap for vain people which, of course, has no real use whatsoever (I guess you never lent somebody a DVD, never got it back and forgot who the hell you gave it to, correct?)
Maybe that's also a commentary on how many people want to be Cocoa developers.
Maybe it's a commentary on how stupid most people are that they don't get memory management?:-)
Luckily, there's garbage collection in Objective-C 2.0. But you're right, most programmers nowadays seem to learn Java or C# and then not invest anthing into "harder" programming languages like Objective-C or C.
I guess I should start out with an apology myself. Instead of calmly pointing out where the misunderstanding was, I replied by flaming back. Sorry. And, fwiw, apology accepted:-)
About successfull software companies; as far as I can tell, it goes like this: A developer has an idea. He somehow finds the time to implement this idea. 95% of the time, the story ends here. Either the idea was crap, the implementation was crap or the developer wasn't able to make his app known. However, 5% of the time, it doesn't end here. Somehow, the application becomes a moderate or even big success. What happens next depends on the developer's skills: If his business skills suck and he doesn't want to or isn't able to hire somebody to help out, the application will remain a moderate success until something better comes along and his business peters out. If his business skills suck and he is able to hire somebody who has the talent which he lacks, things usually work out well. Since he doesn't have to care about the business side, he can concentrate on programming, probably start a second app and maybe hire more people. This is probably how most software companies get started. If his business skills are good, he may be able to manage his shop alone, but this will take away time he would spend programming, which may eventually will lead to him remaining a one-man shop.
Now, I'm not living in the USA, so venture capital is probably somewhat harder to come by here than over there. I don't know many software shops which started out by somebody having an idea, pitching it a bank or a similar entity and thus gaining money and expertise helping him set up his shop. However, I have no stats to back that up. Just my personal experience that most successfull software shops start out with a programmer's idea. And yes, those which remain successfull over a longer period of time usually have employees with a diverse skillset, not only programmers.
Is this contest a good idea for programmers with an idea? In my opinion, if you're a programmer who has a good idea and can set aside the time to implement it, go for it. Don't give it away. It's more work for you, and chances are it won't work out, but if it does work out, it will mean great things for you.
If you're not a programmer, enter the contest. The chances that you'll be able to realize your idea on your own are very, very small.
I agree, the fault often lies with the engineers since they're the ones who should actually know better. But that doesn't change the fact that customers don't know what they want until they get something which they know they don't want:-)
Anyway, I found that lots of short iterations which leads to early feedback helps a ton.
Don't architect your application too strictly to what you think the customer wants. Either you misunderstood, or he'll change his mind sooner or later.
The problem isn't people who don't know how to code, but people who don't think things through.
Yeah, but programmers usually tend to think things through before implementing something. It's what they've been thaught. I'm not trying to diss on customers, it's often the programmer's fault for not asking closer, but who has never experienced the dreaded "Oh, I forgot something when we wrote the specs, just a small change" feedback after you've delivered beta X and the customer suddenly figures out that he forgot to tell you about some little feature that completely changes the whole architecture of your product?
Okay, that has never actually happened to me, but similar things on a smaller scale have.
I think an idea for a piece of software is by itself completely valueless.
I totally agree. Good idea? No value. Good idea + person who can implement it? Some value. Great idea + person who can implement it and actually has a clue about the subject and about programming and interface design and all that stuff + a plan to make money with the product? Lots of value.
99% of all ideas fall into the first category. If you don't have a real plan to implement your idea, you might as well give it away in this contest, because you're not losing anything. Worst case, somebody steals your idea. Instead of having nothing at all, you now have the option of buying (or getting for free) an application based on your idea.
Ideas, or more specifically good ideas, are everything. And a truly good idea is a rare creature indeed. I work as a creative in a large (Australian) advertising agency where clients pay us specifically for ideas and then pay extra for executions.
Uhm, we're talking about software here, not ads.
I would tend to agree that advertising is a bit different. But even so: If you were to go out on the street and ask 100 people for their advertising ideas, you'd get 99 crappy ideas and maybe one which could be developed into something. That's why people pay you money: You are probably a person who can come up with good ideas.
Now lets go back to this contest. Imagine it was a contest for an ad. Your agency runs a contest asking people to send in ideas for an ad. How do you react to some random non-ad person on the street telling you that he's not going to tell you his idea because it's worth too much? The simple fact is that his idea is utterly worthless, and not only because it's probably crap, but because he can't do anything with it. What's he going to do, run his own ads? His idea is worthless regardless of the quality of the idea.
People with ideas change the world.
No, they don't. People with ideas die bitter because they never did anything with their ideas. People with ideas who are capable of doing something with their ideas and who are lucky enough to actually have a good idea and do the right thing with that idea change the world.
Finding people to make something is easier than having a truly innovative insight in the first place.
That is simply not true.
I'm a programmer. I have a drawer full of ideas for apps at home. About once every two weeks some random person who heard from a friend of a friend that I sometimes do small projects calls me because they have a great idea. Everyone has great ideas. Sometimes I have the time to do a few projects (most recently a portal for car pictures which has turned into the biggest car portal in Switzerland, although success is the exception, not the rule when implementing such ideas), but most often I don't. Everyone has ideas, but only very few people are capable of doing something with these ideas, and since these people have ideas of their own (which they probably consider to be better than everyone else's ideas), they are not very likely to implement everyone else's ideas.
Again, your idea is worthless unless you're capable of doing something with it, and chances are you're not. Most people's ideas are going to die with them.
I think you need a trip into the real world of software development.
That's funny. I make a trip into the real world of software development every morning except on saturdays and sundays.
Ideas may be a dime a dozen but good ideas aren't so easy to come by and they take work.
...but we're not talking about those ideas here, now are we? We're talking about a freaking contest where people send in their ideas about new apps. Here's a hint: You have an idea which you think is great? There's a 99% probability that it's not. Your idea sucks.
And even if your idea were great, it's still worthless until you convince somebody who can actually do something with it to implement it.
And the sheer arrogance that only a programmer could produce a good idea for an application is ridiculous.
That's not what I said. I said the opposite: Everyone can have a good idea (and most people think they do), but only programmers can actually do something with their ideas. And since everyone thinks he has good ideas, programmers will typically not want to implement your good idea, because they have good ideas of their own.
So unless you're either a programmer or can pay the salary of one, your idea is not going to be implemented, no matter how good you think it is.
Fools like you give we professional software developers a terrible image because you think you know what everyone wants. You don't.
And fools like you should learn to read before making absurd accusations. I've never claimed that only programmers have good ideas. Most programmers' ideas are just as stupid as everyone else's, but since they're programmers, their ideas are the ones that get implemented, like it or not.
There are reasons that software houses need clients, domain experts, marketeers, analysts, designers, lawyers and consultants as well as many developers and testers
Uhm, software houses don't need "domain experts, marketeers, analysts and consultants" to be successfull. Buy a Mac. Go to macupdate.com. Look at software shops like Delicious Monster, Ranchero Software or Panic. They were programmers who just happened to have an idea which accidentially turned out to be good, and now they're roasting around in Lotus Elises.
Although, frankly, now that I re-read your post I'm not sure what your point actually is. What the hell are you trying to say? Programmers need somebody to supply ideas and market analysis in order for them to create software? Or what? That is so utterly absurd that it's obvious that you don't have the first clue about software development.
Oh, and what's with the personal attacks? Don't you like video games and movies?
Look, if you're not a programmer, your idea is basically worthless. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Programmers who actually implement your idea cost money. Now, you can either participate in this contest and (if you win) not only see your idea realized, but actually get a price and royalties if the app sells.
The choice isn't between owning a great idea which will inevitably make your rich, and giving it away for nothing, as you make it out to be. The choice is between nothing and seeing your idea realized while making money.
Obviously, if you're a programmer who has an awesome idea, don't participate in this contest. Implement it yourself. But I don't think there's even one programmer too stupid to realize this.
Look, what the hell is your point? This is utterly pointless. Yes, dear, I realize that Macs are "Personal Computers". I also realize that 99% of all people use the word "PC" to denominate what we used to call "IBM compatible PCs". Everyone understands what is meant when you say "Macs and PCs". Get over it.
2) Macs are more expensive than the equivilant from a different PC manufacturor.
Yes, for every Mac, you can probably find a PC that is cheaper with similar specs. The same applies to every PC. I said "Macs are priced similarly to PCs", not "You can't find a PC priced cheaper than a Mac". The point here is that you don't pay a huge premium for Macs anymore, compared to PCs. Macs aren't by definition more expensive than PCs. The canonical example is the Dell comparison simply because Dell offers cheap prices at acceptable (at least to some people) quality levels.
Dell's market range is huge, Apple only competes with them in a few areas - pretending otherwise is.... deluded.
I've never seen anyone claim anything other than what you just said. That's the whole point: Macs are priced similarly to PCs, but there are no really cheap Macs because Apple doesn't compete in that segment.
But the support has been in NT since the beginning.
Interestingly, the same seems to apply to Mac OS X. Tiger (and maybe previous versions) support multiple desktiops, but provide no UI, which is why there are lots of virtual desktop apps on macupdate.com - they don't really implement virtual desktops, they simply provide an UI to an existing feature.
First of all, copying is good. We would still be trying to make fire by randomly hitting stones against other stones if we weren't allowed to copy other people's innovations (which, by the way, is why I think Patents hinder progress rather than helping it). It's good that Apple's copying virtual desktops from Unixes. It's good that Microsoft is copying the trash can from Apple. It's good because:
It makes software more consistent with each other, helping users adjust (e.g. if only Adobe didn't had those stupid tab patents, palettes would wore more consistent throughout applications)
It means that no single company can have one huge idea, not let anyone copy it and then rest on its laurels, letting their system stagnate - there's permanent pressure from their competition because they can take this huge idea and maybe even improve on it
It means that in a Darwinism of Ideas, good ideas will spread while bad ideas tend to die, which improves the ecosystem as a whole
So in general, there's nothing wrong with copying because it makes the ecosystem as a whole better.
Yet, all this being said, it is good to keep track of who is mostly innovating and who is mostly copying, and reward the innovators with your money. That way, you put the money where it will be used for further innovation. You reward the innovator. You accelerate the improvements already happening.
Me neither, which is precisely why my DS is getting more playtime than the PSP. Most of the PSP games I own need quite a bit of investment in terms of time (even Lumines or Puzzle Block Party games can go on for hours), while the DS has lots more "five or ten minutes of wasting time before I go to bed" kinds of games.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way, it is selfish, but it's for their own good. As you said, after a short intro to the Mac, they're able to figure out most stuff by themselves and hardly ever bother you anymore, except when they video-iChat you to tell you how much they love their Macs and how they made this awesome song with Garage Band today or a movie of their cute little cat or something. Besides, Windows support calls grew to a point where it just wasn't viable for me to fix all of them anymore, especially when I finished studying and got a job.
There's something else which is kind of an issue for me here: if you got a friend who's a medical doctor, you don't harass him with the fungus growing out of your ass while at a party. You don't expect free medical advice for your weird problem. What makes people think that computer experts are different?
That's where you're wrong. They're not protecting "a small portion of the user base", they're protecting themselves. And unless you're Nintendo, you simply do not know how small (or, most likely, big) the amount of children using their service is.
There's no connection between friend codes and chatting. As I've said, Animal Crossing (which uses friend codes) allows for chatting. And no, you can't just not participate in the communication if you're playing a game which provides it.
This I disagree with. I doesn't matter whether we know that the temperature change is (partially) man-made. Let's assume that the probability that human behaviour can't influence the climate chance towards a more positive outcome is 80%. That means the probability that we can make a difference is 20%. Isn't 20% enough to at least try?
The simple fact is that whether we have proof of our influence doesn't matter at all. The people who could "mend our ways" won't do it regardless of whether we know that the climate change is our fault. There's simply too much money involved.
If all it took was proof, by now they would have more than enough to act on it.
There is a good reason. Apple doesn't want children to be contacted by strangers online.
As I already said, they don't piss of all the older gamers. I'm definitely an older gamer, and I like friend codes and anonymous online gaming because I don't want to be harassed by 15-years-olds who have nothing better to do than scream swear words and tell me how gay I am if I beat them in Mario Kart.
First of all, this is exactly what I want. Second, you're wrong: This is not an inherent issue with friend codes. Animal Crossing uses friend codes and is nothing at all like playing against intelligent bots.
No, they don't. I fixed that "hey, I have trouble with my computer, can you quickly drop by and fix it?" problem quite easily: I don't support Windows boxes. Buy a Mac or don't call me. Those who bought a Mac hardly ever have to call, and those who kept Windows boxes eventually found somebody else to harass.
For Macs, if there actually is an issue that some simple troubleshooting steps can't fix (which is quite unlikely), I use DiskWarrior and the Apple-provided Tech Tools Deluxe. Finally, Mac OS X provides a nice "Archive and Install" function which allows you to install a clean version of Mac OS X over a broken version, fixing all problems while keeping user data and dropping files that were installed into the system into a special folder.
No USB thumb drive required.
Using friend codes isn't a silly choice. It's something Nintendo did to protect younger players. It's also something I like. I use online play as a kind of "hardest" setting for games after I've beaten them offline. I don't care who I'm playing against.
Obviously, there's lots of room for improvement for people who want different things from online games, but that doesn't make Nintendo's decision "silly". They're simply not aiming their online service at hardcore gamers, and that works for me.
That was a design patent (they tried to get the rights to their specific look, not the concept), not a patent.
Uhm, yes, you can. Four points:
So yeah, you can be annoyed at Microsoft's behaviour and still think that Apple's behaviour is okay or even good.
Yes, if youre next big idea is a digital clock for your Mac's desktop, then you can realize it without being a programmer.
We're talking about ideas for new software applications here, not about AppleScripts that you use and then throw away. Even if you create your apps using Apple's Widget Studio (or whatever he heck it was called), you need to know how to program unless you're using one of Apple's templates. Not to mention that you're locked in Apple's Widget Sandbox, so good luck implementing your awesome ideas as widgets and AppleScripts.
No, they're not, and that's the whole point. There are constantly new apps coming out of the left field. Some of them from big vendors (Apple had a few in recent years: stuff like iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band; Exposé could have been a shareware app if somebody outside of Apple had come up with the idea), some of them from smaller ones (again, check macupdate.com for tons of examples).
Hah, I'm glad I had no coffee in my mouth right now. So you're going to create account opening software using Mac OS X Widgets? You're going to destroy our workflow application with your clock widget based on Apple's templates? I'm telling you, I'm shaking in my booths.
And again, I must end this by saying that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. We're discussing a competition where people can send ideas for new software applications. My argument was that non-programmers should send their ideas, because they're not going to make any money with these ideas anyway.
Your argument seems to be that first, yes they are going to make money because they can implement their ideas (no matter what they are) as widgets (because magically, you don't have to program if you want to implement your idea as a Widget). Second, nobody is going to make money with software because all the applications that ever need to exist already do exist. And third, programmers are going to make money after all because users are stupid, contradicting everything you just said. Oh, and fourth, Delicious Library is a useless piece of crap for vain people which, of course, has no real use whatsoever (I guess you never lent somebody a DVD, never got it back and forgot who the hell you gave it to, correct?)
Am I getting that right?
Maybe it's a commentary on how stupid most people are that they don't get memory management? :-)
Luckily, there's garbage collection in Objective-C 2.0. But you're right, most programmers nowadays seem to learn Java or C# and then not invest anthing into "harder" programming languages like Objective-C or C.
I guess I should start out with an apology myself. Instead of calmly pointing out where the misunderstanding was, I replied by flaming back. Sorry. And, fwiw, apology accepted :-)
About successfull software companies; as far as I can tell, it goes like this: A developer has an idea. He somehow finds the time to implement this idea. 95% of the time, the story ends here. Either the idea was crap, the implementation was crap or the developer wasn't able to make his app known. However, 5% of the time, it doesn't end here. Somehow, the application becomes a moderate or even big success. What happens next depends on the developer's skills: If his business skills suck and he doesn't want to or isn't able to hire somebody to help out, the application will remain a moderate success until something better comes along and his business peters out. If his business skills suck and he is able to hire somebody who has the talent which he lacks, things usually work out well. Since he doesn't have to care about the business side, he can concentrate on programming, probably start a second app and maybe hire more people. This is probably how most software companies get started. If his business skills are good, he may be able to manage his shop alone, but this will take away time he would spend programming, which may eventually will lead to him remaining a one-man shop.
Now, I'm not living in the USA, so venture capital is probably somewhat harder to come by here than over there. I don't know many software shops which started out by somebody having an idea, pitching it a bank or a similar entity and thus gaining money and expertise helping him set up his shop. However, I have no stats to back that up. Just my personal experience that most successfull software shops start out with a programmer's idea. And yes, those which remain successfull over a longer period of time usually have employees with a diverse skillset, not only programmers.
Is this contest a good idea for programmers with an idea? In my opinion, if you're a programmer who has a good idea and can set aside the time to implement it, go for it. Don't give it away. It's more work for you, and chances are it won't work out, but if it does work out, it will mean great things for you.
If you're not a programmer, enter the contest. The chances that you'll be able to realize your idea on your own are very, very small.
I agree, the fault often lies with the engineers since they're the ones who should actually know better. But that doesn't change the fact that customers don't know what they want until they get something which they know they don't want :-)
Anyway, I found that lots of short iterations which leads to early feedback helps a ton.
Don't architect your application too strictly to what you think the customer wants. Either you misunderstood, or he'll change his mind sooner or later.
Yeah, but programmers usually tend to think things through before implementing something. It's what they've been thaught. I'm not trying to diss on customers, it's often the programmer's fault for not asking closer, but who has never experienced the dreaded "Oh, I forgot something when we wrote the specs, just a small change" feedback after you've delivered beta X and the customer suddenly figures out that he forgot to tell you about some little feature that completely changes the whole architecture of your product?
Okay, that has never actually happened to me, but similar things on a smaller scale have.
I totally agree. Good idea? No value. Good idea + person who can implement it? Some value. Great idea + person who can implement it and actually has a clue about the subject and about programming and interface design and all that stuff + a plan to make money with the product? Lots of value.
99% of all ideas fall into the first category. If you don't have a real plan to implement your idea, you might as well give it away in this contest, because you're not losing anything. Worst case, somebody steals your idea. Instead of having nothing at all, you now have the option of buying (or getting for free) an application based on your idea.
Uhm, we're talking about software here, not ads.
I would tend to agree that advertising is a bit different. But even so: If you were to go out on the street and ask 100 people for their advertising ideas, you'd get 99 crappy ideas and maybe one which could be developed into something. That's why people pay you money: You are probably a person who can come up with good ideas.
Now lets go back to this contest. Imagine it was a contest for an ad. Your agency runs a contest asking people to send in ideas for an ad. How do you react to some random non-ad person on the street telling you that he's not going to tell you his idea because it's worth too much? The simple fact is that his idea is utterly worthless, and not only because it's probably crap, but because he can't do anything with it. What's he going to do, run his own ads? His idea is worthless regardless of the quality of the idea.
No, they don't. People with ideas die bitter because they never did anything with their ideas. People with ideas who are capable of doing something with their ideas and who are lucky enough to actually have a good idea and do the right thing with that idea change the world.
That is simply not true.
I'm a programmer. I have a drawer full of ideas for apps at home. About once every two weeks some random person who heard from a friend of a friend that I sometimes do small projects calls me because they have a great idea. Everyone has great ideas. Sometimes I have the time to do a few projects (most recently a portal for car pictures which has turned into the biggest car portal in Switzerland, although success is the exception, not the rule when implementing such ideas), but most often I don't. Everyone has ideas, but only very few people are capable of doing something with these ideas, and since these people have ideas of their own (which they probably consider to be better than everyone else's ideas), they are not very likely to implement everyone else's ideas.
Again, your idea is worthless unless you're capable of doing something with it, and chances are you're not. Most people's ideas are going to die with them.
That's funny. I make a trip into the real world of software development every morning except on saturdays and sundays.
...but we're not talking about those ideas here, now are we? We're talking about a freaking contest where people send in their ideas about new apps. Here's a hint: You have an idea which you think is great? There's a 99% probability that it's not. Your idea sucks.
And even if your idea were great, it's still worthless until you convince somebody who can actually do something with it to implement it.
That's not what I said. I said the opposite: Everyone can have a good idea (and most people think they do), but only programmers can actually do something with their ideas. And since everyone thinks he has good ideas, programmers will typically not want to implement your good idea, because they have good ideas of their own.
So unless you're either a programmer or can pay the salary of one, your idea is not going to be implemented, no matter how good you think it is.
And fools like you should learn to read before making absurd accusations. I've never claimed that only programmers have good ideas. Most programmers' ideas are just as stupid as everyone else's, but since they're programmers, their ideas are the ones that get implemented, like it or not.
Uhm, software houses don't need "domain experts, marketeers, analysts and consultants" to be successfull. Buy a Mac. Go to macupdate.com. Look at software shops like Delicious Monster, Ranchero Software or Panic. They were programmers who just happened to have an idea which accidentially turned out to be good, and now they're roasting around in Lotus Elises.
Although, frankly, now that I re-read your post I'm not sure what your point actually is. What the hell are you trying to say? Programmers need somebody to supply ideas and market analysis in order for them to create software? Or what? That is so utterly absurd that it's obvious that you don't have the first clue about software development.
Oh, and what's with the personal attacks? Don't you like video games and movies?
Try finding a good Cocoa developer who will implement your idea. Good luck.
"Snakes on a Plane" isn't even a proper sentence :-)
Look, if you're not a programmer, your idea is basically worthless. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Programmers who actually implement your idea cost money. Now, you can either participate in this contest and (if you win) not only see your idea realized, but actually get a price and royalties if the app sells.
The choice isn't between owning a great idea which will inevitably make your rich, and giving it away for nothing, as you make it out to be. The choice is between nothing and seeing your idea realized while making money.
Obviously, if you're a programmer who has an awesome idea, don't participate in this contest. Implement it yourself. But I don't think there's even one programmer too stupid to realize this.
Look, what the hell is your point? This is utterly pointless. Yes, dear, I realize that Macs are "Personal Computers". I also realize that 99% of all people use the word "PC" to denominate what we used to call "IBM compatible PCs". Everyone understands what is meant when you say "Macs and PCs". Get over it.
Yes, for every Mac, you can probably find a PC that is cheaper with similar specs. The same applies to every PC. I said "Macs are priced similarly to PCs", not "You can't find a PC priced cheaper than a Mac". The point here is that you don't pay a huge premium for Macs anymore, compared to PCs. Macs aren't by definition more expensive than PCs. The canonical example is the Dell comparison simply because Dell offers cheap prices at acceptable (at least to some people) quality levels.
Good thing I'm not drinking coke right now, or my shiny white MacBook would be quite brown and sticky right about now :-D
I've never seen anyone claim anything other than what you just said. That's the whole point: Macs are priced similarly to PCs, but there are no really cheap Macs because Apple doesn't compete in that segment.
Interestingly, the same seems to apply to Mac OS X. Tiger (and maybe previous versions) support multiple desktiops, but provide no UI, which is why there are lots of virtual desktop apps on macupdate.com - they don't really implement virtual desktops, they simply provide an UI to an existing feature.
First of all, copying is good. We would still be trying to make fire by randomly hitting stones against other stones if we weren't allowed to copy other people's innovations (which, by the way, is why I think Patents hinder progress rather than helping it). It's good that Apple's copying virtual desktops from Unixes. It's good that Microsoft is copying the trash can from Apple. It's good because:
So in general, there's nothing wrong with copying because it makes the ecosystem as a whole better.
Yet, all this being said, it is good to keep track of who is mostly innovating and who is mostly copying, and reward the innovators with your money. That way, you put the money where it will be used for further innovation. You reward the innovator. You accelerate the improvements already happening.
Me neither, which is precisely why my DS is getting more playtime than the PSP. Most of the PSP games I own need quite a bit of investment in terms of time (even Lumines or Puzzle Block Party games can go on for hours), while the DS has lots more "five or ten minutes of wasting time before I go to bed" kinds of games.