No great loss. Windows advocates/zealots always pointed to Google's zeitgeist OS numbers as proof that nobody uses OS X or Linux, but consider this. It's known that people do a great deal of their web surfing at work. It's also no secret that corporations seem to have an indefatigable love affair with Microsoft which means that Windows machines are predominant in the workplace.
Many, many, many times have I been counted as a "Windows user" by Google's zeitgeist, but I've never owned a Windows machine. This is even worse for Linux. At least OS X has some foothold on the corporate desktop which means OS X gets some "at work" hits on Google. Linux, not typically used as a desktop machine, doesn't even get that benefit.
So anyway, I'm not unhappy to see one of the many FUD tools taken from the hands of so many MS zealots.
I keep hearing charges against Apple (some here, some on other forums around the Internet) for abusing its position. Well...
Hold on a second. Apple isn't abusing anything. They went forward into a market that just about everyone on the planet, including a lot of people posting here, said was foolish. They did so at great expense and at great potential embarrassment to themselves should it have failed. They developed iTunes, the music store, the iPod; they negotiated probably pricey agreements with music labels and more lenient DRM than most of us would have assumed possible; they sell songs, paying for the massive bandwidth, and just about break-even. They dumped cash into the R&D for this and they did it right and made a massive success out of something that everyone else had written off largely because nobody thought the P2P networks could be beaten or than nobody was interested in music that wasn't on CDs.
And now, because Apple doesn't want to let lazy, visionless competitors in on that for almost nothing, I hear claims that they are abusing their market position. Huh? If Apple had appropriated all these great ideas from a little company and used its influence and power to take over things and lock everyone into their standards, then there would be a legitimate gripe. Apple did ALL OF THIS on their own. It's their pie. And it's wrong because they won't let Real have a free slice of it? What did Real do to earn a seat at the table? Nothing.
And then I hear the argument that the iPod/iTunes is a closed system and that Real is just doing what's best for the market. That's terribly over-simplified. Until the day comes that I can't play mp3s or import CDs into an iPod or iTunes, then that complaint is meaningless. Look at Sony's music player and then tell me the iPod/iTunes system is a closed one.
I love how Real wears their concern for the consumer on their sleeve, like we're all buying that line. Does anyone really think lower prices for consumers is Real's motivation or do you think lining their pockets with some of Apple's hard-earned innovation is the motive. Gee, I have a guess. I have no problem with Apple keeping this goodie to themselves. They practically invented this market--a market that others repeatedly claimed wasn't there, couldn't be done, would never happen because of P2P networks, etc., etc. Now all the nay-sayers want a slice of it. Too bad.
At one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio and video technology. I remember the first time I used Real to listen to streaming audio and watch streaming video. I was blown away and everyone else played catch-up with them for a while. Remember that?
I've said it before: Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? They should stop hiding behind embarrassingly disingenuous claims of concern for the consumer. If Real were genuinely concerned for consumers, they would never have let their products become as crappy as they currently are and would never have tried coasting for as long as they did on what little innovation they managed in their heyday.
Think the average Joe wants to deal with "unblocking ports?"
Then maybe Joe ought to stick to watching TV instead of computing. I'm not defending Microsoft because I think they brought a lot of this on themselves by concentrating more on being a big media company than a company that makes good software. However, nobody in this day and age has any business using a computer connected to the internet without at least a passing familiarity with the basics.
10 years ago, I would have argued that computer companies ought to cater to even the most computer-illiterate out there, but my views on that have changed as it's become apparent how deeply computers have infiltrated our daily lives. They're like cars or homes at this point, and you don't buy either without some idea of how to do the basics.
I don't use Windows, but I am affected when the 'net slows to a crawl because all those average Joes out there know fuck-all about ports. We don't let the highways get clogged up with idiots who have no idea how to drive a car. I think it's time people start expecting a little more of the average users out there.
Remember, unlike Apple and Linux distros MS can't bundle much into their OS unless they want to get dragged back to court...
You're probably not defending them, but that comment sounds very close to it. Just a reminder: whose fault is it that they can't bundle? Right! Microsoft. This "can't bundle" corner is one that MS painted itself into. If they hadn't done so much unnecessary bundling to bump competitors off their turf, then nobody would blink an eye at them bundling products that actually are a necessity.
Great. I get modded as "flamebait" for making an observation and backing it up, i.e., this update is actually making headlines. Go look at http://news.com.com/ ("Slow road to XP update.")
When was the last time an operating system update actually made headlines? All I was doing was pointing out that so many people claim that Windows is perfectly fine as is, and yet there's an awful lot of hoopla for just an OS update. Am I mistaken in noting that? Am I trying to cause problems by pointing that out? I've been on Slashdot for several years and this phenomenon of being modded flamebait or troll because someone disagrees has increased fairly dramatically.
Some folks around here are wound a little too tight, IMO.
Let me get this straight. When I've made the mistake in the past of arguing the silly issue of Windows vs. some other platforms, Windows users will claim that the system is perfectly secure the way it is and there's nothing seriously wrong with Windows and blah blah blah....
And yet this update is actually making headlines, and I'm watching Windows users scramble for it like it's bread and water after a long trek in the desert.
"Yes," said the man standing next to the ocean. "I know I'm on fire, but I'd rather wait for someone to come along with a fire extinguisher. I'm perfectly fine as I am, thankyouverymuch."
Sounds like something more than solitaire and concern for laziness was going on here. If I thought my boss were wasting time and making thing more difficult for me, I would sit down and talk to him and I know he would hear me out and take me seriously. Then again, I get along really well with my boss. That's one of my criteria in working any job. If you can't talk to your own immediate supervisor about something like that, then you shouldn't be working where you're working. The solution to this guy's problem reeks of resentment and hostility and it sounds like the solitaire playing was the straw that broke the camel's back. I bet there was a lot of bad blood in this work environment. He's better off without the job whether he knows it or not.
Ah... I found it by searching the OS X section of versiontracker.com. Someone has the darn thing filed in the wrong category.:^(
I recall hearing something somewhere about how to get Ogg support in iTunes, but I don't recall where. I did a quick search and found a discussion on macosxhints.com that might give you a lead or two:
It allows iTunes to play OV format, but I'm not sure if that carries over to the iPod. Since the software appears to be a QT component as opposed to an iTunes add-on, I would say the chances are better than not that it will allow OV to play on an iPod. If it doesn't, at least it gives you a bridge to move some OV files to an iPod-compatible format. I know--pain in the butt if you're looking to convert an entire collection, but workable if you just want to move over select files.
Yep, for the most part, I think companies using the DMCA to thwart this kind of move is ridiculous, Apple no exception, but at the same time I have to say to Real (and every other tech company out there): Come up with your own great ideas instead of latching on to the ideas of others like some kind of parasite.
I mean, isn't that what companies in the tech sector, like Real, claim is so great about their sphere? Isn't innovation the Holy Grail of the tech world? So, Real, take your guys off trying to gang-hump iTunes and start brainstorming for your own Great Idea that everyone else in the world will come rushing to. You know, at one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio. Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? Too late. Get over it, stop embarrassing yourselves and move on to something else.
"Bah... it's all a waste of my time and besides, Tolkien ruined my fragile childhood. I prefer the original version of The Hobbit, but nooo... Tolkien had to back up and ruin it all by tampering with perfection and publishing his special edition of The Hobbit... he had to change the Gollum scenes to fit in with Lord of the Rings... I call shenanigans on that.
"Oh yeah, one more thing... Aragorn SHOOTS FIRST!"
Here's a wacky idea: how about getting the friggin' product out the door?
Why does MS do so much talking about what they're going to do instead of actually getting it done? What is the point of all these endless "sneak peeks" and feature announcements and blah blah blah. I'm not just asking this as someone who (admittedly) dislike MS and their products, but rather as someone who just doesn't get why so much blabbing is being done about a product that is supposedly years away from release? One could make the argument that this is potentially harmful to MS in the long-run. They're announcing support for feature X today, but given that feature X may be yesterday's news two years from now, the announcement may actually be harmful to perception of their products. I mean, really: how does this benefit anyone?
I understood what you meant, but you're missing the forest for the trees. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but it seems that you're missing the key element here that makes seems to make Apple a success at this. They make it all: the software, the hardware, the store, etc. It's all them. They don't rely on anyone else, and nobody else is involved in a way that significantly dilutes their vision of how this should work (barring the music companies who appear to have forced the DRM issue, and even there, Apple worked out what is one of the few examples of reasonable DRM out there.)
That's why I think Microsoft "winning" when anyone else ends up at the top is a highly unlikely scenario. It appears that doing so would require building something as streamlined and well-designed as the iPod/iTunes combo--that's hardware and software designed by one company, one company with one vision, not two partnering companies with slightly different aims, not one company on its own doing part of it and hoping someone else will come along and fill the void. That's why the examples you cite are not actually competing with what Apple is doing. I can't see how any of them will manage to get an upper hand on this.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that in the next year or so, we'll see the music business and technology companies bending to Apple's will. We're already seeing it with the music companies who are reconsidering their reliance on WMA because it's incompatible with the iPod. We're seeing HP on the verge of introducing their own co-branded iPod. We've seen changes in the DRM the iPod/iTunes model uses to suit Apple's needs.
MS doesn't win if everyone wants to succeed on Apple's terms and that's how it appears to be going.
I disagree. One of the surprising things that Jobs said when he returned to Apple was that Apple was the only company that "made the whole widget" (that is, make the software and the hardware) but that they had failed to wield the power that it gave them. I think we're seeing, right now with the iPod/iTunes combo, the end result of the company that can weild such power. MS doesn't do the hardware. Dell doesn't do the software. Everyone in the Wintel world has been left in the lurch by this move.
Apple sells a player. Microsoft sells software (WMA and operating systems) to people making competing players.
Competing players that have thus far failed to provide any significant competition against the iPod and it's because Apple doesn't just sell a player. They sell the software that goes with it and the iTunes music store that is designed to work so well with it. They make the whole widget. Love it or hate it, the iPod has slashed its way through the hordes of wannabes and will continue to do so until someone can manage to make the whole widget and compete. Not a trivial task.
Apple has a music store.
Here's where you should have caught the real problem with your theory. Apple has a music store that is intimately tied in to the iPod. Not only that, but Apple was bright enough to design a store and DRM scheme that isn't insulting to its users nor destructive to its business-partners. They do that by making all of it themselves. You can't say that so far about any other model so far, and I think that's the real strength here. Dell can create a player and Wal-Mart can make a music store, but neither of them are actually competing with what Apple does.
Microsoft sells software (DRM software, databases, web servers, etc) to build music stores.
Last I heard, the iTunes music store runs off OS X (but I could be wrong.) I'm not sure I follow your logic.
In fact, music companies are right now rethinking their reliance on WMA format because it's not compatible with the iPod. Apple may actually yank the rug out from under MS with this. And what can MS do about that? Precious litle and none too soon either. That's because they only make the software. They're supposed to have a player out sometime soon, but we'll see.
I think a better observation here is to think in terms of complacency. In the early 90s, Apple was the king of the hill in PCs and they rapidly fell into complacency, not worrying about what MS might have up its sleeve. Nowadays, MS seems to be about everything except making good software (games, news media, search engines, dissing Linux, etc.) MS has become the complacent one.
Carmack may want to get George Lucas on the phone. After all this hype and build-up, even the best game imaginable is going to get trashed when it fails to change the lives of those who play it.
The article states: "Tim Berners-Lee, the British inventor of the world wide web, has received his knighthood from the Queen."
I'm not trying to dispute Berner-Lee's brilliance in recognizing what could be done with the tools and resources available to him, but giving him credit for inventing the Web is a little like giving Steve Jobs credit for inventing the GUI. Both of them took great ideas around them, added their own touches and ideas and combined them in a way that made something greater than the sum of its parts. Credit is certainly due to Berner-Lee, but it's strange that I keep seeing him given credit for creating the Web.
If you have the entire quote, then read it and stop doing what every right-winger in the world has done by trying to make it something it wasn't. Unless you have a quote of Gore stating explicitly that he invented the Internet, then you're spinning what was an admittedly awkwardly-phrased statement.
Pick up a copy of Where Wizards Stay Up Late which retells the story about DARPA/ARPAnet and the evolution of the Internet. Turn back to the index and look up Al Gore. Notice that he's one of the few politicians invited to the 25 year reunion of the ARPA team. Why do you think they would make such a decision? No, he wasn't part of the team, but they clearly recognized that he was one of the few politicians to get the whole Internet concept and was one of the few politicians to fight for supporting it. The reunion wasn't open to the public. Further, it took place just before the explosion of popularity in the Internet (i.e., back when AOL had under 1M subscribers) so it wasn't a photo-op situation.
Please! Limbaugh has never once severely crititicized Bush or any other Republican. Where are Rush's cutesy little insults directed at Bush then? Where's the mocking nickname, huh? He gives other politicians and political movements insulting names (feminazis, etc.) and mocks them tirelessly. Did he do that to Bush too?
Sorry, you're confusing actual criticism and mockery for a little wink-wink between Rush and his dittohead listeners. "I'll gripe at Bush for this and we can all pretend that we're being fair and balanced. Wink-wink!"
Here, try this out for size. Look at Bartcop.com. Bartcop is a very popular, very funny and incisive liberal site that quite often rakes Dems and liberals over the coals. Here's an image of the Pink Tutu Democrats that Bartcop runs frequently, accusing various Dems including Kerry and Edwards of dancing on Bush's command. That's the tip of the iceberg too. There is no right-wing equivalent of that kind of mockery and criticism going on.
The article states that Sony "has been hurt by price wars and weaker demand" but I think that doesn't tell the whole story. I think the company's focus on quality has shifted dramatically in the last decade, for the worse.
I was once one of Sony's biggest cheerleaders out there. I loved their products. They were reasonably priced, functioned well and came with great customer service. I would go out of my way to buy the Sony product over a competitor's in many situations.
No more. In the last decade, I've bought Sony products that have failed well before they should have and I've had several decidedly unpleasant dealings with their customer service people who seemed far less interested in actually helping me than somehow convincing me that it was pretty much my own fault and I should just accept it. Amazingly bad service and their products seem to have gone downhill. Not only have I started buying products by their competitors, but I now intentionally avoid the Sony product if possible.
No idea what's gone so wrong with what was once a great company, but I wouldn't buy a Sony mp3 player over an iPod at a quarter of the price.
You're obviously trolling and trying to take the sting out of any accusations by commenting on that which is a lame ploy. But hey, make your day and respond to this:
Not that I believe any of that, but hey, if someone likes F911, maybe they'd like the Clinton Chronicles, too.
The key difference between left- and right-wing propaganda is that left-wingers will also criticize the Democrats and liberals if necessary. Moore has, and does, slam the Democrats. Al Franken has too. Mike Malloy did it. Randi Rhodes does it. Lots of "liberal" commentators do it regularly because they stand by principles, not a party. Can you cite an example of the producers of The Clinton Chronicles going after a Republican or a conservative on film like that? How about Ann Coulter? Rush? Sean Hannity? Ever hear those guys utter a single criticism of their own side? In fact, many of them stick to what's called Reagan's eleventh commandment: to speak no ill of fellow Republicans.
The difference between these two groups of commentators is striking and if you don't believe it, go look into David Brock's Blinded by the Right which gives an insider's account of the Republican smear machinery at work of which the Clinton Chronicles is a small part. Still, if it makes you feel good to equate someone like Michael Moore with the producers of the tripe called The Clinton Chronicles, then by all means, go for it.
A slew of anti-Moore web sites out there are no doubt rushing to revise smart-ass comments now. Some of them try to show what a "liar" Moore is by encouraging their visitors to share F9/11 justifying it with Moore's quotes about not having a problem with downloading these kinds of things. I love the fact that Moore doesn't flinch on this stance. A lot of those smarmy comments are going to look pretty stupid at this point.
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
This is going to sound like a troll, but it's not. I'm just expressing something that's confusing me. Maybe someone can clarify.
Here we are again with yet another MS vulnerability and I see, as always, a vocal group of posters claiming that Linux or Macs or whatever are no safer and blah blah blah... Well, perhaps in theory you're right, but what's your point? To make yourself feel better by talking in meaningless abstractions? What do you gain by decrying what may be perfectly legitimate and functional replacements for Windows? What do you gain by sticking by a platform that is riddled with security issues?
I'll admit that I'm no fan of Microsoft, but what is with this defensive posturing? At what point do you finally say, "I've had enough... I'm looking elsewhere for my computing needs"? Does it ever end or are we to expect Windows users to defend this kind of thing to the end of the earth?
So often, Mac users and Linux users are painted as starry-eyed fanatics, and yet, I see the most reflexively defensive responses from Windows users and it puzzles me. Microsoft no doubt has the resources and the money to make the platform a little less problematic, and yet the problems persist. Perhaps they need some of you users to direct your frustration at them, not as Macs or Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Many, many, many times have I been counted as a "Windows user" by Google's zeitgeist, but I've never owned a Windows machine. This is even worse for Linux. At least OS X has some foothold on the corporate desktop which means OS X gets some "at work" hits on Google. Linux, not typically used as a desktop machine, doesn't even get that benefit.
So anyway, I'm not unhappy to see one of the many FUD tools taken from the hands of so many MS zealots.
Hold on a second. Apple isn't abusing anything. They went forward into a market that just about everyone on the planet, including a lot of people posting here, said was foolish. They did so at great expense and at great potential embarrassment to themselves should it have failed. They developed iTunes, the music store, the iPod; they negotiated probably pricey agreements with music labels and more lenient DRM than most of us would have assumed possible; they sell songs, paying for the massive bandwidth, and just about break-even. They dumped cash into the R&D for this and they did it right and made a massive success out of something that everyone else had written off largely because nobody thought the P2P networks could be beaten or than nobody was interested in music that wasn't on CDs.
And now, because Apple doesn't want to let lazy, visionless competitors in on that for almost nothing, I hear claims that they are abusing their market position. Huh? If Apple had appropriated all these great ideas from a little company and used its influence and power to take over things and lock everyone into their standards, then there would be a legitimate gripe. Apple did ALL OF THIS on their own. It's their pie. And it's wrong because they won't let Real have a free slice of it? What did Real do to earn a seat at the table? Nothing.
And then I hear the argument that the iPod/iTunes is a closed system and that Real is just doing what's best for the market. That's terribly over-simplified. Until the day comes that I can't play mp3s or import CDs into an iPod or iTunes, then that complaint is meaningless. Look at Sony's music player and then tell me the iPod/iTunes system is a closed one.
At one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio and video technology. I remember the first time I used Real to listen to streaming audio and watch streaming video. I was blown away and everyone else played catch-up with them for a while. Remember that?
I've said it before: Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? They should stop hiding behind embarrassingly disingenuous claims of concern for the consumer. If Real were genuinely concerned for consumers, they would never have let their products become as crappy as they currently are and would never have tried coasting for as long as they did on what little innovation they managed in their heyday.
Then maybe Joe ought to stick to watching TV instead of computing. I'm not defending Microsoft because I think they brought a lot of this on themselves by concentrating more on being a big media company than a company that makes good software. However, nobody in this day and age has any business using a computer connected to the internet without at least a passing familiarity with the basics.
10 years ago, I would have argued that computer companies ought to cater to even the most computer-illiterate out there, but my views on that have changed as it's become apparent how deeply computers have infiltrated our daily lives. They're like cars or homes at this point, and you don't buy either without some idea of how to do the basics.
I don't use Windows, but I am affected when the 'net slows to a crawl because all those average Joes out there know fuck-all about ports. We don't let the highways get clogged up with idiots who have no idea how to drive a car. I think it's time people start expecting a little more of the average users out there.
"Hi... it looks like you're trying to pulverize me!"
You're probably not defending them, but that comment sounds very close to it. Just a reminder: whose fault is it that they can't bundle? Right! Microsoft. This "can't bundle" corner is one that MS painted itself into. If they hadn't done so much unnecessary bundling to bump competitors off their turf, then nobody would blink an eye at them bundling products that actually are a necessity.
When was the last time an operating system update actually made headlines? All I was doing was pointing out that so many people claim that Windows is perfectly fine as is, and yet there's an awful lot of hoopla for just an OS update. Am I mistaken in noting that? Am I trying to cause problems by pointing that out? I've been on Slashdot for several years and this phenomenon of being modded flamebait or troll because someone disagrees has increased fairly dramatically.
Some folks around here are wound a little too tight, IMO.
(Waiting for this one to be modded off-topic.)
And yet this update is actually making headlines, and I'm watching Windows users scramble for it like it's bread and water after a long trek in the desert.
"Yes," said the man standing next to the ocean. "I know I'm on fire, but I'd rather wait for someone to come along with a fire extinguisher. I'm perfectly fine as I am, thankyouverymuch."
I recall hearing something somewhere about how to get Ogg support in iTunes, but I don't recall where. I did a quick search and found a discussion on macosxhints.com that might give you a lead or two:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20021 103065300430
I'll check out the petition too.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/qtcomponents/
It allows iTunes to play OV format, but I'm not sure if that carries over to the iPod. Since the software appears to be a QT component as opposed to an iTunes add-on, I would say the chances are better than not that it will allow OV to play on an iPod. If it doesn't, at least it gives you a bridge to move some OV files to an iPod-compatible format. I know--pain in the butt if you're looking to convert an entire collection, but workable if you just want to move over select files.
I mean, isn't that what companies in the tech sector, like Real, claim is so great about their sphere? Isn't innovation the Holy Grail of the tech world? So, Real, take your guys off trying to gang-hump iTunes and start brainstorming for your own Great Idea that everyone else in the world will come rushing to. You know, at one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio. Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? Too late. Get over it, stop embarrassing yourselves and move on to something else.
"Oh yeah, one more thing... Aragorn SHOOTS FIRST!"
Why does MS do so much talking about what they're going to do instead of actually getting it done? What is the point of all these endless "sneak peeks" and feature announcements and blah blah blah. I'm not just asking this as someone who (admittedly) dislike MS and their products, but rather as someone who just doesn't get why so much blabbing is being done about a product that is supposedly years away from release? One could make the argument that this is potentially harmful to MS in the long-run. They're announcing support for feature X today, but given that feature X may be yesterday's news two years from now, the announcement may actually be harmful to perception of their products. I mean, really: how does this benefit anyone?
That's why I think Microsoft "winning" when anyone else ends up at the top is a highly unlikely scenario. It appears that doing so would require building something as streamlined and well-designed as the iPod/iTunes combo--that's hardware and software designed by one company, one company with one vision, not two partnering companies with slightly different aims, not one company on its own doing part of it and hoping someone else will come along and fill the void. That's why the examples you cite are not actually competing with what Apple is doing. I can't see how any of them will manage to get an upper hand on this.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that in the next year or so, we'll see the music business and technology companies bending to Apple's will. We're already seeing it with the music companies who are reconsidering their reliance on WMA because it's incompatible with the iPod. We're seeing HP on the verge of introducing their own co-branded iPod. We've seen changes in the DRM the iPod/iTunes model uses to suit Apple's needs.
MS doesn't win if everyone wants to succeed on Apple's terms and that's how it appears to be going.
I disagree. One of the surprising things that Jobs said when he returned to Apple was that Apple was the only company that "made the whole widget" (that is, make the software and the hardware) but that they had failed to wield the power that it gave them. I think we're seeing, right now with the iPod/iTunes combo, the end result of the company that can weild such power. MS doesn't do the hardware. Dell doesn't do the software. Everyone in the Wintel world has been left in the lurch by this move.
Apple sells a player. Microsoft sells software (WMA and operating systems) to people making competing players.
Competing players that have thus far failed to provide any significant competition against the iPod and it's because Apple doesn't just sell a player. They sell the software that goes with it and the iTunes music store that is designed to work so well with it. They make the whole widget. Love it or hate it, the iPod has slashed its way through the hordes of wannabes and will continue to do so until someone can manage to make the whole widget and compete. Not a trivial task.
Apple has a music store.
Here's where you should have caught the real problem with your theory. Apple has a music store that is intimately tied in to the iPod. Not only that, but Apple was bright enough to design a store and DRM scheme that isn't insulting to its users nor destructive to its business-partners. They do that by making all of it themselves. You can't say that so far about any other model so far, and I think that's the real strength here. Dell can create a player and Wal-Mart can make a music store, but neither of them are actually competing with what Apple does.
Microsoft sells software (DRM software, databases, web servers, etc) to build music stores.
Last I heard, the iTunes music store runs off OS X (but I could be wrong.) I'm not sure I follow your logic.
In fact, music companies are right now rethinking their reliance on WMA format because it's not compatible with the iPod. Apple may actually yank the rug out from under MS with this. And what can MS do about that? Precious litle and none too soon either. That's because they only make the software. They're supposed to have a player out sometime soon, but we'll see.
I think a better observation here is to think in terms of complacency. In the early 90s, Apple was the king of the hill in PCs and they rapidly fell into complacency, not worrying about what MS might have up its sleeve. Nowadays, MS seems to be about everything except making good software (games, news media, search engines, dissing Linux, etc.) MS has become the complacent one.
I'm not trying to dispute Berner-Lee's brilliance in recognizing what could be done with the tools and resources available to him, but giving him credit for inventing the Web is a little like giving Steve Jobs credit for inventing the GUI. Both of them took great ideas around them, added their own touches and ideas and combined them in a way that made something greater than the sum of its parts. Credit is certainly due to Berner-Lee, but it's strange that I keep seeing him given credit for creating the Web.
Pick up a copy of Where Wizards Stay Up Late which retells the story about DARPA/ARPAnet and the evolution of the Internet. Turn back to the index and look up Al Gore. Notice that he's one of the few politicians invited to the 25 year reunion of the ARPA team. Why do you think they would make such a decision? No, he wasn't part of the team, but they clearly recognized that he was one of the few politicians to get the whole Internet concept and was one of the few politicians to fight for supporting it. The reunion wasn't open to the public. Further, it took place just before the explosion of popularity in the Internet (i.e., back when AOL had under 1M subscribers) so it wasn't a photo-op situation.
Please! Limbaugh has never once severely crititicized Bush or any other Republican. Where are Rush's cutesy little insults directed at Bush then? Where's the mocking nickname, huh? He gives other politicians and political movements insulting names (feminazis, etc.) and mocks them tirelessly. Did he do that to Bush too?
Sorry, you're confusing actual criticism and mockery for a little wink-wink between Rush and his dittohead listeners. "I'll gripe at Bush for this and we can all pretend that we're being fair and balanced. Wink-wink!"
Here, try this out for size. Look at Bartcop.com. Bartcop is a very popular, very funny and incisive liberal site that quite often rakes Dems and liberals over the coals. Here's an image of the Pink Tutu Democrats that Bartcop runs frequently, accusing various Dems including Kerry and Edwards of dancing on Bush's command. That's the tip of the iceberg too. There is no right-wing equivalent of that kind of mockery and criticism going on.
I was once one of Sony's biggest cheerleaders out there. I loved their products. They were reasonably priced, functioned well and came with great customer service. I would go out of my way to buy the Sony product over a competitor's in many situations.
No more. In the last decade, I've bought Sony products that have failed well before they should have and I've had several decidedly unpleasant dealings with their customer service people who seemed far less interested in actually helping me than somehow convincing me that it was pretty much my own fault and I should just accept it. Amazingly bad service and their products seem to have gone downhill. Not only have I started buying products by their competitors, but I now intentionally avoid the Sony product if possible.
No idea what's gone so wrong with what was once a great company, but I wouldn't buy a Sony mp3 player over an iPod at a quarter of the price.
Not that I believe any of that, but hey, if someone likes F911, maybe they'd like the Clinton Chronicles, too.
The key difference between left- and right-wing propaganda is that left-wingers will also criticize the Democrats and liberals if necessary. Moore has, and does, slam the Democrats. Al Franken has too. Mike Malloy did it. Randi Rhodes does it. Lots of "liberal" commentators do it regularly because they stand by principles, not a party. Can you cite an example of the producers of The Clinton Chronicles going after a Republican or a conservative on film like that? How about Ann Coulter? Rush? Sean Hannity? Ever hear those guys utter a single criticism of their own side? In fact, many of them stick to what's called Reagan's eleventh commandment: to speak no ill of fellow Republicans.
The difference between these two groups of commentators is striking and if you don't believe it, go look into David Brock's Blinded by the Right which gives an insider's account of the Republican smear machinery at work of which the Clinton Chronicles is a small part. Still, if it makes you feel good to equate someone like Michael Moore with the producers of the tripe called The Clinton Chronicles, then by all means, go for it.
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
Here we are again with yet another MS vulnerability and I see, as always, a vocal group of posters claiming that Linux or Macs or whatever are no safer and blah blah blah... Well, perhaps in theory you're right, but what's your point? To make yourself feel better by talking in meaningless abstractions? What do you gain by decrying what may be perfectly legitimate and functional replacements for Windows? What do you gain by sticking by a platform that is riddled with security issues?
I'll admit that I'm no fan of Microsoft, but what is with this defensive posturing? At what point do you finally say, "I've had enough... I'm looking elsewhere for my computing needs"? Does it ever end or are we to expect Windows users to defend this kind of thing to the end of the earth?
So often, Mac users and Linux users are painted as starry-eyed fanatics, and yet, I see the most reflexively defensive responses from Windows users and it puzzles me. Microsoft no doubt has the resources and the money to make the platform a little less problematic, and yet the problems persist. Perhaps they need some of you users to direct your frustration at them, not as Macs or Linux.