Don't quote me but with something like 3.5% of the desktop market I don't feel that Apple had their user base in mind when making this decision. Maybe Steve is losing touch with who his user base really is. For the most part Mac users are neither programmers nor systems people. They are an almost eccentric group of artistic and talented individuals who long ago chose to use a Macintosh because of it's simplicity, rock solid hardware design, and it's sophisticated array of available software designed to accomodate their creativity. Musicians, artists, authors, designers, engineers, etc.. Software was available on both the PC platform as well as the Apple platform from day one. But I submit to you that IMHO it is within all likelyhood a fact that the software written for the Apple platforms was signifigantly more user-centric than was any DOS or Windows implementation of the same package. I.E. You wouldn't, and in in many instances still won't, find a keyboard player using a PC running Windows as his midi platform of choice. Nor would you have found an independent recording artist using a freekin soundblaster to record his gig. I'm not wandering off course here, I'm pointing out the fact that the typical Mac user is not a geek and has become accustomed to his or her pre OSX box and could really care less about OSX. Who has time to spend learning it and who has time to wait for software/hardware vendors to catch up? How many shareware and free apps are being used which will never be ported over? Thousands I would guess. My point is that Apple has made an error here by forcing one to boot into OSX. I don't want to do that. Why should I have to do that? Why will I have to change my bootloader and dump OSX off my machine? Why don't I have a choice if I am technically challanged? Shades of Microsoft.....
Excellent analogy with an even better conclusion. Nice job. Unlike the former commenter, I don't believe much more is necessary. I think/. comments are already being read, copied, and archived. But then again, I'm paranoid.
As stated, this is strictly a meeting for "relevant stakeholders" in the industry. It is relevant only as pertains to the economy of the United States. The notice does however devote one line to consumers stating (in part): "the proper role for the Government in facilitating solutions that are best for innovation and best for consumers.". Strictly speaking, the primary goal of both is to substantially change some fundamental underpinnings of how data is transferred from point A to point B and perhaps back. The problem (as has been discussed to death here on/.) is just who is going to dictate what goes where and by what method, and how it will change what you and I call the net. Many of us are a bit paranoid about it as well we should be. The term "Digital Revolution" may even conjure up a new meaning for a few of us if this keeps up. Please comment in person, in writing, or via email to anybody and everybody you can concerning this because OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SOLD US OUT! It's as simple as that. They even put it in writing. It's a done deal and anyone who thinks differently should really look at what's been happening. Same old story. It's been gathering steam for quite a while and now it may be rolling too fast to stop. Secure, Broadband, Economy? Hmmm, sort of sounds like something my t.v. cable company should be scheming with, not the Feds and certainly not in collusion with what they blatantly refer to as the major stakeholders. I don't want to say too much here as it may get misconstrued as a threat to national security (chuckle...), but this is utter bullshit. In theory, you can get your voice heard if you contact your Government representative. Beyond that this may require a MOVEMENT, a SIT-IN, a DEMONSTRATION, or something perhaps even more substantial. IMHO, we will all see the internet become a place where even the most trivial activity will eventually be monitored, archived, and we will all be operating under an OS with the Federal seal of approval. This is not a good thing. I specifically said we will all see this happen as it will not take too long in the making if nothing is done to put it in check.
I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!
I agree with the merits of your statement completely. However, I wonder how many "Joe Shmuck's" surfing the net at home really care about upstream bandwidth? I have to assume that the number of people who simply turn on their pc, check their email, and see what the Weather Channel(tm) website has to say about their local forecast is the largest percentage of typical users of the internet. A good chunk of the rest are mindlessly wandering around AOL (no further comment). This would imply that the minority consists of we who read sites like Slashdot and care about upstream bandwidth. I have to stress the word minority here because if you: A) care about bandwidth B) want to be a producer or host C) even know what the word "bandwidth" means then you are definitely in the minority. Something I think we are all too quick to assume is that there is some type of universal intelligence on the part of web user's when there defintely is not. Again, (IMHO) I think most user's want to be a couch potato because they don't know or don't want to know anything more that would further complicate their lives. Someone's previous observation that P2P software has changed this is assuming that all recipients of data equally want to be sources of data. I don't know about you, but uploaders really cramp my style on KaZaA. My downstream bandwidth gets killed because I have a 56K ISP uplink and a satellite dish downlink. I don't want to share data in this case as I can't get those cd's fast enough. I've presented a case for the merchandiser/consumer model here. As long as the majority of user's stay stupid then marketers will increasingly seek alliances with service providers to affect the largest number of users possible. This is not only confined to the web - it reaches much further. Does Microsoft's recently announced partnership with Verizon bother anybody? It bother's me. As a Verizon customer (which I am), do I now have to face another outlet for "Windows" to be in my face on my phone? To hell with the contract cancellation penalties. I'll use two tin cans and a string the day I see ANY ad, service, etc... from MS on my cell phone. Back to the web and the original article in general: perhaps the most troubling part of the reality to me is the admonishment of government influence/control. Perhaps I'll be labelled as a "terroristic threat"(tm GWB) for saying so, but with the level of paranoia up within an already visibly bipolar Bush adminstration I think we can expect certain government affects on our freedoms on the web (will the "right" to cruise the web soon become a revokable "privalege"?). But, for the majority, it's not a problem because they can still get their email and they can still check the weather channel as long as they behave themselves. HELLO !!!! Does anyone have a problem here or is it just me being paranoid again?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't quote me but with something like 3.5% of the desktop market I don't feel that Apple had their user base in mind when making this decision. Maybe Steve is losing touch with who his user base really is.
For the most part Mac users are neither programmers nor systems people. They are an almost eccentric group of artistic and talented individuals who long ago chose to use a Macintosh because of it's simplicity, rock solid hardware design, and it's sophisticated array of available software designed to accomodate their creativity. Musicians, artists, authors, designers, engineers, etc..
Software was available on both the PC platform as well as the Apple platform from day one. But I submit to you that IMHO it is within all likelyhood a fact that the software written for the Apple platforms was signifigantly more user-centric than was any DOS or Windows implementation of the same package. I.E. You wouldn't, and in in many instances still won't, find a keyboard player using a PC running Windows as his midi platform of choice. Nor would you have found an independent recording artist using a freekin soundblaster to record his gig.
I'm not wandering off course here, I'm pointing out the fact that the typical Mac user is not a geek and has become accustomed to his or her pre OSX box and could really care less about OSX. Who has time to spend learning it and who has time to wait for software/hardware vendors to catch up? How many shareware and free apps are being used which will never be ported over? Thousands I would guess.
My point is that Apple has made an error here by forcing one to boot into OSX. I don't want to do that. Why should I have to do that? Why will I have to change my bootloader and dump OSX off my machine? Why don't I have a choice if I am technically challanged? Shades of Microsoft.....
Excellent analogy with an even better conclusion. Nice job. Unlike the former commenter, I don't believe much more is necessary. I think /. comments are already being read, copied, and archived. But then again, I'm paranoid.
As stated, this is strictly a meeting for "relevant stakeholders" in the industry. It is relevant only as pertains to the economy of the United States. The notice does however devote one line to consumers stating (in part): "the proper role for the Government in facilitating solutions that are best for innovation and best for consumers.". /.) is just who is going to dictate what goes where and by what method, and how it will change what you and I call the net.
Strictly speaking, the primary goal of both is to substantially change some fundamental underpinnings of how data is transferred from point A to point B and perhaps back. The problem (as has been discussed to death here on
Many of us are a bit paranoid about it as well we should be. The term "Digital Revolution" may even conjure up a new meaning for a few of us if this keeps up. Please comment in person, in writing, or via email to anybody and everybody you can concerning this because OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SOLD US OUT! It's as simple as that. They even put it in writing. It's a done deal and anyone who thinks differently should really look at what's been happening.
Same old story. It's been gathering steam for quite a while and now it may be rolling too fast to stop.
Secure, Broadband, Economy? Hmmm, sort of sounds like something my t.v. cable company should be scheming with, not the Feds and certainly not in collusion with what they blatantly refer to as the major stakeholders. I don't want to say too much here as it may get misconstrued as a threat to national security (chuckle...), but this is utter bullshit. In theory, you can get your voice heard if you contact your Government representative. Beyond that this may require a MOVEMENT, a SIT-IN, a DEMONSTRATION, or something perhaps even more substantial.
IMHO, we will all see the internet become a place where even the most trivial activity will eventually be monitored, archived, and we will all be operating under an OS with the Federal seal of approval. This is not a good thing.
I specifically said we will all see this happen as it will not take too long in the making if nothing is done to put it in check.
I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!
I agree with the merits of your statement completely. However, I wonder how many "Joe Shmuck's" surfing the net at home really care about upstream bandwidth? I have to assume that the number of people who simply turn on their pc, check their email, and see what the Weather Channel(tm) website has to say about their local forecast is the largest percentage of typical users of the internet. A good chunk of the rest are mindlessly wandering around AOL (no further comment).
This would imply that the minority consists of we who read sites like Slashdot and care about upstream bandwidth. I have to stress the word minority here because if you:
A) care about bandwidth
B) want to be a producer or host
C) even know what the word "bandwidth" means
then you are definitely in the minority. Something I think we are all too quick to assume is that there is some type of universal intelligence on the part of web user's when there defintely is not. Again, (IMHO) I think most user's want to be a couch potato because they don't know or don't want to know anything more that would further complicate their lives.
Someone's previous observation that P2P software has changed this is assuming that all recipients of data equally want to be sources of data. I don't know about you, but uploaders really cramp my style on KaZaA. My downstream bandwidth gets killed because I have a 56K ISP uplink and a satellite dish downlink. I don't want to share data in this case as I can't get those cd's fast enough.
I've presented a case for the merchandiser/consumer model here. As long as the majority of user's stay stupid then marketers will increasingly seek alliances with service providers to affect the largest number of users possible. This is not only confined to the web - it reaches much further. Does Microsoft's recently announced partnership with Verizon bother anybody? It bother's me. As a Verizon customer (which I am), do I now have to face another outlet for "Windows" to be in my face on my phone? To hell with the contract cancellation penalties. I'll use two tin cans and a string the day I see ANY ad, service, etc... from MS on my cell phone.
Back to the web and the original article in general: perhaps the most troubling part of the reality to me is the admonishment of government influence/control. Perhaps I'll be labelled as a "terroristic threat"(tm GWB) for saying so, but with the level of paranoia up within an already visibly bipolar Bush adminstration I think we can expect certain government affects on our freedoms on the web (will the "right" to cruise the web soon become a revokable "privalege"?). But, for the majority, it's not a problem because they can still get their email and they can still check the weather channel as long as they behave themselves. HELLO !!!! Does anyone have a problem here or is it just me being paranoid again?