So does my wife's Subaru. Course, the rain sensing wipers don't detect shmutz on the windshield or condensation...which is usually why I need to find them.
I don't like stepped AKA wizard processes for common tasks...that next button is like a speed bump to productivity.
What I've been doing instead is finding ways to combine all the info on one form, with grouped and (if applicable) entry fields colored to indicate that they are mandatory. Tooltips indicate what info is expected in each field if you've forgotten. Optional info is accessed through an additional screen or a
Incidentally, the reason that "Notes" is mandatory in my app is that the system is a process tracking system. When you add a process entry, you're saying "Something has happened in the process now." The system knows what step to expect next and fills it in. It know who you are from the computer you're using. It knows what time to input and what group you belong to. All that's left is a quick description of what's gone on...and it'll even enter a default description based on the expected step. Ideally, you can perform all the data entry you need on a process that's well set-up and going smoothly by pressing enter twice.
If people ask for functionality that is complex, sometimes you have to sacrifice simplicity to do what they want done. Thats a simple reality
No, it is not a reality. It is a cop out. If you can't collect data in a way that will entice people to enter it, you may as well not collect it: it won't be useful or accurate. It is human nature to subvert interfaces that don't make sense to us, and not even maliciously. The goal of a software developer (which you aren't, no developer has time to monitor a web server) should be to capture the minimum amount of imformation to perform a task accurately.
Of course, trying to convince a control freak he's wasting his time is like like trying to tell a paranoid nobody really cares to listen in on his boring phone conversations.
Actually, non-commercial software is usually MORE guilty of poor interface design than commercial software.
The solution? Why, free commercial software! Apple's free apps are some of the best programs I've used in terms of doing what they're supposed to and nothing more. AIM has a pretty good interface.
Incidentally, I don't find automobile interfaces all that easy. The pedals and wheel I can find, sure. But everything else is wherever the designer thought they'd look nice. For example: you're in a car you've never driven before. How do you shift it into reverse? Do you just shift it? Do you need to have your foot on the brake as well as the clutch? Is it over to the left and back, or over to the right? Do you have to push down on the clutch or press a button? Furthermore, where's the headlight switch? Where's the dashboard dimmer? How do you put the cruise on, or the A/C? Shit -- how do you turn on the wipers?
It's very simple: iPhoto's interface needs to built a detailed database on all the information pertaining to your photos, including several thumbnails, info about when and how you took the picture, info about the albums, comments you've entered, the date of import and a short history of operations you've performed (so you can later back them off). It maintains its own copy of the images so it can assume you aren't changing them outside of iPhoto...just like a real photo album.
If you want powerful image viewing and browsing without the photocentric interface, may I suggest the program ViewIt, which is fast as hell and doesn't mess with your photos. Also, I'm currently working on a hybrid image viewer/tagger called "Jerk," which maintains a series of encrypted tagged image libraries which can either leave images where they are or group them together in an encrypted DMG. You know...for porno? If this kind of thing sounds interesting to you, PLEASE email me -- I could use betas!
In the case of software development, it doesn't make sense to create several different versions of software with different default options turned on or off.
I'll bite. Eckel, in his book "Thinking in Patterns," has a list of 9 design principles that good software follows. One of them reads "Simplicity before Generality." The idea is simple: if you sacrifice even the slightest bit of simplicity to make a program generally accessible, you have not solved the problem.
I've seen this first hand -- I worked with a guy who realized that the problem he was supposed to solve broke down into three separate interrelated variables. So he designed the program with three screens, to allow for maximum flexibility.
Unfortunately, nobody wants a three step process to replace what, for them, was previously a one step process. He's created more work to maintain a superior data model. And now we're having trouble selling it...people are asking wheter tracking and searchability and reporting are worth adding fifteen minutes onto each job.
I was working on a project at the same time that has a nearly UNLIMITED number of variables. But I took heed to the customer complaints, and delivered an interface that has a single form with a single required field: "notes." You can, from buttons on that form, change the date, grouping, result, step in the process, methodology of delivery, contact information and overall status of the project -- but all you HAVE to do is leave notes on what happened. Customers love it...and the reports I produce can be just as detailed.
OSS is often guilty of over complicating things in the name of control. Thing is, control is a BAD THING. Having to control something usually means that the defaults are wrong. Managing a program should be like managing a highly effective person...you should be able to say, "server this as a web page," and it should figure out how this needs to be done in the most secure and efficient way possible. After all, the computer knows WAY more about itself and its bottlenecks than you do.
Oh, and simplicity is not the same as brevity. It's not the same as talking down to somebody. When I drag an image in OS X, the Core Framework automatically converts it into the most effective on the drop target. That's not stupid, it's not underpowered, it's not idiotic...but it is simple. And that makes it powerful.
Right now, broadband is a novelty. Many people would like to see broadband become a necessity. It is, after all, more efficient to switch and more useful to run a single cable or high speed phone line to a house than to run both a cable and a regular phone line. The reason you do not see uniquitous bandwidth is that there is no universal outcry for it. You can expect this as soon as somebody delivers on all the promises of high bandwidth content we've been hearing since 1999. Then, broadband really will be everywhere you care about.
Once broadband has the demand, expect very rapid replacement of land lines. Expect your parents to have it, and maybe not even know about it.
And DVDs don't have to be completely deprecated to be obsolete. Tapes have been obsolete for 15 years and they're still around. They're just not worth producing anymore.
Oh, and "baud" is a unit of discrete elements transferred per second over a telephone line. My 300 baud modem transfered up to 4 bits per baud element, for a total of 1200 bits per second. Your 1200 baud Prometheus was the same: a 300 baud modem with 4 bits per baud. Aren't units fun?
Really? Microsoft didn't have a monopoly when i bought MS-DOS 5.1, or when I bought MS-DOS 6.0, or when I bought Windows 3.0 and the 3.1 upgrade. They didn't have a monopoly when I bought Windows 95, though they were well on their way when I bought 98. When I bought NT and 2000, it wasn't yet illegal.
I don't want control. I want a computer that does what I want, and does what it needs to in its spare time.
If you could build a self administrating computer, even one that was half as efficient as other machines on the market, I would buy it. I did buy it. It's got a piece of fruit on it.
Why? Because every minute spent learning how to administrate my pc, every hour spent repairing software and so forth, is time WASTED on a bullshit task. I don't even like to mow my damn lawn. I certainly don't want to be tasked with defragmenting a hard drive, etc.
If you want control, there's always Linux. But be careful what you wish for.
It's the modern equivalent of flipping through the CD binder, only much more convenient. As soon as I got it, I got RID of my CD binders.
When somebody invents an inexpensive video on demand system with an easy interface like that, I guarantee you'll be using it more often than your DVD binder. Even, occasionally, to watch movies you have on DVD! Shit, I watched the birdcage on TV last week, and I've owned that movie for 5 years!
As for broadband availability: do you think there's a chance that, over the next ten years, speed and availability issues might clear up? I mean, let's see: I got my RR line in a beta program in 1995, that's only 9 years ago. Twenty years ago, I was using a 300 baud coupler modem and the average cat didn't know what a modem was. Computers generally didn't have operating systems, they had bootstrap loaders and BASIC interpretters. It's called progress.
Why not? He wanted the majority of the world to use his operating system on their desktops, and despite stability, security and interface issues, he got it.
If Microsoft's proven anything, it's that people will gladly pay to be inconvenienced by software if it enables them in the slightest bit.
If Janus suddenly permits Windows users to do something no Linux or Mac user can do -- say, access an inexpensive VOD service with tens of thousands of titles at better-than-DVD quality -- people will not give a flying fuck that it's got DRM or that it runs on a proprietary codec. In fact, it's embarrassing that you suggest otherwise. The MPAAs and RIAAs of the world want "rights management." People will not suddenly switch their tastes and enjoy only DRM-free independent media as a result of this, as much as it would please the AdBusters crowd. They'll just accept the DRM as a necessary evil. I know I will. And I'll enjoy the company of my Linux-only friends when they come over to watch all the great content they'll never be able to play.
I have video on demand. I must say it is immensely cooler (ease of selection, don't have to leave the house with a date, don't have to return the movie, can find SOME films my DVD house wouldn't carry) than renting DVDs in some ways, but it fails in two extremely important areas.
First, the library isn't quite as hot as it could or should be. Time Warner has the rights to a video library that is shockingly large. Only offering 30-40 movies is an embarrassment. This will probably increase in the next revision, but until it reaches the 1000+ it should be, it's still a novelty.
Second, it's slightly more expensive than renting a DVD. This is silly. The cost of delivery is higher, but the customer service aspect is much, much lower -- to really attract those hold outs to the service, you'd have to charge a little bit less than renting.
VOD needs to take a cue from iTunes: people will pay for restricted content ONLY if there's a large enough selection and a low enough price. Being a content overlord doesn't mean acting like one: slap our hands enough and we'll eventually stop reaching for things.
The CPU time spent on spam elimination is worthless. The bandwidth nearly so. Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are tiny floundering companies -- and at least one of them (RedHat) has already stepped out of consumer support.
Don't get me wrong -- the problem with Linux IS NOT the CLI. A trained monkey could learn a CLI, it's all memorization.
The problem with Linux is that a lot of things don't make even the slightest bit of sense. Developers opt for brevity over simplicity, a hold over from the Unix Way of productivity over ease-of-use. The result? A platform that REQUIRES training, REQUIRES handholding, REQUIRES knowledge. It takes more time before you can start doing something because you have to learn how to do it, you can't just guess and be mostly right.
Nowadays, people don't know how to use computers. They know how to guess enough functionality to fake their way through them. Like it or not, these people could NEVER use the current Linux offerings...it'd be like handing a jackknife to a spastic.
Considering I don't understand what apt-get means, nor is it possible that I will type that by accident, I'd say that's a pretty massive piece of knowledge.
Don't mistake brevity for simplicity. That's the first step toward confusion, and why I'll take "/Applications" over "/bin" every day of the week.
See, people who had problems with Windows that they are unable to figure out how to resolve and who have moved to something different they are satisfied with are most likely to promote their alternative. People who have no problems with Windows, and are willing to accept minor inconveniences for the reduced price over Mac and reduced time invesment over Linux, are not going to switch. Sure, they'll talk about how annoying it is that they have to reboot every week or so when a new windows update comes out, or how they have to update their virus info, or how they had to download Firefox because IE was kind of crap -- but they won't switch, because it would be a waste of time.
I use Linux, I use Win2k, I use OSX. I don't hate any of them, they all have their specific strengths. I try to get people to buy Macs because I think they're really cool and the most fun to use, but I would never tell somebody who had problems with viruses or spyware to install Linux or buy a Mac. That's like telling somebody with a flat tire to buy a new car that has its own mechanical troubles. It's also obnoxious. Teaching somebody how to use Windows autoupdate, Trendmicro's Housecalls, Adaware, Firefox and Thunderbird takes about two hours all told.
Also, keep in mind many Windows users don't use Google. They use MSN, because that's what's there when they bought the PC.
But don't let my anecdotal evidence override that of all the k-rad Linux users who installed Linux on their four year old's speak and spell. "Winds of Change," ha. Geeks blowing through straws can't fill the sails of industry. Nor should we care! So long as WE can use Linux on our servers and projects, who CARES if other people have Windows? Who cares about viruses we don't get? Who cares about zombie spam machines when we have SpamAssassin?
Linux belongs in the hobby niche, anyway. The community is not ready to support it at the consumer level, and consumers are not ready to support themselves. If the world went insane and everybody in the world was forced to use Linux tomorrow, most people would just stop using computers. That is not good.
Not really. I personally have three computers -- my machine at work, my PC at home, and my laptop.
Here at the office, we have 32 machines servicing 20 people, counting testing machines, servers and demo laptops.
Besides, we're talking 6 years here. Look at the PC growth in second and third wave countries over the past 5 years...it's rivalled the growth of the PC in first wave companies during the late 80s and early 90s. Which means they're set to explode.
Especially when your biggest rival requires a completely new computer and all new software and relies on your company for its productivity suite. And the upstart in third place requires a massive new body of knowledge to perform simple tasks like installing an IM client or printing a document.
There's a big difference between "criticize" and "forge a cogent critique." That word "cogent," for example, which is not implied in "criticize." One could conceivable criticize in a way that is not compelling, for example by attacking the author of the work for being an "arrogant nerd" when you knew damned well you were reading slashdot. Or by phrasing your anti-nerd post in the form of a regular expression.
If you're going to fault anything, fault my use of the word "forge" when "form" would have sufficed. What can I say -- I caught the rhetorical ball and ran with it on that play.
If, as some people argue, piracy will kill the music industry, how did music ever get written before record labels existed, hmm
This is a dumb argument. Music didn't exist as a recorded entity until Edison. It only existed as a performed entity. Performance was based off of sheet music, which was in fact copyrighted and usually controlled through a single publisher. People who copied and reproduced other people's sheet music, then tried to sell it or perform it without obtaining the rights, were punished. When recorded music debuted, copyright was extended to include recorded music. The copyright was upheld when tapes came around: you could make copies of your own tapes and any music you heard, but you couldn't sell it and you couldn't give it away. And it'll be upheld again in the digital age.
You seem to think that the fact that copyright is a legislated concept is a sign that those relying on copyright to make a living are living on borrowed time. Does this mean you expect copyright to be overturned? Because I don't see a lick of support for this in congress and I can't imagine anybody who would support dropping all copyrights and return to the patron system. Personally, I like listening to the radio. And I'll fight for the copyrights which make it viable.
I still don't know what you mean by artificial scarcity. Probably because you don't mean anything by it. Artificial scarcity is when a company purposely halts production of a product to raise the price of a commodity, such as OPEC cutting production of oil. But music and art are not commodities. You can not trade one piece of music for another. Therefore, they do not abide by the same economic laws as grain or brass or a cardboard box. In fact, if ten thousand people want a CD, it's quite likely that the music industry will product ten thousand copies. And they will sell them for whatever price those ten thousand people are willing to pay. This is not artificial scarcity. It is efficient production to maximize profits.
Besides, artificial scarcity is an immensely effective way to do business. In fact, I can't think of an industry based on artificial scarcity that isn't doing fairly well. I mean, it's certainly helping the farmers. The bottled water people are doing okay. Producers of collectibles are doing alright. The oil industry is doing great, and energy companys as well. I mean, diamonds? Labor? Come on, man. Stop pretending that we exist in some open market capitalism vacuum where everything has a 30% margin. If somebody charges "too much" for something you need, you're gonna buy it, end of story, and all your bullshit cries of "hey this scarcity is artifically produced and your model is unsustainable" will fall on deaf ears.
Piracy won't kill the music industry, just as piracy didn't kill the shipping industry in the 1600s. That does not make it legal, does not make it moral, and does not mean that the music industry is ripe to fall. Either buy the fucking CD or steal it or sit in silence, I don't care. Stop wasting everybody's time with this "copyrights are artificial, CDs are too expensive, the music industry will fall to the massive power of serfdom" whining.
Slashdot Mirror
So does my wife's Subaru. Course, the rain sensing wipers don't detect shmutz on the windshield or condensation...which is usually why I need to find them.
I don't like stepped AKA wizard processes for common tasks...that next button is like a speed bump to productivity.
What I've been doing instead is finding ways to combine all the info on one form, with grouped and (if applicable) entry fields colored to indicate that they are mandatory. Tooltips indicate what info is expected in each field if you've forgotten. Optional info is accessed through an additional screen or a
Incidentally, the reason that "Notes" is mandatory in my app is that the system is a process tracking system. When you add a process entry, you're saying "Something has happened in the process now." The system knows what step to expect next and fills it in. It know who you are from the computer you're using. It knows what time to input and what group you belong to. All that's left is a quick description of what's gone on...and it'll even enter a default description based on the expected step. Ideally, you can perform all the data entry you need on a process that's well set-up and going smoothly by pressing enter twice.
If people ask for functionality that is complex, sometimes you have to sacrifice simplicity to do what they want done. Thats a simple reality
No, it is not a reality. It is a cop out. If you can't collect data in a way that will entice people to enter it, you may as well not collect it: it won't be useful or accurate. It is human nature to subvert interfaces that don't make sense to us, and not even maliciously. The goal of a software developer (which you aren't, no developer has time to monitor a web server) should be to capture the minimum amount of imformation to perform a task accurately.
Of course, trying to convince a control freak he's wasting his time is like like trying to tell a paranoid nobody really cares to listen in on his boring phone conversations.
Actually, non-commercial software is usually MORE guilty of poor interface design than commercial software.
The solution? Why, free commercial software! Apple's free apps are some of the best programs I've used in terms of doing what they're supposed to and nothing more. AIM has a pretty good interface.
Incidentally, I don't find automobile interfaces all that easy. The pedals and wheel I can find, sure. But everything else is wherever the designer thought they'd look nice. For example: you're in a car you've never driven before. How do you shift it into reverse? Do you just shift it? Do you need to have your foot on the brake as well as the clutch? Is it over to the left and back, or over to the right? Do you have to push down on the clutch or press a button? Furthermore, where's the headlight switch? Where's the dashboard dimmer? How do you put the cruise on, or the A/C? Shit -- how do you turn on the wipers?
It's very simple: iPhoto's interface needs to built a detailed database on all the information pertaining to your photos, including several thumbnails, info about when and how you took the picture, info about the albums, comments you've entered, the date of import and a short history of operations you've performed (so you can later back them off). It maintains its own copy of the images so it can assume you aren't changing them outside of iPhoto...just like a real photo album.
If you want powerful image viewing and browsing without the photocentric interface, may I suggest the program ViewIt, which is fast as hell and doesn't mess with your photos. Also, I'm currently working on a hybrid image viewer/tagger called "Jerk," which maintains a series of encrypted tagged image libraries which can either leave images where they are or group them together in an encrypted DMG. You know...for porno? If this kind of thing sounds interesting to you, PLEASE email me -- I could use betas!
In the case of software development, it doesn't make sense to create several different versions of software with different default options turned on or off.
I'll bite. Eckel, in his book "Thinking in Patterns," has a list of 9 design principles that good software follows. One of them reads "Simplicity before Generality." The idea is simple: if you sacrifice even the slightest bit of simplicity to make a program generally accessible, you have not solved the problem.
I've seen this first hand -- I worked with a guy who realized that the problem he was supposed to solve broke down into three separate interrelated variables. So he designed the program with three screens, to allow for maximum flexibility.
Unfortunately, nobody wants a three step process to replace what, for them, was previously a one step process. He's created more work to maintain a superior data model. And now we're having trouble selling it...people are asking wheter tracking and searchability and reporting are worth adding fifteen minutes onto each job.
I was working on a project at the same time that has a nearly UNLIMITED number of variables. But I took heed to the customer complaints, and delivered an interface that has a single form with a single required field: "notes." You can, from buttons on that form, change the date, grouping, result, step in the process, methodology of delivery, contact information and overall status of the project -- but all you HAVE to do is leave notes on what happened. Customers love it...and the reports I produce can be just as detailed.
OSS is often guilty of over complicating things in the name of control. Thing is, control is a BAD THING. Having to control something usually means that the defaults are wrong. Managing a program should be like managing a highly effective person...you should be able to say, "server this as a web page," and it should figure out how this needs to be done in the most secure and efficient way possible. After all, the computer knows WAY more about itself and its bottlenecks than you do.
Oh, and simplicity is not the same as brevity. It's not the same as talking down to somebody. When I drag an image in OS X, the Core Framework automatically converts it into the most effective on the drop target. That's not stupid, it's not underpowered, it's not idiotic...but it is simple. And that makes it powerful.
Right now, broadband is a novelty. Many people would like to see broadband become a necessity. It is, after all, more efficient to switch and more useful to run a single cable or high speed phone line to a house than to run both a cable and a regular phone line. The reason you do not see uniquitous bandwidth is that there is no universal outcry for it. You can expect this as soon as somebody delivers on all the promises of high bandwidth content we've been hearing since 1999. Then, broadband really will be everywhere you care about.
Once broadband has the demand, expect very rapid replacement of land lines. Expect your parents to have it, and maybe not even know about it.
And DVDs don't have to be completely deprecated to be obsolete. Tapes have been obsolete for 15 years and they're still around. They're just not worth producing anymore.
Oh, and "baud" is a unit of discrete elements transferred per second over a telephone line. My 300 baud modem transfered up to 4 bits per baud element, for a total of 1200 bits per second. Your 1200 baud Prometheus was the same: a 300 baud modem with 4 bits per baud. Aren't units fun?
Really? Microsoft didn't have a monopoly when i bought MS-DOS 5.1, or when I bought MS-DOS 6.0, or when I bought Windows 3.0 and the 3.1 upgrade. They didn't have a monopoly when I bought Windows 95, though they were well on their way when I bought 98. When I bought NT and 2000, it wasn't yet illegal.
I don't want control. I want a computer that does what I want, and does what it needs to in its spare time.
If you could build a self administrating computer, even one that was half as efficient as other machines on the market, I would buy it. I did buy it. It's got a piece of fruit on it.
Why? Because every minute spent learning how to administrate my pc, every hour spent repairing software and so forth, is time WASTED on a bullshit task. I don't even like to mow my damn lawn. I certainly don't want to be tasked with defragmenting a hard drive, etc.
If you want control, there's always Linux. But be careful what you wish for.
Have you seen this?
It's the modern equivalent of flipping through the CD binder, only much more convenient. As soon as I got it, I got RID of my CD binders.
When somebody invents an inexpensive video on demand system with an easy interface like that, I guarantee you'll be using it more often than your DVD binder. Even, occasionally, to watch movies you have on DVD! Shit, I watched the birdcage on TV last week, and I've owned that movie for 5 years!
As for broadband availability: do you think there's a chance that, over the next ten years, speed and availability issues might clear up? I mean, let's see: I got my RR line in a beta program in 1995, that's only 9 years ago. Twenty years ago, I was using a 300 baud coupler modem and the average cat didn't know what a modem was. Computers generally didn't have operating systems, they had bootstrap loaders and BASIC interpretters. It's called progress.
Why not? He wanted the majority of the world to use his operating system on their desktops, and despite stability, security and interface issues, he got it.
If Microsoft's proven anything, it's that people will gladly pay to be inconvenienced by software if it enables them in the slightest bit.
If Janus suddenly permits Windows users to do something no Linux or Mac user can do -- say, access an inexpensive VOD service with tens of thousands of titles at better-than-DVD quality -- people will not give a flying fuck that it's got DRM or that it runs on a proprietary codec. In fact, it's embarrassing that you suggest otherwise. The MPAAs and RIAAs of the world want "rights management." People will not suddenly switch their tastes and enjoy only DRM-free independent media as a result of this, as much as it would please the AdBusters crowd. They'll just accept the DRM as a necessary evil. I know I will. And I'll enjoy the company of my Linux-only friends when they come over to watch all the great content they'll never be able to play.
I have video on demand. I must say it is immensely cooler (ease of selection, don't have to leave the house with a date, don't have to return the movie, can find SOME films my DVD house wouldn't carry) than renting DVDs in some ways, but it fails in two extremely important areas.
First, the library isn't quite as hot as it could or should be. Time Warner has the rights to a video library that is shockingly large. Only offering 30-40 movies is an embarrassment. This will probably increase in the next revision, but until it reaches the 1000+ it should be, it's still a novelty.
Second, it's slightly more expensive than renting a DVD. This is silly. The cost of delivery is higher, but the customer service aspect is much, much lower -- to really attract those hold outs to the service, you'd have to charge a little bit less than renting.
VOD needs to take a cue from iTunes: people will pay for restricted content ONLY if there's a large enough selection and a low enough price. Being a content overlord doesn't mean acting like one: slap our hands enough and we'll eventually stop reaching for things.
I care about my wasted bandwidth and CPU time
The CPU time spent on spam elimination is worthless. The bandwidth nearly so. Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are tiny floundering companies -- and at least one of them (RedHat) has already stepped out of consumer support.
Nonarguments all.
Don't get me wrong -- the problem with Linux IS NOT the CLI. A trained monkey could learn a CLI, it's all memorization.
The problem with Linux is that a lot of things don't make even the slightest bit of sense. Developers opt for brevity over simplicity, a hold over from the Unix Way of productivity over ease-of-use. The result? A platform that REQUIRES training, REQUIRES handholding, REQUIRES knowledge. It takes more time before you can start doing something because you have to learn how to do it, you can't just guess and be mostly right.
Nowadays, people don't know how to use computers. They know how to guess enough functionality to fake their way through them. Like it or not, these people could NEVER use the current Linux offerings...it'd be like handing a jackknife to a spastic.
Considering I don't understand what apt-get means, nor is it possible that I will type that by accident, I'd say that's a pretty massive piece of knowledge.
Don't mistake brevity for simplicity. That's the first step toward confusion, and why I'll take "/Applications" over "/bin" every day of the week.
Isn't that where the nuclear wessels are?
The reason is simple:
Windows is not as bad as so many people claim.
See, people who had problems with Windows that they are unable to figure out how to resolve and who have moved to something different they are satisfied with are most likely to promote their alternative. People who have no problems with Windows, and are willing to accept minor inconveniences for the reduced price over Mac and reduced time invesment over Linux, are not going to switch. Sure, they'll talk about how annoying it is that they have to reboot every week or so when a new windows update comes out, or how they have to update their virus info, or how they had to download Firefox because IE was kind of crap -- but they won't switch, because it would be a waste of time.
I use Linux, I use Win2k, I use OSX. I don't hate any of them, they all have their specific strengths. I try to get people to buy Macs because I think they're really cool and the most fun to use, but I would never tell somebody who had problems with viruses or spyware to install Linux or buy a Mac. That's like telling somebody with a flat tire to buy a new car that has its own mechanical troubles. It's also obnoxious. Teaching somebody how to use Windows autoupdate, Trendmicro's Housecalls, Adaware, Firefox and Thunderbird takes about two hours all told.
Also, keep in mind many Windows users don't use Google. They use MSN, because that's what's there when they bought the PC.
But don't let my anecdotal evidence override that of all the k-rad Linux users who installed Linux on their four year old's speak and spell. "Winds of Change," ha. Geeks blowing through straws can't fill the sails of industry. Nor should we care! So long as WE can use Linux on our servers and projects, who CARES if other people have Windows? Who cares about viruses we don't get? Who cares about zombie spam machines when we have SpamAssassin?
Linux belongs in the hobby niche, anyway. The community is not ready to support it at the consumer level, and consumers are not ready to support themselves. If the world went insane and everybody in the world was forced to use Linux tomorrow, most people would just stop using computers. That is not good.
Not really. I personally have three computers -- my machine at work, my PC at home, and my laptop.
Here at the office, we have 32 machines servicing 20 people, counting testing machines, servers and demo laptops.
Besides, we're talking 6 years here. Look at the PC growth in second and third wave countries over the past 5 years...it's rivalled the growth of the PC in first wave companies during the late 80s and early 90s. Which means they're set to explode.
And if you consider less than 1.2% of the market "the upper hand," you're optimistic even for a slashdotter.
Especially when your biggest rival requires a completely new computer and all new software and relies on your company for its productivity suite. And the upstart in third place requires a massive new body of knowledge to perform simple tasks like installing an IM client or printing a document.
I guess somebody thought I was being sarcastic. But I really would pay $.99 for the convenience of not having to hunt for an album.
Not true in the Bush whitehouse. Now, everything is built without bids, contracts granted for political favors.
There's a big difference between "criticize" and "forge a cogent critique." That word "cogent," for example, which is not implied in "criticize." One could conceivable criticize in a way that is not compelling, for example by attacking the author of the work for being an "arrogant nerd" when you knew damned well you were reading slashdot. Or by phrasing your anti-nerd post in the form of a regular expression.
If you're going to fault anything, fault my use of the word "forge" when "form" would have sufficed. What can I say -- I caught the rhetorical ball and ran with it on that play.
If, as some people argue, piracy will kill the music industry, how did music ever get written before record labels existed, hmm
This is a dumb argument. Music didn't exist as a recorded entity until Edison. It only existed as a performed entity. Performance was based off of sheet music, which was in fact copyrighted and usually controlled through a single publisher. People who copied and reproduced other people's sheet music, then tried to sell it or perform it without obtaining the rights, were punished. When recorded music debuted, copyright was extended to include recorded music. The copyright was upheld when tapes came around: you could make copies of your own tapes and any music you heard, but you couldn't sell it and you couldn't give it away. And it'll be upheld again in the digital age.
You seem to think that the fact that copyright is a legislated concept is a sign that those relying on copyright to make a living are living on borrowed time. Does this mean you expect copyright to be overturned? Because I don't see a lick of support for this in congress and I can't imagine anybody who would support dropping all copyrights and return to the patron system. Personally, I like listening to the radio. And I'll fight for the copyrights which make it viable.
I still don't know what you mean by artificial scarcity. Probably because you don't mean anything by it. Artificial scarcity is when a company purposely halts production of a product to raise the price of a commodity, such as OPEC cutting production of oil. But music and art are not commodities. You can not trade one piece of music for another. Therefore, they do not abide by the same economic laws as grain or brass or a cardboard box. In fact, if ten thousand people want a CD, it's quite likely that the music industry will product ten thousand copies. And they will sell them for whatever price those ten thousand people are willing to pay. This is not artificial scarcity. It is efficient production to maximize profits.
Besides, artificial scarcity is an immensely effective way to do business. In fact, I can't think of an industry based on artificial scarcity that isn't doing fairly well. I mean, it's certainly helping the farmers. The bottled water people are doing okay. Producers of collectibles are doing alright. The oil industry is doing great, and energy companys as well. I mean, diamonds? Labor? Come on, man. Stop pretending that we exist in some open market capitalism vacuum where everything has a 30% margin. If somebody charges "too much" for something you need, you're gonna buy it, end of story, and all your bullshit cries of "hey this scarcity is artifically produced and your model is unsustainable" will fall on deaf ears.
Piracy won't kill the music industry, just as piracy didn't kill the shipping industry in the 1600s. That does not make it legal, does not make it moral, and does not mean that the music industry is ripe to fall. Either buy the fucking CD or steal it or sit in silence, I don't care. Stop wasting everybody's time with this "copyrights are artificial, CDs are too expensive, the music industry will fall to the massive power of serfdom" whining.