The iPad is making big gains in enterprise, actually. You can get a Corporate Developer License and do what you want with it. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
Yes, our financial empire will begin when we resell a physical copy of Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" on eBay. Isn't this the same site that spent years mocking CDs for being an obsolete business model?
Deleting it from a Kindle, as opposed to throwing away the physical book, losing it, or physically damaging it in some way? Not to mention that printing it on paper and packaging it as a book costs more. The advantages of digital distribution outweigh physical distribution so hugely that whining about reselling some old book is silly. This is the same Slashdot that mocks CDs for being an "obsolete business model."
The difference is that Google openly positioned itself as not being "evil" (I sure am tired of that religious term being applied here). They presented themselves as a benevolent, open source company. Meanwhile, their search and advertising platform was as closed source and proprietary as Windows, and their goal was to offer free services in order to get everybody indexed on that platform.
What we're seeing these days is the Google that always was. It's just too big to keep itself hidden under the veneer of "friendly Linux-using company that just wants to give you free stuff!"
I think Google fans are trying to construct a narrative in which they can blame Eric Schmidt for all the fuck-ups Google has made in the last 12 months.
Hippies tried your anti-technology communes in the 60s and abandoned them to buy groceries in the nearby town.
Have you seen that episode of South Park where they mock Wal-mart? They travel inside to destroy its "heart," and when they find it, it's a mirror. You try to build up corporations like they're some bogyman, using phrases like "big pharma," when corporations are driven by willing consumers and are run by normal humans just like you.
You cite zero examples for your claim about the highest standards of living being countries where they heavily regulate markets. Countries with heavily regulated markets almost always import from less-regulated countries because they can barely produce goods on their own. Governments are the most corrupt organizations on the planet--above the law and possessing no incentive to improve, because they are not driven by a need to appeal to consumers. Coporations have to do what you want them to or they lose your business. Governments already have your business; their paychecks are guaranteed by law via taxes, and if you don't pay them, you go to jail. This gives them power over you. As the lawmakers, they are above the law.
Ultimately, the desire for market regulation is really about the obsessive, naive need of socialist snobs to construct a gigantic, centralized superpower that can force all citizens to live the way they want them to live, driven by a constant fear of the idea of people running things for themselves.
P.S. Learn to capitalize and spell properly. Otherwise, you come off as stupid and ignorant when trying to make some grand political point.
Corporations? As opposed to what, individuals and governments? Governments are the most evil organizations on the planet, and individuals run them. You can choose to stop being a customer of a corporation you don't like.
It's 2011, and there is seriously still anti-capitalist rhetoric on Slashdot? Geez, grow up already. You typed your post on a computer manufactured by one of those "evil" corporations, and it's sitting on a server made by one of them too.
You're seriously arguing that they should have kept supporting Classic, that buggy old operating system which was relentlessly mocked for years? Run an emulator if you need to fire up Hypercard. That's the benefit of virtual products.
How are they shifting usage from a few apps to dozens of small ones? Do you have an example of what you're referring to? Nothing on the Mac has changed. iTunes is even bigger and more feature-bloated than it's been in over a decade, and in the last few years, they've added freakin' facial recognition to iPhoto, RSS subscriptions in Mail, extensions in Safari, and so on. Seriously, what are you talking about?
The totally random "RIAA/MPAA" comment at the end is just stupid.
I don't know what site you're visiting, but posters on Slashdot have been vehemently trashing Apple for the last 12 months. Ever since Android, ridiculous anti-Apple rhetoric has been at an all-time high.
There is something amusing, though, about you trashing "hipster Mac fanbois" when your entire post is an attempt by you to appear cool and enlightened because you use Linux. What is this, 1998?
They still make nice hardware, and a nice OS to go with it (on Intel chips now!). The iPod has been around for as long as OS X has been, so I don't know what nostalgia you're pining for. The iPhone kicks ass and is celebrating its 10 billionth app download.
Seriously, what are you talking about? It's as if you knew beforehand that generic, non-specific Apple criticism would get an instant "+5 Insightful." Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
A codec couldn't be officially chosen before due to the objections of browser makers like Apple and Microsoft. What makes you think one would be now?
Aside from the fact that WebM is inferior in quality to H.264, H.264 is already the standard among content providers. This is the same old story--"openness" ideologues trying to force everyone to use something of lesser quality because it makes them feel good. Meanwhile, Chrome ships Flash and MP3/AAC support! So much for openness.
"Working on WebM hardware acceleration" means little compared to the thousands of H.264 devices that have already existed for years. Being supported by the biggest internet video company in the world means little--Chrome is a tiny niche browser in comparison to Internet Explorer which will support H.264, or the iPhone, which already supports H.264.
Yes, it is possible that it won't succeed, but it is also very possible that it will, and if it does the web will be better off for. I don't understand the hostility that people have towards attempting to make things better, just because there is a chance it will fail.
Um, because WebM won't make the web better--it's an inferior codec to H.264. People are hostile to this because it just hurts Chrome users who will now have to download an H.264 plug-in or keep on using Flash, the very thing HTML5 was supposed to remove a dependency on. Besides, why is Chrome shipping Flash or supporting MP3/AAC if they're so big on openness?
Huffington Post is Ariana Huffington's lame left-wing version of Drudge Report. I see today that they repeated the inaccurate Betelguese story and misattributed information in the story. Wonderful.
Absolutely nowhere did Schmidt say Google was actively issuing subpoenas for data. He just said that, if information was ever requested under the Patriot Act, Google would be required to follow the law.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPad is making big gains in enterprise, actually. You can get a Corporate Developer License and do what you want with it. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
Actually, Android has less of a chance to succeed on tablets because carriers won't be able to push it so much like they are on mobile phones.
You know what? Fuck it. The last two were disappointing enough that I'm open to having a good time with two more sequels if they're decent.
Yes, our financial empire will begin when we resell a physical copy of Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" on eBay. Isn't this the same site that spent years mocking CDs for being an obsolete business model?
Deleting it from a Kindle, as opposed to throwing away the physical book, losing it, or physically damaging it in some way? Not to mention that printing it on paper and packaging it as a book costs more. The advantages of digital distribution outweigh physical distribution so hugely that whining about reselling some old book is silly. This is the same Slashdot that mocks CDs for being an "obsolete business model."
The difference is that Google openly positioned itself as not being "evil" (I sure am tired of that religious term being applied here). They presented themselves as a benevolent, open source company. Meanwhile, their search and advertising platform was as closed source and proprietary as Windows, and their goal was to offer free services in order to get everybody indexed on that platform.
What we're seeing these days is the Google that always was. It's just too big to keep itself hidden under the veneer of "friendly Linux-using company that just wants to give you free stuff!"
Someone left the doors open on the padded cells, so the neckbearded kooks and socialists are out in full force.
I think Google fans are trying to construct a narrative in which they can blame Eric Schmidt for all the fuck-ups Google has made in the last 12 months.
Hippies tried your anti-technology communes in the 60s and abandoned them to buy groceries in the nearby town.
Have you seen that episode of South Park where they mock Wal-mart? They travel inside to destroy its "heart," and when they find it, it's a mirror. You try to build up corporations like they're some bogyman, using phrases like "big pharma," when corporations are driven by willing consumers and are run by normal humans just like you.
You cite zero examples for your claim about the highest standards of living being countries where they heavily regulate markets. Countries with heavily regulated markets almost always import from less-regulated countries because they can barely produce goods on their own. Governments are the most corrupt organizations on the planet--above the law and possessing no incentive to improve, because they are not driven by a need to appeal to consumers. Coporations have to do what you want them to or they lose your business. Governments already have your business; their paychecks are guaranteed by law via taxes, and if you don't pay them, you go to jail. This gives them power over you. As the lawmakers, they are above the law.
Ultimately, the desire for market regulation is really about the obsessive, naive need of socialist snobs to construct a gigantic, centralized superpower that can force all citizens to live the way they want them to live, driven by a constant fear of the idea of people running things for themselves.
P.S. Learn to capitalize and spell properly. Otherwise, you come off as stupid and ignorant when trying to make some grand political point.
Corporations? As opposed to what, individuals and governments? Governments are the most evil organizations on the planet, and individuals run them. You can choose to stop being a customer of a corporation you don't like.
It's 2011, and there is seriously still anti-capitalist rhetoric on Slashdot? Geez, grow up already. You typed your post on a computer manufactured by one of those "evil" corporations, and it's sitting on a server made by one of them too.
You're seriously arguing that they should have kept supporting Classic, that buggy old operating system which was relentlessly mocked for years? Run an emulator if you need to fire up Hypercard. That's the benefit of virtual products.
What is it with people who don't capitalize their sentences? Do you not realize it while you're typing?
How are they shifting usage from a few apps to dozens of small ones? Do you have an example of what you're referring to? Nothing on the Mac has changed. iTunes is even bigger and more feature-bloated than it's been in over a decade, and in the last few years, they've added freakin' facial recognition to iPhoto, RSS subscriptions in Mail, extensions in Safari, and so on. Seriously, what are you talking about?
The totally random "RIAA/MPAA" comment at the end is just stupid.
I don't know what site you're visiting, but posters on Slashdot have been vehemently trashing Apple for the last 12 months. Ever since Android, ridiculous anti-Apple rhetoric has been at an all-time high.
There is something amusing, though, about you trashing "hipster Mac fanbois" when your entire post is an attempt by you to appear cool and enlightened because you use Linux. What is this, 1998?
They still make nice hardware, and a nice OS to go with it (on Intel chips now!). The iPod has been around for as long as OS X has been, so I don't know what nostalgia you're pining for. The iPhone kicks ass and is celebrating its 10 billionth app download.
Seriously, what are you talking about? It's as if you knew beforehand that generic, non-specific Apple criticism would get an instant "+5 Insightful." Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
What the hell are you talking about?
It's the principal of privacy and an individual's control over their online identity. If you don't understand already, you never will.
A codec couldn't be officially chosen before due to the objections of browser makers like Apple and Microsoft. What makes you think one would be now?
Aside from the fact that WebM is inferior in quality to H.264, H.264 is already the standard among content providers. This is the same old story--"openness" ideologues trying to force everyone to use something of lesser quality because it makes them feel good. Meanwhile, Chrome ships Flash and MP3/AAC support! So much for openness.
Wowee, some demos at CES. That'll somehow erase the existence of thousands of H.264 devices that already exist.
"Working on WebM hardware acceleration" means little compared to the thousands of H.264 devices that have already existed for years. Being supported by the biggest internet video company in the world means little--Chrome is a tiny niche browser in comparison to Internet Explorer which will support H.264, or the iPhone, which already supports H.264.
Um, because WebM won't make the web better--it's an inferior codec to H.264. People are hostile to this because it just hurts Chrome users who will now have to download an H.264 plug-in or keep on using Flash, the very thing HTML5 was supposed to remove a dependency on. Besides, why is Chrome shipping Flash or supporting MP3/AAC if they're so big on openness?
Chrome is a niche browser. WebM isn't going to become a web standard. H.264 already won that war.
Huffington Post is Ariana Huffington's lame left-wing version of Drudge Report. I see today that they repeated the inaccurate Betelguese story and misattributed information in the story. Wonderful.
"The iPod doesn't change anything about how MP3 players work. Certainly some geeks will use it, but it offers nothing that hasn't been done before."
Should be "Google was actively being issued."
Absolutely nowhere did Schmidt say Google was actively issuing subpoenas for data. He just said that, if information was ever requested under the Patriot Act, Google would be required to follow the law.