Dvorak was introduced and was technically superior to QWERTY, but by this point it was too late because QWERTY had a dominant market share and pepole did not want to have to learn two keyboard layouts.
The analogy is pretty good.
Actually, the whole thrust of the article was how myths get repeated enough that they become accepted as facts. In the case of QWERTY vs DVORAK, that while many people believe DVORAK was superior; properly conducted tests show no inherent advantage to the DVORAK keyboard. As a result, there is no reason to switch.
As a result, an number of arguments using QWERTY adoption as there basis for conclusions are invalid.
That's right..as opposed to oh so superior American Engineering that results in lots of good TV coverage of shuttles blowing up and burning up every few years.
If I were going into space I'd pick the Soyuz every time, at least you get up there and back without being spread over most of Texas.
Well, considering the USSR lost at least 4 cosmonauts on reentry; and killed 140 people in two separate rocket explosions; I'd say the safety record was at best a wash.
This happened when Linens & Things went under. The liquidators stopped taking the ubiquitous "20% off anything" coupons, repriced everything at MSRP, and discounted from there. The first round of discounts, 20%-30% IIRC, weren't competitive with the regular prices at the local Target. But the suckers bought anyway, so by the time the decent discounts kicked in, all the good stuff was gone. The only really good deals were on the fixtures.
I really hope CC doesn't hire the same liquidators, because they did their job very, very well.
Probably will, AIR there are very few big enough to handle a liquidation the size of CC; especially since CC gets cash for inventory up front.
I went when the prices were marked as "Everything 40-60% off". They still had quite a lot of merchandise, including some large TVs which I happened to be in the market for. Unfortunately, at 40-60% off, they were still about 25% higher than the competition. I decided to wait, and sure enough a few weeks later they had it up to 80-90% off everything. I went in and everything was gone. Apparently the sheeple are happy to pay 25% more than they should for the pleasure of "saving" 70%.
That's because the liquidator reprices everything to the SRP; the discounts. As a result stuff is often more expensive than at normal retail outlets or online. Once the liquidation starts the stuff generally no longer belongs to CC; it's already been offloaded to a company that specializes in liquidations.
The main mistake Circuit City made IMHO was that their prices were always higher than their primary competitors (Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.). They had a policy that they would match the price of any competitor; however, they wouldn't beat the competitor's price. Of course, their high pressure sales tactics didn't help either but my main gripe was their advertised prices.
My local CC (since closed) had the same difference plus 10% as BB, so maybe they changed at some point.
Only matching a competitor's price (and not beating the price) meant they were basically forcing their customers to do their job, i.e. price shop their competition. If I find two stores selling the same item, and one store is less than the other, I'm going to the lower priced store. The only time I'd consider going to the higher priced store would be if they gave me a price LOWER than their competitor. A price match is meaningless.
Actually, the purpose of price matching is to sustain higher prices; not give customers a good deal. Price matching promises signals other stores if you lower prices we will match or beat them, so you will only make less revenue; not gain more customers to make up for the lower price. In fact, you may lose some customers if the decide to buy at our now lower than yours price. In the end, we both will make less money so lets play nice and keep prices stable and make our needed profit margins.
As a result, I rarely see any significant price difference between most items; most are the same or within a few cents. Occasionally a sale on DVDs may offer a decent price match opportunity; but even those are rare; in my experience.
For customers, it's designed to say you don't need to shop around since we will match any better price you see. That is to encourage buying on the spot rather than price shopping.
The other part of the price match game was to have a "special" model number - you carried the XYZ123U while competitors just had a XYZ123. If you bought enough you could rebadge slightly and avoid any price matching as it wasn't the "Same model."
More often than not, the party filing the suit does have something to hide and just want to abuse the court system to harass and intimidate their critics into silence. And unfortunately, it works because libel, slander, and defamation laws trump the First Amendment.
While I agree lawsuits are used at time to intimidate people and silence them, and that is a problem, I disagree with your conclusion:
And unfortunately, it works because libel, slander, and defamation laws trump the First Amendment.
The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech. Preventing you from posting, bay a government entity, would be prior restraint and violate the First Amendment.
Libel, slander, and defamation laws hold persons responsible for what they say, a not unreasonable thing if used properly. You can say what you want, but are accountable for the accuracy of what you say.
To argue that the First Amendment should shield you from responsibility for what you say (I realize that is not what you are saying) may be popular but is wrong.
The _highest_ price is $1.29, and they claim "more songs will be $0.69 than will be $1.29".
Either way with DRM free music the consumer benefits.
I wonder if Apple will go to a dynamic pricing model - song prices could rise and fall based on demand; enabling them to increase profits by changing price to maximize revenue.
I like the DRM free idea - I wonder if we can convert existing songs for free for those that are now below the original $.99 price.
Here in the UK, if you buy intelligently, you can get 1200 minutes per month to any network and no text charges at all for the equivalent of $25 per month. We don't pay to receive calls, either. You're being ripped off in the USA!
Depends on what you mean by ripped -off. In the US, I can travel 1000 miles and pay no additional fees beyond my fixed rate for any calls I make; I can also call someone 1000 miles away in the US and pay no extra charge for it. I can't even use my Orange pay as you go card in Portugal to receive calls for free; and if I call Portugal from the UK I get charged extra; especially to a mobile; yet London to Lisbon is not nearly as far as say NY to LA, which would cost me no extra in the US.
Bottom line - the US and EU cell phone markets are different. Not better, not worse, just different.
If there is sufficient competition in the market profits will be driven to zero and the price of the service will approach the *actual* cost of providing it (which is close to zero, apparently). The fact that text messages cost 1000s of times more than they should indicates that there is insufficient competition in the industry, excessive barriers to entry into the market, etc.
You are assuming a commodity market where there is no product differentiation. You may want to reread your econ text.
meh, where I'm living in europe on a prepay package I pay 20 a month and can text/call as much as I want for no cost as long as I'm calling the same network(everyone my age uses this network though). the 20 euro of credit easily covers all calls to people not on the same network as me.
It's handy being able to call someone for an hour and knowing it's not costing me a dime.
Is it true they even charge you for receiving calls in the states????
In the US, similar to your plan; most carriers do not charge for calls to/from the same network.
Pay as you go and no contract plans offer similar deals; in addition for $40 you can get unlimited calls/text/long distance on some carriers.
The lack of roaming fees and long distance charges in the US is one significant way our two markets differ.
What more do you want them to add.
The rest of the stuff Microsoft has, no one cares about enough to add it.
That viewpoint, I believe, is one that limits open source's potential. Just because a developer does not find a feature useful does not mean a broader user community feels the same way. When they find features they need lacking in an OSS package they simply stick with the existing closed alternative.
Having a small developer community acerbates this problem, since it's less likely one of them would also want some feature that the others find unnecessary.
Do users really need an open source desktop suite when they can meet their needs using a server based suite? Broadband is cheap.
But it's not ubiquitous. For some of us, broadband access is not available at work.
In addition, in some cases, what we are working on needs to be kept secure and not broadcast over broadband.
The ability to pull out a laptop and do real work, without having to try to connect to a server to gain access to productivity tools, is valuable to alot of users
From what I've read, the FCC is forcing the cable companies to "eat their own dog food" by mandating the use of CableCard in new set-top boxes purchased by the cable companies. With that mandate, the cable companies might finally start fixing their screwed-up internal processes for supporting CableCard devices.
I hope so. Calls to my cable company's tech support on how to get a cable card for my cable card ready PC are met with a either "Huh?," "a what?," or "you don't need to insert a credit card in your cable box."
I imagine the last response's tech support person probably has a new luser story - "guess what a luser asked about today? and doesn't even realize who the real luser is.
they'll still tie you to their service; and then they can ask a ridiculous price for the box.
It's a shame CableCard never caught on - then companies like TiVO could have offered a viable alternative to a set top box. Yes, I realize I'd pay an additional monthly fee; but Tivo2go is worth it to me. Plus; real competition might force cable companies to offer similar products for less.
Problem starts when 4 out of 5 support calls are clearly from pirated versions of the software.
Certainly. Companies can't afford to support pirated copies; and unless they have a good way to distinguish between legit and pirated copies they'll probably cut back on tech support.
Ultimately, they may look to different distribution models than the traditional retail boxed disk. Online d/l; with concurrent registration, provides a way to try to authenticate users. Not that it will stop piracy; but it can be used to cut down on support calls as well as a way to add value the user experience by offering special deals to registered users.
Pay per call is another way - you could coupon the box and allow a few free call;s with the code; after that all cost money. Not a good solution; but another way to control costs associated with support.
Console games provide another way to avoid at least the casual piracy since disk base protection (software and hardware) can be built in and not easily replicated by most users.
Its a pity that this intel netbook crowd didn't learn more lessons from Psion about how to create workable small scale computers.
Even more so that Psion left the market and never really realized the potential for their products. I used a 5 for along time; great little device. There app suite was pretty decent, to teh point where you could get real work done on them.
One can only wonder what Psion would have today had they been able to continue developing the 5 and 7 series.
When do they start suing the Intel Corporation or Acer (one of whom had coined the term IIRC), and not the penny-ante hobbyist sites?
Ah - but I guess it's cheaper and easier to pick on the small fry first, eh?
Seriously - yes Psion has a real trademark on it, but what kind of screwball system do we all live in where (litigation-wise) the little guy gets it in the neck first?
/P
They have to protect the trademark; which means going after unauthorized use, no matter where it happens.
If they ignore the little guys the big guys will use that to argue the term has become a generic moniker for, well, Netbooks tm.
At least Psion appears to be reasonable and give people a some time to stop using their trademark.
So will we finally find out if EULA's are enforceable in court?
Actually, that has been done already; although courts have gone both ways depending on the circumstances.
The question is not enforceability; but does Apple either have unreasonable claims or harm consumers with their EULA?
I doubt this case would result in a blanket EULA enforceability ruling.
Testing the waters, Hardware vendors want to sell something other than windows. I'm willing to bet one (or more) of the big 5 PC vendors is behind this
It makes no sense for them to do this.
Let's suppose they win. Then, theoretically, anyone can sell Apple clones; leaving hardware manufacturers free to enter yet another commodity market. One where the OS manufacturer isn't particularly happy about other selling hardware that runs their OS.
Apple would still control OSX; even if they can't get additional damages. For OSX up to Leopard, at least. I'm sure they'll fix any copyright registration problems, if they actually exist, for Snow Leopard. Apple could, conceivably, sue for still sue for actual damages; and no vendor wants to face the threat of ongoing lawsuits. In addition, Apple could sue for much more for later versions of OSX; leaving clone manufacturers with the ability to only use an older version of OSX (or face even more expensive lawsuits), which won't go over well in the marketplace.
Apple could also make it much more difficult to install OSX on non-Apple products. They could simply jack-up the retail price of OSX to the point where it becomes uneconomical for clone manufacturers to buy retail copies to ship. At say, $300/copy it would make no sense to try to compete with Apple (and Apple would no doubt be glad to sell tons of retail copies at $300 per). After raising the price, Apple then comes up with a rebate scheme for owners of Apple branded hardware to lower the cost of upgrading such hardware.
Apple could also add some DRM that breaks OSX on non-Apple hardware; and play a cat and mouse game that forces clone manufacturers to constantly overcome the DRM to keep their machines working. Of course, Apple could sue under the DMCA to make life even rougher for the clone manufacturers
Given the potential hassles, it makes no sense for a major PC maker to take this tack. If they really wanted to make clones, negotiating and agreeable license deal with Apple to ensure exclusivity and reliable OSX operation would be the way to go. No lawsuits, good relationship with Apple to ensure the customer has a good experience and is confident about purchasing the clone.
Finally, if PC manufacturers really wanted an alternative to Windows; why aren't they solidly backing Linux? They could form an industry consortium with the intent of making Linux a stronger player on the desktop; developing a single interface / user experience and then market it to consumers as well as software developers. Software developers, especially consumer oriented ones, could be approached with a "We plan to increase Linux market share to XX, and want you to include it in future game development; how can we help?" to get a critical mass of end user products to take Linux from being a novelty to a credible alternative for mainstream users. A single version also would me tech support / documentation costs could be borne by a consortium rather than each manufacturer.
That that hasn't happened tells me that PC manufacturers aren't that interested in moving from Windows.
What legal rights would someone have to be able to disallow others from using legally acquired software on hardware of their own choosing?
The software license. In Apple's case. it states:
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âAppleâ) for use only under the terms of this License,
SNIP
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
It's pretty clear that Users would violate Apple's license agreement. I'm not sure how Pystar's selling of legitimate retail copies of the OS violates the agreement; unless they actually install it prior to shipping. OTHO, if they've placed code on their machines needed to run OSX on clones; and that code violates Apple's copyrights, then it makes sense that Apple's suing for copyright violation.
I understand Apple's motivation - they want to protect their revenue stream and ensure OSX works properly for end users; something they can't ensure if it's installed on clones. It's also possible that Apple figures they can outlast Pystar in court; winning in the end by driving Pystar out of business.
In looking back over your post and the GP, it's clear that either a) I clicked on the wrong "reply to this" and/or b) I was in a bleary-eyed haze and barely read your post (the latter is possible, though less likely). In any case, I didn't have to write from the "dick's point of view" and I apologize.
No problem, we're cool. I was also a bit of a dick in my response, and I apologize for that.
Alright! So apparently Doctor-Patient Confidentiality and Privacy are right out the window... since sharing information isn't ethically wrong.
Hint: different things are different. I was clearly referring to copying copyrighted computer software. Trying to confuse the difference between personal private data and copyrighted works is an amusing distraction, but that's all it is.
It's still information. Why should you have aright to protect your data and someone else shouldn't have the same right to protect data they've created?
Oh, wait, that's it - in the former you are being hurt, but in the later it's someone else who clearly isn't as important as you. Clue - it's called hypocrisy.
If you chose to produce some software and sell it, that's your call. If the economic realities of the situation end up resulting in less money than you expected, that's your problem. The world doesn't owe you a big payout. It's your responsibility to make good economic choices.
No, it doesn't owe you a payout. But if people are playing the game they clearly value it, but because they are cheap they chose to steal it instead of pay for it. Yes, I call it stealing, so save me the rationalizations why copyright violations aren't theft in such instances.
In an effort to make *good economic decisions* companies resort to DRM and other ways to retain control; which opens up a host of other problems and is not all that successful in the end.
Hell, right now I'm in the process of developing a video game with a small team. But we've got a coherent business model. It should make us more than enough money, and if it doesn't it'll be our own damn fault.
That's great, just don't complain when someone takes what you've created and finds a way to use it without you getting what you want out of it.
Listen, I've moderated comments on this story, so I have to post anonymous. I just wanted to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding here.
Registered Coward said that "saying we lose xx billion/year to piracy is wrong". Babbster said the article talks about why Registered Coward is wrong. The excerpt quoted, in more complete form is this:
The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product. This is not the same as saying that every pirated copy is a lost sale. What it actually means is that firstly some proportion of the people who are pirating a game would have bought it in the absence of piracy. Equally as important however is the fact that even those who would never have paid the full purchase price for one reason or another may still have paid some lower amount to purchase and play the game which they pirated. This is because by the very act of obtaining and playing a game, they've clearly demonstrated that they place some value on that game. After all, if something is truly 'worthless', consumers won't bother to obtain or use it in the first place, regardless of whether it's free or not.
The author goes on to say that these losses are notoriously hard to calculate resulting in people grossly over- or under-stating them. So, while Registered Coward is right that saying xx dollars lost is probably not acceptable, his subsequent statement seems to imply* that no loss is incurred. This is, however, not true.
* I cannot emphasise the seems part of 'seems to imply' enough. It just looks like that was what he was saying.
I can see how my comment could be misinterpreted. Sometimes I forget that everyone on/. doesn't understand supply and demand curves. I was saying the same thing as the article; that the actual loss is hard to quantify. I didn't mean to imply no loss occurs.
I would hazard a guess that the actual lost revenue is higher for lower priced software (such as games) than expensive ones such as Photoshop / Office / etc. MS seems to realize that by offering a "Home" version of Office at a much lower price point than a similar "work" version (and allows 3 installs.
Of course, vendors *like* to assume each pirated copy equals a lost sale; simply because it makes the problem look worse than it actually is and thus can be used to defend actions taken to stop piracy. Politics never need real analysis to make decisions, after all.
And a tip of the hat to you, AC, for bringing this up in a reasonable way.
Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak was introduced and was technically superior to QWERTY, but by this point it was too late because QWERTY had a dominant market share and pepole did not want to have to learn two keyboard layouts.
The analogy is pretty good.
Actually, the whole thrust of the article was how myths get repeated enough that they become accepted as facts. In the case of QWERTY vs DVORAK, that while many people believe DVORAK was superior; properly conducted tests show no inherent advantage to the DVORAK keyboard. As a result, there is no reason to switch.
As a result, an number of arguments using QWERTY adoption as there basis for conclusions are invalid.
That's right..as opposed to oh so superior American Engineering that results in lots of good TV coverage of shuttles blowing up and burning up every few years.
If I were going into space I'd pick the Soyuz every time, at least you get up there and back without being spread over most of Texas.
Well, considering the USSR lost at least 4 cosmonauts on reentry; and killed 140 people in two separate rocket explosions; I'd say the safety record was at best a wash.
This happened when Linens & Things went under. The liquidators stopped taking the ubiquitous "20% off anything" coupons, repriced everything at MSRP, and discounted from there. The first round of discounts, 20%-30% IIRC, weren't competitive with the regular prices at the local Target. But the suckers bought anyway, so by the time the decent discounts kicked in, all the good stuff was gone. The only really good deals were on the fixtures.
I really hope CC doesn't hire the same liquidators, because they did their job very, very well.
Probably will, AIR there are very few big enough to handle a liquidation the size of CC; especially since CC gets cash for inventory up front.
I went when the prices were marked as "Everything 40-60% off". They still had quite a lot of merchandise, including some large TVs which I happened to be in the market for. Unfortunately, at 40-60% off, they were still about 25% higher than the competition. I decided to wait, and sure enough a few weeks later they had it up to 80-90% off everything. I went in and everything was gone. Apparently the sheeple are happy to pay 25% more than they should for the pleasure of "saving" 70%.
That's because the liquidator reprices everything to the SRP; the discounts. As a result stuff is often more expensive than at normal retail outlets or online. Once the liquidation starts the stuff generally no longer belongs to CC; it's already been offloaded to a company that specializes in liquidations.
The main mistake Circuit City made IMHO was that their prices were always higher than their primary competitors (Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.). They had a policy that they would match the price of any competitor; however, they wouldn't beat the competitor's price. Of course, their high pressure sales tactics didn't help either but my main gripe was their advertised prices.
My local CC (since closed) had the same difference plus 10% as BB, so maybe they changed at some point.
Only matching a competitor's price (and not beating the price) meant they were basically forcing their customers to do their job, i.e. price shop their competition. If I find two stores selling the same item, and one store is less than the other, I'm going to the lower priced store. The only time I'd consider going to the higher priced store would be if they gave me a price LOWER than their competitor. A price match is meaningless.
Actually, the purpose of price matching is to sustain higher prices; not give customers a good deal. Price matching promises signals other stores if you lower prices we will match or beat them, so you will only make less revenue; not gain more customers to make up for the lower price. In fact, you may lose some customers if the decide to buy at our now lower than yours price. In the end, we both will make less money so lets play nice and keep prices stable and make our needed profit margins.
As a result, I rarely see any significant price difference between most items; most are the same or within a few cents. Occasionally a sale on DVDs may offer a decent price match opportunity; but even those are rare; in my experience.
For customers, it's designed to say you don't need to shop around since we will match any better price you see. That is to encourage buying on the spot rather than price shopping.
The other part of the price match game was to have a "special" model number - you carried the XYZ123U while competitors just had a XYZ123. If you bought enough you could rebadge slightly and avoid any price matching as it wasn't the "Same model."
More often than not, the party filing the suit does have something to hide and just want to abuse the court system to harass and intimidate their critics into silence. And unfortunately, it works because libel, slander, and defamation laws trump the First Amendment.
While I agree lawsuits are used at time to intimidate people and silence them, and that is a problem, I disagree with your conclusion:
And unfortunately, it works because libel, slander, and defamation laws trump the First Amendment.
The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech. Preventing you from posting, bay a government entity, would be prior restraint and violate the First Amendment.
Libel, slander, and defamation laws hold persons responsible for what they say, a not unreasonable thing if used properly. You can say what you want, but are accountable for the accuracy of what you say.
To argue that the First Amendment should shield you from responsibility for what you say (I realize that is not what you are saying) may be popular but is wrong.
"...much like many home computers from the days Back To The Future was cool".
Oh geez! I missed the memo. Back to the Future isn't cool any more? Man I'm getting old!
That's ok, just set the Delorean to 1985,or 1955, or 1885 or 2015 and you'll be cool again. Just don't take any Roosevelt Dimes...
The _highest_ price is $1.29, and they claim "more songs will be $0.69 than will be $1.29".
Either way with DRM free music the consumer benefits.
I wonder if Apple will go to a dynamic pricing model - song prices could rise and fall based on demand; enabling them to increase profits by changing price to maximize revenue.
I like the DRM free idea - I wonder if we can convert existing songs for free for those that are now below the original $.99 price.
The onion, where it's April 1st year round.
and the net, home of eternal September
Here in the UK, if you buy intelligently, you can get 1200 minutes per month to any network and no text charges at all for the equivalent of $25 per month. We don't pay to receive calls, either. You're being ripped off in the USA!
Depends on what you mean by ripped -off. In the US, I can travel 1000 miles and pay no additional fees beyond my fixed rate for any calls I make; I can also call someone 1000 miles away in the US and pay no extra charge for it. I can't even use my Orange pay as you go card in Portugal to receive calls for free; and if I call Portugal from the UK I get charged extra; especially to a mobile; yet London to Lisbon is not nearly as far as say NY to LA, which would cost me no extra in the US.
Bottom line - the US and EU cell phone markets are different. Not better, not worse, just different.
No, apparently you failed economics.
If there is sufficient competition in the market profits will be driven to zero and the price of the service will approach the *actual* cost of providing it (which is close to zero, apparently). The fact that text messages cost 1000s of times more than they should indicates that there is insufficient competition in the industry, excessive barriers to entry into the market, etc.
You are assuming a commodity market where there is no product differentiation. You may want to reread your econ text.
meh, where I'm living in europe on a prepay package I pay 20 a month and can text/call as much as I want for no cost as long as I'm calling the same network(everyone my age uses this network though). the 20 euro of credit easily covers all calls to people not on the same network as me. It's handy being able to call someone for an hour and knowing it's not costing me a dime.
Is it true they even charge you for receiving calls in the states????
In the US, similar to your plan; most carriers do not charge for calls to/from the same network.
Pay as you go and no contract plans offer similar deals; in addition for $40 you can get unlimited calls/text/long distance on some carriers.
The lack of roaming fees and long distance charges in the US is one significant way our two markets differ.
What more do you want them to add. The rest of the stuff Microsoft has, no one cares about enough to add it.
That viewpoint, I believe, is one that limits open source's potential. Just because a developer does not find a feature useful does not mean a broader user community feels the same way. When they find features they need lacking in an OSS package they simply stick with the existing closed alternative.
Having a small developer community acerbates this problem, since it's less likely one of them would also want some feature that the others find unnecessary.
Do users really need an open source desktop suite when they can meet their needs using a server based suite? Broadband is cheap.
But it's not ubiquitous. For some of us, broadband access is not available at work.
In addition, in some cases, what we are working on needs to be kept secure and not broadcast over broadband.
The ability to pull out a laptop and do real work, without having to try to connect to a server to gain access to productivity tools, is valuable to alot of users
From what I've read, the FCC is forcing the cable companies to "eat their own dog food" by mandating the use of CableCard in new set-top boxes purchased by the cable companies. With that mandate, the cable companies might finally start fixing their screwed-up internal processes for supporting CableCard devices.
I hope so. Calls to my cable company's tech support on how to get a cable card for my cable card ready PC are met with a either "Huh?," "a what?," or "you don't need to insert a credit card in your cable box."
I imagine the last response's tech support person probably has a new luser story - "guess what a luser asked about today? and doesn't even realize who the real luser is.
they'll still tie you to their service; and then they can ask a ridiculous price for the box.
It's a shame CableCard never caught on - then companies like TiVO could have offered a viable alternative to a set top box. Yes, I realize I'd pay an additional monthly fee; but Tivo2go is worth it to me. Plus; real competition might force cable companies to offer similar products for less.
Problem starts when 4 out of 5 support calls are clearly from pirated versions of the software.
Certainly. Companies can't afford to support pirated copies; and unless they have a good way to distinguish between legit and pirated copies they'll probably cut back on tech support.
Ultimately, they may look to different distribution models than the traditional retail boxed disk. Online d/l; with concurrent registration, provides a way to try to authenticate users. Not that it will stop piracy; but it can be used to cut down on support calls as well as a way to add value the user experience by offering special deals to registered users.
Pay per call is another way - you could coupon the box and allow a few free call;s with the code; after that all cost money. Not a good solution; but another way to control costs associated with support.
Console games provide another way to avoid at least the casual piracy since disk base protection (software and hardware) can be built in and not easily replicated by most users.
In the end it's still a cat and mouse game.
Its a pity that this intel netbook crowd didn't learn more lessons from Psion about how to create workable small scale computers.
Even more so that Psion left the market and never really realized the potential for their products. I used a 5 for along time; great little device. There app suite was pretty decent, to teh point where you could get real work done on them.
One can only wonder what Psion would have today had they been able to continue developing the 5 and 7 series.
When do they start suing the Intel Corporation or Acer (one of whom had coined the term IIRC), and not the penny-ante hobbyist sites?
Ah - but I guess it's cheaper and easier to pick on the small fry first, eh?
Seriously - yes Psion has a real trademark on it, but what kind of screwball system do we all live in where (litigation-wise) the little guy gets it in the neck first?
They have to protect the trademark; which means going after unauthorized use, no matter where it happens.
If they ignore the little guys the big guys will use that to argue the term has become a generic moniker for, well, Netbooks tm.
At least Psion appears to be reasonable and give people a some time to stop using their trademark.
So will we finally find out if EULA's are enforceable in court?
Actually, that has been done already; although courts have gone both ways depending on the circumstances. The question is not enforceability; but does Apple either have unreasonable claims or harm consumers with their EULA? I doubt this case would result in a blanket EULA enforceability ruling.
Testing the waters, Hardware vendors want to sell something other than windows. I'm willing to bet one (or more) of the big 5 PC vendors is behind this
It makes no sense for them to do this.
Let's suppose they win. Then, theoretically, anyone can sell Apple clones; leaving hardware manufacturers free to enter yet another commodity market. One where the OS manufacturer isn't particularly happy about other selling hardware that runs their OS.
Apple would still control OSX; even if they can't get additional damages. For OSX up to Leopard, at least. I'm sure they'll fix any copyright registration problems, if they actually exist, for Snow Leopard. Apple could, conceivably, sue for still sue for actual damages; and no vendor wants to face the threat of ongoing lawsuits. In addition, Apple could sue for much more for later versions of OSX; leaving clone manufacturers with the ability to only use an older version of OSX (or face even more expensive lawsuits), which won't go over well in the marketplace.
Apple could also make it much more difficult to install OSX on non-Apple products. They could simply jack-up the retail price of OSX to the point where it becomes uneconomical for clone manufacturers to buy retail copies to ship. At say, $300/copy it would make no sense to try to compete with Apple (and Apple would no doubt be glad to sell tons of retail copies at $300 per). After raising the price, Apple then comes up with a rebate scheme for owners of Apple branded hardware to lower the cost of upgrading such hardware.
Apple could also add some DRM that breaks OSX on non-Apple hardware; and play a cat and mouse game that forces clone manufacturers to constantly overcome the DRM to keep their machines working. Of course, Apple could sue under the DMCA to make life even rougher for the clone manufacturers
Given the potential hassles, it makes no sense for a major PC maker to take this tack. If they really wanted to make clones, negotiating and agreeable license deal with Apple to ensure exclusivity and reliable OSX operation would be the way to go. No lawsuits, good relationship with Apple to ensure the customer has a good experience and is confident about purchasing the clone.
Finally, if PC manufacturers really wanted an alternative to Windows; why aren't they solidly backing Linux? They could form an industry consortium with the intent of making Linux a stronger player on the desktop; developing a single interface / user experience and then market it to consumers as well as software developers. Software developers, especially consumer oriented ones, could be approached with a "We plan to increase Linux market share to XX, and want you to include it in future game development; how can we help?" to get a critical mass of end user products to take Linux from being a novelty to a credible alternative for mainstream users. A single version also would me tech support / documentation costs could be borne by a consortium rather than each manufacturer.
That that hasn't happened tells me that PC manufacturers aren't that interested in moving from Windows.
What legal rights would someone have to be able to disallow others from using legally acquired software on hardware of their own choosing?
The software license. In Apple's case. it states:
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âAppleâ) for use only under the terms of this License,
SNIP
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
It's pretty clear that Users would violate Apple's license agreement. I'm not sure how Pystar's selling of legitimate retail copies of the OS violates the agreement; unless they actually install it prior to shipping. OTHO, if they've placed code on their machines needed to run OSX on clones; and that code violates Apple's copyrights, then it makes sense that Apple's suing for copyright violation.
I understand Apple's motivation - they want to protect their revenue stream and ensure OSX works properly for end users; something they can't ensure if it's installed on clones. It's also possible that Apple figures they can outlast Pystar in court; winning in the end by driving Pystar out of business.
In looking back over your post and the GP, it's clear that either a) I clicked on the wrong "reply to this" and/or b) I was in a bleary-eyed haze and barely read your post (the latter is possible, though less likely). In any case, I didn't have to write from the "dick's point of view" and I apologize.
No problem, we're cool. I was also a bit of a dick in my response, and I apologize for that.
Hint: different things are different. I was clearly referring to copying copyrighted computer software. Trying to confuse the difference between personal private data and copyrighted works is an amusing distraction, but that's all it is.
It's still information. Why should you have aright to protect your data and someone else shouldn't have the same right to protect data they've created?
Oh, wait, that's it - in the former you are being hurt, but in the later it's someone else who clearly isn't as important as you. Clue - it's called hypocrisy.
If you chose to produce some software and sell it, that's your call. If the economic realities of the situation end up resulting in less money than you expected, that's your problem. The world doesn't owe you a big payout. It's your responsibility to make good economic choices.
No, it doesn't owe you a payout. But if people are playing the game they clearly value it, but because they are cheap they chose to steal it instead of pay for it. Yes, I call it stealing, so save me the rationalizations why copyright violations aren't theft in such instances.
In an effort to make *good economic decisions* companies resort to DRM and other ways to retain control; which opens up a host of other problems and is not all that successful in the end.
Hell, right now I'm in the process of developing a video game with a small team. But we've got a coherent business model. It should make us more than enough money, and if it doesn't it'll be our own damn fault.
That's great, just don't complain when someone takes what you've created and finds a way to use it without you getting what you want out of it.
Listen, I've moderated comments on this story, so I have to post anonymous. I just wanted to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding here.
Registered Coward said that "saying we lose xx billion/year to piracy is wrong". Babbster said the article talks about why Registered Coward is wrong. The excerpt quoted, in more complete form is this:
The author goes on to say that these losses are notoriously hard to calculate resulting in people grossly over- or under-stating them. So, while Registered Coward is right that saying xx dollars lost is probably not acceptable, his subsequent statement seems to imply* that no loss is incurred. This is, however, not true.
* I cannot emphasise the seems part of 'seems to imply' enough. It just looks like that was what he was saying.
I can see how my comment could be misinterpreted. Sometimes I forget that everyone on /. doesn't understand supply and demand curves. I was saying the same thing as the article; that the actual loss is hard to quantify. I didn't mean to imply no loss occurs.
I would hazard a guess that the actual lost revenue is higher for lower priced software (such as games) than expensive ones such as Photoshop / Office / etc. MS seems to realize that by offering a "Home" version of Office at a much lower price point than a similar "work" version (and allows 3 installs.
Of course, vendors *like* to assume each pirated copy equals a lost sale; simply because it makes the problem look worse than it actually is and thus can be used to defend actions taken to stop piracy. Politics never need real analysis to make decisions, after all.
And a tip of the hat to you, AC, for bringing this up in a reasonable way.