This is why I think that "tax exempt" status for religious organizations should be eliminated. Why should the government decide what is a religion and what isn't?
The original concept behind tax exempt status for churches was the separation of church and state idea. There's lots of things "churches" get away with, and lots of things that the state cannot do on church property (like arrest someone without the church's consent). But it also keeps the state from enforcing religious views (technically).
There's lots and lots and LOTS of reasons why this used to be a very good idea. Like everything with good intentions, it was just a stop along the way to hell.
Money and power have always been more important than friendship and happiness. Sadly, almost every religion is based upon the opposite.
The "us" (the englightened members of the cult) vs. "them" (the stupid, ignorant, frightning and hostile rest of the population) is a very common theme among cults and Sc. is no exception.
Me vs. You is the thought behind any prejudice. It's not that other people are different, it's the thought that "I" am perfect, and "You" are not like "Me", therefore, there must be something wrong with "You" because there's nothing wrong with "Me". To avoid any sort of self-appraisal, all time and effort must be directed towards attacking those who are different, therefore "I" can take the focus off of "myself".
Yes, it's a very sad, sorry, shallow view, and it only takes a few moments to realise how many people you run into that are exactly this way (or realise that you might be this way, admittedly or not).
Really, that way of thinking is proof that there's no such thing as evolution.:-)
$500 ipods, $600 15" LCD displays, does apple only cater to the super rich?
$24 t-shirts, $50 jeans, does Abercrombie & Fitch only cater to the super rich?
Yes. Take your broke ass to American Eagle (Dell).
You either get it or you don't. You either "get" paying more for the end-to-end experience, or you buy some cheap knockoff down the way. You may have something similar, but you don't have the original, nor will it ever be the original, nor will all the complaining that the original costs more, or your knockoff performs the same function make your cheap knockoff the original.
what possible academic value does an iPod have? If none, then what's the point of academic pricing again? Not that I'm complaining, mind you (me want bargain!)
Music students typically carry around a load of CDs and DAT with current songs they are trying to learn, or pieces they are studying. Putting all of that on an iPod would make it easier (and is faster than transferring to tape or burning a CD). The iPod is also a 5 or 10 gig hard drive, which has similar academic value as a Zip drive.
Wow, you must not use VBR MP3's (which means you're probably not ripping them yourself, and I seriously doubt you're ripping all your music at 320) because the CPU usage fluctuates with the bitrate it's processing.
With VBR set, and the minimum set to 160kbps, iTunes uses an average of 18% on my 450MHz G4 (a good balance of quality and file size). iTunes is optimised for AltiVec, but only during ripping.
As for what else it does besides rip and play MP3's, it also lets you organise your songs into playlists, and then burn them to Audio or MP3 CDs, and it also supports visual plug-ins.
IMO, Windows' GUI is great for people who are new to computers.
Fascinating opinion, but it is proven wrong repeatedly by studies in human interface design and Operating System productivity tests, almost by third-party research companies (even Intel funded a test that showed Windows was diffucult for beginners to use).
That would equate to, once you purchased a Ferrari, being able to copy it for no charge and give these copies out to anyone you wanted. If we could actually do this, then I can't see any product staying in the market for long.
Wow, you really didn't think about that for very long, I guess (I mean, really, did you think about it at all?).
I've been thinking about the possibilities of going open source, and releasing a "demo world"...like the traditional shareware games of old, when they would break the game into a few episodes, and you'd get the first one as the shareware version, and the rest if you registered...wonder if it's feasible or not -- whether people would actually buy a set of data files
For the process of registration to work (whether you buy the product outright, or if you have to buy it when you register) there needs to be a compelling reason to create a relationship with the company. Support is the first solution most people come up with, but it has the distinct probability that it will cost more than it makes you. People have mentioned Doom and Quake, where you get more episodes, but the true beauty of those was that custom levels and mods only worked with the registered version. Suddenly there's a reason to form a relationship with the company. The Sims is an even better example. When I registered, I had access to all those add-ons, not just from Maxis, but from other Sim users . Then there's Livin' Large, then House Party, then Hot Date. Wow, not only did they get me to register, but they got me to spend more money on essentially the same game. It just isn't worth trying to pirate a game like that. You lose access to too much.
It really comes down to creating a successful business model. Buy my word processor and you get access to wizards, templates, clip art...buy my image editing application and you get access to filters, stock photos, brushes, actions...buy my web browser and you get access to a personalised portal, web service...buy my music player and you get access to visual plug-ins...
If you've set up a good model, the add-ons have more value than what you can find for free (which is the compelling reason to buy commercial software) or that the tools to create the add-ons are only available when you register.
Perhaps I've been spoiled by Linux, but I'm getting into Mac OS X now, and there are tons of little apps that on Linux would be free, but some chump wants $9 for on OS X. Yeah, part of it is me being cheap, but I keep going back to Linus's quote and end up not buying it.
First of all, amen for quoting such a perfect summation of general shareware (there's exceptions to everything). Secondly, I agree with you about the stupid apps that people want money for. The problem here is that there are three camps going on in OS X (and traditionally 2 in Mac OS). There's the people that don't know, and aren't interested in knowing anything about their computer except how to run a program and find their files, there's the power users that truly harness the elegance of the Mac Way(TM), and now there's the Unix guys that are all about hacking up the system to get it to work more efficiently for them.
Furthermore, most of those dinky apps can be replaced by AppleScripts. I run into one-trick pony shareware apps all the time that do almost nothing, but do something halfway interesting, but then I always remember how to do it in AppleScript (which also now hooks into Perl), and wonder why these fools are trying to sell something that's free with a little bit of work, and I mean little. I guess Barnum was right...
No, these things are not guaranteed, they could just piss all over you. But considering they trusted you enough to pay, maybe you can trust them not to leave you high and dry if they go out of business.
Uh, the whole point is that they didn't trust you to pay. This is a company that's out to make money (that is not a bad thing), and they admittedly will inconvenience the end-user if that means they can make more money (that is a bad thing). From a business standpoint, when you're going out of business, it's because you can't make money anymore, or because you can't make enough money, so it doesn't make business sense to pay people to work on the very thing that is causing the company to go out of business* (*see also BeOS). The only probable scenario is that they might release the source, which has been mentioned, but that's just a scenario. We've yet to see that played out by anyone but Bungie, and if I recall correctly, the Marathon source code release was under the radar of Microsoft.
First, I can't believe the parent post didn't get modded Funny. Second, even successful and currently operating software companies abandon software that still contain show-stopping or data-corrupting bugs, let alone a feature that can cripple it to the point it won't even launch. Furthermore, Ambrosia could be bought out by a company that discontinues support of older or even current software. This is true of any and all software, it's just an even riskier endeavour for the end-user when an activation scheme is involved.
Re:I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the proble
on
More On Policing Shareware
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I would venture a guess that your experiences have been atypical. I'm pretty sure that Ambrosia has done what they can to ensure that people will have an easy path to registration.
Actually, Ambrosia themselves admit they have a flawed design. They admit they have inconvenienced paying customers. The fact that I should ever have to interact with them after the initial purchase of their product, just to use the product is absurd. Their prices for their products are more than reasonable (except SnapzPro X, I can create an AppleScript that does everything it does with only a default install of Mac OS X), but if any time I go to run an application, and it won't run because of something the author has programmed, that sounds like a bug.
The story on their website is fascinating in terms of a study of human nature, but they have twisted the reality that they tried to base a business around their hobby (which is exactly what they said), then throw in the "baby factor" (which sounds suspiciously like stories you hear from welfare queens: "I need money for my baby I made without thinking about the fact I had to have money to support it.").
Their editorial would have been more effective if they had left out all of the starving artist ridiculousness, it only sells their talent short. I wish more shareware authors would just say, "I am a talented programmer that makes worthwhile applications, and I made them with the intent of being paid for it. Stop ripping me off." Instead you always hear, "You should pay me for my program so I can eat and put diapers on my baby."
The truth of it is that shareware is a sketchy business model, and if you're going into it without realising that, you're going to get burned. I also don't see any difference between these new shareware registration schemes and Windows XP's Activation.
Sorry if I sound like I'm downing shareware, I'm just downing shareware authors attitudes. It's just in my mind Shareware = Application one or a couple talented programmers have worked on, Open/Free (as in speech) = Application tens to hundreds of talented programmers have worked on, and you don't hear OpenSource or collaborative programmers spouting the "will program for food" mantra.
Not *exactly* a monopoly, but they are most definitely stifling competition in the IM market by breaking anything and everything compatible with AIM.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
AOL has rightfully blocked IM clients from contacting Oscar, NOT from being compatible with AIM, you just have to use TOC (which hasn't been updated in a while). AOL is in every right to disallow people from contacting their server.
As far as stifling the IM market, THERE IS NO IM STANDARD. There will be no IM market until there is a standard. Anyone can create their own proprietary IM client, which has been done by Yahoo!, AOL, Microsoft, etc.
Half of this is talking out of my ass, so you can ignore most of it.
I remember quite a time ago (maybe 1997 or so) when Macintosh developers were talking about using QuickTime to port Macintosh applications to Windows. It turns out, QuickTime for Windows is *almost* CarbonLib (in the sense of what API's are included). Apple had to port almost the entire Macintosh ToolBox to get QuickTime to work on Windows.
That said, it's no wonder it doesn't run on more operating systems, the Mac ToolBox wasn't designed to be portable. CarbonLib, however, was designed for just that. So maybe when Apple Carbonises QuickTime we will see it on other platforms.
What I don't understand is why AOL created their own (proprietary I might add) protocol for their network (or at least why they continue to use one...). TCP/IP can easily do everything their network does
Someone correct me if I'm wrong ('cause I probably am) but I think the AOL protocol also includes the ability to notify the server when specific network traffic starts and stops. There is a bug in older versions of AOL that if you get disconnected during a transfer, and you're on dialup, you can't reconnect to AOL (it says you're already connected). To my understanding (again, I don't know if I am exactly right) TCP/IP is a "handshake" protocol. The server has to reach out it's hand to give you something, and you have to reach out your hand to take it, but you can only take small parts, and you have to bring your hand back each time, and then you have to wave and tell the server you got it, but with the AOL protocol, you open your arms and the server dumps it onto you until it's done, and vice-versa. I think the AOL protocol is closer to streaming than data packets, at least that's what the software has led me to believe.
I also believe that the AOL system guarantees bandwidth. No, really, don't laugh. I think the reason why AOL can seem so slow is because AOL won't send you information if the servers are already taxed. You never see AOL start something, then stall, then finish. It either stalls at the request, or it delivers. I seem to recall a friend who did an internship in VA telling me that. The server has so many pieces of pie to give out, and you have to wait your turn, it doesn't just start making the pie pieces smaller (Token Ring concept: you can't talk without the stick).
Now, as far as why AOL hasn't gone open standards, the internet is just full of too many holes. There's a little safety in obscurity with AOL. The AOL software is like a confessional, the information is only going to a group of people that aren't supposed to tell. The internet is like telephone, you have to send it through a ton of people, and who knows who has heard what by the time it gets to the other end.
I don't ever plan to pay for subscriptions to a web site. I have no guarantee that the content will be interesting enough, or updated regularly enough (with magazines and newspapers I am at the very least guaranteed an update schedule). I have no guarantee the site won't be down because of DDOS, DOS, virus, or some doofus updating the web site hitting the wrong button, and blocking access to everyone outside of their intranet. I'm not guaranteed compatibility, or a reliable connection to the site, the list can be almost endless. But you can bet your sweet @$$ that the websites with subscription will guarantee they'll charge your credit card every month for the full amount despite whether or not they deliver their content.
On a positive note, I have actually clicked on relevant banners (not that most sites have them) and more importantly, I have clicked on text links to advertisers. Without relevant (to the website) ads, I never would have found Small Dog Electronics, RamJet, and even CD Now. All of which I have plunked down a large chunk of change at, as well as some other sites. Problem most websites have is that they don't use targeted ads, or they just have a banner that is for a site, instead of like MacInTouch and MacNN that have text links announcing deals for those web sites surfers when they click the links (which I have received some great deals by doing so).
I have banner images turned off in OmniWeb, manly because banner ads are typically junk, but I like relevant text links, or text ad boxes, because advertising works (and I want it to work) when advertisers do a good job. Text links require better targeting, and are more likely to be clicked.
Ask anyone who has played the Dreamcast, and I'm almost certain that 90% of them will comment on how comfortable and intuitive the controller is; true, it's stolen from the SNES, but they actually went out and made it big enough for most adult's hands.
Actually, it's just the 3D controller for Saturn with a VMU slot.
The El Capitan on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, CA is a digital theatre (owned by Disney). I saw Toy Story 2 there, and yes, there is a BIG difference, highlighted especially by an animated movie where there are expanses of a single colour. It's the difference between looking at a TIFF and a JPEG. While some may prefer the artistic quality of noise generated by film grain and errant dust, I prefer the clearer picture, and would pay more to see it.
...Nintendo sues the poor guy for making an "unlicensed" GBA add-on?
Nintendo has previously lost lawsuits over that idea. They lost a lawsuit pertaining to Game Genie (CodeMasters) for the NES, for "unlicensed" games made by Tengen (a former division of Atari), and over cartridge "back up" units. Video game systems have been classified computers, as far as the US courts have are concerned, so a license to create software for it is not necessary (although you will not get the Seal of Approval, and it may void your warranty if you use unlicensed HARDWARE with it) and it is perfectly legal to make a backup (as fair use laws are still being upheld pertaining to video game systems) as long as it follows copyright laws (it's for your use only, and you own, or HAVE OWNED the game).
As an unrelated sidenote, it's fascinating that in the computer world, you don't even own the physical media the software came on, all you actually own is the license to use it, but in the video game world, you own the media, and there is no license. At least that's the legal precedence I have followed.
Nintendo produced a backlit Gameboy for the Asian market in the days of Gameboy Pocket. The Gameboy Pocket's screen was more efficient at using energy, so adding a light to it and using AA batteries with it (instead of Pocket's AAA) gave nearly the same play time as the original. Nintendo has a great aftermarket of licensed products in the US. In Asia no one wants to lug around all that extra gear (smaller is better even if it is lesser quality), so a backlit Gameboy was appropriate for that market.
The reason why Nintendo took so long to come out with a color unit was because of power drain. They aren't going to release a backlit unit anytime soon unless the drain on power is insignificant.
Incidentally, Nintendo has a history of refusing to use available technologies until they have matured to the point of transparency. Another example of this is disk technology. It was available in Japan for the Famicom (NES) and the N64. But Nintendo said that load times were too long for a worldwide release. (Gamecube games have similar load times to cartridges).
The camera is probably intended for use with compositing applications like Shake, which can process z-depth information, as well as RGB, and alpha. Great for seamlessly integrating live action with computer generated 3D, particularly realtime 3D
This is kind of offtopic, but interesting nonetheless. Apple recently bought Nothing Real, the company that makes Shake and Tremor.
Slashdot Mirror
The original concept behind tax exempt status for churches was the separation of church and state idea. There's lots of things "churches" get away with, and lots of things that the state cannot do on church property (like arrest someone without the church's consent). But it also keeps the state from enforcing religious views (technically).
There's lots and lots and LOTS of reasons why this used to be a very good idea. Like everything with good intentions, it was just a stop along the way to hell.
Money and power have always been more important than friendship and happiness. Sadly, almost every religion is based upon the opposite.
Me vs. You is the thought behind any prejudice. It's not that other people are different, it's the thought that "I" am perfect, and "You" are not like "Me", therefore, there must be something wrong with "You" because there's nothing wrong with "Me". To avoid any sort of self-appraisal, all time and effort must be directed towards attacking those who are different, therefore "I" can take the focus off of "myself".
Yes, it's a very sad, sorry, shallow view, and it only takes a few moments to realise how many people you run into that are exactly this way (or realise that you might be this way, admittedly or not).
Really, that way of thinking is proof that there's no such thing as evolution. :-)
The iPod is shipped with music already on it. I think something like 10 or so songs from different genres. Apple always adds extras.
$24 t-shirts, $50 jeans, does Abercrombie & Fitch only cater to the super rich?
Yes. Take your broke ass to American Eagle (Dell).
You either get it or you don't. You either "get" paying more for the end-to-end experience, or you buy some cheap knockoff down the way. You may have something similar, but you don't have the original, nor will it ever be the original, nor will all the complaining that the original costs more, or your knockoff performs the same function make your cheap knockoff the original.
Get over it.
Music students typically carry around a load of CDs and DAT with current songs they are trying to learn, or pieces they are studying. Putting all of that on an iPod would make it easier (and is faster than transferring to tape or burning a CD). The iPod is also a 5 or 10 gig hard drive, which has similar academic value as a Zip drive.
With VBR set, and the minimum set to 160kbps, iTunes uses an average of 18% on my 450MHz G4 (a good balance of quality and file size). iTunes is optimised for AltiVec, but only during ripping.
As for what else it does besides rip and play MP3's, it also lets you organise your songs into playlists, and then burn them to Audio or MP3 CDs, and it also supports visual plug-ins.
Wow, you really didn't think about that for very long, I guess (I mean, really, did you think about it at all?).
Food, plants, domestic animals.
For the process of registration to work (whether you buy the product outright, or if you have to buy it when you register) there needs to be a compelling reason to create a relationship with the company. Support is the first solution most people come up with, but it has the distinct probability that it will cost more than it makes you. People have mentioned Doom and Quake, where you get more episodes, but the true beauty of those was that custom levels and mods only worked with the registered version. Suddenly there's a reason to form a relationship with the company. The Sims is an even better example. When I registered, I had access to all those add-ons, not just from Maxis, but from other Sim users . Then there's Livin' Large, then House Party, then Hot Date. Wow, not only did they get me to register, but they got me to spend more money on essentially the same game. It just isn't worth trying to pirate a game like that. You lose access to too much.
It really comes down to creating a successful business model. Buy my word processor and you get access to wizards, templates, clip art...buy my image editing application and you get access to filters, stock photos, brushes, actions...buy my web browser and you get access to a personalised portal, web service...buy my music player and you get access to visual plug-ins...
If you've set up a good model, the add-ons have more value than what you can find for free (which is the compelling reason to buy commercial software) or that the tools to create the add-ons are only available when you register.
First of all, amen for quoting such a perfect summation of general shareware (there's exceptions to everything). Secondly, I agree with you about the stupid apps that people want money for. The problem here is that there are three camps going on in OS X (and traditionally 2 in Mac OS). There's the people that don't know, and aren't interested in knowing anything about their computer except how to run a program and find their files, there's the power users that truly harness the elegance of the Mac Way(TM), and now there's the Unix guys that are all about hacking up the system to get it to work more efficiently for them.
Furthermore, most of those dinky apps can be replaced by AppleScripts. I run into one-trick pony shareware apps all the time that do almost nothing, but do something halfway interesting, but then I always remember how to do it in AppleScript (which also now hooks into Perl), and wonder why these fools are trying to sell something that's free with a little bit of work, and I mean little. I guess Barnum was right...
Uh, the whole point is that they didn't trust you to pay. This is a company that's out to make money (that is not a bad thing), and they admittedly will inconvenience the end-user if that means they can make more money (that is a bad thing). From a business standpoint, when you're going out of business, it's because you can't make money anymore, or because you can't make enough money, so it doesn't make business sense to pay people to work on the very thing that is causing the company to go out of business* (*see also BeOS). The only probable scenario is that they might release the source, which has been mentioned, but that's just a scenario. We've yet to see that played out by anyone but Bungie, and if I recall correctly, the Marathon source code release was under the radar of Microsoft.
First, I can't believe the parent post didn't get modded Funny. Second, even successful and currently operating software companies abandon software that still contain show-stopping or data-corrupting bugs, let alone a feature that can cripple it to the point it won't even launch. Furthermore, Ambrosia could be bought out by a company that discontinues support of older or even current software. This is true of any and all software, it's just an even riskier endeavour for the end-user when an activation scheme is involved.
Actually, Ambrosia themselves admit they have a flawed design. They admit they have inconvenienced paying customers. The fact that I should ever have to interact with them after the initial purchase of their product, just to use the product is absurd. Their prices for their products are more than reasonable (except SnapzPro X, I can create an AppleScript that does everything it does with only a default install of Mac OS X), but if any time I go to run an application, and it won't run because of something the author has programmed, that sounds like a bug.
The story on their website is fascinating in terms of a study of human nature, but they have twisted the reality that they tried to base a business around their hobby (which is exactly what they said), then throw in the "baby factor" (which sounds suspiciously like stories you hear from welfare queens: "I need money for my baby I made without thinking about the fact I had to have money to support it.").
Their editorial would have been more effective if they had left out all of the starving artist ridiculousness, it only sells their talent short. I wish more shareware authors would just say, "I am a talented programmer that makes worthwhile applications, and I made them with the intent of being paid for it. Stop ripping me off." Instead you always hear, "You should pay me for my program so I can eat and put diapers on my baby."
The truth of it is that shareware is a sketchy business model, and if you're going into it without realising that, you're going to get burned. I also don't see any difference between these new shareware registration schemes and Windows XP's Activation.
Sorry if I sound like I'm downing shareware, I'm just downing shareware authors attitudes. It's just in my mind Shareware = Application one or a couple talented programmers have worked on, Open/Free (as in speech) = Application tens to hundreds of talented programmers have worked on, and you don't hear OpenSource or collaborative programmers spouting the "will program for food" mantra.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
AOL has rightfully blocked IM clients from contacting Oscar, NOT from being compatible with AIM, you just have to use TOC (which hasn't been updated in a while). AOL is in every right to disallow people from contacting their server.
As far as stifling the IM market, THERE IS NO IM STANDARD. There will be no IM market until there is a standard. Anyone can create their own proprietary IM client, which has been done by Yahoo!, AOL, Microsoft, etc.
AOL's Mac client for Classic and X are both only at 5. Not to mention AOL 6 and 7 add nothing except an annoying interface change.
I remember quite a time ago (maybe 1997 or so) when Macintosh developers were talking about using QuickTime to port Macintosh applications to Windows. It turns out, QuickTime for Windows is *almost* CarbonLib (in the sense of what API's are included). Apple had to port almost the entire Macintosh ToolBox to get QuickTime to work on Windows.
That said, it's no wonder it doesn't run on more operating systems, the Mac ToolBox wasn't designed to be portable. CarbonLib, however, was designed for just that. So maybe when Apple Carbonises QuickTime we will see it on other platforms.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong ('cause I probably am) but I think the AOL protocol also includes the ability to notify the server when specific network traffic starts and stops. There is a bug in older versions of AOL that if you get disconnected during a transfer, and you're on dialup, you can't reconnect to AOL (it says you're already connected). To my understanding (again, I don't know if I am exactly right) TCP/IP is a "handshake" protocol. The server has to reach out it's hand to give you something, and you have to reach out your hand to take it, but you can only take small parts, and you have to bring your hand back each time, and then you have to wave and tell the server you got it, but with the AOL protocol, you open your arms and the server dumps it onto you until it's done, and vice-versa. I think the AOL protocol is closer to streaming than data packets, at least that's what the software has led me to believe.
I also believe that the AOL system guarantees bandwidth. No, really, don't laugh. I think the reason why AOL can seem so slow is because AOL won't send you information if the servers are already taxed. You never see AOL start something, then stall, then finish. It either stalls at the request, or it delivers. I seem to recall a friend who did an internship in VA telling me that. The server has so many pieces of pie to give out, and you have to wait your turn, it doesn't just start making the pie pieces smaller (Token Ring concept: you can't talk without the stick).
Now, as far as why AOL hasn't gone open standards, the internet is just full of too many holes. There's a little safety in obscurity with AOL. The AOL software is like a confessional, the information is only going to a group of people that aren't supposed to tell. The internet is like telephone, you have to send it through a ton of people, and who knows who has heard what by the time it gets to the other end.
Just like Enron!
Really, that was funny, I promise.
On a positive note, I have actually clicked on relevant banners (not that most sites have them) and more importantly, I have clicked on text links to advertisers. Without relevant (to the website) ads, I never would have found Small Dog Electronics, RamJet, and even CD Now. All of which I have plunked down a large chunk of change at, as well as some other sites. Problem most websites have is that they don't use targeted ads, or they just have a banner that is for a site, instead of like MacInTouch and MacNN that have text links announcing deals for those web sites surfers when they click the links (which I have received some great deals by doing so).
I have banner images turned off in OmniWeb, manly because banner ads are typically junk, but I like relevant text links, or text ad boxes, because advertising works (and I want it to work) when advertisers do a good job. Text links require better targeting, and are more likely to be clicked.
Actually, it's just the 3D controller for Saturn with a VMU slot.
The El Capitan on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, CA is a digital theatre (owned by Disney). I saw Toy Story 2 there, and yes, there is a BIG difference, highlighted especially by an animated movie where there are expanses of a single colour. It's the difference between looking at a TIFF and a JPEG. While some may prefer the artistic quality of noise generated by film grain and errant dust, I prefer the clearer picture, and would pay more to see it.
boris hit the nail on the head why Gameboy is so popular and Nintendo has the handheld market cornered: chicks dig it.
i.e. Tetris, Super Mario DX, Pokemon. 'nuff said.
Nintendo has previously lost lawsuits over that idea. They lost a lawsuit pertaining to Game Genie (CodeMasters) for the NES, for "unlicensed" games made by Tengen (a former division of Atari), and over cartridge "back up" units. Video game systems have been classified computers, as far as the US courts have are concerned, so a license to create software for it is not necessary (although you will not get the Seal of Approval, and it may void your warranty if you use unlicensed HARDWARE with it) and it is perfectly legal to make a backup (as fair use laws are still being upheld pertaining to video game systems) as long as it follows copyright laws (it's for your use only, and you own, or HAVE OWNED the game).
As an unrelated sidenote, it's fascinating that in the computer world, you don't even own the physical media the software came on, all you actually own is the license to use it, but in the video game world, you own the media, and there is no license. At least that's the legal precedence I have followed.
The reason why Nintendo took so long to come out with a color unit was because of power drain. They aren't going to release a backlit unit anytime soon unless the drain on power is insignificant.
Incidentally, Nintendo has a history of refusing to use available technologies until they have matured to the point of transparency. Another example of this is disk technology. It was available in Japan for the Famicom (NES) and the N64. But Nintendo said that load times were too long for a worldwide release. (Gamecube games have similar load times to cartridges).
This is kind of offtopic, but interesting nonetheless. Apple recently bought Nothing Real, the company that makes Shake and Tremor.
Can you say Final Cut Pro 4?