Your bicycle metaphor is a good example of how programmers and end-users see the upgrade differently. The programmer sees an upgrade as a change in features, i.e. more gears, different braking system, etc. The end user sees the upgrade as getting the same bike, but with a better frame or higher quality components and wasn't looking for new features.
Apple's paradgm shift wasn't done lightly. Mac OS X is a totally different beast under the hood than Mac OS 9.x, so keeping the appearance would have lulled end users into a false sense of workflow. It's like buying a high-performance mountain bike and expecting it to work like your old street cruiser. But because they look different, you expect them to perform different. That's why Apple's HIG is still the best around; the eye candy really serves a purpose.
(A quick side note: I don't expect your father to have any problems adapting to Mac OS X; nobody I've helped upgrade has, since the man-machine interface is well planned and still adapts to the end-user's workflow instead of forcing the user into its preferred workflow. Let him buy a Mac if that's what he wants. He can still use his old programs in Classic mode, anyways.)
The problem with the "user-moron" is actually a tiny (if vocal) source of disgruntlement. I know this because I also do a lot of colleague support/training. It's the "under the hood" changes that programs like Word and Excel do that throw people. It's like switching brake systems on a bike and not telling the cyclist beforehand.
In other words, the end users are to blame that the developers didn't take their work habits into account? Are you saying that if the hammer doesn't fit my hand, then my hand must be my hand that's at fault?
The fact remains that most software is best considered a tool designed with little or no consideration to how people would try to use it. IT tools are even worse, since developers work under the conciet that the end customer will have the same habits and workflow that they have.
Well, shareware copies aren't bootlegs until the end user fakes the registration. Or keeps using it beyond the defined grace period. Then the end-user is being unethical on purpose.
But the main difference is that copying is not only permitted, but encouraged. Copying is a recognised form of word-of-mouth marketing.
But the point remains that most programmers work for salary, or sell the copy rights for a fixed fee. It's the software publisher that lives off of the net profit.
Both you the the poster you're replying to are, well, oversimplifying.
The difference is this: when you steal a car, you are taking the physical object. This is not the case with bootlegging software.
However, in both cases, you are depriving the original owner of a potential sale. The automobile example is more severe, because the automobile can no longer be sold. In the case of software, the product is still available, albiet to a shrunken list of potential customers.
Your example of the thesis paper, however, falls outside of the discussion. The wrongness here comes from a false claim of originality, i.e. plagarism. It's not so much the copying that's wrong as the deceptive claim that the plagarist makes that it was his own work.
Your claim of photocopying is also more or less bogus. Photocopying a book costs more effort and money than just buying the book. And as Baen books has proven, offering free e-books can actually boost sales.
And as for your final example, the poor word processor writer, I can't think of a single program author that earns his money that way (except for struggling shareware authors, but that's a different story). Instead, the program author sells the copyright on his work for a fixed fee or for a salary.
Finally, you have to remember that it's one of the worst-kept secrets that software companies actually once encouraged piracy, hoping to saturate the market with their product, and lock the users into their proprietary format. The BSA is the second phase of this strategy.
BTW, I hope you're not trying to make a living off of research papers. It's unethical, and you'll never get rich;)
That could be a long-term goal, but in between you need to get the Intel/AMD machines away from Microsoft.
If Apple can convince big players like Adobe and Macromedia to make Linux versions, since it shares so many underpinnings with Mac OS X, then we might see more defections. Apple will still keep Aqua and the other technologies that make OS X so polished in their stable, so that they can still play the "seamless integration" card.
And I'm not so sure Apple would lose badly in a hardware-driven market. Their laptops are pretty popular right now, and the processor market can change overnight. IBM might just deliver the goods, Motorola might pull its head out of its ass, a lot can happen.
By releasing this, they also show developers how easiy it is to plug an app originally written for Linux into Cocoa. It's just as much "proof of concept" as it is "giving back".
The way it benefits others is that they can look at how it's done, compare it to the original Linux tweaks and implement the same changes into their own software without an NDA. Apple gets more Cocoa apps, and developers who were originally planning to only use Cocoa can see how they can go to Linux as well.
Having the QuickTIme APIs for Linux means that more multimedia kits can use the same calls on both systems. Less rewriting of the source code. More developers using Linux and Mac OS, and weaning themselves from Microsoft. That is what I see as Apple's goal: making Mac OS X close enough to Linux as possible to minimise code rewrites, but still different enough to attract buyers.
It really ought to be a no-brainer, seeing as how Apple is promoting its UNIX roots. The more developers and desktops moving away from Microsoft, the more Apple can compete on its merits. And since Apple is setting itself up as the better UNIX, they compete less with Microsoft (or Red Hat), but with Dell, HP and Sony.
Re 1: Actually, this shows an ability to say "I was wrong" and closing the chapter. And the Lisa wasn't entirely landfilled, as it came back as the deluxe "big brother" to the Macintosh (Macintosh XL, IIRC).
Re 2: You make is sound as if the Lisa was the reason Jobs left Apple, instead of the failed coup against John Sculley. That incident has left him with a lot of experience. As for NeXT, it let him develop the technologies that would let him "reconquor" Apple. His more recent history shows that he does learn from mistakes, despite what people say.
Re 3: This is different from the current administration how? Fleischer, Rove, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are all great lovers of secret dealings. I think a President Jobs would deliver his State of the Union address in a black mock turtleneck with "Just one more thing"...
Re 4: No matter what you call it, it's effective marketing, and no different than what goes on in Washington almost every day. That, and your example is easily rebutted: how fast was the connection? How many bottlenects did you experience? Did you test loading loacal files to check the rendering engine speeds? You get my drift.
Still, I don't think Jobs is right for the job--at least not yet. I don't subscribe to the PHB philosophy that a good manager can manage everything. Managing a public office is a lot different from managing a company. If Steve really were interested, he'd run for a governor's post first.
Most of the fear about Open Source software is due to Microsoft fearmongering. In reality, there's no problem with selling/using closed source on top of Linux (see WordPerfect for Linux). In fact, the "disadvantage" becomes an advantage, as the programmers and legal are more aware of their boundries.
As for your example, the libraries can be put in a sandbox, and segregated from the more sensitive bits. But as long as you're not distributing out-of-house, you can keep your source code confidential. Just beware, should you decide that your app can be sold to clients...
The way things are right now, the DMCA ought to be called the Emperor's New Clothes act. The only real usage it's been put to so far is to hide the fact that so-called security measures are only smoke and mirrors.
No, but the way Disney handles things like this is quite chilling. Anybody remember how they tried their best to stifle any other studio from doing a Snow White movie? How they more or less ruined the chances of the Sigourney Weaver version had of getting an audience? How they more or less claim that all Jungle Book adaptations are rip-offs of theirs?
Yes, there is prior art, yada yada, but that doesn't stop the Mouse from bullying and blustering and bluffing about lawsuits. Disney loves "ripping off" public domain stories, and then pretending that they have exclusive rights!
You seem to have forgotten that Microsoft got as big as they are by being the cheaper alternative. They were the cheap improvement over the original Apple ]['s BASIC, they were cheaper than in-house development of a DOS for IBM's first PCs, and they were a cheap way to get a GUI without buying a Mac, an Amiga or an Atari. Office got big by undercutting the competition in price, and and and...
You're right about maximum revenue. It's not being disputed. It's just ironic that Microsoft is taking this path, since their historical tactic was to undersell the competition (as Ballmer has admitted). The parent post was trying to say that no matter how low Microsoft goes, they can't kill Linux this way. There will always be a cheaper alternative.
Their meagre efforts to claim openness are hampered by the Borglike NDA. To paraphrase: "Look at our code, and you'll never be able to work on other projects ever again!"
Microsoft knows that once you've reached the top, there's no way to go but down. Right now they think they can fight off all comers, and stay where they are. By doing this, they're only making the fall off of the cliffside more painful.
It gets even more interesting. Remember Apple's "Digital Hub" strategy? Well, TiVo is now officialy a member, with Rendezvous support promised in the documents!
This is different than Microsoft's strategy, as Apple is positioning its machines as the traffic controller, helping disparate devices exchange the relevant data. How about dumping your faves from TiVo onto your iMac and burning your own archive DVDs? How about a video iPod that can take your TiVo's recordings on the road? Or pictures from your digital camera into a TiVo album/slide show?
Not interesting enough? Well, Apple's opened the source of Rendevous, and has no qualms about allowing a Linux adaptation of it! Apparently they want to compete on the basis of their hardware/software integration again, not just on lockout.
So now we have two opposing philosophies: Microsoft's "embrace and extend", and Apple's "digital hub". One wants to take over the whole show, the other wants to connect and choreograph.
Ah, I knew about the firmware solution, but I'm not *that* big of a geek to risk this. I think a lot of Apple customers are also loathe to void their warranties. No, I like the fact that this was designed for all sorts of professional usage. It can scale up AND down.
I envision using this with my old 21" monitor and external keyboard/mouse combo in the home office, and doing e-mail/web surfing in front of the TV with the rest of the family. Why like that? Well, my wife like to haul out that hoary "you don't like to spend time with me" just because I prefer to do my private correspondence in the evening. If it was pen and paper, I could do it in the living room. Instead, I'm currently forced to retire to the HO, and leave conversation range. And that's why I'm drooling so badly over this little floor wax/dessert topping thingy.
Still, thanks for the tip. I just wanted to clarify my position.
The biggest differences are things like the true dual monitor mode (not just mirroring), higher resolutions available on the external monitor, more extesibility and the G4 processor.
I personally like it. This is the perfect mobile replacement for my home desktop computer; an iBook is (in my eyes) basically made for laptop use only.
1. Brin wasn't saying EVERY country has a large, educated middle-class, but the ones who embrace "enlightenment" do. It's what makes them unique.
2. Establishing Tolkein's culture and times were kept to a synopsis for those readers who didn't know this. I felt Mr. Brin did a good job of providing the info without going into too much detail. He even made a point of stating how Prof. Tolkein tried to avoid the prejudices of his time.
Basically, I felt Mr. Brin was writing more about Romanticism versus Enlightenment, and was using the LotR trilogy as an example. If it (the article) got you to think and form your own ideas, then it did its job. And besides, questioning authority is a trait of Enlightenment Mr. Brin praises. Fnord.
When I first watched the movie, I thought the probe wasn't being destructful on purpose, just dim-witted. It didn't stop to think about the side effects of its broadcast.
"Hello, can you guys here me? Hm, I must not be broadcasting loud enough. CAN YOU HERE ME NOW? HELLO? HEY, WHERE IS EVERYBODY? HELLO?"
We didn't "find" this guy, but we support his side in the trial because he's innocent. His heroism or weaselness has little to do with it. It's all about the laws, and about the fact that it could have been any one of us.
It's like fighting a forest fire: you stamp out the embers before they burst into flame. It's the metaphor the "other guys" are using, so why not use it to portray THEM as the fire? Why let them have a legal precedent?
I think you're right. Microsoft is doing its damndest to convince us that we need this, without really explaining why. (The reason why is simple. Microsoft needs a new source of cash, but don't tell them I told you!) The best-written review of a Microsoft TabletPC can be found here. It's based on real-life impressions with one of these things.
Then again, if Apple came out with one I'm sure reviewers would be falling all over themselves to praise it, because (a) it would be more polished, (b) Apple doesn't telegraph its punches, so you don't get disappointed when it DOES arrive, and (c) Apple still enjoys an image of coolness and scrappy underdogness*.
I think your analogy is slightly broken. Insurance fraud is just grift, i.e. taking money that will be missing elsewhere. There is money being moved, not copied or duplicated.
"Piracy" more closely resembles passing tapes or photocopying. It distributes the core content to a wider audience. Some people even argue that it helps boost sales as a form of free advertising.
As for the software industry, there is a working model called shareware. You'll never get rich by writing shareware, but the real purpose is to get a product out that would otherwise never reach its intended audience. Good shareware authors get noticed by bigger houses, and can even win jobs or contracts. Even Apple has bought out shareware applications and added them to their own software!
The other reason why people buy software in stores, even when a downloadable version is available, is the things like the install CD in case anything "goes South", the physical handbooks, and the simple feeling of holding the darn thing in your hands. It's the whole "added value" thingy.
So really, IMO the real victims of unauthorised copying are the artists and writers who make the packaging and internal goodis, since you never see their work.
...so that the trolls from the IT department would be happy. ("See? I got the spywa- er, monitoring software up and running!")
Or so that I can do Windows/Linux native-testing of my websites.
Why don't I use VirtualPC? Well, I don't really trust VirtualPC to accurately imitate thingies like Windows font sizes, and I like keeping the number of running programs to a minimum. A habit from my Classic Mac OS days that I still don't feel comfortable breaking.
All without sacrificing room on my desktop. All I would need is a MoniSwitch attached to the case/monitor side, so that I can use the same monitor and USB input devices for both machines.
Ths't the true advantage to this thingy. Having more than one OS environment running in one case. And since Apple isn't likely to do a quiet XServe, well, I'll go the other route.
Is it amazingly cool or amazingly sad that Mssrs. Shatner and Wheaton communicate through Ask Slashdot? I dunno. I'll go with "cool for Slashdot" for now...
You're missing the "deceptive" part of the ad, name that it PRETENDS to be a windows alert. In other words, they're using trickery to get you to click on it. I'm a Mac head, so I once accidently clicked on one when I was using a friend's Win98 PC. I thought it was just a message and I just wanted to close the dumb thing.
IMO, it's the whole "false pretenses" thing. Advertisements can't pass themselves off as consumer alerts or unbiased articles, but they try. And since the print/radio deceptions get spanked, so should these bozos.
Slashdot Mirror
Your bicycle metaphor is a good example of how programmers and end-users see the upgrade differently. The programmer sees an upgrade as a change in features, i.e. more gears, different braking system, etc. The end user sees the upgrade as getting the same bike, but with a better frame or higher quality components and wasn't looking for new features.
Apple's paradgm shift wasn't done lightly. Mac OS X is a totally different beast under the hood than Mac OS 9.x, so keeping the appearance would have lulled end users into a false sense of workflow. It's like buying a high-performance mountain bike and expecting it to work like your old street cruiser. But because they look different, you expect them to perform different. That's why Apple's HIG is still the best around; the eye candy really serves a purpose.
(A quick side note: I don't expect your father to have any problems adapting to Mac OS X; nobody I've helped upgrade has, since the man-machine interface is well planned and still adapts to the end-user's workflow instead of forcing the user into its preferred workflow. Let him buy a Mac if that's what he wants. He can still use his old programs in Classic mode, anyways.)
The problem with the "user-moron" is actually a tiny (if vocal) source of disgruntlement. I know this because I also do a lot of colleague support/training. It's the "under the hood" changes that programs like Word and Excel do that throw people. It's like switching brake systems on a bike and not telling the cyclist beforehand.
In other words, the end users are to blame that the developers didn't take their work habits into account? Are you saying that if the hammer doesn't fit my hand, then my hand must be my hand that's at fault?
The fact remains that most software is best considered a tool designed with little or no consideration to how people would try to use it. IT tools are even worse, since developers work under the conciet that the end customer will have the same habits and workflow that they have.
Well, shareware copies aren't bootlegs until the end user fakes the registration. Or keeps using it beyond the defined grace period. Then the end-user is being unethical on purpose.
But the main difference is that copying is not only permitted, but encouraged. Copying is a recognised form of word-of-mouth marketing.
But the point remains that most programmers work for salary, or sell the copy rights for a fixed fee. It's the software publisher that lives off of the net profit.
Both you the the poster you're replying to are, well, oversimplifying.
;)
The difference is this: when you steal a car, you are taking the physical object. This is not the case with bootlegging software.
However, in both cases, you are depriving the original owner of a potential sale. The automobile example is more severe, because the automobile can no longer be sold. In the case of software, the product is still available, albiet to a shrunken list of potential customers.
Your example of the thesis paper, however, falls outside of the discussion. The wrongness here comes from a false claim of originality, i.e. plagarism. It's not so much the copying that's wrong as the deceptive claim that the plagarist makes that it was his own work.
Your claim of photocopying is also more or less bogus. Photocopying a book costs more effort and money than just buying the book. And as Baen books has proven, offering free e-books can actually boost sales.
And as for your final example, the poor word processor writer, I can't think of a single program author that earns his money that way (except for struggling shareware authors, but that's a different story). Instead, the program author sells the copyright on his work for a fixed fee or for a salary.
Finally, you have to remember that it's one of the worst-kept secrets that software companies actually once encouraged piracy, hoping to saturate the market with their product, and lock the users into their proprietary format. The BSA is the second phase of this strategy.
BTW, I hope you're not trying to make a living off of research papers. It's unethical, and you'll never get rich
That could be a long-term goal, but in between you need to get the Intel/AMD machines away from Microsoft.
If Apple can convince big players like Adobe and Macromedia to make Linux versions, since it shares so many underpinnings with Mac OS X, then we might see more defections. Apple will still keep Aqua and the other technologies that make OS X so polished in their stable, so that they can still play the "seamless integration" card.
And I'm not so sure Apple would lose badly in a hardware-driven market. Their laptops are pretty popular right now, and the processor market can change overnight. IBM might just deliver the goods, Motorola might pull its head out of its ass, a lot can happen.
By releasing this, they also show developers how easiy it is to plug an app originally written for Linux into Cocoa. It's just as much "proof of concept" as it is "giving back".
The way it benefits others is that they can look at how it's done, compare it to the original Linux tweaks and implement the same changes into their own software without an NDA. Apple gets more Cocoa apps, and developers who were originally planning to only use Cocoa can see how they can go to Linux as well.
Having the QuickTIme APIs for Linux means that more multimedia kits can use the same calls on both systems. Less rewriting of the source code. More developers using Linux and Mac OS, and weaning themselves from Microsoft. That is what I see as Apple's goal: making Mac OS X close enough to Linux as possible to minimise code rewrites, but still different enough to attract buyers.
It really ought to be a no-brainer, seeing as how Apple is promoting its UNIX roots. The more developers and desktops moving away from Microsoft, the more Apple can compete on its merits. And since Apple is setting itself up as the better UNIX, they compete less with Microsoft (or Red Hat), but with Dell, HP and Sony.
OK, just for the sake of rebuttal:
Re 1: Actually, this shows an ability to say "I was wrong" and closing the chapter. And the Lisa wasn't entirely landfilled, as it came back as the deluxe "big brother" to the Macintosh (Macintosh XL, IIRC).
Re 2: You make is sound as if the Lisa was the reason Jobs left Apple, instead of the failed coup against John Sculley. That incident has left him with a lot of experience. As for NeXT, it let him develop the technologies that would let him "reconquor" Apple. His more recent history shows that he does learn from mistakes, despite what people say.
Re 3: This is different from the current administration how? Fleischer, Rove, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are all great lovers of secret dealings. I think a President Jobs would deliver his State of the Union address in a black mock turtleneck with "Just one more thing"...
Re 4: No matter what you call it, it's effective marketing, and no different than what goes on in Washington almost every day. That, and your example is easily rebutted: how fast was the connection? How many bottlenects did you experience? Did you test loading loacal files to check the rendering engine speeds? You get my drift.
Still, I don't think Jobs is right for the job--at least not yet. I don't subscribe to the PHB philosophy that a good manager can manage everything. Managing a public office is a lot different from managing a company. If Steve really were interested, he'd run for a governor's post first.
Most of the fear about Open Source software is due to Microsoft fearmongering. In reality, there's no problem with selling/using closed source on top of Linux (see WordPerfect for Linux). In fact, the "disadvantage" becomes an advantage, as the programmers and legal are more aware of their boundries.
As for your example, the libraries can be put in a sandbox, and segregated from the more sensitive bits. But as long as you're not distributing out-of-house, you can keep your source code confidential. Just beware, should you decide that your app can be sold to clients...
The way things are right now, the DMCA ought to be called the Emperor's New Clothes act. The only real usage it's been put to so far is to hide the fact that so-called security measures are only smoke and mirrors.
No, but the way Disney handles things like this is quite chilling. Anybody remember how they tried their best to stifle any other studio from doing a Snow White movie? How they more or less ruined the chances of the Sigourney Weaver version had of getting an audience? How they more or less claim that all Jungle Book adaptations are rip-offs of theirs?
Yes, there is prior art, yada yada, but that doesn't stop the Mouse from bullying and blustering and bluffing about lawsuits. Disney loves "ripping off" public domain stories, and then pretending that they have exclusive rights!
You seem to have forgotten that Microsoft got as big as they are by being the cheaper alternative. They were the cheap improvement over the original Apple ]['s BASIC, they were cheaper than in-house development of a DOS for IBM's first PCs, and they were a cheap way to get a GUI without buying a Mac, an Amiga or an Atari. Office got big by undercutting the competition in price, and and and...
You're right about maximum revenue. It's not being disputed. It's just ironic that Microsoft is taking this path, since their historical tactic was to undersell the competition (as Ballmer has admitted). The parent post was trying to say that no matter how low Microsoft goes, they can't kill Linux this way. There will always be a cheaper alternative.
Their meagre efforts to claim openness are hampered by the Borglike NDA. To paraphrase: "Look at our code, and you'll never be able to work on other projects ever again!"
Microsoft knows that once you've reached the top, there's no way to go but down. Right now they think they can fight off all comers, and stay where they are. By doing this, they're only making the fall off of the cliffside more painful.
More likely, the judge will just tell Lexmark that the law does not apply and acquit. This case won't affect the DMCA, I'm afraid.
It gets even more interesting. Remember Apple's "Digital Hub" strategy? Well, TiVo is now officialy a member, with Rendezvous support promised in the documents!
This is different than Microsoft's strategy, as Apple is positioning its machines as the traffic controller, helping disparate devices exchange the relevant data. How about dumping your faves from TiVo onto your iMac and burning your own archive DVDs? How about a video iPod that can take your TiVo's recordings on the road? Or pictures from your digital camera into a TiVo album/slide show?
Not interesting enough? Well, Apple's opened the source of Rendevous, and has no qualms about allowing a Linux adaptation of it! Apparently they want to compete on the basis of their hardware/software integration again, not just on lockout.
So now we have two opposing philosophies: Microsoft's "embrace and extend", and Apple's "digital hub". One wants to take over the whole show, the other wants to connect and choreograph.
Ah, I knew about the firmware solution, but I'm not *that* big of a geek to risk this. I think a lot of Apple customers are also loathe to void their warranties. No, I like the fact that this was designed for all sorts of professional usage. It can scale up AND down.
I envision using this with my old 21" monitor and external keyboard/mouse combo in the home office, and doing e-mail/web surfing in front of the TV with the rest of the family. Why like that? Well, my wife like to haul out that hoary "you don't like to spend time with me" just because I prefer to do my private correspondence in the evening. If it was pen and paper, I could do it in the living room. Instead, I'm currently forced to retire to the HO, and leave conversation range. And that's why I'm drooling so badly over this little floor wax/dessert topping thingy.
Still, thanks for the tip. I just wanted to clarify my position.
The biggest differences are things like the true dual monitor mode (not just mirroring), higher resolutions available on the external monitor, more extesibility and the G4 processor.
I personally like it. This is the perfect mobile replacement for my home desktop computer; an iBook is (in my eyes) basically made for laptop use only.
No, it's .mac
I think your gripes need to be re-thought.
1. Brin wasn't saying EVERY country has a large, educated middle-class, but the ones who embrace "enlightenment" do. It's what makes them unique.
2. Establishing Tolkein's culture and times were kept to a synopsis for those readers who didn't know this. I felt Mr. Brin did a good job of providing the info without going into too much detail. He even made a point of stating how Prof. Tolkein tried to avoid the prejudices of his time.
Basically, I felt Mr. Brin was writing more about Romanticism versus Enlightenment, and was using the LotR trilogy as an example. If it (the article) got you to think and form your own ideas, then it did its job. And besides, questioning authority is a trait of Enlightenment Mr. Brin praises. Fnord.
When I first watched the movie, I thought the probe wasn't being destructful on purpose, just dim-witted. It didn't stop to think about the side effects of its broadcast.
"Hello, can you guys here me? Hm, I must not be broadcasting loud enough. CAN YOU HERE ME NOW? HELLO? HEY, WHERE IS EVERYBODY? HELLO?"
We didn't "find" this guy, but we support his side in the trial because he's innocent. His heroism or weaselness has little to do with it. It's all about the laws, and about the fact that it could have been any one of us.
It's like fighting a forest fire: you stamp out the embers before they burst into flame. It's the metaphor the "other guys" are using, so why not use it to portray THEM as the fire? Why let them have a legal precedent?
I think you're right. Microsoft is doing its damndest to convince us that we need this, without really explaining why. (The reason why is simple. Microsoft needs a new source of cash, but don't tell them I told you!) The best-written review of a Microsoft TabletPC can be found here. It's based on real-life impressions with one of these things.
Then again, if Apple came out with one I'm sure reviewers would be falling all over themselves to praise it, because (a) it would be more polished, (b) Apple doesn't telegraph its punches, so you don't get disappointed when it DOES arrive, and (c) Apple still enjoys an image of coolness and scrappy underdogness*.
*is that a word? Well, it is now...
I think your analogy is slightly broken. Insurance fraud is just grift, i.e. taking money that will be missing elsewhere. There is money being moved, not copied or duplicated.
"Piracy" more closely resembles passing tapes or photocopying. It distributes the core content to a wider audience. Some people even argue that it helps boost sales as a form of free advertising.
As for the software industry, there is a working model called shareware. You'll never get rich by writing shareware, but the real purpose is to get a product out that would otherwise never reach its intended audience. Good shareware authors get noticed by bigger houses, and can even win jobs or contracts. Even Apple has bought out shareware applications and added them to their own software!
The other reason why people buy software in stores, even when a downloadable version is available, is the things like the install CD in case anything "goes South", the physical handbooks, and the simple feeling of holding the darn thing in your hands. It's the whole "added value" thingy.
So really, IMO the real victims of unauthorised copying are the artists and writers who make the packaging and internal goodis, since you never see their work.
...so that the trolls from the IT department would be happy. ("See? I got the spywa- er, monitoring software up and running!")
Or so that I can do Windows/Linux native-testing of my websites.
Why don't I use VirtualPC? Well, I don't really trust VirtualPC to accurately imitate thingies like Windows font sizes, and I like keeping the number of running programs to a minimum. A habit from my Classic Mac OS days that I still don't feel comfortable breaking.
All without sacrificing room on my desktop. All I would need is a MoniSwitch attached to the case/monitor side, so that I can use the same monitor and USB input devices for both machines.
Ths't the true advantage to this thingy. Having more than one OS environment running in one case. And since Apple isn't likely to do a quiet XServe, well, I'll go the other route.
Ah, it's fun to dream...
Is it amazingly cool or amazingly sad that Mssrs. Shatner and Wheaton communicate through Ask Slashdot? I dunno. I'll go with "cool for Slashdot" for now...
You're missing the "deceptive" part of the ad, name that it PRETENDS to be a windows alert. In other words, they're using trickery to get you to click on it. I'm a Mac head, so I once accidently clicked on one when I was using a friend's Win98 PC. I thought it was just a message and I just wanted to close the dumb thing.
IMO, it's the whole "false pretenses" thing. Advertisements can't pass themselves off as consumer alerts or unbiased articles, but they try. And since the print/radio deceptions get spanked, so should these bozos.