...they may not necessarily be a cybersquatter (at least, not intentionally).
I own a couple dozen domains that used to belong to clients or ex-clients of mine. In some cases, they went out of business and failed to pay for the domain renewals, so I decided to transfer them over to myself; in other cases, they changed their minds about the name of their business and decided not to hold on to the other domains.
So, I now have about 2 dozen of these domains under my control; since I have no use for them, where's the harm in asking a reasonable price (anywhere from $50-$100) for them?
Finally, in one case, the client went out of business *and* screwed me out of a good $1,000 in development payments, so trying to recoup some of that with a domain that I now legally own seems reasonable.
Not saying this is the case here, just noting that it may be a similar situation.
I don't know of a single Mac user or vendor who has ever claimed that OS X is *COMPLETELY* invulnerable to viruses/etc, only that there hasn't been a demonstrable, malicious, in-the-wild true OS X virus released YET, which is true.
Major difference. In fact, every Mac user I know expects a "true" virus or two to show up for OS X sooner or later, but what of it? So the ratio will go from a bazillion to zero to a bazillion to one or two.
Apple has roughly a 2.5% worldwide market share--wake me when they have anywhere close to 2.5% as many viruses as Windows and I'll start being overly concerned.
First, it appears that the newspaper story is inaccurate--they have NOT sold 1 million Zunes yet; they actually said that they EXPECT to sell 1 million by the END of June:
"Bach didn't actually say that Microsoft had already sold a million Zunes. If you listen to the interview, which the Chronicle helpfully provides in a podcast, what Bach said was
Bach: WHEN WE FINISH OUR FISCAL YEAR IN JUNE we'll have sold a little over a million Zunes, so we feel very good about that. [emphasis added]
That's what we used to call an editing error, one that mistakes a projection with actual sales and adds about 15% to the time frame. Microsoft still has more than a month to sell its first million Zunes, which would put it on the schedule it set for itself, not ahead. "
Second, to answer how long it took Apple to sell 1 million iPods, look at their quarterly sales figures:
10/23/01: iPod introduced 06/30/03: 984,000 total iPods sold 09/30/03: 1,320,000 total iPods sold
Based on the 92 day difference, you can calculate that they sold the 1 millionth iPod around 7/5/03.
So, 10/23/01 - 7/5/03 = 620 days, or about 20.5 months to sell the first 1 million iPods, compared with Microsofts' prediction (based on the ACTUAL quote, not the inaccurate article) of 11/14/06 - 6/30/07, or 228 days (7.5 months).
While this sounds impressive, it should be noted that the iPod was MAC ONLY until 10/13/03 (ie, throughout the entire period during which it sold it's first 1 million iPods. Not only was it Mac-only (aside from 3rd-party hacks), but it was restricted to FIREWIRE-ENABLED Macs, which weren't even introduced until the end of 1999. Assuming about 4% of the market for the Mac, and assuming that perhaps half the Macs in use at the time included FireWire, that means only about 2% of the total computer market could even use the iPod.
In addition, even those third-party hacks for Windows compatibility (which mostly sucked, and which weren't available for the first year or so) *still* required the PC in question to include FireWire; at the time, I believe only a tiny fraction of Windows machines included it.
In other words, it took Apple 2.7 times as long to sell their first 1 million iPods, but they did so with 1/50th of the market available to the Zune!
In addition, at the time there was no iTunes store, not to mention that the original iPod cost (at the time) $399 for 5 GB, with no video, no photos, no games, no color screen, no podcasts, etc etc, vs. the (current) Zune's $249 for 30 GB with video, photos, etc etc, all of which makes the iPod's early sales rates even more impressive.
I have no idea whether it was based on a sci-fi novel or not, but it sure as hell *felt* like it; it was thoughtful, deliberate without being dull, took both the science and sociological angles as seriously as possible, etc. Excellent movie, highly recommended: IMDB Link
Note that the figures quoted may be a bit off from the numbers in the charts I linked to, because of error corrections which were made after the article posted, rounding errors, etc.
Apple's own official figures can be found in the Investor Relations section of their website:
Hate to tell you this, but you're wrong on two points here:
1. My figures are based on ACTUAL SALES FIGURES from 2005. They are not 2 years old, nor are they limited to the United States (which people commonly get confused about--Apple's U.S. market share is higher than it's overall worldwide share).
2. Your figures are based on INTERNET TRAFFIC. That tells you what percentage of people browsing the internet are using a particular operating system, not what percentage of computers sold that quarter were made by a particular company.
Now, your figures would be more closely attuned to Apple's installed base, which is just fine, but that includes all computers currently in use, not new computer sold in a particular time period, which is what market share refers to.
"I'd guess they are within a few percentage points of being 4th."
Again, you're technically correct (4th place is Acer, with 4.7% vs. Apple's 2.3%), but in this case "a few percentage points" actually means that Apple would have to double their sales in order to make up that difference. I'm a major Mac advocate, and Apple is certainly kicking ass lately, but their actual market share is only just now starting to rise from it's all-time low (which was actually 2004, believe it or not). Again, however, market share isn't nearly as important as profitability.
"So when claims about top-ten PC shipments are made by the media and research firms, Apple should be in the top-ten. They are not because they specifically exclude Apple."
And again, it depends on what you're measuring. If you include Macs as "PCs", a top ten list should definitely include Apple. If you're distinguishing "Macs" from "PCs" (which most people do, even though they shouldn't in this context), then of course Apple wouldn't be included.
Yes and no. According to the latest figures available (3rd Quarter 2005), Apple is currently the 6th largest computer maker (after Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM, Acer, and Fujitsu-Siemens). However, they also do have only a 2.3% market share:
Now, when it comes to installed base, I believe Macs are much higher, something like 8-10% or so, though I don't have solid proof of this (I think PC Mag did a study a couple of years ago which determined that Macs usually average a 5-7 year 'usable life' as opposed to 3-5 years for PCs, which would explain the higher installed base numbers)
FairPlay's DRM allows you to copy iTMS music onto up to 5 computers (Mac or Windows). Just authorize the second computer, then copy it across the network, just like you would with MP3s.
Now, you can *also* do it the burn-to-CD, move-CD-to-2nd-computer, re-rip-music-onto-2nd computer method as well if you want to strip the DRM off completely, but you don't have to.
Aside from some very minor tweaks, the AppleCare pricing has remained consistent for something like 7 years straight now:
$149: Mac mini $169: eMac, iMac (all models) $249: iBook, PowerMac w/or w/out display $349: PowerBook w/or w/out display
What's bizzare about this pricing scheme is that in some cases it's a complete rip-off, but in other cases it's an incredible bargain:
At the low end, if you buy a stock-model $499 Mac mini, you're paying 30% of the system price for an extra 2 years of protection (remember, it comes with 1 yr. standard already), or 15% of the system price per extra year.
At the high end, you could, theoretically, buy a Quad-Processor PowerMac G5 ($3,299) with 16 GB of RAM ($11,900), a terabyte of storage ($875), a Quadro FX 4500 video card ($1,650), a 30" Cinema Display ($2,499), and Airport Extreme/Bluetooth card ($99), for a whopping $20,382......and have ALL of the above covered for a full 3 years for the same $249 PowerMac AppleCare warranty...which breaks down to just 0.6% of the total system price per extra year!!
Of course, with the profit margins they're making on $12,000 worth of RAM, etc etc, they can certainly afford to toss the extended warranty in for free (essentially), but it's a strange marketing thing.
"First, it should remember what music I've purchased and somehow indicate that while I'm shopping (so you don't make the mistake of buying something twice, although that's unlikely anyway)."
Actually, iTunes *does* remember what music you've purchased *and* indicates it when you're shopping--there's a "Purchased" playlist (which is automatically updated) right underneath the "Music Store" link on the left-hand side, and if you attempt to add a track you've already purchased to your cart, you'll receive a pop-up warning message which asks whether you're sure you want to buy it again (note this only happens if you bought it with the same account, of course).
"Secondly, I should be able to re-download those tracks in the event of a hard drive crash or if I'm on the road and forgot to grab a song while I was home."
I agree that it should be *easier* to do this, but they actually *will* let you re-download tracks under certain circumstances, if you contact them directly (via support). However, I don't think they should *have* to do so--after all, if you purchase a physical CD and then break or lose it, Harmony House isn't gonna give you a second CD for free. It would be a nice touch, however.
"The biggest thing I'd like to see them add is song purchases count towards a credit on buying the album. In other words, if I buy two songs on an album, and then later decide I wish to purchase the album, I shouldn't have to re-purchase those two songs as part of the album."
I'm a website developer, but I also get called upon to do general computer tech support from my website clients on occasion.
9 times out of 10*, when they ask my advice for preventing the same issues from coming back in the future (usually spyware/virus/etc issues), I give the same response: "Well, you *could* do X, Y and Z (NAV, AdAware, yadda yadda yadda) and pray for the best, *or* you could get a Mac."
They almost never listen. Usually they think I'm joking, occasionally they at least pretend to take me seriously, but they almost never actually follow my advice.
*(even as a die-hard Mac advocate, I recognize that there are certain realities in some cases--a professional accounting firm, for example, simply can't switch over to Macs since so much accounting software is Windows-exclusive. They could, however, at least *add* one Mac to their network, at the very least for emergency email/web browsing/etc when the rest of the network gets taken down by a virus/etc...)
These guys sell Mac peripherals (mice, keyboards, iPod add-ons, etc).
Whether they give the money away or not, whether there's a legitimate virus developed or not, and even regardless of whether the overall publicity slant is positive or negative, they've just ensured their site will see its' traffic and name recognition skyrocket.
I agree that the 20% figure sounds awfully high, but consider the following:
--in many cases, it was very likely that the iPod buyer was already at least somewhat considering switching/adding a Mac beforehand; the iPod makes a good "test run" to see an example of Apple hardware/software integration. A happy iPod experience, then, simply confirmed their initial thoughts.
--even if only one out of four of those folks actually follow through and purchase a Mac over the next year, that's still as many as 1,000,000 *new* Mac owners (as opposed to current Mac users upgrading/adding to their systems).
Caveat to the above: Naturally, the spyware/etc. on the VPC OS doesn't do anything to OS X whatsoever, it's just astonishing to me that an OS which is only online perhaps 10 minutes per month can get gunked up.
Yup, I run VPC on my Mac; I *only* fire it up to double-check website code on IE for compatibility, then shut it down again. Don't do ANYTHING else with it.
Today, out of curiousity, I installed AdAware and ran it through. Sure enough, at least 19 spyware doo-dads scattered around.
Jeeezus...I know I'm biased as a Mac guy, but Windows has truly become COMPLETELY toxic at this point; it's like plutonium, infecting *anything* that it comes near.
I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!
Just to clarify a few of your "misses":
"No svideo in/out so no out of the box DVR..."
You can get the DVI to S-Video/Composite Video adapter for $19.
"low amount of base ram 128mb"
Actually, it comes with 256MB, not 128 (still a bit low but twice what you thought)
"g4 proc ( $100 more with a g5 and I would be first in line for this thing)"...except that the G5 is larger and runs much hotter, so would require a considerably larger casing.
I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!
You're correct here regarding ThinkSecret and AppleInsider, but *not* regarding MacOSRumors--they're generally considered a complete joke in the Mac universe. Their batting average is weak at best, and they only achieve even that much accuracy by the "monkey flinging poo" method (ie, they throw as many rumors at the wall as they can, and once in a great while, something sticks).
Still, with TS and AI agreeing in such vivid detail, there's almost certainly something to it--unless the whole thing is a massive "Gotcha!" on Apple's part to sucker them into destroying their reputations.
Slashdot Mirror
...they may not necessarily be a cybersquatter (at least, not intentionally).
I own a couple dozen domains that used to belong to clients or ex-clients of mine. In some cases, they went out of business and failed to pay for the domain renewals, so I decided to transfer them over to myself; in other cases, they changed their minds about the name of their business and decided not to hold on to the other domains.
So, I now have about 2 dozen of these domains under my control; since I have no use for them, where's the harm in asking a reasonable price (anywhere from $50-$100) for them?
Finally, in one case, the client went out of business *and* screwed me out of a good $1,000 in development payments, so trying to recoup some of that with a domain that I now legally own seems reasonable.
Not saying this is the case here, just noting that it may be a similar situation.
I don't know of a single Mac user or vendor who has ever claimed that OS X is *COMPLETELY* invulnerable to viruses/etc, only that there hasn't been a demonstrable, malicious, in-the-wild true OS X virus released YET, which is true.
Major difference. In fact, every Mac user I know expects a "true" virus or two to show up for OS X sooner or later, but what of it? So the ratio will go from a bazillion to zero to a bazillion to one or two.
Apple has roughly a 2.5% worldwide market share--wake me when they have anywhere close to 2.5% as many viruses as Windows and I'll start being overly concerned.
First, it appears that the newspaper story is inaccurate--they have NOT sold 1 million Zunes yet; they actually said that they EXPECT to sell 1 million by the END of June:
t s_zune.html
http://blogs.business2.com/apple/2007/05/microsof
"Bach didn't actually say that Microsoft had already sold a million Zunes. If you listen to the interview, which the Chronicle helpfully provides in a podcast, what Bach said was
Bach: WHEN WE FINISH OUR FISCAL YEAR IN JUNE we'll have sold a little over a million Zunes, so we feel very good about that. [emphasis added]
That's what we used to call an editing error, one that mistakes a projection with actual sales and adds about 15% to the time frame. Microsoft still has more than a month to sell its first million Zunes, which would put it on the schedule it set for itself, not ahead. "
Second, to answer how long it took Apple to sell 1 million iPods, look at their quarterly sales figures:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/ipod_sales.html
10/23/01: iPod introduced
06/30/03: 984,000 total iPods sold
09/30/03: 1,320,000 total iPods sold
Based on the 92 day difference, you can calculate that they sold the 1 millionth iPod around 7/5/03.
So, 10/23/01 - 7/5/03 = 620 days, or about 20.5 months to sell the first 1 million iPods, compared with Microsofts' prediction (based on the ACTUAL quote, not the inaccurate article) of 11/14/06 - 6/30/07, or 228 days (7.5 months).
While this sounds impressive, it should be noted that the iPod was MAC ONLY until 10/13/03 (ie, throughout the entire period during which it sold it's first 1 million iPods. Not only was it Mac-only (aside from 3rd-party hacks), but it was restricted to FIREWIRE-ENABLED Macs, which weren't even introduced until the end of 1999. Assuming about 4% of the market for the Mac, and assuming that perhaps half the Macs in use at the time included FireWire, that means only about 2% of the total computer market could even use the iPod.
In addition, even those third-party hacks for Windows compatibility (which mostly sucked, and which weren't available for the first year or so) *still* required the PC in question to include FireWire; at the time, I believe only a tiny fraction of Windows machines included it.
In other words, it took Apple 2.7 times as long to sell their first 1 million iPods, but they did so with 1/50th of the market available to the Zune!
In addition, at the time there was no iTunes store, not to mention that the original iPod cost (at the time) $399 for 5 GB, with no video, no photos, no games, no color screen, no podcasts, etc etc, vs. the (current) Zune's $249 for 30 GB with video, photos, etc etc, all of which makes the iPod's early sales rates even more impressive.
I have no idea whether it was based on a sci-fi novel or not, but it sure as hell *felt* like it; it was thoughtful, deliberate without being dull, took both the science and sociological angles as seriously as possible, etc. Excellent movie, highly recommended: IMDB Link
Most of the quarterly numbers come from IDC and/or Gartner Group, research companies which specializes in compiling such figures.
0 0.asp
For instance, here's the 3rd quarter 2005 figures:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123213,
Note that the figures quoted may be a bit off from the numbers in the charts I linked to, because of error corrections which were made after the article posted, rounding errors, etc.
Apple's own official figures can be found in the Investor Relations section of their website:
http://www.apple.com/investor/
Hate to tell you this, but you're wrong on two points here:
1. My figures are based on ACTUAL SALES FIGURES from 2005. They are not 2 years old, nor are they limited to the United States (which people commonly get confused about--Apple's U.S. market share is higher than it's overall worldwide share).
2. Your figures are based on INTERNET TRAFFIC. That tells you what percentage of people browsing the internet are using a particular operating system, not what percentage of computers sold that quarter were made by a particular company.
Now, your figures would be more closely attuned to Apple's installed base, which is just fine, but that includes all computers currently in use, not new computer sold in a particular time period, which is what market share refers to.
"I'd guess they are within a few percentage points of being 4th."
Again, you're technically correct (4th place is Acer, with 4.7% vs. Apple's 2.3%), but in this case "a few percentage points" actually means that Apple would have to double their sales in order to make up that difference. I'm a major Mac advocate, and Apple is certainly kicking ass lately, but their actual market share is only just now starting to rise from it's all-time low (which was actually 2004, believe it or not). Again, however, market share isn't nearly as important as profitability.
"So when claims about top-ten PC shipments are made by the media and research firms, Apple should be in the top-ten. They are not because they specifically exclude Apple."
And again, it depends on what you're measuring. If you include Macs as "PCs", a top ten list should definitely include Apple. If you're distinguishing "Macs" from "PCs" (which most people do, even though they shouldn't in this context), then of course Apple wouldn't be included.
Yes and no. According to the latest figures available (3rd Quarter 2005), Apple is currently the 6th largest computer maker (after Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM, Acer, and Fujitsu-Siemens). However, they also do have only a 2.3% market share:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html
(scroll down past the 2 charts at the top)
Now, when it comes to installed base, I believe Macs are much higher, something like 8-10% or so, though I don't have solid proof of this (I think PC Mag did a study a couple of years ago which determined that Macs usually average a 5-7 year 'usable life' as opposed to 3-5 years for PCs, which would explain the higher installed base numbers)
FairPlay's DRM allows you to copy iTMS music onto up to 5 computers (Mac or Windows). Just authorize the second computer, then copy it across the network, just like you would with MP3s.
Now, you can *also* do it the burn-to-CD, move-CD-to-2nd-computer, re-rip-music-onto-2nd computer method as well if you want to strip the DRM off completely, but you don't have to.
Aside from some very minor tweaks, the AppleCare pricing has remained consistent for something like 7 years straight now:
...and have ALL of the above covered for a full 3 years for the same $249 PowerMac AppleCare warranty...which breaks down to just 0.6% of the total system price per extra year!!
$149: Mac mini
$169: eMac, iMac (all models)
$249: iBook, PowerMac w/or w/out display
$349: PowerBook w/or w/out display
What's bizzare about this pricing scheme is that in some cases it's a complete rip-off, but in other cases it's an incredible bargain:
At the low end, if you buy a stock-model $499 Mac mini, you're paying 30% of the system price for an extra 2 years of protection (remember, it comes with 1 yr. standard already), or 15% of the system price per extra year.
At the high end, you could, theoretically, buy a Quad-Processor PowerMac G5 ($3,299) with 16 GB of RAM ($11,900), a terabyte of storage ($875), a Quadro FX 4500 video card ($1,650), a 30" Cinema Display ($2,499), and Airport Extreme/Bluetooth card ($99), for a whopping $20,382...
Of course, with the profit margins they're making on $12,000 worth of RAM, etc etc, they can certainly afford to toss the extended warranty in for free (essentially), but it's a strange marketing thing.
http://systemshootouts.org/itms_ipod_sales.html
Actually, iTunes *does* remember what music you've purchased *and* indicates it when you're shopping--there's a "Purchased" playlist (which is automatically updated) right underneath the "Music Store" link on the left-hand side, and if you attempt to add a track you've already purchased to your cart, you'll receive a pop-up warning message which asks whether you're sure you want to buy it again (note this only happens if you bought it with the same account, of course).
"Secondly, I should be able to re-download those tracks in the event of a hard drive crash or if I'm on the road and forgot to grab a song while I was home."
I agree that it should be *easier* to do this, but they actually *will* let you re-download tracks under certain circumstances, if you contact them directly (via support). However, I don't think they should *have* to do so--after all, if you purchase a physical CD and then break or lose it, Harmony House isn't gonna give you a second CD for free. It would be a nice touch, however.
"The biggest thing I'd like to see them add is song purchases count towards a credit on buying the album. In other words, if I buy two songs on an album, and then later decide I wish to purchase the album, I shouldn't have to re-purchase those two songs as part of the album."
Agreed.
...off of the T-Shirt sales than Henrico County makes from selling the iBooks!
Ah, the joy of capitalism.
Even better, what if it had been a song by these guys?
/ viewArtist?artistId=2989441
/ com.apple.jingle.app.store.DirectAction/biography? artistId=2989441
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
(Warning: NSFW, which is kind of the point...)
Interesting that the iTMS censors the words in the song *title* but not the *artist*, and even includes a matter-of-fact bio background on them:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Whoops!!
I'm a website developer, but I also get called upon to do general computer tech support from my website clients on occasion.
9 times out of 10*, when they ask my advice for preventing the same issues from coming back in the future (usually spyware/virus/etc issues), I give the same response: "Well, you *could* do X, Y and Z (NAV, AdAware, yadda yadda yadda) and pray for the best, *or* you could get a Mac."
They almost never listen. Usually they think I'm joking, occasionally they at least pretend to take me seriously, but they almost never actually follow my advice.
*(even as a die-hard Mac advocate, I recognize that there are certain realities in some cases--a professional accounting firm, for example, simply can't switch over to Macs since so much accounting software is Windows-exclusive. They could, however, at least *add* one Mac to their network, at the very least for emergency email/web browsing/etc when the rest of the network gets taken down by a virus/etc...)
Heh--like I said earlier, brilliant marketing ploy regardless of the outcome...
(although I wasn't expecting the "outcome" to happen so quickly!)
These guys sell Mac peripherals (mice, keyboards, iPod add-ons, etc).
Whether they give the money away or not, whether there's a legitimate virus developed or not, and even regardless of whether the overall publicity slant is positive or negative, they've just ensured their site will see its' traffic and name recognition skyrocket.
I agree that the 20% figure sounds awfully high, but consider the following:
--in many cases, it was very likely that the iPod buyer was already at least somewhat considering switching/adding a Mac beforehand; the iPod makes a good "test run" to see an example of Apple hardware/software integration. A happy iPod experience, then, simply confirmed their initial thoughts.
--even if only one out of four of those folks actually follow through and purchase a Mac over the next year, that's still as many as 1,000,000 *new* Mac owners (as opposed to current Mac users upgrading/adding to their systems).
Bigger question: How's the overall performance (compared with Panther running on the same hardware).
:)
That is, if you're able to talk about it without violating any NDAs, of course...
Caveat to the above: Naturally, the spyware/etc. on the VPC OS doesn't do anything to OS X whatsoever, it's just astonishing to me that an OS which is only online perhaps 10 minutes per month can get gunked up.
Yup, I run VPC on my Mac; I *only* fire it up to double-check website code on IE for compatibility, then shut it down again. Don't do ANYTHING else with it.
Today, out of curiousity, I installed AdAware and ran it through. Sure enough, at least 19 spyware doo-dads scattered around.
Jeeezus...I know I'm biased as a Mac guy, but Windows has truly become COMPLETELY toxic at this point; it's like plutonium, infecting *anything* that it comes near.
I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!
$600 Desktop Apple/Dell System Shootout
(This is a repeat of my post from the original story, but then again, so is this story, so there ya go!!)
Just to clarify a few of your "misses": "No svideo in/out so no out of the box DVR..." You can get the DVI to S-Video/Composite Video adapter for $19. "low amount of base ram 128mb" Actually, it comes with 256MB, not 128 (still a bit low but twice what you thought) "g4 proc ( $100 more with a g5 and I would be first in line for this thing)" ...except that the G5 is larger and runs much hotter, so would require a considerably larger casing.
I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!
$600 Desktop Apple/Dell System Shootout
You're correct here regarding ThinkSecret and AppleInsider, but *not* regarding MacOSRumors--they're generally considered a complete joke in the Mac universe. Their batting average is weak at best, and they only achieve even that much accuracy by the "monkey flinging poo" method (ie, they throw as many rumors at the wall as they can, and once in a great while, something sticks).
Still, with TS and AI agreeing in such vivid detail, there's almost certainly something to it--unless the whole thing is a massive "Gotcha!" on Apple's part to sucker them into destroying their reputations.