Acknowledging DRM is bad to the core, there are just economical and business factors that can't be overcome in a single step from DRM to DRM-free. iTunes is doing a good job bridging the gap, providing a fair comparison between tracks that are protected and tracks that are not. It's also getting around or minimizing MOST of the problems that DRM causes. iTunes right now is the most consumer-friendly form of DRM available.
It's unreasonable to assume in any debate that the other side is just going to toss up its arms and say I GIVE UP YOU WIN and concede the world. That's what this "defectivebydesign" group is trying to achieve, and it's never going to work that way.
iTunes is probably the best thing going for the anti-drm movement right now, and that I mean even above non-drm music. It's easing the music industry into free music at a pace it's willing to go. It's something that the consumer can tolerate, and something the industry can tolerate. Right now, drm-free isn't something the industry can tolerate, and drm-lockdown isn't something consumers will tolerate.
The consumers will never accept lockdown, but the industry eventually should accept fredom of format. Just need to give it some time in the middle with things like iTunes to make them warm up to it.
of course it fixes it. why do you think they put it in there to begin with? To get you to stampede to 8 to get away from it. It just got discovered a little earlier than anticipated...
I don't think it's safe to change the orientation of a spinning optical drive perpendicular to its spin axis, when spun up to any high speed. Same applies to ODDs in computers. When I go to move a laptop, if I don't make sure it's not got a disc spun up, I sometimes get to hear a grinding sound as it gyroscopes on me. "Angular momentum" will get you every time. Faster the disk spins, the worse it gets. Considering how flexible discs are, it's not surprising how much it can bend and contact places it shouldn't.
Saying MS "knew about the problem" is like saying MS knew about the problem of "gravity" and that the player "might be damaged if dropped" and refused to make it shock proof. No, really? You don't expect them to change the design for that do you? Use common sense with your toys. Joe Public needs to quit looking for people to blame for their own ignorance or carelessness.
This verdict is just another sad example of making an overly-broad law under the guise that it will never be abused, and will only be used when "necessary". Laws are not meant to be used this way, and the old standby comes immediately into play, "that which can be abused, will be abused." Laws open to interpretation will be misinterpreted, or interpreted in a manner that would horrify those that created and supported the overly-broad law.
Say NO to catch-all laws every chance you get. If they can't define the law in such a way that it cannot be abused/misinterpreted, it's not a good law, I don't care what you're trying to prevent. Find an airtight way to word it or don't put it on the books.
It's possible to compartmentalize things in firmware for that. Everything that radio-wise interacts with the cellular network can be on firmware on a chip, (possibly not an open source chip either) and the phone just tells it how to operate within its fixed parameters.
The "open" nature of the phone doesn't refer to its being open to mods on its cellular networking, but on its functional platform. Things like writing apps for the phone.
Sort of like how I can't write an iPhone app that spoofs my ESN or cranks up my transmit power. The API doesn't have any function calls for that sort of behavior. The firmware on this phone doesn't have to have that either.
We need to get an expert in the thread here that is in the loop on the design of the chips in the cell phones. Based on my experience with other similar electronics, there's usually a handful of chip makers for any given specialty market, and they all make single-solution chips that handle this sort of stuff for you so you don't have to re-develop the same thing that everyone else needs. You just interface with the chip and tell it what you want to do and it takes care of the details for you.
To illustrate this example, I can't write a program on my linux box to write any arbitrary series of 1's and 0's on my hard drive's platter. I have to hand the sata controller a 512 byte block and coordinates, and it writes it for me, including the headers and checksum etc, I have no control over that. That doesn't mean my linux isn't "open". It just means I don't have that level of control over the hardware.
Back in 'the day', on 1980's hardware, I wrote my own disk IO drivers, and COULD write any arbitrary series of 1's and 0's because I had direct access to the read/write latch. And I bet the first cell phones made, the software had a great deal of control over the radio itself too. But these things change, because other parties want to make end-user products and are looking for chips that handle all the dirty work so they don't have to bother with it. Cheaper, more reliable, faster to develop.
The FCC will type-accept anything that operates within their parameters, and is not easily user-modifiable, but it's a slow process, not something you want to have to redo several times a year. For quicker type-acceptance, manufacturers will compartmentalize their designs so that only one small part has to be type-accepted, and then after they have that developed they can play with the rest of the device all they want without getting it re-typed. (the "radio module" is usually what gets typed) All computers nowadays have their bluetooth and 802.11 on a separate card for exactly this reason. Nothing in the software of the computer can cause these separate boards to operate outside their type-acceptance. So the computer manufacturers can make a new motherboard every week without getting the FCC involved again, as long as they keep using the typed wireless boards.
I see two problems with this
on
Hot Tub Hunting
·
· Score: 1
1) butterfingers. nuff said. 2) assuming you do manage to get a deer, you've gotta get out of the tub to go get it.
every encounter I've had with this also uses it as a unique identifier as their excuse, but all of them have had provisions for making an identifier themselves. I bet if you would have fought this a bit you could have won.
I made a followup post after doing some additional digging and making some calls. The SSA webpage itself has some contradictions here, in one place implying that unless there's a law for it, they can't require it. Then in another place they say there may be "consequences" if you deny it. So I have contacted them for clarification.
Though it does seem for all the instances where someone beat around the bush awhile they always found an exception, and I can't imagine companies going to the trouble on such a consistent basis unless they had to?
-Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans; -Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes; -States for the school lunch program; -Banks for monetary transactions; -Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number; -Department of Labor for workersâ(TM) compensation; -Department of Education for Student Loans; -States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law -within its jurisdiction; -States for child support enforcement; -States for commercial driversâ(TM) licenses; -States for Food Stamps; -States for Medicaid; -States for Unemployment Compensation; -States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or -U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds
I don't see "AT&T", "Apple", or even "Cell phone providers" on that list anywhere.
Further, they state:
If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.
Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number, and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.
Since they discuss "consequences", I wonder if that means they can refuse to sell you services or products if you refuse to give them your SSN. Kind of looks that way? But since it specifically says you should ask what LAW requires you to give your ssn, it would appear that they must give you an alternate option. But it also says that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested so this web page appears to present conflicting information.
Aaaand 35 minutes on the phone later...
AT&T wireless customer support number is 1-800-331-0500, 1, 2 - prepaid has no credit check and thus does not require ssn - iphones cannot do prepaid, can only do monthly plans - monthly plan requires credit check to determine the amount of the necessary deposit - ssn required for credit check ** - rep was not aware of options for paying the largest deposit in leu of the credit check
called AT&T wireless customer care at 1-866-801-3600 - rep agreed with everything I've said so far but is unsure if AT&T offers an alternate method of credit check or flat rate downpayment to skip the credit check. - rep contacted the AT&T Activation dept (they have NO external phone number for this department!) - the activation dept said I need to go to an AT&T wireless store and they can perform the activation without a credit check, but will require a deposit, most likely the upper limit deposit of $1,000, and will issue you a "generic id" in leu of your SSN
You can also call Activation at Apple, at 1-800-694-7466, but they may not know how to deal with this, and may not be able to handle this flat rate deposit and issuing of a generic id at an Apple store. (it's possible the law may require them to here also, but they will probably just direct you to the nearest AT&T wireless store)
** I wonder if your ssn is truly required for a credit check? According to the SSA web si
I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated
I shall now go checking on this, but for now I'm going to say "no".
Several years back my grandmother was with us shopping and the dept store offered her a credit card for the store. She wanted one and filled out the paperwork. It got to the spot where you had to fill in your SSN.
"I don't want to give you that. You can't demand that."
She grew up in the era where your SSN was ubber-top-secret and you were actually publicly educated to never give it out. She knew the rules.
They argued for a good 10 min and finally got on the phone calling around. The store clerks realized she was probably right, but everything they had been told was to the contrary.
Finally after 25 minutes of phonecalls and I don't know how far up the chain they had to go, they ran into someone that knew the law. "she's right, we cannot demand her SSN as a condition for getting the card." (you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card") She was issued an alternate unique identification number. From what I saw, this was an extremely unusual case for someone to call them on this, so very few people know their rights here.
I remember my SSN used to be on my driver's license. Now that's a different unique number also. Heck, two months ago I was at the dentist and they wanted my SSN. I said I don't want to give it to you. She said well look on your dental card I bet that's your number. by god she was right. That got changed a week later following a phonecall from me to my insurance company.
It's amazing how many places you will see people wanting your SSN, and if you're sucker enough to give it to them, they're doing really stupid things with it.
I find humorous. No one has mentioned Macintosh computers. Apple has a very interesting way to get around this problem. They have a MAP but they don't really need one.
Reason is, they sell them to you (the retailer) at VERY near their online store's price. When you, as an Apple Authorized Reseller sell a mac, you send proof of your purchase to them, and at the end of the month you get a check from them. Depending on a wide variety of factors, basically "how much you've behaved like Apple WANTS you to behave as their representative", that determines the amount of cash they give you back per machine. They call it "metrics". We call it "kickbacks".
AARs don't make ANY money on selling a mac. Many of them even LOSE money. But those BDU checks are what make their profit.
This has several interesting effects. First off, when a customer calls us asking about prices for all the systems, we can just direct them to the online Apple store, because all our prices will be the same as theirs, and will be the same as all our competition's. Second, Apple still holds us to MAP, so we can't sell at a loss to make more with the BDU checks. Third, we don't have to worry about direct competition in our market because no one else can sell below MAP, because everyone that's getting the computers from Apple directly has to sell at that price so they're not available anywhere below MAP to be bought "wholesale" and then retailed elsewhere.
The only two problems this causes us is #1 we have no way to compete with the deals Apple offers, such as discounts on ipod with computer purchase, or especially the student discount. #2 some of the places like Mac Warehouse get around this by throwing in free stuff like printer or memory upgrade and that's hard for us to compete with.
This whole thing wouldn't normally work because if Apple makes a price drop when a new model comes out, everyone would be stuck with merchandise they paid more for than they can sell for, so Apple also cuts us checks for any unsold inventory to make up the difference when they drop a price. (they call it "price protection")
The BDU checks and the price protection both are at Apple's discretion, so it gives them a lot of leverage to tell us what we can and cannot do. So even though we're independently owned/operated, we have to basically do whatever they say, or they'll cancel our AAR status and we lose the BDU checks and price protection and that puts us out of business. Really annoying when Apple does something like prohibit us from selling iPhones, and then turns around and lets places like Best Buy and Wal Mart sell them. Sort of a swift kick in the balls and we have no real recourse but to bend over and take it. For example, if Apple catches us selling an iPhone we'd get delisted instantly. If we were caught so much as displaying a pre-release of any Apple software, such as Snow Leopard or the new Aperture, same thing. So in this respect, the manufacturers can have a lot of control over their retailers - it goes far beyond just MAP.
I don't know for sure, but it seems like their preventing us from selling iPhones is something that should be illegal? Apple is notorious for taking steps to eliminate competition within their market, specifically from their partners. "competes with an Apple product" is the #1 reason for iPhone apps to be rejected by Apple from being sold on the Apple Store.
Lots of room for criticism there though unfortunately. - unlike the predator, you're certainly not going to shadow anything with THAT. It's low, it's big, it's visually very obvious, it's LOUD, and it's got a worthless "loiter time". - they launched it each time from a hover pit. A bit like they use when testing prototype hovering planes similar to the harrier, where they're worried that engine backwash or hot air ingestion is going to cause it problems. Requiring a hover pit for real world aunch is a problem.
A co-worker just pointed that out to me. I've looked around and I can't find a way to change the Leopard Apple to blue as it appears in Tiger... fraud?
I DID look at our Air here, and it does appear to have something going on though. It's a very fine very short horizontal streaking, very much having the random subtle look of parchment paper. The lines are NOT continuous left to right, if you hold it on edge and look from left to right you don't see anything. (and with the image the article provided, that would make it painfully obvious) The streaks are like ripples in the surface of the glossy coat on the screen. I think that's how the clearcoat is made.
It's very hard to see but is noticeable, for me easier to see with a solid color (lighter color or white) solid desktop picture.
I wonder if they were unable to get a good picture of the effect, and just rummaged around for a picture that sort of showed the same kind of thing? I'd still call that a fraud - if you can't get a good picture of something, you don't just go find something else about the same and call it that.
If that's what this is, just the way the glossy coat affects the image, then there's no firmware update going to fix that. It's part of the manufacturing process. And considering how incredibly subtle the effect is, I rather doubt Apple is going to "repair" it.
"durable goods" definition appears to be (unofficially) 3 years minimum average product lifespan. It's not meant to exclude things that last less than 3 years, but is more meant as a general rule to eliminate things like erasers, paper, TP, brake pads, ballpoint pens, and other "consumables". Things that you specifically buy periodically because they are used up. (more "used up" than "wore out", which becomes a grey line with some products)
there's an industry term called durable goods [wikipedia.org] which I expect is the category Logitec was speaking of. Consumables such as cigarettes, cheeseburgers, ballpoint pens etc, do not fall into this category.
An ARM processor is also a component, not a finished consumer product, so I would equally count them out of it.
Once you get those two issues out of the way, Logitec's claim becomes a lot more solid. I'm sure there's a few others out there like them, but not the hundreds or thousands that people are speculating.
Slashdot Mirror
Acknowledging DRM is bad to the core, there are just economical and business factors that can't be overcome in a single step from DRM to DRM-free. iTunes is doing a good job bridging the gap, providing a fair comparison between tracks that are protected and tracks that are not. It's also getting around or minimizing MOST of the problems that DRM causes. iTunes right now is the most consumer-friendly form of DRM available.
It's unreasonable to assume in any debate that the other side is just going to toss up its arms and say I GIVE UP YOU WIN and concede the world. That's what this "defectivebydesign" group is trying to achieve, and it's never going to work that way.
iTunes is probably the best thing going for the anti-drm movement right now, and that I mean even above non-drm music. It's easing the music industry into free music at a pace it's willing to go. It's something that the consumer can tolerate, and something the industry can tolerate. Right now, drm-free isn't something the industry can tolerate, and drm-lockdown isn't something consumers will tolerate.
The consumers will never accept lockdown, but the industry eventually should accept fredom of format. Just need to give it some time in the middle with things like iTunes to make them warm up to it.
I think you accidentally a whole verb.
C|N>K
I prefer the older standby - empowering 0wners since 2001
of course it fixes it. why do you think they put it in there to begin with? To get you to stampede to 8 to get away from it. It just got discovered a little earlier than anticipated...
I don't think it's safe to change the orientation of a spinning optical drive perpendicular to its spin axis, when spun up to any high speed. Same applies to ODDs in computers. When I go to move a laptop, if I don't make sure it's not got a disc spun up, I sometimes get to hear a grinding sound as it gyroscopes on me. "Angular momentum" will get you every time. Faster the disk spins, the worse it gets. Considering how flexible discs are, it's not surprising how much it can bend and contact places it shouldn't.
Saying MS "knew about the problem" is like saying MS knew about the problem of "gravity" and that the player "might be damaged if dropped" and refused to make it shock proof. No, really? You don't expect them to change the design for that do you? Use common sense with your toys. Joe Public needs to quit looking for people to blame for their own ignorance or carelessness.
This verdict is just another sad example of making an overly-broad law under the guise that it will never be abused, and will only be used when "necessary". Laws are not meant to be used this way, and the old standby comes immediately into play, "that which can be abused, will be abused." Laws open to interpretation will be misinterpreted, or interpreted in a manner that would horrify those that created and supported the overly-broad law.
Say NO to catch-all laws every chance you get. If they can't define the law in such a way that it cannot be abused/misinterpreted, it's not a good law, I don't care what you're trying to prevent. Find an airtight way to word it or don't put it on the books.
It's possible to compartmentalize things in firmware for that. Everything that radio-wise interacts with the cellular network can be on firmware on a chip, (possibly not an open source chip either) and the phone just tells it how to operate within its fixed parameters.
The "open" nature of the phone doesn't refer to its being open to mods on its cellular networking, but on its functional platform. Things like writing apps for the phone.
Sort of like how I can't write an iPhone app that spoofs my ESN or cranks up my transmit power. The API doesn't have any function calls for that sort of behavior. The firmware on this phone doesn't have to have that either.
We need to get an expert in the thread here that is in the loop on the design of the chips in the cell phones. Based on my experience with other similar electronics, there's usually a handful of chip makers for any given specialty market, and they all make single-solution chips that handle this sort of stuff for you so you don't have to re-develop the same thing that everyone else needs. You just interface with the chip and tell it what you want to do and it takes care of the details for you.
To illustrate this example, I can't write a program on my linux box to write any arbitrary series of 1's and 0's on my hard drive's platter. I have to hand the sata controller a 512 byte block and coordinates, and it writes it for me, including the headers and checksum etc, I have no control over that. That doesn't mean my linux isn't "open". It just means I don't have that level of control over the hardware.
Back in 'the day', on 1980's hardware, I wrote my own disk IO drivers, and COULD write any arbitrary series of 1's and 0's because I had direct access to the read/write latch. And I bet the first cell phones made, the software had a great deal of control over the radio itself too. But these things change, because other parties want to make end-user products and are looking for chips that handle all the dirty work so they don't have to bother with it. Cheaper, more reliable, faster to develop.
The FCC will type-accept anything that operates within their parameters, and is not easily user-modifiable, but it's a slow process, not something you want to have to redo several times a year. For quicker type-acceptance, manufacturers will compartmentalize their designs so that only one small part has to be type-accepted, and then after they have that developed they can play with the rest of the device all they want without getting it re-typed. (the "radio module" is usually what gets typed) All computers nowadays have their bluetooth and 802.11 on a separate card for exactly this reason. Nothing in the software of the computer can cause these separate boards to operate outside their type-acceptance. So the computer manufacturers can make a new motherboard every week without getting the FCC involved again, as long as they keep using the typed wireless boards.
1) butterfingers. nuff said.
2) assuming you do manage to get a deer, you've gotta get out of the tub to go get it.
clicking Play button does nothing
every encounter I've had with this also uses it as a unique identifier as their excuse, but all of them have had provisions for making an identifier themselves. I bet if you would have fought this a bit you could have won.
figured as much
I made a followup post after doing some additional digging and making some calls. The SSA webpage itself has some contradictions here, in one place implying that unless there's a law for it, they can't require it. Then in another place they say there may be "consequences" if you deny it. So I have contacted them for clarification.
Though it does seem for all the instances where someone beat around the bush awhile they always found an exception, and I can't imagine companies going to the trouble on such a consistent basis unless they had to?
sort of like having a short domain name prefix
Most are parked with typo magnet type pages:
yes.com
no.com
a few are borderline, actually having something of a topic:
go.com
And only a very few actually have a purpose:
me.com (how did they get that?)
Because everyone thinks of "nisson" when they see "Z" (Z)
Hey this is kinda fun.
Paypal of course reminds everyone of "X" (X) Makes you seriously wonder if it's legit doesn't it?
OK found one that makes sense. Say Q for Qwest! (Q)
And for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, NO other domains (A-Z).com are in use. Just Q, X, and Z.
a lot of people I know that don't even know what Second Life is
Count me in. I assume it's a followup of some sort to Half Life?
The initial basic list of people that can require your SSN, when the SSN was created was simply:
A- the IRS (which can also mean the person that submits your taxes)
B- your employer
C- your bank
There is a more comprehensive and current list at the US Govt SSN web page:
-Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
-Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
-States for the school lunch program;
-Banks for monetary transactions;
-Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
-Department of Labor for workersâ(TM) compensation;
-Department of Education for Student Loans;
-States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law -within its jurisdiction;
-States for child support enforcement;
-States for commercial driversâ(TM) licenses;
-States for Food Stamps;
-States for Medicaid;
-States for Unemployment Compensation;
-States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
-U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds
I don't see "AT&T", "Apple", or even "Cell phone providers" on that list anywhere.
Further, they state:
If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.
Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number, and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.
Since they discuss "consequences", I wonder if that means they can refuse to sell you services or products if you refuse to give them your SSN. Kind of looks that way? But since it specifically says you should ask what LAW requires you to give your ssn, it would appear that they must give you an alternate option. But it also says that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested so this web page appears to present conflicting information.
Aaaand 35 minutes on the phone later...
AT&T wireless customer support number is 1-800-331-0500, 1, 2
- prepaid has no credit check and thus does not require ssn
- iphones cannot do prepaid, can only do monthly plans
- monthly plan requires credit check to determine the amount of the necessary deposit
- ssn required for credit check **
- rep was not aware of options for paying the largest deposit in leu of the credit check
called AT&T wireless customer care at 1-866-801-3600
- rep agreed with everything I've said so far but is unsure if AT&T offers an alternate method of credit check or flat rate downpayment to skip the credit check.
- rep contacted the AT&T Activation dept (they have NO external phone number for this department!)
- the activation dept said I need to go to an AT&T wireless store and they can perform the activation without a credit check, but will require a deposit, most likely the upper limit deposit of $1,000, and will issue you a "generic id" in leu of your SSN
You can also call Activation at Apple, at 1-800-694-7466, but they may not know how to deal with this, and may not be able to handle this flat rate deposit and issuing of a generic id at an Apple store. (it's possible the law may require them to here also, but they will probably just direct you to the nearest AT&T wireless store)
** I wonder if your ssn is truly required for a credit check? According to the SSA web si
I recently found out is, AT&T is requiring you give them your damned SSN to get one activated
I shall now go checking on this, but for now I'm going to say "no".
Several years back my grandmother was with us shopping and the dept store offered her a credit card for the store. She wanted one and filled out the paperwork. It got to the spot where you had to fill in your SSN.
"I don't want to give you that. You can't demand that."
She grew up in the era where your SSN was ubber-top-secret and you were actually publicly educated to never give it out. She knew the rules.
They argued for a good 10 min and finally got on the phone calling around. The store clerks realized she was probably right, but everything they had been told was to the contrary.
Finally after 25 minutes of phonecalls and I don't know how far up the chain they had to go, they ran into someone that knew the law. "she's right, we cannot demand her SSN as a condition for getting the card." (you cannot simply say "well it's your right not to give out your SSN but if you don't, we won't give you this card") She was issued an alternate unique identification number. From what I saw, this was an extremely unusual case for someone to call them on this, so very few people know their rights here.
I remember my SSN used to be on my driver's license. Now that's a different unique number also. Heck, two months ago I was at the dentist and they wanted my SSN. I said I don't want to give it to you. She said well look on your dental card I bet that's your number. by god she was right. That got changed a week later following a phonecall from me to my insurance company.
It's amazing how many places you will see people wanting your SSN, and if you're sucker enough to give it to them, they're doing really stupid things with it.
I find humorous. No one has mentioned Macintosh computers. Apple has a very interesting way to get around this problem. They have a MAP but they don't really need one.
Reason is, they sell them to you (the retailer) at VERY near their online store's price. When you, as an Apple Authorized Reseller sell a mac, you send proof of your purchase to them, and at the end of the month you get a check from them. Depending on a wide variety of factors, basically "how much you've behaved like Apple WANTS you to behave as their representative", that determines the amount of cash they give you back per machine. They call it "metrics". We call it "kickbacks".
AARs don't make ANY money on selling a mac. Many of them even LOSE money. But those BDU checks are what make their profit.
This has several interesting effects. First off, when a customer calls us asking about prices for all the systems, we can just direct them to the online Apple store, because all our prices will be the same as theirs, and will be the same as all our competition's. Second, Apple still holds us to MAP, so we can't sell at a loss to make more with the BDU checks. Third, we don't have to worry about direct competition in our market because no one else can sell below MAP, because everyone that's getting the computers from Apple directly has to sell at that price so they're not available anywhere below MAP to be bought "wholesale" and then retailed elsewhere.
The only two problems this causes us is #1 we have no way to compete with the deals Apple offers, such as discounts on ipod with computer purchase, or especially the student discount. #2 some of the places like Mac Warehouse get around this by throwing in free stuff like printer or memory upgrade and that's hard for us to compete with.
This whole thing wouldn't normally work because if Apple makes a price drop when a new model comes out, everyone would be stuck with merchandise they paid more for than they can sell for, so Apple also cuts us checks for any unsold inventory to make up the difference when they drop a price. (they call it "price protection")
The BDU checks and the price protection both are at Apple's discretion, so it gives them a lot of leverage to tell us what we can and cannot do. So even though we're independently owned/operated, we have to basically do whatever they say, or they'll cancel our AAR status and we lose the BDU checks and price protection and that puts us out of business. Really annoying when Apple does something like prohibit us from selling iPhones, and then turns around and lets places like Best Buy and Wal Mart sell them. Sort of a swift kick in the balls and we have no real recourse but to bend over and take it. For example, if Apple catches us selling an iPhone we'd get delisted instantly. If we were caught so much as displaying a pre-release of any Apple software, such as Snow Leopard or the new Aperture, same thing. So in this respect, the manufacturers can have a lot of control over their retailers - it goes far beyond just MAP.
I don't know for sure, but it seems like their preventing us from selling iPhones is something that should be illegal? Apple is notorious for taking steps to eliminate competition within their market, specifically from their partners. "competes with an Apple product" is the #1 reason for iPhone apps to be rejected by Apple from being sold on the Apple Store.
the iPhone can never capture more than 15-20% of the market because it can't: its design is too limited and too targeted at one market
15-20% doesn't seem like too much unless you can completely dominate that 15-20% niche. Then it matters.
I'll take 20% of everything over 50% of something any day.
Lots of room for criticism there though unfortunately.
- unlike the predator, you're certainly not going to shadow anything with THAT. It's low, it's big, it's visually very obvious, it's LOUD, and it's got a worthless "loiter time".
- they launched it each time from a hover pit. A bit like they use when testing prototype hovering planes similar to the harrier, where they're worried that engine backwash or hot air ingestion is going to cause it problems. Requiring a hover pit for real world aunch is a problem.
It looks less impressive than the phoenix lander.
I think it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to start monetizing their software directly.
because if the last 5 years have been any indication, Apple is clearly using a failing business model...
A co-worker just pointed that out to me. I've looked around and I can't find a way to change the Leopard Apple to blue as it appears in Tiger... fraud?
I DID look at our Air here, and it does appear to have something going on though. It's a very fine very short horizontal streaking, very much having the random subtle look of parchment paper. The lines are NOT continuous left to right, if you hold it on edge and look from left to right you don't see anything. (and with the image the article provided, that would make it painfully obvious) The streaks are like ripples in the surface of the glossy coat on the screen. I think that's how the clearcoat is made.
It's very hard to see but is noticeable, for me easier to see with a solid color (lighter color or white) solid desktop picture.
I wonder if they were unable to get a good picture of the effect, and just rummaged around for a picture that sort of showed the same kind of thing? I'd still call that a fraud - if you can't get a good picture of something, you don't just go find something else about the same and call it that.
If that's what this is, just the way the glossy coat affects the image, then there's no firmware update going to fix that. It's part of the manufacturing process. And considering how incredibly subtle the effect is, I rather doubt Apple is going to "repair" it.
and the atari had binary joysticks. I assume the C64 were 8 bit. The apple joysticks were 8 bit.
"durable goods" definition appears to be (unofficially) 3 years minimum average product lifespan. It's not meant to exclude things that last less than 3 years, but is more meant as a general rule to eliminate things like erasers, paper, TP, brake pads, ballpoint pens, and other "consumables". Things that you specifically buy periodically because they are used up. (more "used up" than "wore out", which becomes a grey line with some products)
there's an industry term called durable goods [wikipedia.org] which I expect is the category Logitec was speaking of. Consumables such as cigarettes, cheeseburgers, ballpoint pens etc, do not fall into this category.
An ARM processor is also a component, not a finished consumer product, so I would equally count them out of it.
Once you get those two issues out of the way, Logitec's claim becomes a lot more solid. I'm sure there's a few others out there like them, but not the hundreds or thousands that people are speculating.
oh ok well that's reasonable. The apps that just assume you're an admin and immediately smash into a wall are the ones I have a problem with.