Your account gybes quite well with what I heard at Apple. Of course, the developers in question weren't able to take any of their code from Adobe to Macromedia, but the money spent on a development project really ends up in the brains of the developers, not in the source code.
One thing to fill in: Apple got into the video-editing business because Avid was actively leaning on customers to abandon the Mac. I do recall a story of one customer asking an Avid rep: "what about Mac compatibility?", and being told "Nobody has to be Mac compatible anymore" with a smirk. The customer told the Avid guy: "YOU have to be compatible with your installed base, asshole!"
Before I got to Apple, I really had no idea how much Avid had alienated their customers. It'll be a business-school case study someday.;-)
I don't know that much about the GIMP but I wonder if they would ever be able to take advantage of something like CI. There is portability to maintain...
Well, that really is the heart of the problem. Anyone who insists on doing a cross-platform image editor won't use the full capabilities of any platform.
Are you against insulation around live electric wires as well?
Are you in favor of requiring helmets for anyone walking down the street? You need a bit more stuffing in your straw man.
Look, I read the trial transcript, I've seen the arguments, and I came to a different conclusion than you did.
The whole point of a civilised society is to make reasonable compromises for everybody.
Every try to make a cup of tea with lukewarm water? Thanks to this lady's bullshit lawsuit, I can't even get a pot of boiling water in most restaurants.
Degrading a product to make it safer for the.07% of people who don't know how to handle a cup of hot coffee is hardly a "reasonable compromise".
Honestly it almost seems Adobe does this to screw with Apple
Oh, I don't think they're malicious, just complacent. They're the Microsoft of image editing, and they'll behave as such until and unless there's a major competitor.
They should be more like Apple, who are hostile to all developers, big and small, especially when it comes to their DRM licensing.
Rob Glaser? Is that you?
Apple licensed their DRM to a company that had something to bring to the table (Motorola, with the ROKR phone), not to losers like Real Networks or Napster who just want Apple to bail them out from their own failures.
McDonalds' had been very negligent about the way they delt with their coffee.
I've read that trial transcript too, and I disagree. 700 cases out of tens of millions doesn't convince me. If it were only one million cups, we're still talking about a 0.07 % chance of anyone getting hurt with a cup of hot coffee. I'll take that chance, because I know enough to handle a hot beverage.
my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs.
Report them to your state insurance commissioner. It's not their job to tell you to sue someone.
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: do you want these clowns on their fishing expedition to get Apple to pay them for nothing, to determine how loud you are allowed to set the volume on your iPod?
I do hope that one day, a judge tells a plaintiff: "Litigation is not a lottery. Your suit is dismissed, you will pay the defendant in full for their defense costs."
The McDonald's case was still a stupid lawsuit. Coffee's hot. It is supposed to be hot. I would expect coffee to be served at a temperature pretty close to boiling, and to have to wait a while before drinking it.
700 similar incidents? Out of how many tens of MILLIONS of cups sold without incident, to people who knew enough to handle the cup as if it contained a hot beverage?.00007 % or so of Coffee buyers had an accident. Sucks to be them, but it's hardly McDonald's fault.
Thanks to this woman's BS lawsuit, nobody can buy a hot cup of coffee from McDonald's anymore, even if they are smart enough to handle it. Thanks a bunch, trial lawyers!
This situation is more like the kid heard from someone that somebody may be shooting near his leg, so he sues the person with the deepest pockets, just in case he might get shot in the leg someday.
A lot of the "yeah but look at what the other people did" arguments about slavery seem to have the intent of diluting any white American guilt
I don't know about you sunshine, but I'm not culpable for anything that happened before I was born. And, FYI: slavery is not, and was never a "local issue". It was a global crime, and I'll cough up reparations for black slavery in America when I've gotten my reparations for the time my ancestors spent in Egypt.
Read the confederate constitution while you're at it. Slavery was a major issue, but it was far from the only one, and most of the men who went to war for the south (volunteers, for the most part), were not slave owners. Certainly, none of the black troops who fought for the south were.
It has been the policy of of federal supremacists every since the war to pretend that the war was a holy crusade to end slavery, and that slavery was a sin exclusive to the south, etc, etc. Never mind that the south had no shipping industry to speak of, and that the slave ships were mostly yankee-owned, and never mind that during the war, slaves fleeing across union lines were captured and held as confiscated property, or that there were two slave states that didn't secede, and had a couple of years to sell their slaves down south before the war ended.
Freeing the slaves was a happy side-effect of the North's actual reasons for conquering the south, which was plain old land-grab.
Slashdot Mirror
Your account gybes quite well with what I heard at Apple. Of course, the developers in question weren't able to take any of their code from Adobe to Macromedia, but the money spent on a development project really ends up in the brains of the developers, not in the source code.
;-)
One thing to fill in: Apple got into the video-editing business because Avid was actively leaning on customers to abandon the Mac. I do recall a story of one customer asking an Avid rep: "what about Mac compatibility?", and being told "Nobody has to be Mac compatible anymore" with a smirk. The customer told the Avid guy: "YOU have to be compatible with your installed base, asshole!"
Before I got to Apple, I really had no idea how much Avid had alienated their customers. It'll be a business-school case study someday.
-jcr
I don't know that much about the GIMP but I wonder if they would ever be able to take advantage of something like CI. There is portability to maintain...
Well, that really is the heart of the problem. Anyone who insists on doing a cross-platform image editor won't use the full capabilities of any platform.
-jcr
Are you against insulation around live electric wires as well?
.07% of people who don't know how to handle a cup of hot coffee is hardly a "reasonable compromise".
Are you in favor of requiring helmets for anyone walking down the street? You need a bit more stuffing in your straw man.
Look, I read the trial transcript, I've seen the arguments, and I came to a different conclusion than you did.
The whole point of a civilised society is to make reasonable compromises for everybody.
Every try to make a cup of tea with lukewarm water? Thanks to this lady's bullshit lawsuit, I can't even get a pot of boiling water in most restaurants.
Degrading a product to make it safer for the
-jcr
Honestly it almost seems Adobe does this to screw with Apple
Oh, I don't think they're malicious, just complacent. They're the Microsoft of image editing, and they'll behave as such until and unless there's a major competitor.
-jcr
Yeah, Quark really got their act together. I was impressed.
Maybe they woke up and realized that they'd made a lot of people angry, and it was costing them money.
-jcr
Good point.
Personally, I'd love to see anyone, whether it's Apple or somebody else, bring out an image editing program that uses CoreImage to its full potential.
Photoshop is a relic, running in Adobe's home-grown Mac OS 7 compatibility environment. They can't even handle a floating-point frame buffer yet.
-jcr
the lawyer and the client gets sanctioned and fined for Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure
Hopefully, yes.
Nevertheless, my statement stands.
-jcr
My point is that you can't sue a company if you aren't using their products.
Yeah, you can. It will probably get tossed out at the preliminary hearing, but you can still sue.
-jcr
They should be more like Apple, who are hostile to all developers, big and small, especially when it comes to their DRM licensing.
Rob Glaser? Is that you?
Apple licensed their DRM to a company that had something to bring to the table (Motorola, with the ROKR phone), not to losers like Real Networks or Napster who just want Apple to bail them out from their own failures.
-jcr
McDonalds' had been very negligent about the way they delt with their coffee.
I've read that trial transcript too, and I disagree. 700 cases out of tens of millions doesn't convince me. If it were only one million cups, we're still talking about a 0.07 % chance of anyone getting hurt with a cup of hot coffee. I'll take that chance, because I know enough to handle a hot beverage.
-jcr
my insurance company sent me a letter asking where the accident occurred, what products were involved, and asking me to sue anyone who might be liable in order to recoup the costs.
Report them to your state insurance commissioner. It's not their job to tell you to sue someone.
-jcr
Still $480,000 more than it should have been.
I concur, but she should have had to refund McDonalds' legal costs, too.
-jcr
The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: do you want these clowns on their fishing expedition to get Apple to pay them for nothing, to determine how loud you are allowed to set the volume on your iPod?
-jcr
you can only sue people that actually did damage.
I wish.
No, you can sue anyone for any pretext at all. Whether you can win, is a different question.
-jcr
I do hope that one day, a judge tells a plaintiff: "Litigation is not a lottery. Your suit is dismissed, you will pay the defendant in full for their defense costs."
-jcr
The McDonald's case was still a stupid lawsuit. Coffee's hot. It is supposed to be hot. I would expect coffee to be served at a temperature pretty close to boiling, and to have to wait a while before drinking it.
.00007 % or so of Coffee buyers had an accident. Sucks to be them, but it's hardly McDonald's fault.
700 similar incidents? Out of how many tens of MILLIONS of cups sold without incident, to people who knew enough to handle the cup as if it contained a hot beverage?
Thanks to this woman's BS lawsuit, nobody can buy a hot cup of coffee from McDonald's anymore, even if they are smart enough to handle it. Thanks a bunch, trial lawyers!
-jcr
This situation is more like the kid heard from someone that somebody may be shooting near his leg, so he sues the person with the deepest pockets, just in case he might get shot in the leg someday.
-jcr
A lot of the "yeah but look at what the other people did" arguments about slavery seem to have the intent of diluting any white American guilt
I don't know about you sunshine, but I'm not culpable for anything that happened before I was born. And, FYI: slavery is not, and was never a "local issue". It was a global crime, and I'll cough up reparations for black slavery in America when I've gotten my reparations for the time my ancestors spent in Egypt.
-jcr
If the Evil Empire is hostile to small developers, that can only help the other platforms.
-jcr
Lease your server space from someone else, and have at it.
-jcr
C is still tremendously popular, and it didn't bloat up the way C++ did.
-jcr
English has rather more languages in the mix than that...
-jcr
Does the language of Slashdot allow such a possibility?
-jcr
I disagree. Not all languages succumb to the pressure to add "features" ad infinitum. Lisp, Smalltalk, and Obj-C are all still quite clean.
-jcr
Read the confederate constitution while you're at it. Slavery was a major issue, but it was far from the only one, and most of the men who went to war for the south (volunteers, for the most part), were not slave owners. Certainly, none of the black troops who fought for the south were.
It has been the policy of of federal supremacists every since the war to pretend that the war was a holy crusade to end slavery, and that slavery was a sin exclusive to the south, etc, etc. Never mind that the south had no shipping industry to speak of, and that the slave ships were mostly yankee-owned, and never mind that during the war, slaves fleeing across union lines were captured and held as confiscated property, or that there were two slave states that didn't secede, and had a couple of years to sell their slaves down south before the war ended.
Freeing the slaves was a happy side-effect of the North's actual reasons for conquering the south, which was plain old land-grab.
-jcr