Indeed, this essay misses the most obvious answer: that it simply isn't true. Let's take a look:
millions of designers, musicians, and other creative professionals love their Apple products
True, like many companies, they've sold millions of products and these people love their products.
Although less clear is whether there are millions that fall into the category of "creative profession".
Apple brand is almost synonymous with free-thinking creativity
Not at all true. Where did they pluck this nonsense from? And if they immediately notice the contradiction, then surely this is a proof-by-contradiction that the claim isn't true in the first place. But instead, they blindly assume it to be true, and then make up all sorts of assertions to try to explain it away.
It's like the Apple version of the Problem of Evil.
It's also misleading to compare only to open source. Most commercial companies don't try to milk the media with rumours whilst maintaining secrecy - and hence are more open. And most closed source platforms including Windows are more open, in that the company doesn't get to choose what I run on my own damn hardware. Remember the fuss on Slashdot about Vista and DRM? Yet with Apple, Slashdot posters lap the Iphone right up!
I'm surprised we 're not having a new Y2K-esque freak-out over this already.
Probably because of all the idiots who now think that Y2K was some big hoax, because "nothing happened". The sad thing is that, if we run into trouble with IPv4, these people will be first in line moaning about the experts not being able to fix things in time...
(heck, more effort was put into the digital TV switch than seems to be going into IPv6 switch).
That's a good point. But I suppose that Governments are able to make money from it, by selling off those parts of the spectrum. Moreover, most of the effort is simply in the form of educating people to buy a new box.
The other problem is that if people are proactive about fixing things beforehand, rather than be grateful, other people then just ridicule: "All that money got spent fixing it, and then nothing happened", which misses the obvious point that maybe nothing happened because it was fixed.
I've seen it on here, even geeks aren't immune to this fallacy. Y2K is the classic example, but it also happens with epidemic warnings, most recently with swine flu - if a Government doesn't vaccinate and there's an epidemic, they get blamed. But if they do vaccinate, then even if the risk was genuine, and even if epidemic is averted due to the vaccination, they still get blamed for scaremongering and wasting resources.
Imagine if people warned of the problem, and a load of money was spent fixing things so we moved to IPv6 in time, and no problems occurred. Would it be hailed as a great success? Of course not - lay people would just be going for years afterwards "Oh, remember all that nonsense about the IPv4 problem, and then nothing happened?"
In any job I've worked at, as well as anything I do in my spare time, my "programming" also involved developing the algorithm to do a certain task.
I can see that some simple programming jobs might not need you to develop algorithms. But for those companies that need that - are there really companies where they hire separate computer scientists and programmers, where the former explains the algorithm than the programmer simply does the laborious work of translating algorithms to code?
If you want to talk about maths professors, it's like suggesting we have one guy who works out the maths, and another one who translates that into the mathematical notation...
I support space travel, but this makes no sense. What's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth?
If it's land (either to live on, or to grow food), you're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica, than other planets. If it's resources like oil, I'm not sure what good other planets will do.
Yeah, I'm sure they never considered that. Obviously if only they'd considered that, we'd be there by now. Another thing they haven't considered is ships equipped with warp engines.
(And anyhow, many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander. No, the mothership isn't the size of a space station with artificial gravity, but given how much it's taken to just build a straightforward space station, perhaps this isn't quite so straightforward.)
It appears that many of the/. are the bigoted holier-than-thou atheist types. Question the religions and the religious. But please stay tolerant of them and show respect.
Can you give me an example, on Slashdot, of a comment that's evidence of a bigoted, intolerant, disrespectful atheist?
Some people here on Slashdot think that every phone is made by Apple or maybe Google...
I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason
I don't think there's any evidence that people in the UK think it's 911 from watching US TV. The more likely reason is that it simply makes good sense, for anyone who happens to be travelling to the UK.
You should have mailed it back all blown up, with a picture of an alien pasted onto it, revealed in the reflection of its eyeball. That's what always happened in The X Files, at least.
Well, the phone was invented over 100 years before the Almighty Iphone came and revolutionised the world, so I presume they've already had time to think things through.
Of course religions have long been preaching. But religion has power even when many people haven't read most of the Bible and don't go to church regularly. What they actually say is often filtered by the media, sometimes to their advantage, and sometimes not. It would be useful to see better what they are actually saying.
Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?
No, it's quite clear that reason (who said anything about nasty comments?) rarely works to persuade theists. But equally, what do they think they're going to get out of it?
I also interpreted his statement not just as meaning atheists, but for the religious too. If someone reads the Bible, they can't question it. If a priest preaches, the followers don't have a say. I do think it may be a better thing if, even without any input from atheists, there is more discussion between religious people on an equal level, rather than just a few who tell others what they should believe.
I have no idea if discussions online with atheists ever help persuade theists. But it's not like before atheists ever could rush into churches and start pointing out the flaws.
And look how right that article was - remember that was about the first Iphone model, which sold very little. Even for Apple's mobile phone share as a whole now, whilst I concede it's not right to say "largely fail" (they're still making money and selling them), he did get it spot on with his main point, that it wouldn't be the success of the Ipod, and I think for the reasons he gave.
But the sad thing is that some people on Slashdot seriously believe that the Iphone is another Ipod. Indeed, I predict I'll get replies to my comment from people arguing blue in the face that the Iphone is market leader, and as successful in the phone market as the Ipod is in the mp3 market, completely oblivious to actual market facts.
Given that they're market share is still 40% (including in the so-called "smartphone" market), that's an odd definition of "everyone".
N900 is lovely (ish) - the problem is that the market they're trying to sell it to isn't even thinking about Nokia any more. Majority split between Blackberry/IPhone. Minority with bit more geekery in their pocket are currently deciding between a re-skinned WinMo (e.g. HD2) or Android (Nexus1, Droid).
Where on earth are you pulling these figures from? Nokia's mainstream current phone line is the 5800 and N97 btw, and they appear to be selling fine from what I've read.
just I can't think of a single Nokia in the last 5+ years I've even considered purchasing.
Ah I see, your source for these stats is your own personal purchasing history:)
Now sure, I'm no fan of monopolies - I think it's a good thing for more companies to be growing in the market, and for there to be less of a dominance from one company. But Apple are far from the only other company to rival them, and in fact they're way behind several other companies that are competing with Nokia. And either way, that doesn't change my point - the coverage on Slashdot is as if Apple are number 1, and as if they were that way from the very first Iphone (which sold hardly anything).
Yes, that's what he said. It's a tax on watching TV - whether it's the BBC or not. No you don't have to watch TV, but I don't have to do any of the things that people pay taxes on - that's irrelevant.
I also like the BBC, but what is it with this delusion that the licence fee isn't compulsory? By that argument, no tax is compulsory, because they can only be related to something that you "choose" to do.
The BBC also have plenty of adverts for their own material. Not to mention that classic BBC shows are flogged off to UKTV Gold, so I've paid the licence, I have to pay for UKTV Gold, and I still have to watch adverts on top.
I like the BBC, but please don't make false or delusional claims about them.
If we complain to the BBC, they will listen
I think people's experience varies. I've written to them a few times on the same issue, regarding biased coverage of a Government law. The BBC News responded positively, and changed their coverage to reflect criticisms rather than just the Government spin point of view. But Radio 4, who had programmes solely dedicated to letting the pro-Government viewpoint have their say, were hopeless - my complaint went only to the person responsible for their show, who just defended it, ignored my points, and there seems to use in a complaint if no one else sees it other than the person who did the show you had a problem with. Even when people then decided to post comments on the Radio 4 messageboards specifically dedicated for that purpose, the mods came and closed down the threads. BBC News are generally good. But that doesn't mean that everyone's experience with the BBC will be great.
Feel free to tell them to fuck off, too. They have no powers, and resort to imitidation, threats, fraudulent claims, in order to get money out of anyone not in their database (or in some cases as I experienced, even if you have already paid). If they turn up with a search warrant, then feel free show them, otherwise remember that you are not obliged to prove your innocence.
Nokia have their Ovi Store too, and plenty of other phone manufacturers, not to mention the networks too. The difference is you can choose where to go, rather than only having one option, of course.
Don't receive live TV broadcasts and you won't ever have to pay it.
Oh I see. It's just like the non-compulsory road tax I don't have to pay, and the voluntary VAT I only pay when I choose to buy something, the voluntary stamp duty I've just paid on my new house that I chose to buy, and the voluntary income tax I pay when I choose to earn some money. Are there any taxes that are compulsory, by your logic?
Indeed - and the same for any Nokia phone, or indeed any other phone:/ It's only Apple that gets coverage, with occasional reference to Google or maybe RIM, despite these being three of the smallest players in the market.
Slashdot didn't even cover phones before Apple decided to make one. Heaven forbid if Apple decided to make something like, I don't know, a Fridge. I can see it now - daily Slashdot stories about the almight iFrIdGe, awash with comments about how it's yet another amazing first because, although fridges did exist before them, people didn't really use them until Apple came along and it's better than other fridges because of *something mumble mumble I can't quite explain why*.
We'd then have people talking as if Apple were the number 1 fridge company, even if the reality was that the number of Apple fridges was about 1%. They'd only acknowledge competitors if Google joined in and released their own fridge too.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, this essay misses the most obvious answer: that it simply isn't true. Let's take a look:
millions of designers, musicians, and other creative professionals love their Apple products
True, like many companies, they've sold millions of products and these people love their products.
Although less clear is whether there are millions that fall into the category of "creative profession".
Apple brand is almost synonymous with free-thinking creativity
Not at all true. Where did they pluck this nonsense from? And if they immediately notice the contradiction, then surely this is a proof-by-contradiction that the claim isn't true in the first place. But instead, they blindly assume it to be true, and then make up all sorts of assertions to try to explain it away.
It's like the Apple version of the Problem of Evil.
It's also misleading to compare only to open source. Most commercial companies don't try to milk the media with rumours whilst maintaining secrecy - and hence are more open. And most closed source platforms including Windows are more open, in that the company doesn't get to choose what I run on my own damn hardware. Remember the fuss on Slashdot about Vista and DRM? Yet with Apple, Slashdot posters lap the Iphone right up!
I'm surprised we 're not having a new Y2K-esque freak-out over this already.
Probably because of all the idiots who now think that Y2K was some big hoax, because "nothing happened". The sad thing is that, if we run into trouble with IPv4, these people will be first in line moaning about the experts not being able to fix things in time...
(heck, more effort was put into the digital TV switch than seems to be going into IPv6 switch).
That's a good point. But I suppose that Governments are able to make money from it, by selling off those parts of the spectrum. Moreover, most of the effort is simply in the form of educating people to buy a new box.
The other problem is that if people are proactive about fixing things beforehand, rather than be grateful, other people then just ridicule: "All that money got spent fixing it, and then nothing happened", which misses the obvious point that maybe nothing happened because it was fixed.
I've seen it on here, even geeks aren't immune to this fallacy. Y2K is the classic example, but it also happens with epidemic warnings, most recently with swine flu - if a Government doesn't vaccinate and there's an epidemic, they get blamed. But if they do vaccinate, then even if the risk was genuine, and even if epidemic is averted due to the vaccination, they still get blamed for scaremongering and wasting resources.
Imagine if people warned of the problem, and a load of money was spent fixing things so we moved to IPv6 in time, and no problems occurred. Would it be hailed as a great success? Of course not - lay people would just be going for years afterwards "Oh, remember all that nonsense about the IPv4 problem, and then nothing happened?"
In any job I've worked at, as well as anything I do in my spare time, my "programming" also involved developing the algorithm to do a certain task.
I can see that some simple programming jobs might not need you to develop algorithms. But for those companies that need that - are there really companies where they hire separate computer scientists and programmers, where the former explains the algorithm than the programmer simply does the laborious work of translating algorithms to code?
If you want to talk about maths professors, it's like suggesting we have one guy who works out the maths, and another one who translates that into the mathematical notation...
A "simple app constructor" would be a killer app for any platform.
I support space travel, but this makes no sense. What's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth?
If it's land (either to live on, or to grow food), you're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica, than other planets. If it's resources like oil, I'm not sure what good other planets will do.
Yeah, I'm sure they never considered that. Obviously if only they'd considered that, we'd be there by now. Another thing they haven't considered is ships equipped with warp engines.
(And anyhow, many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander. No, the mothership isn't the size of a space station with artificial gravity, but given how much it's taken to just build a straightforward space station, perhaps this isn't quite so straightforward.)
Did they create a GUI interface to track some IP addresses?
It appears that many of the /. are the bigoted holier-than-thou atheist types. Question the religions and the religious. But please stay tolerant of them and show respect.
Can you give me an example, on Slashdot, of a comment that's evidence of a bigoted, intolerant, disrespectful atheist?
Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.
Some people here on Slashdot think that every phone is made by Apple or maybe Google...
I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason
I don't think there's any evidence that people in the UK think it's 911 from watching US TV. The more likely reason is that it simply makes good sense, for anyone who happens to be travelling to the UK.
You should have mailed it back all blown up, with a picture of an alien pasted onto it, revealed in the reflection of its eyeball. That's what always happened in The X Files, at least.
Can you point me to the bit where he called for CSI to be criminalised?
He didn't. Asking for accuracy doesn't mean you're calling for censorship. FWIW, I'm all for more accuracy in violent video games, too...
Yeah, those hateful arrogant atheists! Just look at what they get up to!: http://www.cianboland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/militancy.jpg
Well, the phone was invented over 100 years before the Almighty Iphone came and revolutionised the world, so I presume they've already had time to think things through.
Of course religions have long been preaching. But religion has power even when many people haven't read most of the Bible and don't go to church regularly. What they actually say is often filtered by the media, sometimes to their advantage, and sometimes not. It would be useful to see better what they are actually saying.
Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?
No, it's quite clear that reason (who said anything about nasty comments?) rarely works to persuade theists. But equally, what do they think they're going to get out of it?
I also interpreted his statement not just as meaning atheists, but for the religious too. If someone reads the Bible, they can't question it. If a priest preaches, the followers don't have a say. I do think it may be a better thing if, even without any input from atheists, there is more discussion between religious people on an equal level, rather than just a few who tell others what they should believe.
I have no idea if discussions online with atheists ever help persuade theists. But it's not like before atheists ever could rush into churches and start pointing out the flaws.
Hehe. Here it is: http://news.cnet.com/2010-1041_3-6141607.html
And look how right that article was - remember that was about the first Iphone model, which sold very little. Even for Apple's mobile phone share as a whole now, whilst I concede it's not right to say "largely fail" (they're still making money and selling them), he did get it spot on with his main point, that it wouldn't be the success of the Ipod, and I think for the reasons he gave.
But the sad thing is that some people on Slashdot seriously believe that the Iphone is another Ipod. Indeed, I predict I'll get replies to my comment from people arguing blue in the face that the Iphone is market leader, and as successful in the phone market as the Ipod is in the mp3 market, completely oblivious to actual market facts.
that everybody had given up on them.
Given that they're market share is still 40% (including in the so-called "smartphone" market), that's an odd definition of "everyone".
N900 is lovely (ish) - the problem is that the market they're trying to sell it to isn't even thinking about Nokia any more. Majority split between Blackberry/IPhone. Minority with bit more geekery in their pocket are currently deciding between a re-skinned WinMo (e.g. HD2) or Android (Nexus1, Droid).
Where on earth are you pulling these figures from? Nokia's mainstream current phone line is the 5800 and N97 btw, and they appear to be selling fine from what I've read.
just I can't think of a single Nokia in the last 5+ years I've even considered purchasing.
Ah I see, your source for these stats is your own personal purchasing history :)
Now sure, I'm no fan of monopolies - I think it's a good thing for more companies to be growing in the market, and for there to be less of a dominance from one company. But Apple are far from the only other company to rival them, and in fact they're way behind several other companies that are competing with Nokia. And either way, that doesn't change my point - the coverage on Slashdot is as if Apple are number 1, and as if they were that way from the very first Iphone (which sold hardly anything).
But the experts say there's nothing to worry about with the LHC.
Cheaper version of the Apple iSlate tablet, I thought. Who cares about why - it's a gadget! Hype it up!
Yes, that's what he said. It's a tax on watching TV - whether it's the BBC or not. No you don't have to watch TV, but I don't have to do any of the things that people pay taxes on - that's irrelevant.
I also like the BBC, but what is it with this delusion that the licence fee isn't compulsory? By that argument, no tax is compulsory, because they can only be related to something that you "choose" to do.
The BBC also have plenty of adverts for their own material. Not to mention that classic BBC shows are flogged off to UKTV Gold, so I've paid the licence, I have to pay for UKTV Gold, and I still have to watch adverts on top.
I like the BBC, but please don't make false or delusional claims about them.
If we complain to the BBC, they will listen
I think people's experience varies. I've written to them a few times on the same issue, regarding biased coverage of a Government law. The BBC News responded positively, and changed their coverage to reflect criticisms rather than just the Government spin point of view. But Radio 4, who had programmes solely dedicated to letting the pro-Government viewpoint have their say, were hopeless - my complaint went only to the person responsible for their show, who just defended it, ignored my points, and there seems to use in a complaint if no one else sees it other than the person who did the show you had a problem with. Even when people then decided to post comments on the Radio 4 messageboards specifically dedicated for that purpose, the mods came and closed down the threads. BBC News are generally good. But that doesn't mean that everyone's experience with the BBC will be great.
Agreed, but just to add:
you should be able to convince them.
Feel free to tell them to fuck off, too. They have no powers, and resort to imitidation, threats, fraudulent claims, in order to get money out of anyone not in their database (or in some cases as I experienced, even if you have already paid). If they turn up with a search warrant, then feel free show them, otherwise remember that you are not obliged to prove your innocence.
You could end up like this guy: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm :)
(FWIW, I think the BBC is generally a fine thing to pay for; but I have no respect for the way the TV Licensing people conduct themselves.)
I'm sure we'll probably see safe app repositories for Android in short order though
Already exists: http://www.android.com/market/
Nokia have their Ovi Store too, and plenty of other phone manufacturers, not to mention the networks too. The difference is you can choose where to go, rather than only having one option, of course.
By the way the tax isn't compulsory.
Last time I looked it was.
Don't receive live TV broadcasts and you won't ever have to pay it.
Oh I see. It's just like the non-compulsory road tax I don't have to pay, and the voluntary VAT I only pay when I choose to buy something, the voluntary stamp duty I've just paid on my new house that I chose to buy, and the voluntary income tax I pay when I choose to earn some money. Are there any taxes that are compulsory, by your logic?
Indeed - and the same for any Nokia phone, or indeed any other phone :/ It's only Apple that gets coverage, with occasional reference to Google or maybe RIM, despite these being three of the smallest players in the market.
Slashdot didn't even cover phones before Apple decided to make one. Heaven forbid if Apple decided to make something like, I don't know, a Fridge. I can see it now - daily Slashdot stories about the almight iFrIdGe, awash with comments about how it's yet another amazing first because, although fridges did exist before them, people didn't really use them until Apple came along and it's better than other fridges because of *something mumble mumble I can't quite explain why*.
We'd then have people talking as if Apple were the number 1 fridge company, even if the reality was that the number of Apple fridges was about 1%. They'd only acknowledge competitors if Google joined in and released their own fridge too.