How do you know? Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site? Or did you have someone who knows what they hell they're doing to a trademark and patent search. I suspect it's the former because the latter costs money, which you complained about not having, and can be done by an attorney who could also answer your questions.
Well, this is the problem with software patents in general.
This problem doesn't apply solely to making a "game clone" - a risk of infringing a patent on software applies to any software one writes, even if you think it's entirely unique and original. Does every hobbyist programmer run their code past a lawyer everytime they release something for free? (I'm glad I live in the UK.)
Did all the companies writing FPS games contact ID for permission to make Doom/Quake clones? What about the various Civilization clones (FreeCiv, but also the commercial clone Call To Power)?
If you don't believe you're infringing, I fear the problem with this approach is that you're scoring an own goal by admitting you copied their work. And they have no reason to say yes, so chances are they'd say no.
It depends on what is meant by a "clone" of course - storylines and characters can be copied. But remember that simply ideas cannot (AFAIK, IANAL).
Spam box doesn't have to mean "I'll never look at it again" - it can mean a less important web address, that doesn't matter if you one day have to ditch t
There's no reason why I should have to use my ISP's account for a job. We're not talking about your employer - we're talking about a potential employer.
Also remember that it's not just companies you're applying for, but all manner of recruitment agencies and so on that you might sign up for. Don't come crying to me when you get spam.
And how do you know what people's main email address is, and what they're less important ones are? AOL has a bad image, yes, but if we're extending that to hotmail, why not any web address such as yahoo or gmail?
What if I used my cantab address - only available to Cambridge graduates - is that a bad image too, because it's not my real address?
I spend hours every day looking at a computer screen yes, but I'm also needing to take regular breaks (which are recommended for everyone, before you suggest my eyes have a problem).
I'd also argue that looking at video or computer games requires less attention that reading text continually. Even when I'm doing programming at my job, there's a lot of either typing, or thinking, but not much in the way of continual reading.
The amount of time I read from a computer screen is only a fraction of that time. On top of that, on occasions it can be tiring to be looking at a screen all day along, when that happens, I can go and do something else... like read a book. But what good is it when this applies to reading a book too?
As for your desired device, the most obvious question is, can those video mp3 players also display ebooks? If so, that's your device. No, they don't cost $20, but there's no evidence to suggets they could be made that cheaply. And there's also no reason to think they'd be cheaper if they stripped the mp3 functionality from them (and ebook readers tend to have mp3 functionality in them, anyway).
And it would be slashvertising if it was only one or a few companies that were ever mentioned.
Whilst I agree that different people have different needs:
Thus to the person with the iphone, and a 17" macbook pro, feature phones look stupid and braindead
To a person with an Iphone, phones look stupid? The Iphone is a phone, just another phone, the distinction between "smart" phone and "feature" phone is rather arbitrary and a matter of opinion.
The OP was talking about different kinds of products - ebook reader versus mp3 player, perhaps another analogy might be camera versus phone, e.g., the person with a cameraless dumb phone might wonder why people want phones with cameras. I don't think this argument extends to two particular models in the same market - all feature phones, including the Iphone, cover the same type of functions (phone, mp3s, camera, Internet access, running applications).
This is something that is far more unlikely to happen on the iPhone because of Apple's strict control and testing of all apps. Even the "jailbreak" stores will reject things that aren't as advertised.
Citation needed that Apple's testing is greater than Google's? This isn't some random website, it's the official Google store, and they can and do reject applications.
And what's a "jailbreak" store - surely if an Iphone is hacked, it can run applications from anywhere, and there's no reason to think their testing is any better than any other 3rd party store for any platform?
I think people are missing the point here - this isn't about a malicious app on some random website, with people saying "Well it wouldn't happen with Apple, because you can only run what they allow you", it's about a product on Google's App Store.
AFAIK, they can and do control what goes on here - the problem was they failed to spot it.
So what this shows is that relying on app stores isn't necessarily safe after all - personally I prefer the freedom to download from where I like, as offered by Android, Symbian, Linux, Windows and every OS on the planet except You Know What.
The App Store, this would never have made it through.
On what basis do you make that claim? The problem is that this made it to the Android app store without them noticing it. The same could plausibly happen with Apple's app store too.
Whether or not one can run applications from somewhere else is irrelevant, as this is a case where the product made it to the official app store for that platform.
One can equally claim for Nokia, "The Ovi Store, this would never have made it through", and similarly for all other stores.
Citation? Has the Apple tablet moved beyond rumour yet?
Times must be tough for Intel if they're even getting turned don for non-existent vaporware. They'll have to focus their efforts on real products instead:)
Your comment ("the reason people ignore you is because you're a dick") is clearly a troll
TFA contains gems such as "they dont know shit", and "their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance".
So if that's anyone to go by, trolling shouldn't mean you get modded down, it should mean you get a front page Slashdot article...
Or I dunno, maybe you'd prefer having _only_ people who will point out errors when they see them working on it? How about your doctor? You want your operating room filled with maybe one smart guy who recognizes an error and six people who don't know any better? And you're saying that, when the smart guy recognizes the error and tries to point it out (no matter HOW he does it, though I'm betting the original poster isn't that much of an asshat at work), he's being a dick?
I wouldn't want to rely on someone who makes errors such as generalisations based on anecdotes, nor am I going to ever be persuaded by an argument that relies on ad hominems rather than reason.
He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more. The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.
And this applies to all programmers?
He's the one making generalisations based on anecdotal experiences, which is itself a poor practice in terms of statistics.
It's a perfectly fair point to say that many people need to understand statistics better (and it can be done without sounding like a snob), but there is no reason for him to target his rant at programmers. My degree was in mathematics, and I now work as a programmer in which I use mathematics - where do I fit into his box?
A programmer could just as easily write a pompous rant about "How statisticians need to understand computers better", based on a handful of anecdotes and generalisations.
I don't know why we're giving time to someone who's level of argument is "they dont know shit", and resorts to childish ad hominems of "their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance".
Statisticians need to learn about logical fallacies or I will kill them!
I don't think it's a problem when looking at the first smartphone however, as they predated feature phones. Originally you just had phones that could phone, text, and maybe do WAP. A clear question would be, when did the first appear that could run any arbitrary application (i.e., like a computer/PDA)?
These days that definition is meaningless of course, since all feature phones can run applications via Java. These days almost all phones are smartphones, except for perhaps the very cheapest. The only reason "smartphone" is used is as a marketing term - to make high end phones sound better, or in particular, it's used by Apple to artificially inflate the market share of the Iphone, by including their phone as a smartphone, but as you say, discounting phones from their competitors. The reality of Iphone market share is that it's less than 5%.
If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards)
The law does not say that. Thankfully we're not quite at the stage where what the RIAA say is law.
Yes, exactly. Clearly the article isn't talking about people giving up their own privacy. The Max Mosley case wasn't about someone posting pics of their own S&M scene, and then suing themselves for invading their own privacy, after all...
I haven't read the article yet, but that's what I would be wondering about.
Unfortunately the article talks about various things, and it's unclear what the academic is actually saying, and what's just random additions by the journalists of things she thinks are relevant. But yes, it mentions the Mosley case - the case there was far more of an invasion of privacy than pics at a party on Facebook, but it was the same kind of idea: photos put up by someone of a private scene without your consent, and it being linked with libellous accusations.
I think it depends what laws we're talking about. For civil invasion of privacy cases (TFA mentions the Mosley case, for example), I can see it making sense. Consider, someone takes a photo of you at a private party, and posts it online. You sue them for invasion of privacy because they refuse to take it down. I can see that this is far less likely to succeed, because there's a reasonable expectation these days that photos end up on the Internet (certainly, if you know someone's taking a photo, you should assume this, and ask them not to if you're not okay with that). I still don't think this is much of a concern - the Mosley case involved people intentionally secretly filming an S&M scene, and then a newspaper publishing them those for profit. Just because people post party pics on Facebook, doesn't mean people post those kind of party pics on Facebook.
OTOH, I agree that it's ridiculous to apply this concept to the passing of new laws, or other cases. The BBC article is next to useless here - it's unclear what the academic actually said, and what is just opinion/speculation by the journalist.
I think it's also important to note that, AIUI, America has less in the way of privacy law. The Europe, it's part of the European Convention on Human Rights. In America, the balance between freedom of speech versus right to privacy is more likely to be weighed towards the former.
Indeed, I can't hope noting that whenever there are cases of the kind I describe - privacy versus free speech - the overwhelming consensus on Slashdot it in favour of allowing the images online, and against anyone who tries to sue them over privacy.
if its on the iPhone its probably got more games sold than the Windows, Mac, Linux and XBox platforms put together.
Citation needed, please?
Mobile (and web) is still the growth area for all development, if you target tired old Windows desktop apps, you're effectively working in a niche area that will see your skills obsolete over time.
There are plenty of Windows netbooks out there last time I looked. And if I was looking at mobile phones, I'd pick a platform that actually had market share, such as Java or Symbian.
Was the poster you replied to an OpenGL developer?
Comparing random people to a company makes no sense. There are just as many people who flame in favour of DirectX against OpenGL too. Yourself, for example:
they insult the user and stick their heads back in their asses.
You are, in fact, helping to prove the GP's point: when OpenGL developers hear that their documentation sucks, they'll work on it an improve it. When Microsoft people hear that something sucks, they insult the user and stick their heads back in their asses...
(FWIW: I use DirectX and OpenGL, and these days prefer the former - but these childish flamewars from Microsoft fans give us all a bad name. Give it a rest, please.)
I agree that DirectX has lots of things going for it over OpenGL these days, but:
2) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds, networking, fonts, input processing, and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before (relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare)
That's a poor argument. OpenGL is only meant to be a rendering API. There are plenty of alternatives to do the other things, and moreover, there's nothing stopping using OpenGL with DirectX for the other aspects. You're comparing apples to oranges. If I want an API to do a specific job, it doesn't make sense to criticise it on other issues.
And doing 2D graphics via a separate API was a poor design decision that ultimately turned out to be the wrong way of doing things, and now they've had to go the 3D route, just like OpenGL did all along.
5) DirectX was easy to pick up, and everyone supported it. If it's easy to pick up for beginners, they'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional (the same thing as why Adobe doesn't really care about home users Photoshop piracy)
Was? Older versions of DirectX were a complete pain in the arse to pick up. Thankfully they've fixed it up so it's now as easy as OpenGL. But I'm not sure how it's easier?
The biggest reasons why DirectX is winning are not what you list:
* DirectX has a lot less legacy API lying around, due to the major changes that are made at each version. This means it's a lot easier for users to know what method they should be using to do things - it's a lot easier to hit the fast path.
* DirectX seems to generally have better driver support than OpenGL.
Apple is a lifestyle brand now. The view that their growth is driven by the hard core of designers and fan boys is outdated.
That doesn't make sense - you're arguing they don't sell to fans, but saying they're a lifestyle brand? I want a computer that just works, and not something that's a "lifestyle brand".
They don't need it anymore. They're front-page news in major newspapers
Apple have always been front page news. They've always been given undeserved amounts of hype, independent of how much market share they actually have - just look at the Iphone. But it's been this way for decades. I imagine it stems for the Mac being traditionally more popular in DTP, so the journalists who write the news are more likely to be Apple fans, and then assume that everyone else must be too.
have product placements in all the most popular shows, movies, and magazines
You do realise that product placement is a form of advertising? Yes, Apple, like most companies, advertise. And obviously they prefer to advertise in popular shows etc. Your point?
Likewise, most Macs sold today will never run Photoshop.
Most Macs today aren't Macs. They're Apple PCs with a "Mac" trademark. Apple may still be around, but the PC won, and custom technologies like Mac hardware and classic MacOS were ditched long ago.
And the irony is, it's the PC which is what actually people use now for fun (and work), whilst the main use of the Mac has always been as a (niche) work computer.
Anecdotes are not evidence. I'd have thought most people on Slashdot would get this. But once again, we see the mod abuse: factual information is modded down because it disagrees with the worldview of an Apple fan, whilst your anec
Let's see market share data. Have they breached even 10% yet? And if you're a mod reading this, have the decency to respond with a rational argument, rather than modding down just because you can't bear that some posts an argument that you are incapable of refuting.
By this childhood reasoning, I might as well claim that Amigas aren't a niche, because I have a load in my room. Which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know? Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site? Or did you have someone who knows what they hell they're doing to a trademark and patent search. I suspect it's the former because the latter costs money, which you complained about not having, and can be done by an attorney who could also answer your questions.
Well, this is the problem with software patents in general.
This problem doesn't apply solely to making a "game clone" - a risk of infringing a patent on software applies to any software one writes, even if you think it's entirely unique and original. Does every hobbyist programmer run their code past a lawyer everytime they release something for free? (I'm glad I live in the UK.)
Did all the companies writing FPS games contact ID for permission to make Doom/Quake clones? What about the various Civilization clones (FreeCiv, but also the commercial clone Call To Power)?
If you don't believe you're infringing, I fear the problem with this approach is that you're scoring an own goal by admitting you copied their work. And they have no reason to say yes, so chances are they'd say no.
It depends on what is meant by a "clone" of course - storylines and characters can be copied. But remember that simply ideas cannot (AFAIK, IANAL).
Spam box doesn't have to mean "I'll never look at it again" - it can mean a less important web address, that doesn't matter if you one day have to ditch t
There's no reason why I should have to use my ISP's account for a job. We're not talking about your employer - we're talking about a potential employer.
Also remember that it's not just companies you're applying for, but all manner of recruitment agencies and so on that you might sign up for. Don't come crying to me when you get spam.
And how do you know what people's main email address is, and what they're less important ones are? AOL has a bad image, yes, but if we're extending that to hotmail, why not any web address such as yahoo or gmail?
What if I used my cantab address - only available to Cambridge graduates - is that a bad image too, because it's not my real address?
I spend hours every day looking at a computer screen yes, but I'm also needing to take regular breaks (which are recommended for everyone, before you suggest my eyes have a problem).
I'd also argue that looking at video or computer games requires less attention that reading text continually. Even when I'm doing programming at my job, there's a lot of either typing, or thinking, but not much in the way of continual reading.
The amount of time I read from a computer screen is only a fraction of that time. On top of that, on occasions it can be tiring to be looking at a screen all day along, when that happens, I can go and do something else ... like read a book. But what good is it when this applies to reading a book too?
As for your desired device, the most obvious question is, can those video mp3 players also display ebooks? If so, that's your device. No, they don't cost $20, but there's no evidence to suggets they could be made that cheaply. And there's also no reason to think they'd be cheaper if they stripped the mp3 functionality from them (and ebook readers tend to have mp3 functionality in them, anyway).
And it would be slashvertising if it was only one or a few companies that were ever mentioned.
Whilst I agree that different people have different needs:
Thus to the person with the iphone, and a 17" macbook pro, feature phones look stupid and braindead
To a person with an Iphone, phones look stupid? The Iphone is a phone, just another phone, the distinction between "smart" phone and "feature" phone is rather arbitrary and a matter of opinion.
The OP was talking about different kinds of products - ebook reader versus mp3 player, perhaps another analogy might be camera versus phone, e.g., the person with a cameraless dumb phone might wonder why people want phones with cameras. I don't think this argument extends to two particular models in the same market - all feature phones, including the Iphone, cover the same type of functions (phone, mp3s, camera, Internet access, running applications).
For those into 3D graphics, there are plenty of programming books that use colour too...
This is something that is far more unlikely to happen on the iPhone because of Apple's strict control and testing of all apps. Even the "jailbreak" stores will reject things that aren't as advertised.
Citation needed that Apple's testing is greater than Google's? This isn't some random website, it's the official Google store, and they can and do reject applications.
And what's a "jailbreak" store - surely if an Iphone is hacked, it can run applications from anywhere, and there's no reason to think their testing is any better than any other 3rd party store for any platform?
I think people are missing the point here - this isn't about a malicious app on some random website, with people saying "Well it wouldn't happen with Apple, because you can only run what they allow you", it's about a product on Google's App Store.
AFAIK, they can and do control what goes on here - the problem was they failed to spot it.
So what this shows is that relying on app stores isn't necessarily safe after all - personally I prefer the freedom to download from where I like, as offered by Android, Symbian, Linux, Windows and every OS on the planet except You Know What.
The App Store, this would never have made it through.
On what basis do you make that claim? The problem is that this made it to the Android app store without them noticing it. The same could plausibly happen with Apple's app store too.
Whether or not one can run applications from somewhere else is irrelevant, as this is a case where the product made it to the official app store for that platform.
One can equally claim for Nokia, "The Ovi Store, this would never have made it through", and similarly for all other stores.
Malware is only going to grow on Android.
Evidence please?
To be fair, the Iphone comparison was introduced in TFS.
It would be nice to have a story about a mobile phone that didn't include the obligitary Iphone comparison Slashvertisement, though.
Citation? Has the Apple tablet moved beyond rumour yet?
Times must be tough for Intel if they're even getting turned don for non-existent vaporware. They'll have to focus their efforts on real products instead :)
Your comment ("the reason people ignore you is because you're a dick") is clearly a troll
TFA contains gems such as "they dont know shit", and "their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance".
So if that's anyone to go by, trolling shouldn't mean you get modded down, it should mean you get a front page Slashdot article...
Or I dunno, maybe you'd prefer having _only_ people who will point out errors when they see them working on it? How about your doctor? You want your operating room filled with maybe one smart guy who recognizes an error and six people who don't know any better? And you're saying that, when the smart guy recognizes the error and tries to point it out (no matter HOW he does it, though I'm betting the original poster isn't that much of an asshat at work), he's being a dick?
I wouldn't want to rely on someone who makes errors such as generalisations based on anecdotes, nor am I going to ever be persuaded by an argument that relies on ad hominems rather than reason.
He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more. The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.
And this applies to all programmers?
He's the one making generalisations based on anecdotal experiences, which is itself a poor practice in terms of statistics.
It's a perfectly fair point to say that many people need to understand statistics better (and it can be done without sounding like a snob), but there is no reason for him to target his rant at programmers. My degree was in mathematics, and I now work as a programmer in which I use mathematics - where do I fit into his box?
A programmer could just as easily write a pompous rant about "How statisticians need to understand computers better", based on a handful of anecdotes and generalisations.
I don't know why we're giving time to someone who's level of argument is "they dont know shit", and resorts to childish ad hominems of "their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance".
Statisticians need to learn about logical fallacies or I will kill them!
I agree about the definition of smartphone.
I don't think it's a problem when looking at the first smartphone however, as they predated feature phones. Originally you just had phones that could phone, text, and maybe do WAP. A clear question would be, when did the first appear that could run any arbitrary application (i.e., like a computer/PDA)?
These days that definition is meaningless of course, since all feature phones can run applications via Java. These days almost all phones are smartphones, except for perhaps the very cheapest. The only reason "smartphone" is used is as a marketing term - to make high end phones sound better, or in particular, it's used by Apple to artificially inflate the market share of the Iphone, by including their phone as a smartphone, but as you say, discounting phones from their competitors. The reality of Iphone market share is that it's less than 5%.
If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards)
The law does not say that. Thankfully we're not quite at the stage where what the RIAA say is law.
Yes, exactly. Clearly the article isn't talking about people giving up their own privacy. The Max Mosley case wasn't about someone posting pics of their own S&M scene, and then suing themselves for invading their own privacy, after all...
I haven't read the article yet, but that's what I would be wondering about.
Unfortunately the article talks about various things, and it's unclear what the academic is actually saying, and what's just random additions by the journalists of things she thinks are relevant. But yes, it mentions the Mosley case - the case there was far more of an invasion of privacy than pics at a party on Facebook, but it was the same kind of idea: photos put up by someone of a private scene without your consent, and it being linked with libellous accusations.
I think it depends what laws we're talking about. For civil invasion of privacy cases (TFA mentions the Mosley case, for example), I can see it making sense. Consider, someone takes a photo of you at a private party, and posts it online. You sue them for invasion of privacy because they refuse to take it down. I can see that this is far less likely to succeed, because there's a reasonable expectation these days that photos end up on the Internet (certainly, if you know someone's taking a photo, you should assume this, and ask them not to if you're not okay with that). I still don't think this is much of a concern - the Mosley case involved people intentionally secretly filming an S&M scene, and then a newspaper publishing them those for profit. Just because people post party pics on Facebook, doesn't mean people post those kind of party pics on Facebook.
OTOH, I agree that it's ridiculous to apply this concept to the passing of new laws, or other cases. The BBC article is next to useless here - it's unclear what the academic actually said, and what is just opinion/speculation by the journalist.
I think it's also important to note that, AIUI, America has less in the way of privacy law. The Europe, it's part of the European Convention on Human Rights. In America, the balance between freedom of speech versus right to privacy is more likely to be weighed towards the former.
Indeed, I can't hope noting that whenever there are cases of the kind I describe - privacy versus free speech - the overwhelming consensus on Slashdot it in favour of allowing the images online, and against anyone who tries to sue them over privacy.
Facebook is actually one of the better places, in that it allows people to set privacy controls.
However people were posting pictures on the web - that could be viewed by absolutely anyone - long before Facebook came around.
And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.
Aww, diddums, says the guy who has to post on Slashdot.
if its on the iPhone its probably got more games sold than the Windows, Mac, Linux and XBox platforms put together.
Citation needed, please?
Mobile (and web) is still the growth area for all development, if you target tired old Windows desktop apps, you're effectively working in a niche area that will see your skills obsolete over time.
There are plenty of Windows netbooks out there last time I looked. And if I was looking at mobile phones, I'd pick a platform that actually had market share, such as Java or Symbian.
Was the poster you replied to an OpenGL developer?
Comparing random people to a company makes no sense. There are just as many people who flame in favour of DirectX against OpenGL too. Yourself, for example:
they insult the user and stick their heads back in their asses.
You are, in fact, helping to prove the GP's point: when OpenGL developers hear that their documentation sucks, they'll work on it an improve it. When Microsoft people hear that something sucks, they insult the user and stick their heads back in their asses...
(FWIW: I use DirectX and OpenGL, and these days prefer the former - but these childish flamewars from Microsoft fans give us all a bad name. Give it a rest, please.)
I use both, and find them as easy overall. Each is better than the other in different areas.
I agree that DirectX has lots of things going for it over OpenGL these days, but:
2) DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D drawing - sounds, networking, fonts, input processing, and it used to have an API for 2D graphics before (relevant because the story is about why DirectX gained marketshare)
That's a poor argument. OpenGL is only meant to be a rendering API. There are plenty of alternatives to do the other things, and moreover, there's nothing stopping using OpenGL with DirectX for the other aspects. You're comparing apples to oranges. If I want an API to do a specific job, it doesn't make sense to criticise it on other issues.
And doing 2D graphics via a separate API was a poor design decision that ultimately turned out to be the wrong way of doing things, and now they've had to go the 3D route, just like OpenGL did all along.
5) DirectX was easy to pick up, and everyone supported it. If it's easy to pick up for beginners, they'll learn it and continue using it later as a professional (the same thing as why Adobe doesn't really care about home users Photoshop piracy)
Was? Older versions of DirectX were a complete pain in the arse to pick up. Thankfully they've fixed it up so it's now as easy as OpenGL. But I'm not sure how it's easier?
The biggest reasons why DirectX is winning are not what you list:
* DirectX has a lot less legacy API lying around, due to the major changes that are made at each version. This means it's a lot easier for users to know what method they should be using to do things - it's a lot easier to hit the fast path.
* DirectX seems to generally have better driver support than OpenGL.
Apple is a lifestyle brand now. The view that their growth is driven by the hard core of designers and fan boys is outdated.
That doesn't make sense - you're arguing they don't sell to fans, but saying they're a lifestyle brand? I want a computer that just works, and not something that's a "lifestyle brand".
They don't need it anymore. They're front-page news in major newspapers
Apple have always been front page news. They've always been given undeserved amounts of hype, independent of how much market share they actually have - just look at the Iphone. But it's been this way for decades. I imagine it stems for the Mac being traditionally more popular in DTP, so the journalists who write the news are more likely to be Apple fans, and then assume that everyone else must be too.
have product placements in all the most popular shows, movies, and magazines
You do realise that product placement is a form of advertising? Yes, Apple, like most companies, advertise. And obviously they prefer to advertise in popular shows etc. Your point?
Likewise, most Macs sold today will never run Photoshop.
Most Macs today aren't Macs. They're Apple PCs with a "Mac" trademark. Apple may still be around, but the PC won, and custom technologies like Mac hardware and classic MacOS were ditched long ago.
And the irony is, it's the PC which is what actually people use now for fun (and work), whilst the main use of the Mac has always been as a (niche) work computer.
Anecdotes are not evidence. I'd have thought most people on Slashdot would get this. But once again, we see the mod abuse: factual information is modded down because it disagrees with the worldview of an Apple fan, whilst your anec
Let's see market share data. Have they breached even 10% yet? And if you're a mod reading this, have the decency to respond with a rational argument, rather than modding down just because you can't bear that some posts an argument that you are incapable of refuting.
By this childhood reasoning, I might as well claim that Amigas aren't a niche, because I have a load in my room. Which is it?