And I'm not advocating solely short term thinking (though many people do). All those things are perfectly reasonable, but they have to be shown to be done for the purpose of making money, not because you just want to do them.
But the term you'll want to start from is "fiduciary duty".
Of course a company can take more "pro consumer" policies, and donate to charity, but it has to justify those policies as working towards generating profits. If it can be reasonably shown that the officers aren't acting in the best financial interests of all the shareholders, any of them can sue, regardless of the desires of the majority.
It would be illegal for a company to give a full years profits to charity.
Is not just because they use DRM (don't be naive, if they told the record companies they'd either shut down or stop using DRM, they wouldn't let iTunes shut down). It's because they use DRM to prevent competition in the hardware market. Both in music players, and on desktops. There is absolutely no technical reason OS X can't run on Dells.
Apple has a legal obligation to act in the best financial interests of it's shareholders, regardless of what they actually want. Otherwise, stockholders could collude with each other to liquidate the company into their pockets at the expense of the minority.
Explicitly (as in, not in the small print on a piece of paper hidden in some packing material) agree to have their data shared, and further, they're paid for it.
You feel obliged to be more careful with it. There's a cost to having to be careful with something that people just don't want to pay.
There are other cost issues, as well. A $10 book provides more entertainment hours per dollar than a $20 DVD, and further you can buy it on a whim and use it immediately, without any other devices.
That effects other things too. You wouldn't be all that terribly upset if you dropped a paperback in the tub, or spilled some coffee on it, or left it on the bus. Further, you can manhandle books all you like without having to worry about them.
There's also the ego aspect. A large bookshelf looks much nicer than a folder of ebooks on your harddrive.
They'll take an old (stable, well tested) build, and backport any critical features/security fixes. This is a non-trivial task.
Debian, in my experience, just leaves the old build in place, leaving you stranded if you need a new feature. If it's only one or two things, sure, Debian would be fine. Usually it's much more than that, which throws Debian out of consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're claiming that Apple doesn't write software.
I'm not so sure about Jobs. Regardless, as soon as the accepted investment, they entered into an agreement to make as much return as possible.
By the way, Apple isn't a very innovative company. They tend to take the innovations of others, make them shiny, and sell them. Just like Microsoft.
And I'm not advocating solely short term thinking (though many people do). All those things are perfectly reasonable, but they have to be shown to be done for the purpose of making money, not because you just want to do them.
But the term you'll want to start from is "fiduciary duty".
Of course a company can take more "pro consumer" policies, and donate to charity, but it has to justify those policies as working towards generating profits. If it can be reasonably shown that the officers aren't acting in the best financial interests of all the shareholders, any of them can sue, regardless of the desires of the majority.
It would be illegal for a company to give a full years profits to charity.
They just are. They weren't created, they just happened. Corporations didn't just happen, they were created for a specific purpose.
Is not just because they use DRM (don't be naive, if they told the record companies they'd either shut down or stop using DRM, they wouldn't let iTunes shut down). It's because they use DRM to prevent competition in the hardware market. Both in music players, and on desktops. There is absolutely no technical reason OS X can't run on Dells.
Apple has a legal obligation to act in the best financial interests of it's shareholders, regardless of what they actually want. Otherwise, stockholders could collude with each other to liquidate the company into their pockets at the expense of the minority.
Since you hesitated to dupe.
That means no search warrants.
But I'm reasonably certain you don't actually sign a contract.
Explicitly (as in, not in the small print on a piece of paper hidden in some packing material) agree to have their data shared, and further, they're paid for it.
If the data "belongs" to anyone, it belongs to the viewers.
Bend over, I'll show you something stiffer than diamond.
You feel obliged to be more careful with it. There's a cost to having to be careful with something that people just don't want to pay.
There are other cost issues, as well. A $10 book provides more entertainment hours per dollar than a $20 DVD, and further you can buy it on a whim and use it immediately, without any other devices.
That effects other things too. You wouldn't be all that terribly upset if you dropped a paperback in the tub, or spilled some coffee on it, or left it on the bus. Further, you can manhandle books all you like without having to worry about them.
There's also the ego aspect. A large bookshelf looks much nicer than a folder of ebooks on your harddrive.
As are all other developed nations. Capitalism has been quite thoroughly proven to be unstable without a socialist government.
They encourage short term thinking, and don't consider broader issues.
It's less work.
That place is not my mailbox.
AFAIK, the only one that isn't is Bell.
However, I believe we have the right to demand locked phones be unlocked, so I'm not sure how that will play out.
They don't advertise it as X over Y years, they just say "Jackpot of X".
They'll take an old (stable, well tested) build, and backport any critical features/security fixes. This is a non-trivial task.
Debian, in my experience, just leaves the old build in place, leaving you stranded if you need a new feature. If it's only one or two things, sure, Debian would be fine. Usually it's much more than that, which throws Debian out of consideration.
If you're running Debian stable, almost all of your software will be quite out of date. Not just a little bit, but a lot.
If it's available to the networks, it's available to me on the internet, for free. I'd call that a revolution.