Well, any hosting company is going to lose customers on a monthly basis unless they only take yearly subscriptions. So what he was probably saying was though he have lost customers since making the deal, it's no more than the number that is normal for his business operations.
How do you know he isn't apologising for ethical reasons? You're assuming that he's trying to cut bacck on backlash and that he doesn't honestly believe he made a mistake of huge proportions and he's sorry for it.
Perhaps the issue isnt' with control, but with teh fact that Microsoft has shown time and again they will use that control to make your life hell. Apple has not.
Just a nitpick Mac 84 != Xerox 81. It may have been similar, but the Apple guys added a lot of their own work to it and it really was different and improved from the Xerox version, even the Xerox guys said so (and they should know, as a bunch moved to Apple)
There's also the fact that Apple has learned not all their products sell (see G4 cube and TAM. Neither sold well, and Apple had to cut pricing alot before they finaly killed it for dismal sales.
What's going on is that Apple is growing and selling faster than they thought they would. You have to realize for years Apple was operating with a mostly stable usebase, with predictable uptake. But every new OS release, every new product seems to bring in more and more new sales ontop of the existing base.
I suppose you'd have to decide what you mean by using windows as a second OS. I know I know semantic wars but here's what I mean.
I personaly do use windows on another computer. I own two computers one of which is my mac, the other is my PC. The PC has both Linux and Windows. I have it for the odd compatability issue (like my uni courses require a hardware emulator that is windows only, though I'm helping write the mac version) and for the occasional LAN game. But for the most part I could leave the computer in Linux all day if I wanted. The computer is mostly used as a file server and to watch movies and such on, and the only reason I don't do that on my mac is usualy because I already have the mac doing something else. So I could easily go a month without touching windows (I did so a few weeks back when windows decided it couldn't boot anymore)
On the otherhand, there are people who are tied down to windows whether it's a game they can't give up or can't get or an odd ball program. Those would be interesting to see the numbers of.
Or it could be that Adobe isn't filling the market demands anymore. The whole premeire thing vs. FCP might have a stance if FCP didn't have the uptake it did, but people were sick of premiere and gladly jumped ship. That says Adobe wasn't doing what the people using their products wanted. Remember, FCP wasn't bundled, people had to buy it.
Well why not? As a business owner, I am (should be) allowed to sell my products to whomever for whatever price they will bear. In this case, people are willing to bear a higher price to keep their privacy. However, for those customers that are willing to sell me some of their personal information, they wind up with a lower total price.
It's all an exchange. Don't think of it as a discount, think of it as selling info and taking that money and putting it towards your purchase.
what gives you the right to charge me more than the other guy over there?
Capitalism.
Under capitalism, you are allowed to sell your product for whatever price the market will bear. As it turns out, you're willing to bear a higher price.
Or look at it like this. When you bought your computer 2 years ago, it cost X. It now probably costs X/6 or som such figure. Is that unfair? Is it a scam?
I want cheap beer but there's a law about how much I can make.
But you can still make it yes?
I want cheap liquor but there's a law about how much I can distill and that's not even taking into consideration the OSHA safety regulations regarding a still.
But you can still make it yes?
I want cheap tobacco but there's a zoning regulation which prevent me from turning my backyard into a plantation. There's also the significant startup cost of buying a piece of property large enough to support reasonable yields for more than a few years in a row.
But had you made a better choice as to where you wanted to live you could still make it yes?
I want cheap grass but some knobhead in Washington made that flat-out illegal and then convinced the majority of the states to do the same.
You're right here
So basicaly, your complaint is, your barrier to entry into the market is preventing you from doing what you want to do. In otherword, your privacy is worth more than your discounts, but less than the costs of producing things yourself.
Look the suggestion data is all automated, and even if it wasn't, the best guesses they coulg get (without getting too specific) is you want:
Move Soundtracks 80's Music
There suggestions would then be chosen based on things which fit those criteria. Which Phil Collins does. Perhaps you should buy more punk from them so that their data looks like you want:
Slashdot Mirror
Well, any hosting company is going to lose customers on a monthly basis unless they only take yearly subscriptions. So what he was probably saying was though he have lost customers since making the deal, it's no more than the number that is normal for his business operations.
How do you know he isn't apologising for ethical reasons? You're assuming that he's trying to cut bacck on backlash and that he doesn't honestly believe he made a mistake of huge proportions and he's sorry for it.
Perhaps the issue isnt' with control, but with teh fact that Microsoft has shown time and again they will use that control to make your life hell. Apple has not.
This makes too much business sense...Therefore Jobs will not go for it. This has been Apple's history.
Followed by:
go after people selling legitimate apple ROMs just because they weren't running on Apple's computers (Emulators and such - go Amiga).
Remind me again which company is doing better? Seems to me Apple chose the options that make business sense.
I don't know, there's a trade off here. If they license the DRM to other music stores, They may increase iPod share, but not everyone wants iPods
On the otherhand, if they licence the decoder to hardware, they increase iTMS users.
But they can only do one or the other. if they do both, they lose their control
Mac OS 6.0
And yes it was better.
Just a nitpick Mac 84 != Xerox 81. It may have been similar, but the Apple guys added a lot of their own work to it and it really was different and improved from the Xerox version, even the Xerox guys said so (and they should know, as a bunch moved to Apple)
There's also the fact that Apple has learned not all their products sell (see G4 cube and TAM. Neither sold well, and Apple had to cut pricing alot before they finaly killed it for dismal sales.
Yeah cause we all know that geeks never spend money stuff they don't need
rip and zip?
Well of course you have to run with it, and the Lisa ran into the Mac which did well untill Apple started changing hands.
I fear for the day Steve Jobs calls it quits.
As for the Newton, it was just ahead of it's time.
You haven't looked at the new Dell laptop, the 17 inch powerbook, nextel phones or some of the recent palms have you?
You can easily fit 2.5 DAYS worth of music (with no repeats) in 4 gigs
What's going on is that Apple is growing and selling faster than they thought they would. You have to realize for years Apple was operating with a mostly stable usebase, with predictable uptake. But every new OS release, every new product seems to bring in more and more new sales ontop of the existing base.
Yes you halfwit lusting. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the meanings of words before you rail on someone:
lust PPronunciation Key(lst)
n.
1) Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2) An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
3) Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
4)Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.
I suppose you'd have to decide what you mean by using windows as a second OS. I know I know semantic wars but here's what I mean.
I personaly do use windows on another computer. I own two computers one of which is my mac, the other is my PC. The PC has both Linux and Windows. I have it for the odd compatability issue (like my uni courses require a hardware emulator that is windows only, though I'm helping write the mac version) and for the occasional LAN game. But for the most part I could leave the computer in Linux all day if I wanted. The computer is mostly used as a file server and to watch movies and such on, and the only reason I don't do that on my mac is usualy because I already have the mac doing something else. So I could easily go a month without touching windows (I did so a few weeks back when windows decided it couldn't boot anymore)
On the otherhand, there are people who are tied down to windows whether it's a game they can't give up or can't get or an odd ball program. Those would be interesting to see the numbers of.
Well you know, it's hard to do subtraction with a one button calculator
>NOT A TROLL I OWN A MAC
Or it could be that Adobe isn't filling the market demands anymore. The whole premeire thing vs. FCP might have a stance if FCP didn't have the uptake it did, but people were sick of premiere and gladly jumped ship. That says Adobe wasn't doing what the people using their products wanted. Remember, FCP wasn't bundled, people had to buy it.
They are still barriers to entry. And you can still make the stuff yourself.
So as I said, your privacy is worth more than the discounts but less than the cost of self reliance.
Well why not? As a business owner, I am (should be) allowed to sell my products to whomever for whatever price they will bear. In this case, people are willing to bear a higher price to keep their privacy. However, for those customers that are willing to sell me some of their personal information, they wind up with a lower total price.
It's all an exchange. Don't think of it as a discount, think of it as selling info and taking that money and putting it towards your purchase.
I guess you'll have to remember to take your groceries with you wont you? Besides, how would they know you left?
I hope you don't own a credit card.
what gives you the right to charge me more than the other guy over there?
Capitalism.
Under capitalism, you are allowed to sell your product for whatever price the market will bear. As it turns out, you're willing to bear a higher price.
Or look at it like this. When you bought your computer 2 years ago, it cost X. It now probably costs X/6 or som such figure. Is that unfair? Is it a scam?
I want cheap beer but there's a law about how much I can make.
But you can still make it yes?
I want cheap liquor but there's a law about how much I can distill and that's not even taking into consideration the OSHA safety regulations regarding a still.
But you can still make it yes?
I want cheap tobacco but there's a zoning regulation which prevent me from turning my backyard into a plantation. There's also the significant startup cost of buying a piece of property large enough to support reasonable yields for more than a few years in a row.
But had you made a better choice as to where you wanted to live you could still make it yes?
I want cheap grass but some knobhead in Washington made that flat-out illegal and then convinced the majority of the states to do the same.
You're right here
So basicaly, your complaint is, your barrier to entry into the market is preventing you from doing what you want to do. In otherword, your privacy is worth more than your discounts, but less than the costs of producing things yourself.
Oh for crying out loud your a fuck nut.
Look the suggestion data is all automated, and even if it wasn't, the best guesses they coulg get (without getting too specific) is you want:
Move Soundtracks
80's Music
There suggestions would then be chosen based on things which fit those criteria. Which Phil Collins does. Perhaps you should buy more punk from them so that their data looks like you want:
80's Music
Punk Genre
Ramones