I can see how you might feel that way but you are dead wrong in your thinking you have it all backwards. I am not reducing the functionality of a competitor's product I am assuring that mine is not used to enhance his at my expense.
The question is moot. If the other hardware manufacturer were to pony up some development money and properly add their device to the software then yes the customer could choose how to use that particular feature. It is not within the customers purview to determine how that feature functions, it is my spec and my software development. They may use the software any way they wish within the specs that I have determined. If I change the way it works to better match the intent of my spec but do not alter it so that it functions other than I designed it to function then the customer has what I have given them. This is how one manufacturer differentiates itself from another manufacturer of similar products.
Yes but it is not the monopoly itself that is illegal, it is using that monopoly to keep competitors from competing by coercion. MS used their monopoly power to set the price of and force the installation of their OS and no other. Dell, HP and Compaq all started that particular anti-trust action when they complained to the states attorney general that MS was doing this. When Ma Bell got so big that no other phone system or company could offer competing services because all the lines were owned by AT&T (Ma Bell) and AT&T set the prices for all transport to the customer, the Anti-trust laws kicked in.
MS made uninstalling that pre-installed software break the whole OS. That is what they are sued for not just installing it. There is no reason that pre-installed software should be illegal as long as you can remove it and still use the product with another equivalent program if it is needed for anything critical. Which I've never had a problem doing with anything from Apple.
Yeah I mean here's the skinny on this. You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware. You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use. But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function. Now you've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work. Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software.
and you fix the fence and everyone else screams? Give me a break. The whiners here are pathetic and wrong. If you don't like Apple don't use their products, go away and shut the f*** up. Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny "how dare they" crap. Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are.
Actually it is night and day different. Apple didn't go to the stores and say, sell our stuff pre-installed on those computers or we won't sell you an OS at all. When there was no other viable OS out there. What MS has done is illegal what Apple has done is a smart business decision to prevent a competitor from stealing development resources.
They spent the money developing the software that interacts with their hardware and they want to keep it that way as a method of differentiating themselves from their competition. "Well how dare they spend all that development money and not share it with us that's just very sad". You guys amaze me in your freaking ignorance.
Ok you are going to have to spell this out quite clearly because you obviously don't understand any of the syllables in the definition of a monopoly. You also don't understand that a monopoly is not a bad thing for a business. I don't quite understand why you think that interoperability is a right and therefore bad that Apple doesn't make it possible but they actually do except for the crappy DRM forced on them by the Music industry. I also fail to see how a company that is one of a minimum of 3 count 'em 3 markets for online music sales is a monopoly simply because it is the preferred market. The iPod is hardly a monopoly as I see quite a few MP3 players in the stores and I see many 3rd party software packages for Windows and Macs that will happily manage the music on them besides iTunes. Thirdly there is nothing stopping someone from putting new operating systems on their Apple hardware not even Apple cares just don't ask Apple to support it any more than expecting Microsoft to support Linux on Windows capable Hardware. As far as I can see Apple is a progressive dynamic company making butt loads of money. They make smart business decisions and maintain dominance in their markets despite competition. This is after all what a company is SUPPOSED to do.
What you fail to realize is that in that contract are clauses (I assume you have read it but I bet you just assume it covers you) that let the insurer decide what is medically necessary under the terms of the contract. That's what ours says and I'm pretty sure yours is the same.
This is because Malpractice insurance isn't that expensive in the first place. (I was the software guy for an insurance company that specialized in Malpractice) Malpractice insurance is a straw man. The insurance companies are out to make a profit not keep you healthy. The only one that actually has a mandate to keep you healthy is Kaiser which is a non profit organization. Even at that health care costs have gotten out of control as all of the parties to it are heaving huge cost increases to pad their bottom line. Make it illegal for a health insurance company to make a profit and their will be a sudden spate of health insurance executives getting huge stipends to make up for the loss of participation in the profits. The profit motive must be removed from the health care industry before we can actually start making progress. There are horror stories being passed around by big health that indicate that gov health care is bad but in fact it is the best way to keep costs in line with reality. America get's the shaft for prescription costs because they can't get that much for them anywhere else. Wake up and smell the fear here folks, universal health care is coming and if you are a health care profiteer you are in line to be removed as king of the profit heap!
appypolylogies for going off topic but I needed a rant and I have Karma to spare.
Thus denying the rule of law and the very reason we have laws! The judge rightly will describe the law to the jury the jury will then be charged with applying the evidence and the veracity thereof to the judges instructions.
Personally I think that Rorschach should be censored, he was the least likable of the characters in the whole comic and when his resolution came at the end of the story I though it was well done. But by all means censor the foul mouthed weenie!
Once again why do I have to care. They have alternatives now and MS is self destructing. It's hardly news let alone of interest to nerds. Secretaries and office personnel maybe but hardly anything I care about. And as you know if I don't care no one else needs to. So there!
Slashdot Mirror
Now the artists will find out exactly how much the record companies are skimming off of them and force the record companies to pay up!
I can see how you might feel that way but you are dead wrong in your thinking you have it all backwards. I am not reducing the functionality of a competitor's product I am assuring that mine is not used to enhance his at my expense.
The question is moot. If the other hardware manufacturer were to pony up some development money and properly add their device to the software then yes the customer could choose how to use that particular feature. It is not within the customers purview to determine how that feature functions, it is my spec and my software development. They may use the software any way they wish within the specs that I have determined. If I change the way it works to better match the intent of my spec but do not alter it so that it functions other than I designed it to function then the customer has what I have given them. This is how one manufacturer differentiates itself from another manufacturer of similar products.
Yes but it is not the monopoly itself that is illegal, it is using that monopoly to keep competitors from competing by coercion. MS used their monopoly power to set the price of and force the installation of their OS and no other. Dell, HP and Compaq all started that particular anti-trust action when they complained to the states attorney general that MS was doing this. When Ma Bell got so big that no other phone system or company could offer competing services because all the lines were owned by AT&T (Ma Bell) and AT&T set the prices for all transport to the customer, the Anti-trust laws kicked in.
MS made uninstalling that pre-installed software break the whole OS. That is what they are sued for not just installing it. There is no reason that pre-installed software should be illegal as long as you can remove it and still use the product with another equivalent program if it is needed for anything critical. Which I've never had a problem doing with anything from Apple.
Yeah I mean here's the skinny on this. You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware. You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use. But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function. Now you've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work. Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software. and you fix the fence and everyone else screams? Give me a break. The whiners here are pathetic and wrong. If you don't like Apple don't use their products, go away and shut the f*** up. Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny "how dare they" crap. Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are.
Actually it is night and day different. Apple didn't go to the stores and say, sell our stuff pre-installed on those computers or we won't sell you an OS at all. When there was no other viable OS out there. What MS has done is illegal what Apple has done is a smart business decision to prevent a competitor from stealing development resources.
Look it's a perk for my customers not a perk for yours. Get over it and write your own damn software.
They spent the money developing the software that interacts with their hardware and they want to keep it that way as a method of differentiating themselves from their competition. "Well how dare they spend all that development money and not share it with us that's just very sad". You guys amaze me in your freaking ignorance.
Because I spent the coin to develop that software for MY customers and you want to ride on my back like a freaking parasite?
It's hardly a monopoly its a preference. Get it right idiots!
Ok you are going to have to spell this out quite clearly because you obviously don't understand any of the syllables in the definition of a monopoly.
You also don't understand that a monopoly is not a bad thing for a business. I don't quite understand why you think that interoperability is a right and therefore bad that Apple doesn't make it possible but they actually do except for the crappy DRM forced on them by the Music industry. I also fail to see how a company that is one of a minimum of 3 count 'em 3 markets for online music sales is a monopoly simply because it is the preferred market. The iPod is hardly a monopoly as I see quite a few MP3 players in the stores and I see many 3rd party software packages for Windows and Macs that will happily manage the music on them besides iTunes. Thirdly there is nothing stopping someone from putting new operating systems on their Apple hardware not even Apple cares just don't ask Apple to support it any more than expecting Microsoft to support Linux on Windows capable Hardware. As far as I can see Apple is a progressive dynamic company making butt loads of money. They make smart business decisions and maintain dominance in their markets despite competition. This is after all what a company is SUPPOSED to do.
My statement still stands and is why the jury box is just before the ammo box.
What you fail to realize is that in that contract are clauses (I assume you have read it but I bet you just assume it covers you) that let the insurer decide what is medically necessary under the terms of the contract. That's what ours says and I'm pretty sure yours is the same.
This is because Malpractice insurance isn't that expensive in the first place. (I was the software guy for an insurance company that specialized in Malpractice) Malpractice insurance is a straw man. The insurance companies are out to make a profit not keep you healthy. The only one that actually has a mandate to keep you healthy is Kaiser which is a non profit organization. Even at that health care costs have gotten out of control as all of the parties to it are heaving huge cost increases to pad their bottom line. Make it illegal for a health insurance company to make a profit and their will be a sudden spate of health insurance executives getting huge stipends to make up for the loss of participation in the profits. The profit motive must be removed from the health care industry before we can actually start making progress. There are horror stories being passed around by big health that indicate that gov health care is bad but in fact it is the best way to keep costs in line with reality. America get's the shaft for prescription costs because they can't get that much for them anywhere else. Wake up and smell the fear here folks, universal health care is coming and if you are a health care profiteer you are in line to be removed as king of the profit heap!
appypolylogies for going off topic but I needed a rant and I have Karma to spare.
Thus denying the rule of law and the very reason we have laws! The judge rightly will describe the law to the jury the jury will then be charged with applying the evidence and the veracity thereof to the judges instructions.
Personally I think that Rorschach should be censored, he was the least likable of the characters in the whole comic and when his resolution came at the end of the story I though it was well done. But by all means censor the foul mouthed weenie!
My god we on /. are the most arrogant collection of bastard know it alls that have ever been assembled in one place. Pompous asshats all of us.
Once again why do I have to care. They have alternatives now and MS is self destructing. It's hardly news let alone of interest to nerds. Secretaries and office personnel maybe but hardly anything I care about. And as you know if I don't care no one else needs to. So there!
I usually leave mine in the 1900s but I've been known to leave my keys around the 1600s just for fun.
Fifth avenue advertisers have this all sewed up. Been doing it for years.
Who do?
Who cares?
I sit corrected.
Gotta love these MS fan bois.