Yes, there are probably going to be odd artifacts to this solution. For one, you'll only be using half the light that hits your sensor, which probably means a bigger sensor and lens to compensate. The solution in Mudd Guy's link above is probably a more interesting path to pursue.
Oh, no doubt Android phones in general are competitors to the iPhone right now. I'm just pointing out that a specific phone that requires "some manual changes" to get basic features like GPS working right is a bit too low a bar to be cheerfully claiming "real competition."
In reality (on Earth), there's no such thing as infinitely dark. On a digital image, however, there's 0 which is the darkest possible value. Now, there a range of darkness below a certain point that a sensor cannot make out, and will register as all black (0). There's also a range of brightness beyond which the sensor cannot make out, and will register as all white (1.0, 255, whatever). This is the range of the sensor. How many discrete steps the sensor can differentiate between these two points is the resolution. More resolution does not mean the sensor can distinguish a darker point or a brighter point than it used to, so it doesn't actually increase the range.
It's not possible to get more range out of a single exposure, because the range is inherent in the capture based on how much light you choose to let in, and how sensitive your sensor is to that light. Dynamic range refers to the difference between the brightest and the darkest pixel the sensor can distinguish in that exposure. Beyond the bright end of the range, they all look the same white to the sensor. Beyond the dark end of the range, they also all look the same black.
Here's how HDR works, oversimplified. We take a shot where we meter the bright part, so that it'll be properly exposed, deliberately sacrificing the dark parts. All dark pixels will be black in this exposure because we didn't let in enough light for the sensor to make out the difference. We then take another shot where we meter the dark part, sacrificing any somewhat bright parts. All bright pixels will be white because we let in too much light for the sensor to make out the difference. If we then combine the two images by throwing away the dark parts of the bright shot and the bright parts of the dark shot, we get an composited image that has more range than either image alone, i.e., HDR. Note that no averaging is involved.
The alternate solution ceoyoyo is talking about requires a different kind of sensor. Imagine if you had two kinds of pixel sensors, one sensitive and the other insensitive. You'd alternate them on your sensor, perhaps in a checkerboard pattern, but basically pairing adjacent sensitive/insensitive pixels. Now, if your sensitive pixel registers too high a value, then it's probably blown out so use the value from the insensitive one (which is by definition not as bright). If the insensitive one registers too low a value, then it's probably too dark, so use the sensitive one (by definition not as dark). The crucial difference here is that you choose one over the other, and never average. If all you did was average, then the result is the same as using a single kind of pixel sensor with a sensitivity in the middle, and would not improve your dynamic range.
I know I'm probably going to be proved wrong in a minute by the blind iPad fanbois.
So why not do a simple web search before talking about something you don't actually know?
"When it comes to embedding accessibility, Apple has set the standard in recent years," - Robin Spinks, principal manager of digital accessibility at the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
"The Apple iPad is one hundred percent accessible straight out of the box... Blind individuals can glide a finger over the screen, and as they glide their fingers, the options will be spoken aloud. When the users hear an option that they want to select, they can tap their fingers on that option twice, and the option will then be selected. There is no barrier to us blind folks using the Apple iPad's touch screen." - Waldorf PC
"Even though I have pointed out some access barriers that still need to be overcome, the overwhelming majority of features and functions on the iPad are accessible. I have to applaud Apple for once again producing a tremendous mainstream device with accessibility built-in, and at no extra cost." - Darren Burton, AccessWorld
Your argument amounts to, "at some time in the future, things will get bad. Why not just make it bad now and get it over with?" Do you see why this thinking is not popular?
I do, but I think the opponents are wrong and dangerous. While we still have some time and control, we can gradually but irreversibly raise the price of gas, so that businesses (particularly those developing alternatives) can predict and adapt to the new environment. By the time we're actually running out, alternatives of all sorts would've developed, and everybody would've adjusted their behaviors slowly and relatively painlessly. If, however, we wait until the market deals with the problem, the price swings can be quite violent, wars may have to be fought, and alternatives may not have had time to develop.
Because banning something is a blunt instrument for policy, while taxing it has the effect of discouraging the undesirable action, at the same time allowing somebody who really needs it to still do it. For example, if you suddenly need to pick up your child from across town, you can either sit in traffic with everybody else, or be there quickly because congestion pricing (that you were willing to pay for in your emergency) kept most of the others off the road. If we simply banned driving, we'd end up ban your urgent use as well.
No, an important value that a real spy provides is that you don't know you're being spied on, and you don't know what's been compromised. Publishing your secrets, while damaging, at least allows you to modify your behavior to avoid further damage.
What is sad is that releasing a ton of raw materials is what counts as journalism these days. You'd think it'd be possible for a journalist to go through it, digest what is relevant, hide what isn't relevant or is too dangerous to publish, and write a feature based on these facts. That way, we get the transparency we need to hold our governments accountable, and the people involved as still protected from harm.
This message is different. The old message is that if they suspect you of cooperating with Americans, they'll come kill you. It means that if they suspected and killed the wrong guy, they'll be hated, and that if you hide it well, you might be safe. This new message is that if you work with the Americans, Wikileaks will inevitably burn you, and then they'll inevitably come kill you.
Do you think the villagers would appreciate the difference between Americans publishing their names versus Wikileaks publishing their names?
Wrong. He had Democrats in the majority in both the House and Senate, but don't imagine for a second that these Democrats all come from San Francisco. Many of them come from Red States and are quite conservative, and the Republican unity and abuse of the filibuster meant that he needed every single Democratic vote. This means that the laws that get passed are necessarily on the right wing (if not the very right tip) of the Democratic Party, because the left tip of the Republican Party seems to not intersect at all with the right tip of the Democratic Party.
Personally, if he's pissing off conservatives by "doing too much" and pissing off liberals by "doing too little", I'd say he's about centrist enough. He passed the strongest health care bill that he could, and the strongest financial reform bill that he could. It's not his fault that the Constitution designed the Senate to favor small states, many of which are conservative.
How it applies to problems that the founders never even could have imagined. For example, their concept of privacy is largely physical, where "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to physical property in your home. How does that Right apply on the Internet, for example? Would you like to post some of the "lots of books" they wrote on this issue? What are their views on human cloning? Stem cell research? Hell, organ transplantation and test tube babies? What did they think about black people and women voting in elections?
The founding fathers are to be highly respected for their achievements, and they are to be complimented for being ahead of their time, but there's a limit to what even the most brilliant humans can foresee. Don't forget also that they produced the Constitution inevitably as a political compromise of their day, not an idealized document.
Maryland's I-95 through Baltimore. Rich people can pay extra and take the express lane
Correction: people whose trip is worth more than the toll can take the express lane. Rich people by definition have more money than time, so this generally applies to them, but even normal people can take advantage from time to time when they feel it is worthwhile.
I actually think this is a pretty good way to allocate a scarce resource.
the Annapolis government gets to keep the money to pay off its debt. So basically we have a government acting just as evil/greedy as a corporation.
Uh, who do you suppose would be paying off the debt otherwise?
so colin powell and assorted numbnuts: you screwed up in 1991. you should have gone all the way. if you start a job, finish it completely.
Uh, no, "finishing the job" in 1991 meant pretty much the same thing as it did in 2003: rid Iraq of Saddam's partisans and build up a good government bureaucracy, deal with the Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd problem, and deal with Iran. Powell was correct that this is something America doesn't actually want to do either in 1991 and 2003, though it was disappointing that he could not hold his ground as Secretary of State. George W. Bush was completely wrong in assuming that he wouldn't have to do any of that, and therefore didn't even have a plan.
If you mean a stable Iraq, where the terrorist groups have no political clout and our troops aren't being shot at anymore
You mean, kinda like Iraq was before Bush invaded? Saddam's Iraq was no enlightened democracy in the least, but it was stable and terrorist groups had little clout (because they threaten him as much as they threaten us). Granted, they did occasionally take shots at NATO aircraft policing the no-fly zones, but I'll gladly trade that instead of the 4,731 (4,413 US) dead troops, along with estimates ranging from 95,888 to 1,033,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
Yeah, the surge "worked", but any Bush supporter who cites that as success is delusional. The war was started on false (and constantly shifting) pretenses, lacked an objective beyond displacing Saddam, and lacked any sort of plan for its aftermath. This war was lost before it even started, and the surge simply reduced the level of failure.
Now, you might ask, would I rather see Saddam still in power, tormenting his people? No, I'd rather not, but if it means the US was able to concentrate its forces, perhaps capturing or killing the remnants of al Qaeda in Tora Bora, and stabilized Afghanistan in the intervening years, then so be it. It's not as if the invasion and insurgency caused much fewer Iraqi deaths these years than Saddam has killed in his time.
Oh, and guess what, Saddam also kept Iran in check, and not having all our troops mired in Iraq and Afghanistan kept North Korea in check. Bush lost our global strategic initiative.
A car analogy is in order. If you were rich, you might buy a presentable black limo for those evening parties, a sportscar for the weekend, a sedan to drive to work, maybe a truck to tow the boat, and maybe a minivan for the family. All of these cars serve the same basic purpose: to get you from point A to point B. If you didn't have the money, you can probably do without one or three of them. But since you do, why not?
Now, did a salesman convince you that you need the sportscar that does the same thing as your sedan?
designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean. though important to think about, no amount of prep is ever going to make it a smooth operation.
Nonsense. If North American suddenly sank, you're talking about the evacuation of 300 million people in the US alone, nevermind the other stuff we might want to save. This transport capacity does not exist anywhere in the world, and is prohibitively expensive to keep around. It would be a disaster we literally cannot afford to prepare for.
Since BP appears to now have successfully plugged the well, the cost of a plan could be computed. Apparently they've spent $3.5 billion so far, but that includes payments to claims and clean-up efforts, which should not count against the plan we're discussing. Since BP made $6.1 billion last year (and $82 billion in the last four years) in profits, it's clear that this is something BP could've afforded.
The fact that so many of my fellow geeks are getting so revved up about this makes me wonder what they are thinking.
It's actually pretty simple. The Slashdot geek wishes that the iPhone was made for him, and wants to like Apple. Even though they don't understand the effort expended towards polish, they still want it. And they want it for cheap. And they want it open sourced. And so on.
Problem is, Apple doesn't seem to care very much about this market, so the geeks are spurned. They're angry that Apple doesn't care, and they're angry that Apple is getting away with not caring. They don't see why Apple caters to the ignorant masses, when they could've done so much more if the iPhone was open and cheap and hackable. This is why despite Android and its supposed superiority, you still see so many people angry and irrational. This is why failures like KIN and whatever Nokia is doing get a chuckle or two, but the iPhone's negatives merit hundreds of posts a few times each week.
Apple is the hot girl who called you a creep. You know deep inside that she can be good and smart and understanding (but still incredibly hot), and it just kills you that she's dating an apparently normal guy... for money! Android is the girl you said you wanted after listing all the traits you said you cared about on a piece of paper, yet... somehow you're still complaining about Apple.
You are correct that the market will eventually sort it out. However, the market is not always gentle, with prices rising gradually until it nears infinity upon depletion. If it did, then the rising prices would indeed trigger conservation and alternatives. The problem is that political concerns may cause the governments to artificially depress prices until they can no longer do so, and you have a sharp jump with no time to plan for alternatives.
Any listening person can be easily convinced that we're not accounting properly for the price of oil, for example. The US troops hanging around the Persian Gulf are paid for by US taxes, not at the pump. This is very easy to see. Now, if the US government goes bankrupt and withdraws these troops, you might suddenly see lots of pirate activity that creates wild fluctuations in prices. These will be painful, probably leading to hoarding and other undesirable side effects. The market will eventually sort out the new price, but it'll do damage to many economies first.
So maybe there's a better way than just leaving it all to the market.
Consider it a feature that you can grow what you like and don't have a limited selection from a menu.
I do not deny in any way the inherent philosophical and real benefits of open source software. All I'm saying is that some advocates do not provide an accurate picture of what it'll cost on a case-by-case basis. Unrealistic advocacy results in unrealistic expectations and inevitably to bitching.
I'm surprised they even got the job done at all. If they really had no prior training, the Open Source user interfaces must be better than their image or these people would have crashed and burned.
You are part of the problem, because your standards are too low. Now, perhaps that's because you understand how hard it is to develop complex software in your spare time, but most of that is not relevant to end users. They want to know how well it'll work, no ifs and buts, and they don't generally care about theoretical freedoms. A successful advocate will adopt the value system of the end user, not your own.
Let me suggest that the reaction you want is, "where have you been all my life?!"
[Microsoft] can't just decide not to include a major feature like Flash, Multitasking, copy/paste, etc. until a future software update and expect people to buy it
Actually, it used to, and it can again, but it needs to show commitment. Incidents like PlaysForSure and the KIN (and the Courier, even if nobody spent money on one) don't help, because the customers don't know if Microsoft will stand behind the product, and they'll think Microsoft is fickle. However, if they carefully rebuild their brand by delivering these features year after year, they can regain the trust in time.
Microsoft's bigger problem is that they're trying to make money by selling an OS that Google is willing to pay a large and talented team to develop and give away for free. Apple absorbs the Android competition by selling entire phones, Microsoft will have to find a way to make its customers (hardware manufacturers) willing to pay royalty!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are probably going to be odd artifacts to this solution. For one, you'll only be using half the light that hits your sensor, which probably means a bigger sensor and lens to compensate. The solution in Mudd Guy's link above is probably a more interesting path to pursue.
Oh, no doubt Android phones in general are competitors to the iPhone right now. I'm just pointing out that a specific phone that requires "some manual changes" to get basic features like GPS working right is a bit too low a bar to be cheerfully claiming "real competition."
No, you are still confusing resolution and range.
In reality (on Earth), there's no such thing as infinitely dark. On a digital image, however, there's 0 which is the darkest possible value. Now, there a range of darkness below a certain point that a sensor cannot make out, and will register as all black (0). There's also a range of brightness beyond which the sensor cannot make out, and will register as all white (1.0, 255, whatever). This is the range of the sensor. How many discrete steps the sensor can differentiate between these two points is the resolution. More resolution does not mean the sensor can distinguish a darker point or a brighter point than it used to, so it doesn't actually increase the range.
It's not possible to get more range out of a single exposure, because the range is inherent in the capture based on how much light you choose to let in, and how sensitive your sensor is to that light. Dynamic range refers to the difference between the brightest and the darkest pixel the sensor can distinguish in that exposure. Beyond the bright end of the range, they all look the same white to the sensor. Beyond the dark end of the range, they also all look the same black.
Here's how HDR works, oversimplified. We take a shot where we meter the bright part, so that it'll be properly exposed, deliberately sacrificing the dark parts. All dark pixels will be black in this exposure because we didn't let in enough light for the sensor to make out the difference. We then take another shot where we meter the dark part, sacrificing any somewhat bright parts. All bright pixels will be white because we let in too much light for the sensor to make out the difference. If we then combine the two images by throwing away the dark parts of the bright shot and the bright parts of the dark shot, we get an composited image that has more range than either image alone, i.e., HDR. Note that no averaging is involved.
The alternate solution ceoyoyo is talking about requires a different kind of sensor. Imagine if you had two kinds of pixel sensors, one sensitive and the other insensitive. You'd alternate them on your sensor, perhaps in a checkerboard pattern, but basically pairing adjacent sensitive/insensitive pixels. Now, if your sensitive pixel registers too high a value, then it's probably blown out so use the value from the insensitive one (which is by definition not as bright). If the insensitive one registers too low a value, then it's probably too dark, so use the sensitive one (by definition not as dark). The crucial difference here is that you choose one over the other, and never average. If all you did was average, then the result is the same as using a single kind of pixel sensor with a sensitivity in the middle, and would not improve your dynamic range.
I'm afraid you're missing a point here somewhere.
So why not do a simple web search before talking about something you don't actually know?
"When it comes to embedding accessibility, Apple has set the standard in recent years," - Robin Spinks, principal manager of digital accessibility at the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
"The Apple iPad is one hundred percent accessible straight out of the box... Blind individuals can glide a finger over the screen, and as they glide their fingers, the options will be spoken aloud. When the users hear an option that they want to select, they can tap their fingers on that option twice, and the option will then be selected. There is no barrier to us blind folks using the Apple iPad's touch screen." - Waldorf PC
"Even though I have pointed out some access barriers that still need to be overcome, the overwhelming majority of features and functions on the iPad are accessible. I have to applaud Apple for once again producing a tremendous mainstream device with accessibility built-in, and at no extra cost." - Darren Burton, AccessWorld
I do, but I think the opponents are wrong and dangerous. While we still have some time and control, we can gradually but irreversibly raise the price of gas, so that businesses (particularly those developing alternatives) can predict and adapt to the new environment. By the time we're actually running out, alternatives of all sorts would've developed, and everybody would've adjusted their behaviors slowly and relatively painlessly. If, however, we wait until the market deals with the problem, the price swings can be quite violent, wars may have to be fought, and alternatives may not have had time to develop.
Because banning something is a blunt instrument for policy, while taxing it has the effect of discouraging the undesirable action, at the same time allowing somebody who really needs it to still do it. For example, if you suddenly need to pick up your child from across town, you can either sit in traffic with everybody else, or be there quickly because congestion pricing (that you were willing to pay for in your emergency) kept most of the others off the road. If we simply banned driving, we'd end up ban your urgent use as well.
No, an important value that a real spy provides is that you don't know you're being spied on, and you don't know what's been compromised. Publishing your secrets, while damaging, at least allows you to modify your behavior to avoid further damage.
What is sad is that releasing a ton of raw materials is what counts as journalism these days. You'd think it'd be possible for a journalist to go through it, digest what is relevant, hide what isn't relevant or is too dangerous to publish, and write a feature based on these facts. That way, we get the transparency we need to hold our governments accountable, and the people involved as still protected from harm.
This message is different. The old message is that if they suspect you of cooperating with Americans, they'll come kill you. It means that if they suspected and killed the wrong guy, they'll be hated, and that if you hide it well, you might be safe. This new message is that if you work with the Americans, Wikileaks will inevitably burn you, and then they'll inevitably come kill you.
Do you think the villagers would appreciate the difference between Americans publishing their names versus Wikileaks publishing their names?
Wrong. He had Democrats in the majority in both the House and Senate, but don't imagine for a second that these Democrats all come from San Francisco. Many of them come from Red States and are quite conservative, and the Republican unity and abuse of the filibuster meant that he needed every single Democratic vote. This means that the laws that get passed are necessarily on the right wing (if not the very right tip) of the Democratic Party, because the left tip of the Republican Party seems to not intersect at all with the right tip of the Democratic Party.
Personally, if he's pissing off conservatives by "doing too much" and pissing off liberals by "doing too little", I'd say he's about centrist enough. He passed the strongest health care bill that he could, and the strongest financial reform bill that he could. It's not his fault that the Constitution designed the Senate to favor small states, many of which are conservative.
OTOH, a fire can wipe out your entire collection of physical books in minutes, but e-books can be backed up remotely at trivial cost.
How it applies to problems that the founders never even could have imagined. For example, their concept of privacy is largely physical, where "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to physical property in your home. How does that Right apply on the Internet, for example? Would you like to post some of the "lots of books" they wrote on this issue? What are their views on human cloning? Stem cell research? Hell, organ transplantation and test tube babies? What did they think about black people and women voting in elections?
The founding fathers are to be highly respected for their achievements, and they are to be complimented for being ahead of their time, but there's a limit to what even the most brilliant humans can foresee. Don't forget also that they produced the Constitution inevitably as a political compromise of their day, not an idealized document.
Correction: people whose trip is worth more than the toll can take the express lane. Rich people by definition have more money than time, so this generally applies to them, but even normal people can take advantage from time to time when they feel it is worthwhile.
I actually think this is a pretty good way to allocate a scarce resource.
Uh, who do you suppose would be paying off the debt otherwise?
Uh, no, "finishing the job" in 1991 meant pretty much the same thing as it did in 2003: rid Iraq of Saddam's partisans and build up a good government bureaucracy, deal with the Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd problem, and deal with Iran. Powell was correct that this is something America doesn't actually want to do either in 1991 and 2003, though it was disappointing that he could not hold his ground as Secretary of State. George W. Bush was completely wrong in assuming that he wouldn't have to do any of that, and therefore didn't even have a plan.
You mean, kinda like Iraq was before Bush invaded? Saddam's Iraq was no enlightened democracy in the least, but it was stable and terrorist groups had little clout (because they threaten him as much as they threaten us). Granted, they did occasionally take shots at NATO aircraft policing the no-fly zones, but I'll gladly trade that instead of the 4,731 (4,413 US) dead troops, along with estimates ranging from 95,888 to 1,033,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
Yeah, the surge "worked", but any Bush supporter who cites that as success is delusional. The war was started on false (and constantly shifting) pretenses, lacked an objective beyond displacing Saddam, and lacked any sort of plan for its aftermath. This war was lost before it even started, and the surge simply reduced the level of failure.
Now, you might ask, would I rather see Saddam still in power, tormenting his people? No, I'd rather not, but if it means the US was able to concentrate its forces, perhaps capturing or killing the remnants of al Qaeda in Tora Bora, and stabilized Afghanistan in the intervening years, then so be it. It's not as if the invasion and insurgency caused much fewer Iraqi deaths these years than Saddam has killed in his time.
Oh, and guess what, Saddam also kept Iran in check, and not having all our troops mired in Iraq and Afghanistan kept North Korea in check. Bush lost our global strategic initiative.
A car analogy is in order. If you were rich, you might buy a presentable black limo for those evening parties, a sportscar for the weekend, a sedan to drive to work, maybe a truck to tow the boat, and maybe a minivan for the family. All of these cars serve the same basic purpose: to get you from point A to point B. If you didn't have the money, you can probably do without one or three of them. But since you do, why not?
Now, did a salesman convince you that you need the sportscar that does the same thing as your sedan?
Nonsense. If North American suddenly sank, you're talking about the evacuation of 300 million people in the US alone, nevermind the other stuff we might want to save. This transport capacity does not exist anywhere in the world, and is prohibitively expensive to keep around. It would be a disaster we literally cannot afford to prepare for.
Since BP appears to now have successfully plugged the well, the cost of a plan could be computed. Apparently they've spent $3.5 billion so far, but that includes payments to claims and clean-up efforts, which should not count against the plan we're discussing. Since BP made $6.1 billion last year (and $82 billion in the last four years) in profits, it's clear that this is something BP could've afforded.
It's actually pretty simple. The Slashdot geek wishes that the iPhone was made for him, and wants to like Apple. Even though they don't understand the effort expended towards polish, they still want it. And they want it for cheap. And they want it open sourced. And so on.
Problem is, Apple doesn't seem to care very much about this market, so the geeks are spurned. They're angry that Apple doesn't care, and they're angry that Apple is getting away with not caring. They don't see why Apple caters to the ignorant masses, when they could've done so much more if the iPhone was open and cheap and hackable. This is why despite Android and its supposed superiority, you still see so many people angry and irrational. This is why failures like KIN and whatever Nokia is doing get a chuckle or two, but the iPhone's negatives merit hundreds of posts a few times each week.
Apple is the hot girl who called you a creep. You know deep inside that she can be good and smart and understanding (but still incredibly hot), and it just kills you that she's dating an apparently normal guy... for money! Android is the girl you said you wanted after listing all the traits you said you cared about on a piece of paper, yet... somehow you're still complaining about Apple.
Just kidding... or am I? :)
You are correct that the market will eventually sort it out. However, the market is not always gentle, with prices rising gradually until it nears infinity upon depletion. If it did, then the rising prices would indeed trigger conservation and alternatives. The problem is that political concerns may cause the governments to artificially depress prices until they can no longer do so, and you have a sharp jump with no time to plan for alternatives.
Any listening person can be easily convinced that we're not accounting properly for the price of oil, for example. The US troops hanging around the Persian Gulf are paid for by US taxes, not at the pump. This is very easy to see. Now, if the US government goes bankrupt and withdraws these troops, you might suddenly see lots of pirate activity that creates wild fluctuations in prices. These will be painful, probably leading to hoarding and other undesirable side effects. The market will eventually sort out the new price, but it'll do damage to many economies first.
So maybe there's a better way than just leaving it all to the market.
I do not deny in any way the inherent philosophical and real benefits of open source software. All I'm saying is that some advocates do not provide an accurate picture of what it'll cost on a case-by-case basis. Unrealistic advocacy results in unrealistic expectations and inevitably to bitching.
You are part of the problem, because your standards are too low. Now, perhaps that's because you understand how hard it is to develop complex software in your spare time, but most of that is not relevant to end users. They want to know how well it'll work, no ifs and buts, and they don't generally care about theoretical freedoms. A successful advocate will adopt the value system of the end user, not your own.
Let me suggest that the reaction you want is, "where have you been all my life?!"
No, they bitch because some advocates told them that free alternatives are just as good or better.
Yeah another hurdle for business where the cost will be given to the consumer as it always is.
Do you really think amazon.com would not have already charged a higher price right now if it could?
Yet we let them handle thousands of nuclear warheads.
Actually, it used to, and it can again, but it needs to show commitment. Incidents like PlaysForSure and the KIN (and the Courier, even if nobody spent money on one) don't help, because the customers don't know if Microsoft will stand behind the product, and they'll think Microsoft is fickle. However, if they carefully rebuild their brand by delivering these features year after year, they can regain the trust in time.
Microsoft's bigger problem is that they're trying to make money by selling an OS that Google is willing to pay a large and talented team to develop and give away for free. Apple absorbs the Android competition by selling entire phones, Microsoft will have to find a way to make its customers (hardware manufacturers) willing to pay royalty!