the price-point for the mini makes a whole lot of sense to me, especially after looking at the article.
it seems that apple is trying to play a fine line between tempting customers away from their competition and tempting customers from buying higher-priced versions of the iPod.
apple is making good money with the high-margined iPods right now, and giving away too much performance for too little cost will do more damage to their own business than to their competitors. that's why the mini is only a bit cheaper than the low-end iPod... if you were at all tempted by the iPod you'll probably end up shelling out the extra fifty bucks for the huge leap in storage capacity alone. a pure entry-level-priced machine would inevitably make people question their iPod lust, which can only hurt high-end sales.
still, they'd love to capture the people who wouldn't have bought the pricey iPod in the first place but aren't looking for the cheapest mp3 player on the block either. that's what the article shows quite clearly... the mini is still pretty good within its price range, and may attract some customers who otherwise would be taking their money elsewhere.
He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.
exactly. it's not like the GPL crept up and bit these companies in the ass. the article doesn't mention these companies complaining when they didn't have to pay licensing costs to use linux in their products.
i can't believe that lyons is trying to whip up sympathy for cisco, though. it's downright laughable. he insinuates (though never demonstrates) that the GPL has devalued their acquisition of linksys. if cisco bought linksys based on the intellectual property value of its software they deserve to lose money. it's called research - and sure as hell i'd do some before my company layed out $500M. i thought mr. uber-capitalist would be able to understand the concept of caveat emptor.
and don't get me started on this business about the FSF. even if you thought that the GPL was the most ridiculous idea ever it doesn't stand to reason that it should simply not protect its interests. [snip]in fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions"[snip]. so what? is he implying that they shouldn't even bother because he disagrees with the concept of the GPL? that's just dumb.
ah well, just letting off steam first thing in the morning. it's just that i can't stand the disingenuity behind an article like this - if you've got a problem with the GPL then say it, don't couch it is half-truths and hyperbole. if the author's intention was to rile people up then i say bravo - he certainly got me going. if, however, his point was to put forth a reasoned, informed opinion for his readership then he failed miserably. of course, his real intention was to find a new angle to spread some more GPL FUD.
Incidentally, those "coders" who force a particular browser type to continue instead of using STANDARD HTML etc should be exposed a la spammers to show the wider community what crappy coders they are. They have no place coding for the World Wide Web.
that's harsh, dude, but i can't say i disagree. i would never in conscience design a site that was solely designed for Win/IE, regardless of its market share. but the fact is that Win/IE, for all its crappy implementation, isn't that horribly uncompliant, meaning that there's little reason not to develop for both Win/IE and current standards at the same time (which can't be said about Netscape 4, the bane of my existence for years... it's only been in the past year or so that N4 use has dropped to the point where you can make a business case for not supporting its crap-ass CSS implementation.)
that said, it's a frustrating world for us web developers who want to do our part to encourage standards compliance. fact is the IE implements very fundamental CSS (such as the visual box model) differently than the standards dictate, meaning that you're practically forced to use some kind of browser rerouting or stick with the vanilla HTML of a previous generation of web design.
IE, thankfully, has one useful (albeit non-compliant) CSS feature... the ability resolve javascript expressions right in the stylesheet. i hate having to compromise in that way, but almost every time i end up using js expressions to change the fscking width property for IE5&6.
and while i'm complaining... what's up with not supporting the minimum widths property? it's the one thing that will finally make table-based web-design a thing of the past, and they don't bother with it. even if they end up supporting it, it'll still be YEARS before IE5and6 pass from common use.
spam, unfortunately, is the flipside of the file sharing issue... i think we all know that there isn't a way to put this genie back in the bottle despite various direct legal remedies, increasingly sophisticated antispam technology or heaping does of good ol' fashioned h4xx0r justice.
you're right, though... if no one was making any cash at this spamming would stop. it seems obvious that spammers are a symptom rather than a cause... as long as there is something to be gained by their services they will always find a way to circumvent laws and technologies.
my question (and it really is a question)... why isn't there a greater push to create laws that target the people who are hiring the spammers in the first place, such as the folks mentioned in the article:
His clients were usually small-scale entrepreneurs or Web-site hosts who worked the margins of the online economy: herbal supplements and cut-rate financial services. Sometimes he would be hired to spam for larger, more reputable, companies -- not that he would name any for me.
eventually money has to change hands, and at that point could there not be a way to prosecute, in a "living off the avails of spam" sorta way? if someone knowingly hires a spammer shouldn't they be held responsible for the actions made on their behalf?
i know that a great deal of spam and spam-generated business is international, but wouldn't the amount of spam be reduced if the American legal climate became overtly hostile towards businesses profitting from spam?
Slashdot Mirror
... by our frivolous fucking lawsuits. LOL.
he's also keeps a pretty good blog.
the price-point for the mini makes a whole lot of sense to me, especially after looking at the article.
it seems that apple is trying to play a fine line between tempting customers away from their competition and tempting customers from buying higher-priced versions of the iPod.
apple is making good money with the high-margined iPods right now, and giving away too much performance for too little cost will do more damage to their own business than to their competitors. that's why the mini is only a bit cheaper than the low-end iPod... if you were at all tempted by the iPod you'll probably end up shelling out the extra fifty bucks for the huge leap in storage capacity alone. a pure entry-level-priced machine would inevitably make people question their iPod lust, which can only hurt high-end sales.
still, they'd love to capture the people who wouldn't have bought the pricey iPod in the first place but aren't looking for the cheapest mp3 player on the block either. that's what the article shows quite clearly... the mini is still pretty good within its price range, and may attract some customers who otherwise would be taking their money elsewhere.
He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.
exactly. it's not like the GPL crept up and bit these companies in the ass. the article doesn't mention these companies complaining when they didn't have to pay licensing costs to use linux in their products.
i can't believe that lyons is trying to whip up sympathy for cisco, though. it's downright laughable. he insinuates (though never demonstrates) that the GPL has devalued their acquisition of linksys. if cisco bought linksys based on the intellectual property value of its software they deserve to lose money. it's called research - and sure as hell i'd do some before my company layed out $500M. i thought mr. uber-capitalist would be able to understand the concept of caveat emptor.
and don't get me started on this business about the FSF. even if you thought that the GPL was the most ridiculous idea ever it doesn't stand to reason that it should simply not protect its interests. [snip]in fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions"[snip]. so what? is he implying that they shouldn't even bother because he disagrees with the concept of the GPL? that's just dumb.
ah well, just letting off steam first thing in the morning. it's just that i can't stand the disingenuity behind an article like this - if you've got a problem with the GPL then say it, don't couch it is half-truths and hyperbole. if the author's intention was to rile people up then i say bravo - he certainly got me going. if, however, his point was to put forth a reasoned, informed opinion for his readership then he failed miserably. of course, his real intention was to find a new angle to spread some more GPL FUD.
that's harsh, dude, but i can't say i disagree. i would never in conscience design a site that was solely designed for Win/IE, regardless of its market share. but the fact is that Win/IE, for all its crappy implementation, isn't that horribly uncompliant, meaning that there's little reason not to develop for both Win/IE and current standards at the same time (which can't be said about Netscape 4, the bane of my existence for years... it's only been in the past year or so that N4 use has dropped to the point where you can make a business case for not supporting its crap-ass CSS implementation.)
that said, it's a frustrating world for us web developers who want to do our part to encourage standards compliance. fact is the IE implements very fundamental CSS (such as the visual box model) differently than the standards dictate, meaning that you're practically forced to use some kind of browser rerouting or stick with the vanilla HTML of a previous generation of web design.
IE, thankfully, has one useful (albeit non-compliant) CSS feature... the ability resolve javascript expressions right in the stylesheet. i hate having to compromise in that way, but almost every time i end up using js expressions to change the fscking width property for IE5&6.
and while i'm complaining... what's up with not supporting the minimum widths property? it's the one thing that will finally make table-based web-design a thing of the past, and they don't bother with it. even if they end up supporting it, it'll still be YEARS before IE5and6 pass from common use.
ah microsoft, how i hate you.
you're right, though... if no one was making any cash at this spamming would stop. it seems obvious that spammers are a symptom rather than a cause... as long as there is something to be gained by their services they will always find a way to circumvent laws and technologies.
my question (and it really is a question)... why isn't there a greater push to create laws that target the people who are hiring the spammers in the first place, such as the folks mentioned in the article:
eventually money has to change hands, and at that point could there not be a way to prosecute, in a "living off the avails of spam" sorta way? if someone knowingly hires a spammer shouldn't they be held responsible for the actions made on their behalf?
i know that a great deal of spam and spam-generated business is international, but wouldn't the amount of spam be reduced if the American legal climate became overtly hostile towards businesses profitting from spam?
just wondering.