On the surface, it looks great - power users in an non-IT org doing things their group can use without distracting IT from more pressing enterprise wide issues, getting immediate help with basic desktop support problems without wading through X number of tiers in the corporate helpdesk.
However, how can you expect these so-called non-IT IT people to keep in line with the path of corporate IT when it really counts? If a power user is subverting corporate IT policies, procedures, etc how could IT management keep him in check, since he is already disregarding corporate IT policy. For power users, it is easier to apologize than to ask permission...that is why they are doing what they are doing in the first place: they feel the need to subvert the system, to break the rules. They will continue to break the rules despite their acceptance. For example, will a power user recognize a company's desire to maintain software license compliance if they become accepted as "extra help" by the IT group because they installed their personal copy of photoshop on a work computer?
Regardless of their official acceptance as "extra IT help" or not, the problem still remains - this person is doing something that they're really not supposed to be doing, and it can have disasterous effects. This is especially true in huge, global enterprises that have things like change control boards and IT labs in place to ensure that each little thing will not cause problems with something else.
That is an interesting perspective on things. I guess it depends on if the proprietary modifications can be re-integrated into future versions of apache. I agree that this kind of maintenance can become more expensive than it is worth. In this specific case, long term, it could be beneficial to keep an eye out for that feature in another package if the cost of maintaining the separate code becomes too high. At that point it may be better to forklift the system and migrate to that other package...which again could cost more than it is worth.
I worked for a company that used an ERP system. Said ERP system, written in COBOL, was not Y2K compliant and required extensive code development to fix it. There was no sign of the vendor fixing it in a timeframe that we liked. We considered fixing it ourselves, but did not have the expertise (the code was provided to us despite not being "free and open source"). Outsourcing the work was not an option, and hiring developers was too costly as well. One crazy idea was offer to buy the company (small company) and then make them fix the code on our terms (i.e. cut their staff and have them do no other work than Y2K compliance until it was fixed) - at least this way, we could make money off future sales of the fixed software. Rather than risk the wait until the last minute for an upgrade to the system, we just tossed it for another vendor's ERP system 6 months before Y2K, as the cost of doing so was less than all other options.
The vendor decided to go out of business instead of selling out cheaply or fixing the code.
"Before answering, don't forget to include the cost of this software in the equation: conference room scheduling software isn't all "competitive upside", unless you somehow found a way to write/purchase this software for nothing. "
Ah, but I have found that way...get something that is free (as in beer and speech) even if it does only 90% of what I need to do, and the other 10% has little value to the organization. I can get it because someone else has done the work for me, and that work cost me nothing. Now my company decides developing the other 10% is worth doing, so we do it. It costs something to do that, but there is value in doing that vs buying the much more expensive thing that does 100% of what I need. (lets say I save $10,000 in licensing costs with commercial product by expending $5,000 to do the coding on the F/OSS package).
So open source worked for me to reduce my costs vs purchasing a system or developing it totally in house. Open source stops working for me when I then open source my changes and distribute them, as my competitor was originally not smart enough to consider this option, sees what I have done, and now saves the $5,000 development cost plus the $10,000 they were going to pay for the commercial package. If my competitor and I have the same sales and same expenses, they now made that much more profit than me at the end of our respective fiscal years. If they are already doing better than me, it widens the gap between us that much more. If I am doing better than them, it closes that gap a bit. We are talking about small numbers in this example, but use whatever size numbers you wish for whatever scale company, industry, or economy you desire.
Ok you're CEO of DEF. You open source your "average" (for lack of a better word) in house software app. Since you are an "average" company, you are still "superior" to someone else...i.e. not the bottom of the barrel. Your competitors that have "really crappy" in house software app take it, use it, add something to it, and provide no code back in return. They now compete closer or on the same level as you. Or worse, they have something else that, combined with your "average" software, puts them in a better position than you. Why would they give back any improvements to the software? To be nice? To move the world closer to the ideal that when everyone contributes, everyone benefits? Your company's contribution to the F/OSS movement in releasing the code goes unrewarded.
This is the fundamental problem with a large open community of anything...some give alot and some give nothing. those at the top (or that give something valuable) lose, and those at the bottom (or that give nothing valuable) gain until something that resembles an equilibrium results. This does not seem to work in business. Businesses do not try to be equals.
Sorry, I thought your comment was implying that inventory control software, for example, can not provide much, if any, of a competitive advantage...and that is what I was responding to.
In that case, if you develop in house software that performs inventory control (lets stick with that example) and it does not give your company an advantage, then the development of that software was a senseless waste of resources. I think that is the point of what alot of people are saying...that everything developed in house should provide your company an advantage and therefore would be against the best judgement of the business to release the code.
Why would you burn company resources on an in house project if a benefit can not be gained from it? If during the design phase of your project, it is discovered that the project is not worth more than the cost of development (hourly wages, etc) then the development should not happen in the first place. ANY code written in house must help the company turn a profit or otherwise create an advantage. And if it gives you an advantage, it will most likely give another company the same advantage.
Using your non-software example of the hammer...if my company somehow figured out that building a new hammer gives it an advantage over its competitors, and that building that hammer in house was the best way to go about getting that advantage - as ridiculous it may sound in this example - then they should do it and not provide the plans to the Free and Open Source Hammer Community. However in reality I doubt anyone will find a real world hammer modification to fit this example...but theoretically if they did, I bet they'd make a mint if they at least sold it or liscensed it for a fee instead of opening the plans freely to the world.
In many companies nowadays, payroll is pretty much outsourced. Even larger corporations use firms like ADP or Paychex for the vast majority of their payroll needs.
Desktop remote management scripts can be a competitive advantage. I know most businesses see IT as a black hole (there are plenty of reasons why it is not...that's another topic), but efficient IT can be a competetive advantage...i.e. if my company's team can get a salesguy's PC fixed faster then my competition because of some in house management script, it becomes a competitive advantage because now my salesguy can finish entering that million dollar order and it won't go to my competition.
Also, inventory control is extremely important to competition and in some cases is packed into a company's ERP system not a separate application.
That's assuming that you can use the "new stuff" as a competetive advantage. This new stuff, being F/OSS, does not provide an advantage if my competetion is also using it.
To expand on this, in your argument F/OSS is a two way street (I give something, you get the same benefit...you give something, I get the same benefit). The two way street eliminates competetive advantage. As CEO of company XYZ, I don't want everyone in my industry (for example, company ABC, that is not doing as well as XYZ is) to have the same advantages I do, even if it means I get something back from them (i.e. code that may have provided them some advantage over me). That makes us equal. I want to be superior. My holding something back may allow XYZ company to remain in a position of superiority or dominance in the industry.
Now don't get me wrong...I like F/OSS, and think there are great benefits to using it and contributing code to open source projects...but not as a corporation. OTOH, I might make charitable donations to a F/OSS project that my company uses, as I can then completely write that off, use it for positive PR, and realize that those donations may come back to me in the form of more advanced software at a minimal cost. That is a win/win.
What's the story on the wmode flash transparency issue? Last I heard Adobe was waiting for Mozilla to put some sort of code into the Linux version of their browser in order for the wmode fix in Adoobe Flash to work properly. Or maybe it's the other way around now? Anybody have a clue? How can I show somebody Linux/Firefox as an alternative to Windows/IE when this problem drastically affects the functionality of many websites out there?
The use of one vendor for all security products is not a good idea. To truly have defense in depth, there needs to be variety in your security products across your system or infrastructure. If all your security products have a common base (Cisco IOS, in this case), then one security vulnerability in the IOS software can render most or all of your defense useless. As an example, I might have a network built on Cisco Catalyst switches, with a Cisco VPN concentrator, Cisco Secure IDS, and a PIX firewall. I might have another that has a Checkpoint Firewall, with a Sonicwall VPN device, Snort IDS running on Linux, and Cisco routers with 3Com Switches. All of a sudden, an exploit comes out for IOS that allows full enable/administrator access via a specially crafted packet. Which network is more secure?
From the review, I can not tell if the author suggests this at all. If he does not, then he is missing one very important part of security...don't put all your eggs in one basket!
It wasn't originally like this. However people decided to organize like this so they would have more power against "real" corporations. Your hardly even think about it until your street has a board meeting. It's not like some suit is coming in telling you what you can and can't do...all bylaws, and any association regulations (very few, if any) are decided by the people who live on the street as shareholders. Most of the people who own homes in this situation have been there since NJ shore communities were nothing more than a bunch of tents. Some people paid as little as $5,000 for their houses back in the 50s and 60s....and now could sell their houses for at last half a mil, and that's just the going rate for a permanent trailer.
Oh, and BTW, some parts of NJ are below the Mason-Dixon.
Yes you pay to go to the beach in NJ. Even if you own a beach house, your property taxes/association fees are partially used for your family's beach tags for the summer. However, access to the beach is unrestricted during certain hours (such as after 5 PM), and during the off-season. While I believe the state pays for major beach/ocean maintenance (like cleaning up polluted water, or reclaiming lost sand after a major storm), lifeguard salaries and other beach-associated costs are the responsibility of the association that is responsible for their section of the beach (unless you go to a beach that is part of a state or national park). These costs are paid for by proceeds from beach tags.
This is done this way mostly to prevent a large hotel or developer from pushing out private ownership of beachfront property to build hotels and condos. Much of the Jersey Shore consists of housing associations. Each block or street forms their own corporation (i.e. ABC Beach Housing Association, Inc), complete with a board of directors. The coproration owns the land while the individual owns the house. Each resident is a shareholder in the coproration, the "share" meaning the parcel of land on which their house is built. So now you have a stretch of beach (for example, on a barrier island - Jersey has a bunch of these) that is owned by about 40-50 separate corporations that each own maybe 1/4 mile long stretch of beachfront property. Now let's say the shareholders of one corporation vote to sell to Mariott, it is still not in Mariott's interest to buy that corporation's property because maybe the corporation on the adjacent street won't sell and therefore there would not be enough room for Mariott to build a resort. They can't be pushed out by eminent domain either, because the property is already be owned by "corporations" and is not considered "blighted". So for once the little people beat the pants off big business.
BTW, not every area of the Jersey Shore follows this model, but this is typical in many areas.
...the Swedish Minister of Justice was quoted as saying "BORK!!!!" "BORK BORK BORK BORK BORK!!!!", made a rather obscene hand gesture, and walked away.
That's great if you don't have to worry about 100% Windows compatibility...most home users do not. I thought about this too. So some ground may be gained by Apple in the home user market. Still not enough to fear the reaper, when businesses account for so much more of the computing market. I have one application and one internal website that specifically require Windows, Office and IE 6.0 SP1+. WINE is not good enough. I can not change this at all, I must use Windows for these functions.
WINE really is the answer to that "one or two little things" that prevent most people from ditching Windows completely. I would still get the Windows apps I need without the OS if WINE was where I needed it to be.
After skimming TFA, it seems like the #1 reason the author claims Microsoft should fear Apple is due to Parallels on OS X. I don't quite get why this should make Microsoft shake in their boots. Parallels does not somehow allow Windows apps to run without a Windows installation (i.e. what WINE is attempting to accomplish). Therefore a license for XP/Vista/whatever is still required. If anything Microsoft should be happy that Mac users still need to own a Windows license to run apps in Parallels. It may mean that more people will buy Macs because they like the hardware and OS X, but simply owning a Mac with Parallels does not remove the user's need to run Windows apps, and therefore pay Microsoft for a license.
You know how hot and sweaty people get after about 20 minutes of playing DDR? My local arcade has these huge fans next to their machine, it's about time they came up with a better solution...
Ah, so because you are in good company, being wrong and popular makes you right. I guess the earth should still be flat, since all those people that looked at the evidence that it wasn't were obvioulsy wrong, as that's not what everyone else thought. No, I'm not saying that at all. Just striking down your assertion that "the rest of us" believe as you do. It is obvious that they do not. I never said that proved anything wright or wrong except your statement concerning what others here believe. But, of course, as someone who understands plain English and is soooo capable of thought as you imply you are, this should be clear as day.
Why aren't all the movie theaters suffering? I already explained that, the movie is not the main source of income for the movie theatre.
The entire computer software industry can not be compared to downloading music off of iTunes. A big reason most major software developers (such as Microsoft, IBM, etc) have not failed due to piracy is because there are penalties for businesses that do not license their software, as well as for computer manufacturers that distribute the software without a license. The risk associated with piracy for these entities is greater than the cost of purchasing the licenses. They also sell support, custom programming changes, and other services as well (which is not mean the same thing as selling software, but that's getting off the topic). As far as entertainment software (games, etc), major distributors are creating sources of income based on online playing and other subscription-based channels rather than relying solely on boxed sales of the software on a CD. Most major software distributors could survive without having Joe Schmoe walk into Staples or BestBuy and buy a boxed copy of their product, or entering their credit card number and downloading it from a site.
Failure in this example can not be proven until the idea up for discussion is attempted. As far as I see it, the entire article and discussions concerning the article are all speculation, are they not? Saying iTunes or other online music enterprises will remain successful with mandatory refunds is just as much speculation as claiming they will fail.
Um, I read at Threshold: 1 (posts moderated from 1 to 5) and I don't see "the rest of us" pointing out what you state...I see a bunch of people talking about how these types of returns will not work without massively invasive DRM, which would probably be cracked anyway. I see several other posters making the same point that I do, that allowing returns in this manner will be extremely detrimental to both online music suppliers as well as the recording industries, as it is not the same as returning a physical item. Many say in the world of purchasing something you download, that caveat emptor applies and/or you are not entitled to a refund. One poster made an analogy between this and the movie theater ticket refund as you have mentioned, but other posters replied stating that the concession stand is the real moneymaker for movie theaters and not the ticket sale, which is true. BTW, I have never known anyone who recieved a refund on a haircut, and the most I've ever heard of anyone getting in exchange for bad service at a restraunt is free drinks and/or dessert. So neither of them are suffering...as a business unit, they have other means of making up the loss. iTunes as a business unit sells music online; it relies solely on the success of making money selling music. iPods, iBooks, etc are a different part of the business that can and does operate without the success or failure of iTunes. When enough people can beat the system, that business unit will collapse.
No, that's not what I would do. I have never downloaded any music, legal or otherwise, but thanks for making assumptions about me. However, we do know that there is a percentage of people out there that will have no problem ripping off "the system" and that there are enough dishonest thieves (as you put it) to cause a problem. Then we are back to square one again where the record companies scream bloody murder about the proles getting their precious music for nothing.
Not exactly...because in the sale, the customer obtains something they did not have before in exchange for money. So the delivery does have some meaning. The thing is that the customer can and will always posess what has been downloaded as a result of the transaction, even after deletion or DRM shutdown. Someone will be able to "reactivate" the disabled song someday, I'm sure. There is no true benefit to the business that accepts returns of downloaded music (or downloaded anything for that matter).
That's the point. From the business side, you really aren't returning it...there is no guarantee that you deleted the file, that you don't have the song anywhere else. Apple is not "getting" anything back from the return. If they are forced to have a return policy, they should just stop selling music, as it will quickly become unprofitable every time someone buys a song and then wants their money back but still keeps the song. Makes no sense.
How do you return DOWNLOADED MUSIC?!?!?!? To return something usually means you give that thing back and no longer posess it in exchange for a refund, store credit, or replacement item. How do you return a digital file? It's not like they can check to see if you have it anymore. Even if you delete the file, it can be recovered. You will always have that file unless all your digital media has been confiscated upon "return".
Slashdot Mirror
On the surface, it looks great - power users in an non-IT org doing things their group can use without distracting IT from more pressing enterprise wide issues, getting immediate help with basic desktop support problems without wading through X number of tiers in the corporate helpdesk.
However, how can you expect these so-called non-IT IT people to keep in line with the path of corporate IT when it really counts? If a power user is subverting corporate IT policies, procedures, etc how could IT management keep him in check, since he is already disregarding corporate IT policy. For power users, it is easier to apologize than to ask permission...that is why they are doing what they are doing in the first place: they feel the need to subvert the system, to break the rules. They will continue to break the rules despite their acceptance. For example, will a power user recognize a company's desire to maintain software license compliance if they become accepted as "extra help" by the IT group because they installed their personal copy of photoshop on a work computer?
Regardless of their official acceptance as "extra IT help" or not, the problem still remains - this person is doing something that they're really not supposed to be doing, and it can have disasterous effects. This is especially true in huge, global enterprises that have things like change control boards and IT labs in place to ensure that each little thing will not cause problems with something else.
That is an interesting perspective on things. I guess it depends on if the proprietary modifications can be re-integrated into future versions of apache. I agree that this kind of maintenance can become more expensive than it is worth. In this specific case, long term, it could be beneficial to keep an eye out for that feature in another package if the cost of maintaining the separate code becomes too high. At that point it may be better to forklift the system and migrate to that other package...which again could cost more than it is worth.
I worked for a company that used an ERP system. Said ERP system, written in COBOL, was not Y2K compliant and required extensive code development to fix it. There was no sign of the vendor fixing it in a timeframe that we liked. We considered fixing it ourselves, but did not have the expertise (the code was provided to us despite not being "free and open source"). Outsourcing the work was not an option, and hiring developers was too costly as well. One crazy idea was offer to buy the company (small company) and then make them fix the code on our terms (i.e. cut their staff and have them do no other work than Y2K compliance until it was fixed) - at least this way, we could make money off future sales of the fixed software. Rather than risk the wait until the last minute for an upgrade to the system, we just tossed it for another vendor's ERP system 6 months before Y2K, as the cost of doing so was less than all other options.
The vendor decided to go out of business instead of selling out cheaply or fixing the code.
"Before answering, don't forget to include the cost of this software in the equation: conference room scheduling software isn't all "competitive upside", unless you somehow found a way to write/purchase this software for nothing. "
Ah, but I have found that way...get something that is free (as in beer and speech) even if it does only 90% of what I need to do, and the other 10% has little value to the organization. I can get it because someone else has done the work for me, and that work cost me nothing. Now my company decides developing the other 10% is worth doing, so we do it. It costs something to do that, but there is value in doing that vs buying the much more expensive thing that does 100% of what I need. (lets say I save $10,000 in licensing costs with commercial product by expending $5,000 to do the coding on the F/OSS package).
So open source worked for me to reduce my costs vs purchasing a system or developing it totally in house. Open source stops working for me when I then open source my changes and distribute them, as my competitor was originally not smart enough to consider this option, sees what I have done, and now saves the $5,000 development cost plus the $10,000 they were going to pay for the commercial package. If my competitor and I have the same sales and same expenses, they now made that much more profit than me at the end of our respective fiscal years. If they are already doing better than me, it widens the gap between us that much more. If I am doing better than them, it closes that gap a bit. We are talking about small numbers in this example, but use whatever size numbers you wish for whatever scale company, industry, or economy you desire.
Ok you're CEO of DEF. You open source your "average" (for lack of a better word) in house software app. Since you are an "average" company, you are still "superior" to someone else...i.e. not the bottom of the barrel. Your competitors that have "really crappy" in house software app take it, use it, add something to it, and provide no code back in return. They now compete closer or on the same level as you. Or worse, they have something else that, combined with your "average" software, puts them in a better position than you. Why would they give back any improvements to the software? To be nice? To move the world closer to the ideal that when everyone contributes, everyone benefits? Your company's contribution to the F/OSS movement in releasing the code goes unrewarded.
This is the fundamental problem with a large open community of anything...some give alot and some give nothing. those at the top (or that give something valuable) lose, and those at the bottom (or that give nothing valuable) gain until something that resembles an equilibrium results. This does not seem to work in business. Businesses do not try to be equals.
Sorry, I thought your comment was implying that inventory control software, for example, can not provide much, if any, of a competitive advantage...and that is what I was responding to.
In that case, if you develop in house software that performs inventory control (lets stick with that example) and it does not give your company an advantage, then the development of that software was a senseless waste of resources. I think that is the point of what alot of people are saying...that everything developed in house should provide your company an advantage and therefore would be against the best judgement of the business to release the code.
Why would you burn company resources on an in house project if a benefit can not be gained from it? If during the design phase of your project, it is discovered that the project is not worth more than the cost of development (hourly wages, etc) then the development should not happen in the first place. ANY code written in house must help the company turn a profit or otherwise create an advantage. And if it gives you an advantage, it will most likely give another company the same advantage.
Using your non-software example of the hammer...if my company somehow figured out that building a new hammer gives it an advantage over its competitors, and that building that hammer in house was the best way to go about getting that advantage - as ridiculous it may sound in this example - then they should do it and not provide the plans to the Free and Open Source Hammer Community. However in reality I doubt anyone will find a real world hammer modification to fit this example...but theoretically if they did, I bet they'd make a mint if they at least sold it or liscensed it for a fee instead of opening the plans freely to the world.
In many companies nowadays, payroll is pretty much outsourced. Even larger corporations use firms like ADP or Paychex for the vast majority of their payroll needs.
Desktop remote management scripts can be a competitive advantage. I know most businesses see IT as a black hole (there are plenty of reasons why it is not...that's another topic), but efficient IT can be a competetive advantage...i.e. if my company's team can get a salesguy's PC fixed faster then my competition because of some in house management script, it becomes a competitive advantage because now my salesguy can finish entering that million dollar order and it won't go to my competition.
Also, inventory control is extremely important to competition and in some cases is packed into a company's ERP system not a separate application.
That's assuming that you can use the "new stuff" as a competetive advantage. This new stuff, being F/OSS, does not provide an advantage if my competetion is also using it.
To expand on this, in your argument F/OSS is a two way street (I give something, you get the same benefit...you give something, I get the same benefit). The two way street eliminates competetive advantage. As CEO of company XYZ, I don't want everyone in my industry (for example, company ABC, that is not doing as well as XYZ is) to have the same advantages I do, even if it means I get something back from them (i.e. code that may have provided them some advantage over me). That makes us equal. I want to be superior. My holding something back may allow XYZ company to remain in a position of superiority or dominance in the industry.
Now don't get me wrong...I like F/OSS, and think there are great benefits to using it and contributing code to open source projects...but not as a corporation. OTOH, I might make charitable donations to a F/OSS project that my company uses, as I can then completely write that off, use it for positive PR, and realize that those donations may come back to me in the form of more advanced software at a minimal cost. That is a win/win.
What's the story on the wmode flash transparency issue? Last I heard Adobe was waiting for Mozilla to put some sort of code into the Linux version of their browser in order for the wmode fix in Adoobe Flash to work properly. Or maybe it's the other way around now? Anybody have a clue? How can I show somebody Linux/Firefox as an alternative to Windows/IE when this problem drastically affects the functionality of many websites out there?
The use of one vendor for all security products is not a good idea. To truly have defense in depth, there needs to be variety in your security products across your system or infrastructure. If all your security products have a common base (Cisco IOS, in this case), then one security vulnerability in the IOS software can render most or all of your defense useless. As an example, I might have a network built on Cisco Catalyst switches, with a Cisco VPN concentrator, Cisco Secure IDS, and a PIX firewall. I might have another that has a Checkpoint Firewall, with a Sonicwall VPN device, Snort IDS running on Linux, and Cisco routers with 3Com Switches. All of a sudden, an exploit comes out for IOS that allows full enable/administrator access via a specially crafted packet. Which network is more secure?
From the review, I can not tell if the author suggests this at all. If he does not, then he is missing one very important part of security...don't put all your eggs in one basket!
hehehe I knew there was a reason I named my horse STALLMAN in Zelda: Twilight Princess...
It wasn't originally like this. However people decided to organize like this so they would have more power against "real" corporations. Your hardly even think about it until your street has a board meeting. It's not like some suit is coming in telling you what you can and can't do...all bylaws, and any association regulations (very few, if any) are decided by the people who live on the street as shareholders. Most of the people who own homes in this situation have been there since NJ shore communities were nothing more than a bunch of tents. Some people paid as little as $5,000 for their houses back in the 50s and 60s....and now could sell their houses for at last half a mil, and that's just the going rate for a permanent trailer.
Oh, and BTW, some parts of NJ are below the Mason-Dixon.
Yes you pay to go to the beach in NJ. Even if you own a beach house, your property taxes/association fees are partially used for your family's beach tags for the summer. However, access to the beach is unrestricted during certain hours (such as after 5 PM), and during the off-season. While I believe the state pays for major beach/ocean maintenance (like cleaning up polluted water, or reclaiming lost sand after a major storm), lifeguard salaries and other beach-associated costs are the responsibility of the association that is responsible for their section of the beach (unless you go to a beach that is part of a state or national park). These costs are paid for by proceeds from beach tags. This is done this way mostly to prevent a large hotel or developer from pushing out private ownership of beachfront property to build hotels and condos. Much of the Jersey Shore consists of housing associations. Each block or street forms their own corporation (i.e. ABC Beach Housing Association, Inc), complete with a board of directors. The coproration owns the land while the individual owns the house. Each resident is a shareholder in the coproration, the "share" meaning the parcel of land on which their house is built. So now you have a stretch of beach (for example, on a barrier island - Jersey has a bunch of these) that is owned by about 40-50 separate corporations that each own maybe 1/4 mile long stretch of beachfront property. Now let's say the shareholders of one corporation vote to sell to Mariott, it is still not in Mariott's interest to buy that corporation's property because maybe the corporation on the adjacent street won't sell and therefore there would not be enough room for Mariott to build a resort. They can't be pushed out by eminent domain either, because the property is already be owned by "corporations" and is not considered "blighted". So for once the little people beat the pants off big business. BTW, not every area of the Jersey Shore follows this model, but this is typical in many areas.
...they should get on TV next to Jeff Foxworthy and say "I go to Stanford, but I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"
"There are FOUR LIGHTS!!!!!"
...the tubes are all clogged, should they try Dran-O?
...the Swedish Minister of Justice was quoted as saying "BORK!!!!" "BORK BORK BORK BORK BORK!!!!", made a rather obscene hand gesture, and walked away.
That's great if you don't have to worry about 100% Windows compatibility...most home users do not. I thought about this too. So some ground may be gained by Apple in the home user market. Still not enough to fear the reaper, when businesses account for so much more of the computing market. I have one application and one internal website that specifically require Windows, Office and IE 6.0 SP1+. WINE is not good enough. I can not change this at all, I must use Windows for these functions.
WINE really is the answer to that "one or two little things" that prevent most people from ditching Windows completely. I would still get the Windows apps I need without the OS if WINE was where I needed it to be.
After skimming TFA, it seems like the #1 reason the author claims Microsoft should fear Apple is due to Parallels on OS X. I don't quite get why this should make Microsoft shake in their boots. Parallels does not somehow allow Windows apps to run without a Windows installation (i.e. what WINE is attempting to accomplish). Therefore a license for XP/Vista/whatever is still required. If anything Microsoft should be happy that Mac users still need to own a Windows license to run apps in Parallels. It may mean that more people will buy Macs because they like the hardware and OS X, but simply owning a Mac with Parallels does not remove the user's need to run Windows apps, and therefore pay Microsoft for a license.
You know how hot and sweaty people get after about 20 minutes of playing DDR? My local arcade has these huge fans next to their machine, it's about time they came up with a better solution...
Um, I read at Threshold: 1 (posts moderated from 1 to 5) and I don't see "the rest of us" pointing out what you state...I see a bunch of people talking about how these types of returns will not work without massively invasive DRM, which would probably be cracked anyway. I see several other posters making the same point that I do, that allowing returns in this manner will be extremely detrimental to both online music suppliers as well as the recording industries, as it is not the same as returning a physical item. Many say in the world of purchasing something you download, that caveat emptor applies and/or you are not entitled to a refund. One poster made an analogy between this and the movie theater ticket refund as you have mentioned, but other posters replied stating that the concession stand is the real moneymaker for movie theaters and not the ticket sale, which is true. BTW, I have never known anyone who recieved a refund on a haircut, and the most I've ever heard of anyone getting in exchange for bad service at a restraunt is free drinks and/or dessert. So neither of them are suffering...as a business unit, they have other means of making up the loss. iTunes as a business unit sells music online; it relies solely on the success of making money selling music. iPods, iBooks, etc are a different part of the business that can and does operate without the success or failure of iTunes. When enough people can beat the system, that business unit will collapse.
No, that's not what I would do. I have never downloaded any music, legal or otherwise, but thanks for making assumptions about me. However, we do know that there is a percentage of people out there that will have no problem ripping off "the system" and that there are enough dishonest thieves (as you put it) to cause a problem. Then we are back to square one again where the record companies scream bloody murder about the proles getting their precious music for nothing.
Not exactly...because in the sale, the customer obtains something they did not have before in exchange for money. So the delivery does have some meaning. The thing is that the customer can and will always posess what has been downloaded as a result of the transaction, even after deletion or DRM shutdown. Someone will be able to "reactivate" the disabled song someday, I'm sure. There is no true benefit to the business that accepts returns of downloaded music (or downloaded anything for that matter).
That's the point. From the business side, you really aren't returning it...there is no guarantee that you deleted the file, that you don't have the song anywhere else. Apple is not "getting" anything back from the return. If they are forced to have a return policy, they should just stop selling music, as it will quickly become unprofitable every time someone buys a song and then wants their money back but still keeps the song. Makes no sense.
How do you return DOWNLOADED MUSIC?!?!?!? To return something usually means you give that thing back and no longer posess it in exchange for a refund, store credit, or replacement item. How do you return a digital file? It's not like they can check to see if you have it anymore. Even if you delete the file, it can be recovered. You will always have that file unless all your digital media has been confiscated upon "return".