portable electronics are really a different market It's more of an appliance market, right? The iPod has a clearly defined, limited roll that it fills well. For most people, the iPhone will merely be a multi-roll appliance.
Interestingly, most people describe their PC in similar terms: it does this, this and this for them. It takes less space than a typewriter and is nicer than a WebTV for browsing. However, they all know that software compatibility would prevent a Mac from conveniently filling certain rolls using mainstream commercial software.
IMHO, this is what stops Macs from flying off the shelves. God forbid that this mindset afflict the iPhone. Certain people will work overtime to spread the meme that "you just can't use the iPhone in a corporate environment due to lack of exchange/MS/whatever compatibility," with the intention of casting a shadow over its many other features - just as we've seen time and time again with Apple's desktops.
Nonetheless, if I could write my own software for it & run 3rd party software, as I do on my OS X boxes, I'd buy an iPhone this evening. However, I can't and I know there will be other things that the iPhone wouldn't do for me, so I wont. Honestly, the compatibility demon afflicting Macs has a far more malicious cousin in the iPhone, and neither I nor a great many early adopters can see past such a terrible limitation - regardless of the product's other advantages. Sorry.
While everything you say is true, I have to wonder why Apple has so little PC market share. All the desirable OS features you describe should make Macs fly off the shelves - but they don't. Why would the iPhone be any different?
Your flippant comment adds insult to injury. Prince did not get where he is today by standing out or taking chances - he needs to stay within the reservation, abide by his contract and avoid this sort of publicity.
By giving its employees easier access to a dentists google is INCREASING the system's efficiency by increasing the number of unnecessary visits to the dentist. This could easily save money. It's called preventative treatment & examination.
I mean are there magical efficiency fairies that dab their little wands over the transactions or something? Sure, kid, why not. *pats Rikishi on the head*
Likewise there is the inefficiency induced by oversight that google must do of this system and so on. I don't know. Our system is pretty fucked up - any sort of oversight might go a long way.
First, it's worth keeping in mind that Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to act in their own interest.
Pursuant to this obligation, this program could conceivably offer employees and employer numerous benefits. Consider that a large volume of research indicates that the American health care system is grossly inefficient. If Google can supplant or merely gain better oversight of any element of this inefficient apparatus, it can potentially save money. Furthermore, by offering employees convenient care, Google may attract more productive employees. Therefore, it stands to reason that this program could serve Google's interest.
He made money by entering a market where the only real costs of manufacture are the initial R&D. No. A great number of companies exist in this market, and yet Microsoft has cornered entire sectors of it. Why? What sets them apart? Is it that they are frugal and efficient? Penny pinchers, even?
I could very easily just mod you down (I have mod points) *rolleyes*
I'd prefer a traditional plan, because I personally am only 1/6 (less, actually) of the dental needs that I am responsible for. Am I making sense? Not really. The American healthcare system is grossly inefficient. Where do you think the money your employer is shoveling into the fire on your behalf comes from? It comes from your salary.
Google is providing convenient care that saves you money, time and hassle. And you can go see an outside dentist if it pleases you. What's not to like?
Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly. Google is calling them on it. Would you care to elaborate on what aspect of this is abuse?
I'm sorry, but it looks like we're going to have to reject your biased characterization unless you can come up with, you know, a logical argument.
Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further? Because whenever Microsoft is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they offer to "punish" themselves by taking some more cookies.
Microsoft pulls the same cheap trick every time they find themselves in this jam. To wit, the progression of the standard MS anti-antitrust gambit:
1Competitors: "Hey, MS is violating black letter contractual obligations established by their last antitrust settlement."
2Microsoft: "Fuck off, crybabies. We aren't a monopoly and if we are it's because you suck."
3Competitors: "DOJ, are you hearing this?!"
4DOJ: "MS, abide by the terms of your agreement. We're on your side and we'll try to find some way to help you out of this pickle, but you guys make it tough by being so blatant and intransigent."
5Microsoft: "OK, we'll pretend that such-and-so self-selected half-ass measure is sooooo hard on us and bitch, bitch, bitch. Why don't you try being us for even ten seconds? Believe me, it's... not very good and all these legal bills would put you in the poor house. Seriously. Freedom to innovate, faggots!"
I'm curious are you spouting the usual slashdot group think opinion, what is actually making your life better? My experience has shown it to be XP with a few little extra features to make my life worse. I'll admit for most people there isn't a great disincentive to upgrade but if you have its worth using. I'm curious what's your answer going to be?
WHoc ares if it is antithetical to "democracy". It's antithetical to *freedom*. Why is it that the debasement of our democracy tends to reduce our liberty? Let's think it through. The constitution codifies our liberty - however, it can be amended to remove those freedoms or, to the same effect, ignored by those whom we select to represent us. Therefore, our liberties flow from the will of the people and through ballot box. That the people can will their democracy to act in any certain way is part of the point. Healthy democracies are evil if their people wish it so.
So why protect democracy? Why not try protect freedom instead? Democracy permits the people to express their will; if their will is to be free then so shall they be. What would you have us do instead? Elect a benevolent dictator?
You assume the worst. In certain contexts, this is pragmatic. Massive e-voting fraud could lead to a number of adverse outcomes that would benefit the very people entrusted to prevent it.
Secrets as big as "9-11" or "buying an election" would be almost impossible to keep under wraps. Would you mind elaborating on this? It's kind of hard to miss planes hitting buildings, whereas a backdoor hidden in a black box by its keepers could slip by.
They want their code closed because it is designed by total morons Accountability would help ensure that the code would be correct.
Politics is... just [elect] the rich kids who can talk pretty good and haven't killed too many hookers. How do you account for GWB?
* Voting machine manufacturers want their code closed so that they can take bribes for deciding the winner.
* Microsoft wants their code closed in order to protect lock-in.
* Those in power take bribes from Microsoft and the voting machine manufacturers, and moreover, they want to be able to hand their offices to friends and supporters when their own terms are up.
Summary: things are happening that appear to be motivated by agendas antithetical to democracy.
And criminals! With 2,186,230 in jail and thousands investigated without due process, Americans are either the most criminal or the most oppressed people on this earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, most people describe their PC in similar terms: it does this, this and this for them. It takes less space than a typewriter and is nicer than a WebTV for browsing. However, they all know that software compatibility would prevent a Mac from conveniently filling certain rolls using mainstream commercial software.
IMHO, this is what stops Macs from flying off the shelves. God forbid that this mindset afflict the iPhone. Certain people will work overtime to spread the meme that "you just can't use the iPhone in a corporate environment due to lack of exchange/MS/whatever compatibility," with the intention of casting a shadow over its many other features - just as we've seen time and time again with Apple's desktops.
Nonetheless, if I could write my own software for it & run 3rd party software, as I do on my OS X boxes, I'd buy an iPhone this evening. However, I can't and I know there will be other things that the iPhone wouldn't do for me, so I wont. Honestly, the compatibility demon afflicting Macs has a far more malicious cousin in the iPhone, and neither I nor a great many early adopters can see past such a terrible limitation - regardless of the product's other advantages. Sorry.
While everything you say is true, I have to wonder why Apple has so little PC market share. All the desirable OS features you describe should make Macs fly off the shelves - but they don't. Why would the iPhone be any different?
Your flippant comment adds insult to injury. Prince did not get where he is today by standing out or taking chances - he needs to stay within the reservation, abide by his contract and avoid this sort of publicity.
Desperation is a stinky cologne, Prince.
-The RIAA
First, it's worth keeping in mind that Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to act in their own interest.
Pursuant to this obligation, this program could conceivably offer employees and employer numerous benefits. Consider that a large volume of research indicates that the American health care system is grossly inefficient. If Google can supplant or merely gain better oversight of any element of this inefficient apparatus, it can potentially save money. Furthermore, by offering employees convenient care, Google may attract more productive employees. Therefore, it stands to reason that this program could serve Google's interest.
Let's see your numbers.
Google is providing convenient care that saves you money, time and hassle. And you can go see an outside dentist if it pleases you. What's not to like?
*shrug*
...
We can't all be stars.
^g
Are you saying that Microsoft : microserfs :: Dick Cheney : CIA agents?
Because, while this is a distinctly impertinent thing to say on Slashdot, I'd have to agree with you.
Of course there's a GSM version (8125 aka wizard) of the CDMA-only apache (6700).
;-)
However, this guy's phone is a 6700, so it's probably CDMA
Honestly, it would be nice if Microsoft's win mobile SDK availability forced Apple to follow suit.
Then we could have a phone that's both open and without a horrid API + terrible screen redraw issues. (No backing store? It's not 1989, guys.)
Hello? Why was the proposal necessary?
Due to violations of the settlement.
I'm sorry, but it looks like we're going to have to reject your biased characterization unless you can come up with, you know, a logical argument.
And let me straighten you out.
What if Google were a monopoly and therefore conceivably obligated to start sharing? Well, they fucking aren't.
Thank you, come again.
Microsoft pulls the same cheap trick every time they find themselves in this jam. To wit, the progression of the standard MS anti-antitrust gambit:
1 Competitors: "Hey, MS is violating black letter contractual obligations established by their last antitrust settlement."
2 Microsoft: "Fuck off, crybabies. We aren't a monopoly and if we are it's because you suck."
3 Competitors: "DOJ, are you hearing this?!"
4 DOJ: "MS, abide by the terms of your agreement. We're on your side and we'll try to find some way to help you out of this pickle, but you guys make it tough by being so blatant and intransigent."
5 Microsoft: "OK, we'll pretend that such-and-so self-selected half-ass measure is sooooo hard on us and bitch, bitch, bitch. Why don't you try being us for even ten seconds? Believe me, it's... not very good and all these legal bills would put you in the poor house. Seriously. Freedom to innovate, faggots!"
6 GOTO 1
Congradulations, you win the Well, It Works On My Parent's Computer Award !!!
Remember, this is a step above the Well, It Works On My Computer Award.
You're really on fire right now. Keep it up!
I'm curious are you spouting the usual slashdot group think opinion, what is actually making your life better? My experience has shown it to be XP with a few little extra features to make my life worse. I'll admit for most people there isn't a great disincentive to upgrade but if you have its worth using. I'm curious what's your answer going to be?
* Voting machine manufacturers want their code closed so that they can take bribes for deciding the winner.
* Microsoft wants their code closed in order to protect lock-in.
* Those in power take bribes from Microsoft and the voting machine manufacturers, and moreover, they want to be able to hand their offices to friends and supporters when their own terms are up.
Summary: things are happening that appear to be motivated by agendas antithetical to democracy.
Thousands! Of terrorists, in our own country!
And criminals! With 2,186,230 in jail and thousands investigated without due process, Americans are either the most criminal or the most oppressed people on this earth.
I'm sure that apathy like yours will get results.
And while I'm at it, why don't you grow a brain.
Great.