That car analogy would fit better if BMW had 90+ percent of the market and is telling consumers to use only their own brand of gas in their vehicles. It's abusing their standing as a monopoly to reduce competition.
And weren't the original complaints against Microsoft by the EU around the browser being tied to the OS? I think this reflects that they didn't really change it enough and are still discouraging any competition.
Except Apple is making their money on the Mac platform by selling the hardware. The software is there to entice people to buy Mac computers. It didn't work last time they had a clone market, and I doubt it will work this time.
I think Apple knows they don't have much of a case against individual users. Plus, going the RIAA route would turn a lot of people off from the brand. However, when it comes to other companies selling clones with Mac OS installed on it, Apple's case is pretty solid.
Actually, they still advise against taking Aspirin while pregnant. Pretty much all my wife was allowed to take was Tylenol for her first trimester migraines. I bet Aspirin could have past those trials with warnings not to consume while pregnant or possible pregnant being the outcome.
What an apt analogy. How many people buying cars buy them to change anything (or even care what kind of oil is put in them).
I think the big disconnect between the average open source, linux geek and the general public is that the general public likes treating computers and computer based products as appliances that just work.
The whole walled garden approach has worked out pretty well for Apple with the iPod and iPhone. If that doesn't fit your needs though, that's fine. Just don't assume that it isn't the best choice for anyone else because of your needs or opinions.
The difference between what Apple is doing with the iPhone and what the cell companies are doing is that Apple is attempting to provide a user focused UI. Whereas the cell companies are trying to figure out how to charge for as much as possible for anything on their network.
Except in this case it is the exact same set of services applied the exact same way. I hear that argument come up a lot, but the fact is that forcing a group of people to use separate but "equal" schools, restrooms, etc is very different than creating a new right.
A better comparison would be prohibition. Everyone had their right to drink taken away. The people who liked alcohol were upset, but the people who did not like alcohol were quite happy. It was the same restriction of a right applied equally across the population though.
Not only that, but a boycott of Apple would play right into the record companies. They demanded DRM in the music store to begin with, so Apple came up with a solution. But then, as the iTunes store grew, the record companies realized that Apple was in control because of the very thing they demanded was in place. Why do you think Amazon can sell DRM-free tracks? The record companies are trying to break Apple's stranglehold on the downloadable music market. Although, given that iTunes does have some DRM free tracks from one record company, I am willing to bet Apple would rather just sell them without the DRM as well.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
If either side had done some research or better communicating before yelling on the internet, this would have been a non-issue.
Here we have another example of ideology trumping practicality. It costs Obama next to nothing to post the videos to Youtube. Just about anyone with a computer can view them there, and there are programs out there that can download the videos on Youtube.
There would be a lot more work in putting the videos into an open and downloadable format as they would then have to host them somewhere. Not to mention, there are a lot more people surfing Youtube rather than, say, any of the government's sites. To put it another way, if one wants real openness (as in getting the word out about what you are doing), it also helps to avoid obscurity by targeting things people actually pay attention to.
At least for Camino, it used to be a great (the only?) way to have a Gecko based browser built in a native Mac interface. Now that Firefox 3 offers that, there isn't much reason to use Camino. But for a while, Camino was much nicer than Firefox on a Mac.
Except killing the DoD budget, at least in one big cut, would devastate the economy. We're too reliant on the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about. However, if we put some thought into it and gradually reduced that spending to a reasonable level, then the economy would be able to absorb the loss, especially if we rerouted at least some of that money into scientific research that the entire public can take advantage of.
It would be nice if they changed the icon in the corner to indicate the behavior though. Maybe just orange instead of red for apps that don't actually quit?
Once you start surrendering to the water, you lose. And you will keep on running from any danger that comes in your path.
I know, just look at New Orleans. Just because they're mostly below sea level and frequently the target of Hurricanes is no reason to stop fighting the water.
I think a lot of it depends on whether you know what you want to do, whether you need a degree to do it or not, and whether you can find a reasonable priced school that teaches it (like a state school or start at a community college).
There are way too many people going to college just for the experience. In addition, many people don't think about how they will pay for it later. Not all degrees will raise your earnings enough to make it worthwhile.
On the other side of the issue is that there are many jobs that either really require a degree or are just impossible to get without one. Which is why it really depends on the person, the career, and the school.
But other music players are doing it. Come on, give it a chance, I bet you'll like it.
Seriously though, of all the features that iTunes could have, those were the two examples the submitter came up with? A useless UI feature and something only useful to a small segment of users (those who can't use the add music feature).
Actually I think this reinforces minority racism. Yeah he got a lot of the white vote, but when 90-something percent of blacks voted for him (at least in the primaries and I think I saw some general election polls reporting the same), that sure looks a lot like racism to me. Think about it another way, what if 90-something percent of white people voted for McCain?
This makes sense. Usability and polish issues aside, the biggest things holding Linux back are a consistent face behind the Operating System and perceived value. Canonical standing behind Ubuntu solves the first (note this is about desktop versions, not server). Releasing an ultra-polished pay for version would solve the second. The general public will not use something that is free because the perceived value is so low; "They're giving it away, it must not be that good."
Well, unless you're using specific iPhone features vs iPod Touch features, then it would work fine as they have the same interface and OS. That's like arguing against the J2ME platform because all those phones are different and have different features.
Apple has the perception in the eyes of the public of making exciting and innovative products. Part of that could be because it is true and part of it is because of marketing. So when Apple decides to enter a new industry, people get excited.
Now Google may be known for innovating and be a household name, but was the android phone marketed as being connected to Google? Not only than, but Google didn't design the physical phone, just the platform.
Or, to think of it another way, the major selling point for Android is that it is an open source platform for handheld devices. Does the general public get excited over open source? The reason for the lack of excitement over the first Android phone is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Maybe the non-internet savvy people know that in order to get the most out of the internet, you can't treat it like a book? That seems like an obvious conclusion to me. If you treat an internet search like a puzzle to be solved (which anyone who searches the internet regularly does), then you aren't just reading what's on the page. That's just one of the obvious alternate conclusions one could jump to. But then, that was also just based on the summary, which is almost never an accurate representation of the actual article or study.
Slashdot Mirror
That car analogy would fit better if BMW had 90+ percent of the market and is telling consumers to use only their own brand of gas in their vehicles. It's abusing their standing as a monopoly to reduce competition.
And weren't the original complaints against Microsoft by the EU around the browser being tied to the OS? I think this reflects that they didn't really change it enough and are still discouraging any competition.
Except Apple is making their money on the Mac platform by selling the hardware. The software is there to entice people to buy Mac computers. It didn't work last time they had a clone market, and I doubt it will work this time. I think Apple knows they don't have much of a case against individual users. Plus, going the RIAA route would turn a lot of people off from the brand. However, when it comes to other companies selling clones with Mac OS installed on it, Apple's case is pretty solid.
Actually, they still advise against taking Aspirin while pregnant. Pretty much all my wife was allowed to take was Tylenol for her first trimester migraines. I bet Aspirin could have past those trials with warnings not to consume while pregnant or possible pregnant being the outcome.
What an apt analogy. How many people buying cars buy them to change anything (or even care what kind of oil is put in them).
I think the big disconnect between the average open source, linux geek and the general public is that the general public likes treating computers and computer based products as appliances that just work.
The whole walled garden approach has worked out pretty well for Apple with the iPod and iPhone. If that doesn't fit your needs though, that's fine. Just don't assume that it isn't the best choice for anyone else because of your needs or opinions.
The difference between what Apple is doing with the iPhone and what the cell companies are doing is that Apple is attempting to provide a user focused UI. Whereas the cell companies are trying to figure out how to charge for as much as possible for anything on their network.
Except in this case it is the exact same set of services applied the exact same way. I hear that argument come up a lot, but the fact is that forcing a group of people to use separate but "equal" schools, restrooms, etc is very different than creating a new right.
A better comparison would be prohibition. Everyone had their right to drink taken away. The people who liked alcohol were upset, but the people who did not like alcohol were quite happy. It was the same restriction of a right applied equally across the population though.
Don't forget to build up your gold supply as well. Because once chaos rules, everyone will accept shiny metal for trade, right?
Not likely, as the Great Lakes origin had more to do with plate tectonics and glaciers than comet impacts.
Not only that, but a boycott of Apple would play right into the record companies. They demanded DRM in the music store to begin with, so Apple came up with a solution. But then, as the iTunes store grew, the record companies realized that Apple was in control because of the very thing they demanded was in place. Why do you think Amazon can sell DRM-free tracks? The record companies are trying to break Apple's stranglehold on the downloadable music market. Although, given that iTunes does have some DRM free tracks from one record company, I am willing to bet Apple would rather just sell them without the DRM as well.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." If either side had done some research or better communicating before yelling on the internet, this would have been a non-issue.
A red flag should go up when you are forced to use an operating system designated by the government.
Here we have another example of ideology trumping practicality. It costs Obama next to nothing to post the videos to Youtube. Just about anyone with a computer can view them there, and there are programs out there that can download the videos on Youtube.
There would be a lot more work in putting the videos into an open and downloadable format as they would then have to host them somewhere. Not to mention, there are a lot more people surfing Youtube rather than, say, any of the government's sites. To put it another way, if one wants real openness (as in getting the word out about what you are doing), it also helps to avoid obscurity by targeting things people actually pay attention to.
At least for Camino, it used to be a great (the only?) way to have a Gecko based browser built in a native Mac interface. Now that Firefox 3 offers that, there isn't much reason to use Camino. But for a while, Camino was much nicer than Firefox on a Mac.
Except killing the DoD budget, at least in one big cut, would devastate the economy. We're too reliant on the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about. However, if we put some thought into it and gradually reduced that spending to a reasonable level, then the economy would be able to absorb the loss, especially if we rerouted at least some of that money into scientific research that the entire public can take advantage of.
It would be nice if they changed the icon in the corner to indicate the behavior though. Maybe just orange instead of red for apps that don't actually quit?
Once you start surrendering to the water, you lose. And you will keep on running from any danger that comes in your path.
I know, just look at New Orleans. Just because they're mostly below sea level and frequently the target of Hurricanes is no reason to stop fighting the water.
I think a lot of it depends on whether you know what you want to do, whether you need a degree to do it or not, and whether you can find a reasonable priced school that teaches it (like a state school or start at a community college).
There are way too many people going to college just for the experience. In addition, many people don't think about how they will pay for it later. Not all degrees will raise your earnings enough to make it worthwhile.
On the other side of the issue is that there are many jobs that either really require a degree or are just impossible to get without one. Which is why it really depends on the person, the career, and the school.
So you got rid of the TV and the newspaper but kept the internet, the worst of the three?
But other music players are doing it. Come on, give it a chance, I bet you'll like it.
Seriously though, of all the features that iTunes could have, those were the two examples the submitter came up with? A useless UI feature and something only useful to a small segment of users (those who can't use the add music feature).
Actually I think this reinforces minority racism. Yeah he got a lot of the white vote, but when 90-something percent of blacks voted for him (at least in the primaries and I think I saw some general election polls reporting the same), that sure looks a lot like racism to me. Think about it another way, what if 90-something percent of white people voted for McCain?
NASA says no pieces larger than 40lb.
Great, so I still have to worry about dodging falling mini-fridges?
This makes sense. Usability and polish issues aside, the biggest things holding Linux back are a consistent face behind the Operating System and perceived value. Canonical standing behind Ubuntu solves the first (note this is about desktop versions, not server). Releasing an ultra-polished pay for version would solve the second. The general public will not use something that is free because the perceived value is so low; "They're giving it away, it must not be that good."
Well, unless you're using specific iPhone features vs iPod Touch features, then it would work fine as they have the same interface and OS. That's like arguing against the J2ME platform because all those phones are different and have different features.
Apple has the perception in the eyes of the public of making exciting and innovative products. Part of that could be because it is true and part of it is because of marketing. So when Apple decides to enter a new industry, people get excited.
Now Google may be known for innovating and be a household name, but was the android phone marketed as being connected to Google? Not only than, but Google didn't design the physical phone, just the platform.
Or, to think of it another way, the major selling point for Android is that it is an open source platform for handheld devices. Does the general public get excited over open source? The reason for the lack of excitement over the first Android phone is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Even those domestic brand names would be bought up. After all, what import company wouldn't want a domestic nameplate to sell their vehicles under?
Maybe the non-internet savvy people know that in order to get the most out of the internet, you can't treat it like a book? That seems like an obvious conclusion to me. If you treat an internet search like a puzzle to be solved (which anyone who searches the internet regularly does), then you aren't just reading what's on the page. That's just one of the obvious alternate conclusions one could jump to. But then, that was also just based on the summary, which is almost never an accurate representation of the actual article or study.