It doesn't serve anyone to replace MS licencing costs with Apple hardware costs
What "Apple hardware costs"? 1990 called - they want their argument back. Macs have been reasonably competitive with comparable PC hardware for a while now. There is a problem if Apple don't make anything at the price point/form factor you want (e.g. you want a low end mini-tower or a basic cheap-chunky-and-cheerful laptop) but if you read TFA they're talking about MacBook Pros (high-end premium brand laptops) as an alternative to ThinkPads (high-end premium brand laptops) so I'm sure Apple will be able to cut IBM a pretty competetive deal (its not like IBM will be walking into the local Apple store and buying them individually, is it?)
Also, TFA is talking about supporting a Mac option, not casting the PCs into the outer darkness, so they won't be trying to sell Mac Pros to clients who want a room full of mini-towers.
Many FOSS projects I am interested in (Open Office, Scribus being two big ones) are really lagging behind in the OSX ports, either more bugs or are a version behind. I understand that is partly because of Aqua or some other binding issue with OSX. It is truly not the seamless experience you get with running a Linux version on Linux.
Well, IBM probably have the resources to fix that fairly quickly for the products they need. For starters, they have their own OpenOffice-based productivity suite - not currently available for OS X, but that could change if IBM became Mac fans. Eclipse seems to be pretty stable on OS X these days - and who knows how much of IBMs internal stuff is built on the Eclipse application framework?
Macs don't always follow the Linux rules:
...but now that OS X is officially UNIX it ought to follow POSIX rules. Anyway, OS X contains a lot of FOSS subsystems (Apache, Samba, Cups) which ought to be customisable/fixable - and the jolly blue giant probably has the nous to fix things like that.
On visiting vancouver.cs.washington.edu (which you are encouraging people to digg and blog) I'm told that I have taken part in an experiment, many thanks, fait accompli - I'm not told (or at least, can't discover without extensive reading) what data has been gathered, whether it will be anaonymous, whether I can opt to withdraw etc.
Do you see where I'm going here...?
I really don't think the UW guys are going to be abusing this data, and they're doing it to protect us - I'm not feeling particularly violated and, hell, I love the smell of irony in the morning - but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander/if you're standing on the moral high ground it helps to be wearing appropriate footwear/people who throw stones shouldn't build glass houses (er, that's enough aphorisms...) - this sort of thing could be picked up by the bad guys to smear the research.
The page really should link to a front page explaining what they're doing with a large, friendly "yes - I want to participate" button.
(Speaking as someone who's just had to submit a long, silly ethical clearance form for a completely innocuous research project, presumably on the grounds that anybody planning to seriously abuse their experimental subjects would be honest enough to point this out on the form...)
Or the best deal might be to get it as a torrent of bits within a few hours of it having been broadcast anywhere on the planet.
In response to which, does the commercially-accountable-to-me-its-customer broadcaster change its policies?
Hell no, the commercially-accountable-to-me-its-customer broadcaster calls up his buddy in the democratically-accountable-to-me-its-electorate and persuades them to pass draconian new laws against file sharing. Somehow, they neglect to ask my opinion in the process.
Now, the BBC used Windows-only DRM in its TV downloads service. It immediately faced mounting pressure to change this policy, including arguments on the grounds that as a publicly funded body it could not exclusively endorse a single vendor. It has now had to shift position at least slightly. The result is not open source utopia* - but there was movement. A commercial broadcaster could have just waved that through as a legitimate business decision that wouldn't bother the Windows-using masses. Who is more accountable?
(*Of course, the BBC works with production companies, other broadcasters, acting unions and has to license music, images etc. so its not free to unilaterally revoke DRM).
Let me see if I have it straight. The BBC is an organization that you have to pay to support, but you have no way to influence what it does or how it provides its service?
Let me see if I have this straight: so every US citizen gets to vote at NBC/FOX/ABC board meetings? Nope, didn't think so. Everyone in the UK with a Sky box gets a say in how Murdochcorp is run? They don't ?!
But, hey - in the free market I can vote with my cash: let's see, which broadcaster is going to offer me the best deal for watching the latest episode of "Battlestar Galactica" or "Lost" tonight... Oh dear, it looks as if my only "choice" is to subscribe to a Murdochvision package or not watch the shows.
OK, so I'll vote with my feet and just not watch the shows: except I'd better stop eating and drinking as well, because every time I buy a TV advertised product I'm paying for commercial television. I was not aware that dumping my TV would entitle me to a 10% reduction in the price of breakfast cereal. I guess I just avoid big brands and chains - someone has just done a book and film about how easy that isn't.
Even if I do manage vote with my feet and somehow the broadcaster "notices" (how do the US ratings sweeps deal with people who say "sorry - don't have a TV"?) it just encourages them to make less intelligent shows and more dross, because the one thing you absolutely can vote for (for a small charge) is the winner of Big Brother.
the Republican Party...if people vote against them they have no power of any kind), or to their customers (big industry...if people don't buy what they are selling they go bankrupt)?
Oh boy, we have a gullible one here. Completely taken in by the illusion of choice given by ticking a box every few years (will it be the clowns or the jokers this time, sir?) and apparently living in some backwater idyll when you can walk down the high street and choose which independent coffee outlet deserves your business today, never stopping to think about why, if democracy and consumer choice are so powerful, Microsoft still in business and Bush is still in the White House.
The BBC is subject to considerable scrutiny by the government (who are "accountable" by your somewhat naive definition) various independent panels, other broadcasters and news agencies. They are certainly no less transparent or accountable than the board of a commercial broadcaster.
Don't get me wrong - I'm quite attached to the right to vote against the government because they control some big, important things to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of unsustainable economic growth.
The only thing I "trust" the BBC to do is run some TV channels, radio stations and websites. Moreover, that trust is not absolute, it is relative to (say) having Murdoch running the channels instead.
I'm sorry if I failed to express that argument using only the words "government", "business", "good" and "bad".
The UK taxes people per TV, supposedly to direct those taxes into the government production (BBC) and oversight (regulation) of TV broadcasts
There is no "supposedly" about it. Yes, the license fee is a charge imposed by the state, so its technically justifiable to call it a "tax". However, it is completely distinct from "general taxation" - like the "road tax" or tax on cigarettes which go into the general coffers with no obligation for the government to use the money for transport or healthcare. The license fee is collected independently and is actually used to fund the BBC.
Likewise - yes, the BBC is a state institution. However, in the British political system "state" is not synonymous with "the currently incumbent political party" - some effort is made to separate governance of the BBC from government and any party interference is Definitely Not Cricket. If you're skeptical, go look at news.bbc.co.uk and see if it looks like the Voice of El Presidente to you.
However, I suspect the issue raised in TFA is eventually going to be the end of the BBC. The arrival of media convergence makes a nonsense of only licensing "television receiving equipment", and the idea of charging ISPs is going to be highly contentious. I wouldn't mind a reasonable levy on my broadband connection if it is collected and spent in the same way as the TV license - but not if it morphs into just another tax to fund the new Crucades and bail out incompetent bankers.
PS: Is the BBC immune to political bias? No. Is the BBC 100% efficient in spending its money? Nope! Do I completely trust it? Hell, no. Do I trust it more than a big commercial broadcaster with ties to big industry and the Republican party? Er, yes.
At least it sounds as if the US are going to yank the elastoplast off in one go and just switch in 2009. Here in the UK they're pussyfooting around by turning it off region by region over a 4 year period.
The TV ads are dumb - too: they're clearly designed by marketdroids who's aim in life is to establish "the Digital tick" logo and their cute little robot mascot as Brands - which is not the same as delivering factual information to people who - if they haven't got the message after 5 years - need a gentle tap with the cluebat.
Me, I'd do it like this:
(Burst of interference followed by black screen)
Voicover (the woman from "Weakest Link" or similar):
If you don't get a digital TV box in the next few months, your screen will go black permanently.
So take some personal responsibility and find out about what you need - and check that someone's sorting it all out for the little old lady next door, too. In fact, while you're at it, check that she's eating properly and her heater is working because if she's that isolated and can't even save up £30 for a Digibox, missing Eastenders for a week is going to be the least of her worries.
For pity's sake, people, its been in the news for the last 5 years and at the end of the day its only TV - its not like we're turning off the water supply or something!
...but then I was born with a defect in the gene responsible for political expediency.
A game that has modern day cities in it can appropriately have advertisements on it, just like most racing games now a days.
That was my first reaction. Unfortunately, in a supply-and-demand market, once a new income stream like that gets introduced it will start affecting prices, profits, the number of admin leeches who can be supported by each programmer and what gets "greenlighted". The beancounters will summon the fantasy RPG writers and ask why their games aren't raising ad revenue. Eventually it will be impossible to finance a game without ad revenue.
In fact, the game already _had_ billboards and posters from day 1, except they were mildly funny parodies instead of actual ads. For example stuff like ads for lawyers getting the villains out of jail after your superhero toon arrests them
Seems to me that if they get replaced by boring real ads for fizzy phosphoric acid and corn syrup beverages, the game will have been impoverished slightly.
You just got to love the Mac OS X fans trying to blunt the fact that OS X is just as bad as Microsoft at being closed source and that Apple will sue out of existence anyone distributing it just like Microsoft.
Sorry, did anybody claim that OSX was open source?
Nope. Didn't think so. . If you disapprove of that in principle, fine, run Debian - perfectly valid decision. Meanwhile, like it or lump it, Apple are allowed to sue anybody who distributes their copyrighted code - that doesn't make them Microsoft. Wake me up if/when Apple starts railroading standards through the ISO or mounting FUD campaigns against Linux.
On the other hand, OS X includes huge chunks of BSD, plus Apache, PHP, python, perl Samba, CUPS, the GNU compilers, webkit etc. Presumably, Apple are complying with the open source licenses for these, releasing code and submitting patches where necessary. Even if they're not God's gift to the open source movement and only releasing the minimum they can get away with, they're still giving these packages market- and mind- share.
Plus, being UNIX-based and coming with the GNU compilers and an X11 server, a vast range of open-source packages will compile and run on OS X. So even though OSX as a whole isn't open source, its quite a good platform for running open source apps.
The arguments for and against software patents are old and boring, so I wrote a devil's advocate defense of software patents [freesoftwaremagazine.com] a few months back.
The issue is not whether there are good arguments for patents - software or otherwise. Like most complex issues there are "pros" and "cons". The point is, not to deny that the "pros" exist, but to demand evidence that they outweigh the cons and that there is no other way of achieving the "pros" (E.g. in the drugs industry, a poster child for pro-patent arguments, a fixed-term monopoly could be granted by the licensing authority as a quid-pro-quo for getting a new drug proven and certified, without any concept of "property").
Sadly, our beloved leaders are happy to point to a single "pro" and use that to dismiss any number of "cons".
The biggest issue in the field of software, is that the computing industry is particularly prone to near-monopolies. Software patents help perpetuate that by encumbering the development of interoperability:
If your proprietary format gets adopted as a "de-facto" industry standard, patents allow you to rake in license fees and/or control the supply. Why collaborate with other companies on shared standards if you can have it all? Even published standards can turn out to be encumbered by submarine patents once they start to succeed. Patents disproportionately threaten smaller businesses: odds are that Microsoft will be able to make this one go away by endless appeals, threatening ALU with Mutual Assured Patent Destruction or buying them out (if all else fails $400M would probably not be a mortal blow to MS). A small start-up would have to throw in the towel at the mere threat of a nine-digit lawsuit.
<irony>See - I got through that without mentioning those penguin-hugging Open Source beatnicks who want to destroy the economy by cloning commercial software and giving it away.</irony> (Obviously, that's not what I believe - but its what some of the people the anti-patent lobby needs to convince will be thinking).
- Flash isn't OSS
- The Linux Flash binary-only plugin is still WAY behind the Windows version in quality and stability (remember how long we had to wait for Flash 9.x on Linux??)
So, any better suggestions for developing small apps that can be web-delivered via an ubiquitous and easily installed plug-in or packaged as self-contained Windows or Mac binaries and uses vector-based graphics which will scale to fit the screen (very useful for, e.g. educational applets which may be used on interactive whiteboards)... *and* stands a sporting chance of running on Linux with minimal work (e.g. if you're not actually being paid to make it run on Linux)?
Flash is a zillion miles from perfect, and definitely not dolphin-friendly OSS, but it does have a niche - esp. for applets which are 2D-graphics heavy and don't need an industrial strength programming language like Java. Of course, it has been hideously abused as a way of making websites really, really annoying.
Plus - Flash can win you a nice vista laptop whereas sticking to a vanilla web browser like Safari only gets you a Macbook Air (very shiny, but, only 1 USB port and no removable battery... meh.):->
If people disapprove of Microsoft's standards, then they should NOT USE THEM! PERIOD!!
You miss the point - this all started because various (usually) government bodies in the US and worldwide were starting to worry about how much data they held and distributed in a proprietary file format which was only reliably readable by products from a single vendor. They started passing rules that required public documents to be stored and exchanged in some sort of non-proprietary standard format. Such rules have to be passed by the politicos who aren't capable of assessing the technical merit of a file format - but will respect ISO certification. With ODF as an ISO standard, progress was gradually being made (albeit an uphill struggle the teeth of MS lobbying). This would have been a major breakthrough towards a healthily diverse and competitive market in office software (in which MS could easily become an equal player by simply adding ODF support to Office).
If OOXML gets a ISO certification then non-techie politicos will take this as carte blanche that MS file formats are "open" and can be safely used (and that they can stick with their MS software because there's an "upgrade path" to.docx). This is the "path of least resistance" anyway and such people will be easily convinced that all these rumblings about inconsistencies in the approval process were just sour grapes from penguin-hugging beatnicks.
You don't like Gates or Microsoft? Don't buy their shit.
That's the problem with monopolies: they subvert the free market model because lots of people don't have the choice! - MS has such market dominance that everybody assumes that everybody else can read the same file formats. What do you do if someone sends you a MS word file that K/OpenOffice won't render properly? When you send your proposal for a new project to a funder as an ODF file and they say they can't open it, what do you do? Now, currently OpenOffice etc. do a tolerable job of opening.doc files - but that's entirely dependent on the OO programmers being able to keep up every time MS changes the format, and it will only take one patent lawsuit to put an end to that.
Took me four years to find and purchase the right wireless cards I wanted.
Q: Why did that take so long? Well, one reason is that because of the Microsoft monopoly wireless chipset manufacturers can hit 95% of the market just by supplying their own low-level windows drivers - and card resellers can (and do) switch chipsets without warning. Someone tells you that the NetSysLink 9000 card is supported by Linux, you buy one and find that NetSysLink 9000 sold in the EU on a Tuesday use a completely different chipset. I've had DVD drives that I've had to plug into a Windows system to set the region code before they'd work in Linux.
Without the "wintel" monoculture, they'd need to publish interface specs, or establish some sort of standardised communications protocol so that various OS vendors could implement drivers.
By your own admission, sticking with Linux has been a labour of love - the vast majority of the desktop computing market simply doesn't have your technical knowledge, let alone persistence.
True, but Real Programmers also know not to use C for things it's not intended to. C is for high-performance systems programming, maintainable application programming is much easier and faster with a higher level language.
Ah. I should have put in the corollary there:
Real Programmers can write FORTRAN programs in any language...:-)
No language can magically force people to write well-documented, well-organized code if they can't, won't or are under pressure to lash up something that works for the presentation tomor... oh, shit! today...
/* My coding standards say to put a comment here: this is it! */
As for programming pedagogy, I think we'd do a lot better if the faculty of CS departments would migrate away from using Java/C++ as the introductory programming model because so much of what gets said initially just goes in one ear and out the other.
Even better would be if they didn't get involved in ideological wars about languages, and focussed on the *concepts* they wanted to teach. If students really are coming out of these courses with certificates saying "computer science" which should read "Java forms design for data centers" then arguing the merits of Java,Lisp,C++ or Son Of The Return of the Bride of BASIC isn't going to fix anything. If you're gonna call the course "Computer Science" then students should come out knowing a decent wodge of mathematical theory and having some experience of half-a-dozen diverse languages, plus assembly and microcode. Of course, there are plenty of jobs that don't need that level of knowledge - but in that case the candidates don't need CS degrees.
Real Programmers can do Object Oriented Programming in FORTRAN... Well, maybe not, but you can certainly lay out a (regular) C program using some of the basic OOP principles - its just up to you to "enforce" them (like everything in C).
The expense and inconvenience of losing hardware can easily be outstripped by the repercussions of losing the contents of your hard drive/USB key - either because it isn't backed up or because it contains sensitive information.
A colleague recently had a laptop stolen from his office, and although having to replace the laptop was annoying and expensive, the real problem was (a) he didn't have everything backed up and (b) he had a file with all his credit card and bank account numbers in (D'oh! - I'd mock, but only after checking very carefully which of my personal details Firefox had helpfully remembered for me).
So, rather than asking Slashdot about metal boxes, ask about hard drive encryption... and make sure your employer provides you with whatever you need, plus a good backup solution. If your work involves sensitive data make sure you send an ass-covering memo to your boss.
I'm slightly astonished by all the people here who say "so what - if your laptop gets nicked its your employer's responsiblility". Firstly, its a dereliction of personal responsibility (if you delegate all your thinking to your employer, don't complain when your employer tells you what to think!) and secondly it ignores all the extra work and inconvenience that having "your" laptop stolen will cause you! Even if your employer magnanimously accepts ultimate responsibility, who is actually going to be re-creating the lost files, re-setting all the passwords and keys, writing the risk-assessment reports etc? Now, if the OP does his research and puts in a request for $200 worth of chains and security software and some bean counter refuses, that would be different - but that's not currently in evidence. If he is using his own personal equipment for work (implied, but unclear) then I'd hope that his employer would replace it in case of theft, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't take reasonable steps to secure it.
Also, has it occured to all the smart-alecks saying "if you leave it on your desk why have a laptop?" that the OP might want to take the computer away some days (e.g. when he's planning to work at home, going on a business trip) and leave it at work other days (e.g. when he walks/jogs/cycles in, is going shopping straight after work, or just isn't planning to use it until the next workingday)?
His article "praising" the iPhone was actually entitled Why I returned my iPhone...
He mentions that "several" (weasel word alert!) readers flamed him as an Apple hater, but neglected to mention all the other responses making comments such as "Mac products are pure shit..."; "Yep, paying $US600 for a pretty interface and bugger all extra functionality sounds like a poor bargain indeed." or "If the iPhone changed your life... then you must be a loser" and others making more reasoned criticism of the muddled messages given by his article. He does cite an example of previous article drawing one rabid response from a PC zealot, but seems to be spinning that as evidence that he is unbiassed, rather than explaining why it doesn't affect his thesis that Apple fans are uniquely zealous.
Sadly, the full postbag for the Mossberg article he mentions isn't available, so it seems reasonable to question how representative the "several" (again) frothy-mouthed epistles from the church of Jobs really were. Actually, some of Mossberg's criticisms were questionable - he went on to refute his own complaint about memory size (even with the overpriced Apple upgrade the price was still less than the competition) and his request for a memory card slot was a typical, ill-considered "I want a pony!" comment (PC makers throw these in to fill up the floppy bay - at the time Apple would have needed to find space for 4-5 fugly slots to cover all the common formats).
What TFA represents is one common form of "bias" - cherry-picking the rantings of a small lunatic fringe as "evidence" (as in the plural of "anecdote") and presenting them as representing a larger group.
Because in the vast majority of peoples minds small portable music player+earphones=iPod.
I think you are confusing genericization of the name "iPod" with Apple having a monopoly on portable music players.
So people see your Sandisk and call it an iPod - so what? People still call vacuum cleaners "hoovers" and all small cassette players used to be "walkmen" in everyday conversation. The problem with MS is that people see Windows and call it a Computer!
Walk into a large store (but check there isn't a big apple-shaped logo over the door) and, next to the iPods, you will probably see a wide range of digital music players - even wider if you look beyond the personal audio players and include all the MP3-enabled DVD-players, car stereos, mini-HiFis, media streamers, mobile phones, game consoles, GPS, clock radios etc. That doesn't say "iPod monopoly" to me!
If you want to see monopoly walk over to the Computers section and count the non-Windows systems and software (don't bother to take off your boxing gloves) -if you're lucky you'll see a few Macs; and; if you're really lucky a card saying that the EeePC will be back in stock Real Soon Now (by which time it will probably come with Windows too). Odds are that the desultory shelf of Mac software will include MS Office and Parallels or VMWare, too. Back in the late 90s it would have been wall-to-wall Windows.
As for the iTunes monopoly - that only exists if you ignore CD sales (declining but still significant) and probably the two big but invisible ones illegal downloads and people ripping their existing CD collections. Yes, there's a limited lock-in if you spend a lot on iTunes but that's a consequence of DRM and will disappear as (hopefully) DRM dies a death.
And lastly but most importantly,they are using the UPDATE mechanism to push their browser.
Now that's fair criticism - Apple deserve a whack with the clue bat for that one, but they will have to get in line with a lot of other culprits. ("Windows Genuine Disadvantage" anyone?) including all those who push even feature upgrades and non-critical fixes using a mechanism which should only ever be used for critical security patches (and even those are debatable!) but its got nothing to do with anti-trust.
If M$ did this there would be a huge uproar and several anti-trust lawsuits.
They did.
There were.
They lost.
They paid the fines (which they could afford) made some token concessions (Set Program Access and Defaults) but, guess what, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are still bundled with Windows, and the vast majority of users will never know anything else.
This is because bundling products is not the problem. The problem is that MS has a near-total monopoly on desktop operating systems and office productivity software. The various anti-trust actions have simply squirted around some air-freshener and scattered some sawdust while completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
Meanwhile, a medium-size cat called Apple wanders around the room and occasionally craps in a corner or claws the furniture. "If the elephant did that there would be uproar!" cry the cat-haters, although their voices are slightly muffled by the huge steaming pile of elephant dung in which they are buried.
Apple's "monopoly" on the digital music market only exists if you squint (e.g. ignore Amazon distributing all that digital music on shiny discs) and certainly doesn't hold a candle to the breadth and depth of the MS monoculture in desktop computing (qv ad nauseum in a previous post).
Anyway, as long as Firefox comes pre-installed on most end-user-oriented Linux distros and devices such as the EEE PC (even when they've got webkit integrated in KDE) I'm not sure the Mozilla guys should be chucking any bricks in that particular greenhouse.
A "Fat Man" exploding in a house bought for the purpose years ago anywhere in Brooklyn or Jersey City will still be devastating to New York...
...and all that needs is a single waffer-thin mint:-)
Seriously, though - methinks that a terrorist with the brains and resources to acquire or build a nuke would also have the brains to work out that mailing packets of green-dyed talcum powder to minor government officials (or leaving some black boxes with flashing LEDs scattered around) was a far more effective way of causing panic, disruption and economic damage.
Even for a country, posessing one bomb is simply going to give the USA an excuse to go mediaeval on your ass (and those guys can make a big mess of your capital city without splitting a single nucleus). The serious issue with "rogue states" is if/when they start building the infrastructure to mass produce enough efficient, modern weapons to play hardball.
However, unless I'm wrong a distinctive disadvantage of a solid state drive (i.e. flash drives are slower (at least currently) than their magnetic disk counterparts).
As I understand it - flash drives (esp. the HDD replacement ones rather than key fobs) suck at sustained reading/writing but win on random-access (no physical heads to move around). You also get an advantage at boot-up (or c.f. coming out of power-save mode on a laptop).
I think that, for the momenmt, the killer apps are going to be for sneakernet (key fobs) and non-performance laptops (EEPC, MacBook Air) where silence/low power trumps speed.
There's also the possibility of "hybrid" storage devices - which intelligently juggle data between Flash, volatile cache and HDD. ISTR that some hard drives with big flash "caches" appeared a while back, and there's the "readyboost" (or whatever) feature in The OS That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Maybe future generations of RAID (which is currently designed around the foibles of spinning platters) will include modes designed to efficiently team up Flash and HDD?
Or maybe magnetic bubble memory (which was going to Change The World back in the 80s) will make a comeback:-)
To pick an arbitrary statistic, in June 2007 Google reported Apache with a 66% market share and IIS with a 23% share (source).
And that's 66% overall. Now think what proportion of the sites containing homebrew or 'small scale'* open source blogs, wikis, content management systems, being managed by amateur/unpaid/hobbyist webmasters are likely to be running on the free Lunux/Apache platform rather than paying money for IIS?
both Apache and IIS would be equally vulnerable to dumb administrators
...and the same goes for SQL injection, file inclusion etc. which represent vulnerabilities in specific scripts and CGI applications rather than the underlying web server or operating system.
(* i.e. as opposed to big league FOSS project backed by IBM, Sun, Red Hat et. al. with paid maintainers).
Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market.
If and when
Apple engages in anti-competitive practices to force all portable music players to come bundled with iTunes software, forcing lots of existing music players and online music services into oblivion
Apple gimmicks iPods so that they will only play music from iTunes (or so they need to be re-booted between playing iTunes and regular MP3s)
The music industry finally throws in the towel on DRM - which is the main reason iTunes tunes won't play on non-Apple players, and why many of the competitors to iTunes won't play on iPods...
then, maybe you can start to compare Apple's role in the music player market with Microsoft's role in the operating systems market.
Meanwhile, I'll keep using my iPod Nano to play MP3s made from my own CDs (and, slowly, MP3s bought online as decent services such as Play.com start offering unencumbered legal downloads for sensible prices) with absolutely no compulsion to buy from iTunes and absolutely no compulsion to buy another iPod unless I happen to prefer Apple's design.
What's more - I can buy a Symbian/Windows Mobile/Brand X phone and it still accepts incoming calls and texts from an iPhone! - so I can choose not to buy an iPhone too!
So, please explain again how the Apple "monopoly" (which doesn't force anybody to buy an iPod and/or buy from iTunes unless they like the product) remotely resembles the MS operating system monopoly (which means that many Mac and Linux users are pretty much obliged to dual-boot or run emulation software - usually requiring us to buy a copy of windows & MS Office - in order to interoperate with the masses)?
Slashdot Mirror
What "Apple hardware costs"? 1990 called - they want their argument back. Macs have been reasonably competitive with comparable PC hardware for a while now. There is a problem if Apple don't make anything at the price point/form factor you want (e.g. you want a low end mini-tower or a basic cheap-chunky-and-cheerful laptop) but if you read TFA they're talking about MacBook Pros (high-end premium brand laptops) as an alternative to ThinkPads (high-end premium brand laptops) so I'm sure Apple will be able to cut IBM a pretty competetive deal (its not like IBM will be walking into the local Apple store and buying them individually, is it?)
Also, TFA is talking about supporting a Mac option, not casting the PCs into the outer darkness, so they won't be trying to sell Mac Pros to clients who want a room full of mini-towers.
Well, IBM probably have the resources to fix that fairly quickly for the products they need. For starters, they have their own OpenOffice-based productivity suite - not currently available for OS X, but that could change if IBM became Mac fans. Eclipse seems to be pretty stable on OS X these days - and who knows how much of IBMs internal stuff is built on the Eclipse application framework?
Macs don't always follow the Linux rules:...but now that OS X is officially UNIX it ought to follow POSIX rules. Anyway, OS X contains a lot of FOSS subsystems (Apache, Samba, Cups) which ought to be customisable/fixable - and the jolly blue giant probably has the nous to fix things like that.
Great study, kudos etc, but one small heads up:
On visiting vancouver.cs.washington.edu (which you are encouraging people to digg and blog) I'm told that I have taken part in an experiment, many thanks, fait accompli - I'm not told (or at least, can't discover without extensive reading) what data has been gathered, whether it will be anaonymous, whether I can opt to withdraw etc.
Do you see where I'm going here...?
I really don't think the UW guys are going to be abusing this data, and they're doing it to protect us - I'm not feeling particularly violated and, hell, I love the smell of irony in the morning - but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander/if you're standing on the moral high ground it helps to be wearing appropriate footwear/people who throw stones shouldn't build glass houses (er, that's enough aphorisms...) - this sort of thing could be picked up by the bad guys to smear the research.
The page really should link to a front page explaining what they're doing with a large, friendly "yes - I want to participate" button.
(Speaking as someone who's just had to submit a long, silly ethical clearance form for a completely innocuous research project, presumably on the grounds that anybody planning to seriously abuse their experimental subjects would be honest enough to point this out on the form...)
In response to which, does the commercially-accountable-to-me-its-customer broadcaster change its policies?
Hell no, the commercially-accountable-to-me-its-customer broadcaster calls up his buddy in the democratically-accountable-to-me-its-electorate and persuades them to pass draconian new laws against file sharing. Somehow, they neglect to ask my opinion in the process.
Now, the BBC used Windows-only DRM in its TV downloads service. It immediately faced mounting pressure to change this policy, including arguments on the grounds that as a publicly funded body it could not exclusively endorse a single vendor. It has now had to shift position at least slightly. The result is not open source utopia* - but there was movement. A commercial broadcaster could have just waved that through as a legitimate business decision that wouldn't bother the Windows-using masses. Who is more accountable?
(*Of course, the BBC works with production companies, other broadcasters, acting unions and has to license music, images etc. so its not free to unilaterally revoke DRM).
Let me see if I have this straight: so every US citizen gets to vote at NBC/FOX/ABC board meetings? Nope, didn't think so. Everyone in the UK with a Sky box gets a say in how Murdochcorp is run? They don't ?!
But, hey - in the free market I can vote with my cash: let's see, which broadcaster is going to offer me the best deal for watching the latest episode of "Battlestar Galactica" or "Lost" tonight... Oh dear, it looks as if my only "choice" is to subscribe to a Murdochvision package or not watch the shows.
OK, so I'll vote with my feet and just not watch the shows: except I'd better stop eating and drinking as well, because every time I buy a TV advertised product I'm paying for commercial television. I was not aware that dumping my TV would entitle me to a 10% reduction in the price of breakfast cereal. I guess I just avoid big brands and chains - someone has just done a book and film about how easy that isn't.
Even if I do manage vote with my feet and somehow the broadcaster "notices" (how do the US ratings sweeps deal with people who say "sorry - don't have a TV"?) it just encourages them to make less intelligent shows and more dross, because the one thing you absolutely can vote for (for a small charge) is the winner of Big Brother.
the Republican Party...if people vote against them they have no power of any kind), or to their customers (big industry...if people don't buy what they are selling they go bankrupt)?Oh boy, we have a gullible one here. Completely taken in by the illusion of choice given by ticking a box every few years (will it be the clowns or the jokers this time, sir?) and apparently living in some backwater idyll when you can walk down the high street and choose which independent coffee outlet deserves your business today, never stopping to think about why, if democracy and consumer choice are so powerful, Microsoft still in business and Bush is still in the White House.
The BBC is subject to considerable scrutiny by the government (who are "accountable" by your somewhat naive definition) various independent panels, other broadcasters and news agencies. They are certainly no less transparent or accountable than the board of a commercial broadcaster.
Don't get me wrong - I'm quite attached to the right to vote against the government because they control some big, important things to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of unsustainable economic growth.
The only thing I "trust" the BBC to do is run some TV channels, radio stations and websites. Moreover, that trust is not absolute, it is relative to (say) having Murdoch running the channels instead.
I'm sorry if I failed to express that argument using only the words "government", "business", "good" and "bad".
There is no "supposedly" about it. Yes, the license fee is a charge imposed by the state, so its technically justifiable to call it a "tax". However, it is completely distinct from "general taxation" - like the "road tax" or tax on cigarettes which go into the general coffers with no obligation for the government to use the money for transport or healthcare. The license fee is collected independently and is actually used to fund the BBC.
Likewise - yes, the BBC is a state institution. However, in the British political system "state" is not synonymous with "the currently incumbent political party" - some effort is made to separate governance of the BBC from government and any party interference is Definitely Not Cricket. If you're skeptical, go look at news.bbc.co.uk and see if it looks like the Voice of El Presidente to you.
However, I suspect the issue raised in TFA is eventually going to be the end of the BBC. The arrival of media convergence makes a nonsense of only licensing "television receiving equipment", and the idea of charging ISPs is going to be highly contentious. I wouldn't mind a reasonable levy on my broadband connection if it is collected and spent in the same way as the TV license - but not if it morphs into just another tax to fund the new Crucades and bail out incompetent bankers.
PS: Is the BBC immune to political bias? No. Is the BBC 100% efficient in spending its money? Nope! Do I completely trust it? Hell, no. Do I trust it more than a big commercial broadcaster with ties to big industry and the Republican party? Er, yes.
At least it sounds as if the US are going to yank the elastoplast off in one go and just switch in 2009. Here in the UK they're pussyfooting around by turning it off region by region over a 4 year period.
The TV ads are dumb - too: they're clearly designed by marketdroids who's aim in life is to establish "the Digital tick" logo and their cute little robot mascot as Brands - which is not the same as delivering factual information to people who - if they haven't got the message after 5 years - need a gentle tap with the cluebat.
Me, I'd do it like this:
(Burst of interference followed by black screen)
Voicover (the woman from "Weakest Link" or similar):
If you don't get a digital TV box in the next few months, your screen will go black permanently.So take some personal responsibility and find out about what you need - and check that someone's sorting it all out for the little old lady next door, too. In fact, while you're at it, check that she's eating properly and her heater is working because if she's that isolated and can't even save up £30 for a Digibox, missing Eastenders for a week is going to be the least of her worries.
For pity's sake, people, its been in the news for the last 5 years and at the end of the day its only TV - its not like we're turning off the water supply or something!
...but then I was born with a defect in the gene responsible for political expediency.
That was my first reaction. Unfortunately, in a supply-and-demand market, once a new income stream like that gets introduced it will start affecting prices, profits, the number of admin leeches who can be supported by each programmer and what gets "greenlighted". The beancounters will summon the fantasy RPG writers and ask why their games aren't raising ad revenue. Eventually it will be impossible to finance a game without ad revenue.
Seems to me that if they get replaced by boring real ads for fizzy phosphoric acid and corn syrup beverages, the game will have been impoverished slightly.
Sorry, did anybody claim that OSX was open source?
Nope. Didn't think so. . If you disapprove of that in principle, fine, run Debian - perfectly valid decision. Meanwhile, like it or lump it, Apple are allowed to sue anybody who distributes their copyrighted code - that doesn't make them Microsoft. Wake me up if/when Apple starts railroading standards through the ISO or mounting FUD campaigns against Linux.
On the other hand, OS X includes huge chunks of BSD, plus Apache, PHP, python, perl Samba, CUPS, the GNU compilers, webkit etc. Presumably, Apple are complying with the open source licenses for these, releasing code and submitting patches where necessary. Even if they're not God's gift to the open source movement and only releasing the minimum they can get away with, they're still giving these packages market- and mind- share.
Plus, being UNIX-based and coming with the GNU compilers and an X11 server, a vast range of open-source packages will compile and run on OS X. So even though OSX as a whole isn't open source, its quite a good platform for running open source apps.
The issue is not whether there are good arguments for patents - software or otherwise. Like most complex issues there are "pros" and "cons". The point is, not to deny that the "pros" exist, but to demand evidence that they outweigh the cons and that there is no other way of achieving the "pros" (E.g. in the drugs industry, a poster child for pro-patent arguments, a fixed-term monopoly could be granted by the licensing authority as a quid-pro-quo for getting a new drug proven and certified, without any concept of "property"). Sadly, our beloved leaders are happy to point to a single "pro" and use that to dismiss any number of "cons".
The biggest issue in the field of software, is that the computing industry is particularly prone to near-monopolies. Software patents help perpetuate that by encumbering the development of interoperability:
If your proprietary format gets adopted as a "de-facto" industry standard, patents allow you to rake in license fees and/or control the supply. Why collaborate with other companies on shared standards if you can have it all? Even published standards can turn out to be encumbered by submarine patents once they start to succeed. Patents disproportionately threaten smaller businesses: odds are that Microsoft will be able to make this one go away by endless appeals, threatening ALU with Mutual Assured Patent Destruction or buying them out (if all else fails $400M would probably not be a mortal blow to MS). A small start-up would have to throw in the towel at the mere threat of a nine-digit lawsuit.
<irony>See - I got through that without mentioning those penguin-hugging Open Source beatnicks who want to destroy the economy by cloning commercial software and giving it away.</irony> (Obviously, that's not what I believe - but its what some of the people the anti-patent lobby needs to convince will be thinking).
So, any better suggestions for developing small apps that can be web-delivered via an ubiquitous and easily installed plug-in or packaged as self-contained Windows or Mac binaries and uses vector-based graphics which will scale to fit the screen (very useful for, e.g. educational applets which may be used on interactive whiteboards)... *and* stands a sporting chance of running on Linux with minimal work (e.g. if you're not actually being paid to make it run on Linux)?
Flash is a zillion miles from perfect, and definitely not dolphin-friendly OSS, but it does have a niche - esp. for applets which are 2D-graphics heavy and don't need an industrial strength programming language like Java. Of course, it has been hideously abused as a way of making websites really, really annoying.
Plus - Flash can win you a nice vista laptop whereas sticking to a vanilla web browser like Safari only gets you a Macbook Air (very shiny, but, only 1 USB port and no removable battery... meh.) :->
You miss the point - this all started because various (usually) government bodies in the US and worldwide were starting to worry about how much data they held and distributed in a proprietary file format which was only reliably readable by products from a single vendor. They started passing rules that required public documents to be stored and exchanged in some sort of non-proprietary standard format. Such rules have to be passed by the politicos who aren't capable of assessing the technical merit of a file format - but will respect ISO certification. With ODF as an ISO standard, progress was gradually being made (albeit an uphill struggle the teeth of MS lobbying). This would have been a major breakthrough towards a healthily diverse and competitive market in office software (in which MS could easily become an equal player by simply adding ODF support to Office).
If OOXML gets a ISO certification then non-techie politicos will take this as carte blanche that MS file formats are "open" and can be safely used (and that they can stick with their MS software because there's an "upgrade path" to .docx). This is the "path of least resistance" anyway and such people will be easily convinced that all these rumblings about inconsistencies in the approval process were just sour grapes from penguin-hugging beatnicks.
You don't like Gates or Microsoft? Don't buy their shit.That's the problem with monopolies: they subvert the free market model because lots of people don't have the choice! - MS has such market dominance that everybody assumes that everybody else can read the same file formats. What do you do if someone sends you a MS word file that K/OpenOffice won't render properly? When you send your proposal for a new project to a funder as an ODF file and they say they can't open it, what do you do? Now, currently OpenOffice etc. do a tolerable job of opening .doc files - but that's entirely dependent on the OO programmers being able to keep up every time MS changes the format, and it will only take one patent lawsuit to put an end to that.
Took me four years to find and purchase the right wireless cards I wanted.Q: Why did that take so long? Well, one reason is that because of the Microsoft monopoly wireless chipset manufacturers can hit 95% of the market just by supplying their own low-level windows drivers - and card resellers can (and do) switch chipsets without warning. Someone tells you that the NetSysLink 9000 card is supported by Linux, you buy one and find that NetSysLink 9000 sold in the EU on a Tuesday use a completely different chipset. I've had DVD drives that I've had to plug into a Windows system to set the region code before they'd work in Linux.
Without the "wintel" monoculture, they'd need to publish interface specs, or establish some sort of standardised communications protocol so that various OS vendors could implement drivers.
By your own admission, sticking with Linux has been a labour of love - the vast majority of the desktop computing market simply doesn't have your technical knowledge, let alone persistence.
Easy - just tell them what certain Microsoft execs do to chairs hen they're unhappy... :-)
Ah. I should have put in the corollary there:
Real Programmers can write FORTRAN programs in any language... :-)
No language can magically force people to write well-documented, well-organized code if they can't, won't or are under pressure to lash up something that works for the presentation tomor... oh, shit! today...
Even better would be if they didn't get involved in ideological wars about languages, and focussed on the *concepts* they wanted to teach. If students really are coming out of these courses with certificates saying "computer science" which should read "Java forms design for data centers" then arguing the merits of Java,Lisp,C++ or Son Of The Return of the Bride of BASIC isn't going to fix anything. If you're gonna call the course "Computer Science" then students should come out knowing a decent wodge of mathematical theory and having some experience of half-a-dozen diverse languages, plus assembly and microcode. Of course, there are plenty of jobs that don't need that level of knowledge - but in that case the candidates don't need CS degrees.
Real Programmers can do Object Oriented Programming in FORTRAN... Well, maybe not, but you can certainly lay out a (regular) C program using some of the basic OOP principles - its just up to you to "enforce" them (like everything in C).
The expense and inconvenience of losing hardware can easily be outstripped by the repercussions of losing the contents of your hard drive/USB key - either because it isn't backed up or because it contains sensitive information.
A colleague recently had a laptop stolen from his office, and although having to replace the laptop was annoying and expensive, the real problem was (a) he didn't have everything backed up and (b) he had a file with all his credit card and bank account numbers in (D'oh! - I'd mock, but only after checking very carefully which of my personal details Firefox had helpfully remembered for me).
So, rather than asking Slashdot about metal boxes, ask about hard drive encryption... and make sure your employer provides you with whatever you need, plus a good backup solution. If your work involves sensitive data make sure you send an ass-covering memo to your boss.
I'm slightly astonished by all the people here who say "so what - if your laptop gets nicked its your employer's responsiblility". Firstly, its a dereliction of personal responsibility (if you delegate all your thinking to your employer, don't complain when your employer tells you what to think!) and secondly it ignores all the extra work and inconvenience that having "your" laptop stolen will cause you! Even if your employer magnanimously accepts ultimate responsibility, who is actually going to be re-creating the lost files, re-setting all the passwords and keys, writing the risk-assessment reports etc? Now, if the OP does his research and puts in a request for $200 worth of chains and security software and some bean counter refuses, that would be different - but that's not currently in evidence. If he is using his own personal equipment for work (implied, but unclear) then I'd hope that his employer would replace it in case of theft, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't take reasonable steps to secure it.
Also, has it occured to all the smart-alecks saying "if you leave it on your desk why have a laptop?" that the OP might want to take the computer away some days (e.g. when he's planning to work at home, going on a business trip) and leave it at work other days (e.g. when he walks/jogs/cycles in, is going shopping straight after work, or just isn't planning to use it until the next workingday)?
His article "praising" the iPhone was actually entitled Why I returned my iPhone...
He mentions that "several" (weasel word alert!) readers flamed him as an Apple hater, but neglected to mention all the other responses making comments such as "Mac products are pure shit..."; "Yep, paying $US600 for a pretty interface and bugger all extra functionality sounds like a poor bargain indeed." or "If the iPhone changed your life... then you must be a loser" and others making more reasoned criticism of the muddled messages given by his article. He does cite an example of previous article drawing one rabid response from a PC zealot, but seems to be spinning that as evidence that he is unbiassed, rather than explaining why it doesn't affect his thesis that Apple fans are uniquely zealous.
Sadly, the full postbag for the Mossberg article he mentions isn't available, so it seems reasonable to question how representative the "several" (again) frothy-mouthed epistles from the church of Jobs really were. Actually, some of Mossberg's criticisms were questionable - he went on to refute his own complaint about memory size (even with the overpriced Apple upgrade the price was still less than the competition) and his request for a memory card slot was a typical, ill-considered "I want a pony!" comment (PC makers throw these in to fill up the floppy bay - at the time Apple would have needed to find space for 4-5 fugly slots to cover all the common formats).
What TFA represents is one common form of "bias" - cherry-picking the rantings of a small lunatic fringe as "evidence" (as in the plural of "anecdote") and presenting them as representing a larger group.
I think you are confusing genericization of the name "iPod" with Apple having a monopoly on portable music players.
So people see your Sandisk and call it an iPod - so what? People still call vacuum cleaners "hoovers" and all small cassette players used to be "walkmen" in everyday conversation. The problem with MS is that people see Windows and call it a Computer!
Walk into a large store (but check there isn't a big apple-shaped logo over the door) and, next to the iPods, you will probably see a wide range of digital music players - even wider if you look beyond the personal audio players and include all the MP3-enabled DVD-players, car stereos, mini-HiFis, media streamers, mobile phones, game consoles, GPS, clock radios etc. That doesn't say "iPod monopoly" to me!
If you want to see monopoly walk over to the Computers section and count the non-Windows systems and software (don't bother to take off your boxing gloves) -if you're lucky you'll see a few Macs; and; if you're really lucky a card saying that the EeePC will be back in stock Real Soon Now (by which time it will probably come with Windows too). Odds are that the desultory shelf of Mac software will include MS Office and Parallels or VMWare, too. Back in the late 90s it would have been wall-to-wall Windows.
As for the iTunes monopoly - that only exists if you ignore CD sales (declining but still significant) and probably the two big but invisible ones illegal downloads and people ripping their existing CD collections. Yes, there's a limited lock-in if you spend a lot on iTunes but that's a consequence of DRM and will disappear as (hopefully) DRM dies a death.
And lastly but most importantly,they are using the UPDATE mechanism to push their browser.Now that's fair criticism - Apple deserve a whack with the clue bat for that one, but they will have to get in line with a lot of other culprits. ("Windows Genuine Disadvantage" anyone?) including all those who push even feature upgrades and non-critical fixes using a mechanism which should only ever be used for critical security patches (and even those are debatable!) but its got nothing to do with anti-trust.
They did.
There were.
They lost.
They paid the fines (which they could afford) made some token concessions (Set Program Access and Defaults) but, guess what, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are still bundled with Windows, and the vast majority of users will never know anything else.
This is because bundling products is not the problem. The problem is that MS has a near-total monopoly on desktop operating systems and office productivity software. The various anti-trust actions have simply squirted around some air-freshener and scattered some sawdust while completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
Meanwhile, a medium-size cat called Apple wanders around the room and occasionally craps in a corner or claws the furniture. "If the elephant did that there would be uproar!" cry the cat-haters, although their voices are slightly muffled by the huge steaming pile of elephant dung in which they are buried.
Apple's "monopoly" on the digital music market only exists if you squint (e.g. ignore Amazon distributing all that digital music on shiny discs) and certainly doesn't hold a candle to the breadth and depth of the MS monoculture in desktop computing (qv ad nauseum in a previous post).
Anyway, as long as Firefox comes pre-installed on most end-user-oriented Linux distros and devices such as the EEE PC (even when they've got webkit integrated in KDE) I'm not sure the Mozilla guys should be chucking any bricks in that particular greenhouse.
Well, yes - that was the event which caused the current paranoia.
Following the Boston flasher, there was, what, like a week and a half of late-night one-liners?But that wasn't a terrorist hoax - everybody knows that "real" bombs have timers counting down to zero, not animated cartoon characters.
I don't remember there being any particular economic consequences to the "someone sent me anthrax" claim festival, either.Nah. Closing down a major private or government office for a day or two while the guys in bunny suits do their thing doesn't cost a penny, does it?
And, of course, we haven't even got started on Exhibit A: the great liquids-on-planes scare!
...and all that needs is a single waffer-thin mint :-)
Seriously, though - methinks that a terrorist with the brains and resources to acquire or build a nuke would also have the brains to work out that mailing packets of green-dyed talcum powder to minor government officials (or leaving some black boxes with flashing LEDs scattered around) was a far more effective way of causing panic, disruption and economic damage.
Even for a country, posessing one bomb is simply going to give the USA an excuse to go mediaeval on your ass (and those guys can make a big mess of your capital city without splitting a single nucleus). The serious issue with "rogue states" is if/when they start building the infrastructure to mass produce enough efficient, modern weapons to play hardball.
As I understand it - flash drives (esp. the HDD replacement ones rather than key fobs) suck at sustained reading/writing but win on random-access (no physical heads to move around). You also get an advantage at boot-up (or c.f. coming out of power-save mode on a laptop).
I think that, for the momenmt, the killer apps are going to be for sneakernet (key fobs) and non-performance laptops (EEPC, MacBook Air) where silence/low power trumps speed.
There's also the possibility of "hybrid" storage devices - which intelligently juggle data between Flash, volatile cache and HDD. ISTR that some hard drives with big flash "caches" appeared a while back, and there's the "readyboost" (or whatever) feature in The OS That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Maybe future generations of RAID (which is currently designed around the foibles of spinning platters) will include modes designed to efficiently team up Flash and HDD?
Or maybe magnetic bubble memory (which was going to Change The World back in the 80s) will make a comeback :-)
And that's 66% overall. Now think what proportion of the sites containing homebrew or 'small scale'* open source blogs, wikis, content management systems, being managed by amateur/unpaid/hobbyist webmasters are likely to be running on the free Lunux/Apache platform rather than paying money for IIS?
...and the same goes for SQL injection, file inclusion etc. which represent vulnerabilities in specific scripts and CGI applications rather than the underlying web server or operating system. (* i.e. as opposed to big league FOSS project backed by IBM, Sun, Red Hat et. al. with paid maintainers).
If and when
then, maybe you can start to compare Apple's role in the music player market with Microsoft's role in the operating systems market.
Meanwhile, I'll keep using my iPod Nano to play MP3s made from my own CDs (and, slowly, MP3s bought online as decent services such as Play.com start offering unencumbered legal downloads for sensible prices) with absolutely no compulsion to buy from iTunes and absolutely no compulsion to buy another iPod unless I happen to prefer Apple's design.
What's more - I can buy a Symbian/Windows Mobile/Brand X phone and it still accepts incoming calls and texts from an iPhone! - so I can choose not to buy an iPhone too!
So, please explain again how the Apple "monopoly" (which doesn't force anybody to buy an iPod and/or buy from iTunes unless they like the product) remotely resembles the MS operating system monopoly (which means that many Mac and Linux users are pretty much obliged to dual-boot or run emulation software - usually requiring us to buy a copy of windows & MS Office - in order to interoperate with the masses)?