I doubt that Apple is truly concerned about Real. The bigger threat, and an obvious one, is Microsoft using Real's actions as a justification for an MS hack of the iPod. MS will not allow Apple to dominate the portable music space without putting up a tremendous fight.
Consider this - in the next release of Windows (whenever the hell that will be), MS includes a small utility that lets you take your Windows Media files and place them on the iPod. MS has a great deal more clout with the RIAA / MPAA than Apple does, and is in a much better position to negotiate contracts. After exclusively securing lots of artists and albums, MS then integrates a "Microsoft Music Store" product into Windows (probably with a link on the desktop) - and thus the end of the iTunes music store, and the door is now open for an MS-inspired iPod competitor. After all, if you can purchase music from MS and it runs on the iPod, why not purchase a cheaper music player from MS?
Economists are actually still debating the merits of outsourcing. Namely, the basic theory of free trade is based upon Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage. Ricardo's work did not anticipate the incredible liquidity of capital present today, nor the value of intellectual property production.
What you should be asking is why it is necessary for profitable organizations to ship work overseas? If the answer is to increase profits, your essentially agreeing with the concept that any corporation should always try to find the cheapest wages possible - no matter how it harms their local economy, or their own workers.
Free Trade / Outsourcing leads us to a "race to the bottom" where corporations will constantly strive to avoid labor and environmental regulations in an attempt to create wealth (capital) for the fortunate few. I'm saying this as a techie who, God forbid, actually has a degree in econ and respects capitalism. But that is reality.
BTW, how would you feel if your position were to be outsourced? That's a question that is hardly ever asked, and even more rarely answered, to those who are the proponents of outsourcing.
Slashdot readers, IMHO, don't believe in unions for several reasons:
1) Most readers believe that they are special and unique. They won't be outsourced, they won't be replaced by a college student who has knowledge of new technologies, etc. Why join a union if your so amazingly good that you'll never need one?
2) For a board that loves to talk about economics, very few people seem to have any understanding of the field. Sorry to say it, but being an intelligent computer programmer does not make you an expert on labor economics. So many readers seem to believe that laissez-faire capitalism will create a better world, but for some reason I doubt they've read Smith, Galbraith, Friedman. Without any knowledge, people somehow make the assumption that unions are incompatible with capitalist economics.
3) Many Slashdot readers are, apparently, quite young. I think these folks - who don't need to send kids to school, consider long term medical care, pay prescriptions, or worry about retirement become Libertarian simply because they're pissed off about the taxes they have to pay. Look, I get pissed off too when 40% of my paycheck disappears. Certainly Ayn Rand and other Libertarian thinkers don't view unions too highly - after all, its the little guy ganging up against the Perfect Man.
4) The truth is, programming is becoming a commodity service. Higher managers don't care that you're a great guru of Z++ on Amiga when they can hire from India at 1/5 the price. Commodities are easily exchanable, and very very few programmers have such unique skills that they cannot be replaced. At least unions let the commodities (us) have a fighting chance at negotiation.
Oh, well. MS wins again. First Apple, the DOJ, now Sun. The EU case doesn't have any real effect on MS from a business perspective.
On the positive side, at least an infusion of cash will keep Sun from falling into the same sad state as SGI. Look, Apple dealt with the devil and went on to produce some great stuff. We can hope the same occurs with Sun.
On the whole Java vs. C#, I honestly wish Sun would have made some of the same semantic improvements that MS came up with.
Capitalism is an economic system. It may be the most efficient means of generating aggregate wealth, but it has no mechanism to guarentee a socially balanced distribution of wealth. Would you want a society with enormous amount of wealth concentrated in the top 5% (such as the US), or a more moderate amount of wealth spread out over the whole (Sweden, Norway)?
The argument given for so-called "free trade" by the oh-so-Libertarian members of Slashdot fails to acknowledge that while outsourcing may, in fact, generate aggegate benefits to the world economy, many, many people are forced to suffer for that prosperity. The economic benefits of "free trade" accrue primarily to shareholders of multi-national corporations, with the majority of the shares being owned by the very wealthiest members of society. In other words, free trade does produce economic benefits, but those benefits are not spread in any way equally.
When you lose your job, it is small compensation to learn that shareholders (i.e. the top 5%) have made even more money than before.
By offshoring middle class jobs (manufacturing, programming, acounting, etc.) we are indeed increasing the nations aggregate GDP. At the same time we are increasing the already outrageous disparities in income within the US. How long will normal Americans support such a trend?
From a political perspective, not economic, the job of our elected officials is to ensure the prosperity of Americans - not Indians, not Chinese, not even Canada or Mexico. An economic policy that hurts the average American, that crushes the middle class - the base of our democracy - cannot be considered the best course of action for the US.
Do you really want to live in Ayn Rand's world of objectivism? Do you really want corporations to simply choose the most efficient route to profits? Should we return to the robber baron period - child labor, twelve-hour days, horrific pollution?
For all of those stating that the US needs to simply become more competive, how exactly do you propose to do it? Should we cut labor rates to what poverty levels in order to compete? What sort of society would we become?
So, how many of you Slashdot readers attended public schools in the states? Drive to work on public highways? How, precisely, can these services (and others) be funded if US wages collapse in order to become what you term competitive?
I have a feeling that this debate - like most outsourcing debates on Slashdot - is being argued by folks who have little if any knowledge of economics. The US can compete with India / China / Mexico if we are willing to have a substantial fall in our standard of living and quality of life.
For you techies who kept your jobs in the.com bust - why do you think you can't be outsourced? There is a definite trend towards a "race to the bottom" in numerous fields. If manufacturing continues to go offshore, it tech, accounting, and other high end services follow, if our trade deficit continues to grow continuously - your jobs will follow.
Capitlism is not an end to itself; an increase in GDP does not necessarily mean that *society* is better off. Understand that for the US to be *competitive* with unrestricted free trade *necessarily* requires a drop in income for US workers.
The cost of information flow has been heavily subsidized by US taxpayers - i.e. the Internet. Funny, I don't recall India paying for BITNET or its successors. Its ironic that our investment in IT has been turned into a lethal weapon against our jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that Apple is truly concerned about Real. The bigger threat, and an obvious one, is Microsoft using Real's actions as a justification for an MS hack of the iPod. MS will not allow Apple to dominate the portable music space without putting up a tremendous fight.
Consider this - in the next release of Windows (whenever the hell that will be), MS includes a small utility that lets you take your Windows Media files and place them on the iPod. MS has a great deal more clout with the RIAA / MPAA than Apple does, and is in a much better position to negotiate contracts. After exclusively securing lots of artists and albums, MS then integrates a "Microsoft Music Store" product into Windows (probably with a link on the desktop) - and thus the end of the iTunes music store, and the door is now open for an MS-inspired iPod competitor. After all, if you can purchase music from MS and it runs on the iPod, why not purchase a cheaper music player from MS?
Economists are actually still debating the merits of outsourcing. Namely, the basic theory of free trade is based upon Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage. Ricardo's work did not anticipate the incredible liquidity of capital present today, nor the value of intellectual property production. What you should be asking is why it is necessary for profitable organizations to ship work overseas? If the answer is to increase profits, your essentially agreeing with the concept that any corporation should always try to find the cheapest wages possible - no matter how it harms their local economy, or their own workers. Free Trade / Outsourcing leads us to a "race to the bottom" where corporations will constantly strive to avoid labor and environmental regulations in an attempt to create wealth (capital) for the fortunate few. I'm saying this as a techie who, God forbid, actually has a degree in econ and respects capitalism. But that is reality. BTW, how would you feel if your position were to be outsourced? That's a question that is hardly ever asked, and even more rarely answered, to those who are the proponents of outsourcing.
Slashdot readers, IMHO, don't believe in unions for several reasons:
1) Most readers believe that they are special and unique. They won't be outsourced, they won't be replaced by a college student who has knowledge of new technologies, etc. Why join a union if your so amazingly good that you'll never need one?
2) For a board that loves to talk about economics, very few people seem to have any understanding of the field. Sorry to say it, but being an intelligent computer programmer does not make you an expert on labor economics. So many readers seem to believe that laissez-faire capitalism will create a better world, but for some reason I doubt they've read Smith, Galbraith, Friedman. Without any knowledge, people somehow make the assumption that unions are incompatible with capitalist economics.
3) Many Slashdot readers are, apparently, quite young. I think these folks - who don't need to send kids to school, consider long term medical care, pay prescriptions, or worry about retirement become Libertarian simply because they're pissed off about the taxes they have to pay. Look, I get pissed off too when 40% of my paycheck disappears. Certainly Ayn Rand and other Libertarian thinkers don't view unions too highly - after all, its the little guy ganging up against the Perfect Man.
4) The truth is, programming is becoming a commodity service. Higher managers don't care that you're a great guru of Z++ on Amiga when they can hire from India at 1/5 the price. Commodities are easily exchanable, and very very few programmers have such unique skills that they cannot be replaced. At least unions let the commodities (us) have a fighting chance at negotiation.
Oh, well. MS wins again. First Apple, the DOJ, now Sun. The EU case doesn't have any real effect on MS from a business perspective. On the positive side, at least an infusion of cash will keep Sun from falling into the same sad state as SGI. Look, Apple dealt with the devil and went on to produce some great stuff. We can hope the same occurs with Sun. On the whole Java vs. C#, I honestly wish Sun would have made some of the same semantic improvements that MS came up with.
Capitalism is an economic system. It may be the most efficient means of generating aggregate wealth, but it has no mechanism to guarentee a socially balanced distribution of wealth. Would you want a society with enormous amount of wealth concentrated in the top 5% (such as the US), or a more moderate amount of wealth spread out over the whole (Sweden, Norway)?
The argument given for so-called "free trade" by the oh-so-Libertarian members of Slashdot fails to acknowledge that while outsourcing may, in fact, generate aggegate benefits to the world economy, many, many people are forced to suffer for that prosperity. The economic benefits of "free trade" accrue primarily to shareholders of multi-national corporations, with the majority of the shares being owned by the very wealthiest members of society. In other words, free trade does produce economic benefits, but those benefits are not spread in any way equally.
When you lose your job, it is small compensation to learn that shareholders (i.e. the top 5%) have made even more money than before.
By offshoring middle class jobs (manufacturing, programming, acounting, etc.) we are indeed increasing the nations aggregate GDP. At the same time we are increasing the already outrageous disparities in income within the US. How long will normal Americans support such a trend?
From a political perspective, not economic, the job of our elected officials is to ensure the prosperity of Americans - not Indians, not Chinese, not even Canada or Mexico. An economic policy that hurts the average American, that crushes the middle class - the base of our democracy - cannot be considered the best course of action for the US.
Do you really want to live in Ayn Rand's world of objectivism? Do you really want corporations to simply choose the most efficient route to profits? Should we return to the robber baron period - child labor, twelve-hour days, horrific pollution? For all of those stating that the US needs to simply become more competive, how exactly do you propose to do it? Should we cut labor rates to what poverty levels in order to compete? What sort of society would we become? So, how many of you Slashdot readers attended public schools in the states? Drive to work on public highways? How, precisely, can these services (and others) be funded if US wages collapse in order to become what you term competitive? I have a feeling that this debate - like most outsourcing debates on Slashdot - is being argued by folks who have little if any knowledge of economics. The US can compete with India / China / Mexico if we are willing to have a substantial fall in our standard of living and quality of life. For you techies who kept your jobs in the .com bust - why do you think you can't be outsourced? There is a definite trend towards a "race to the bottom" in numerous fields. If manufacturing continues to go offshore, it tech, accounting, and other high end services follow, if our trade deficit continues to grow continuously - your jobs will follow.
Capitlism is not an end to itself; an increase in GDP does not necessarily mean that *society* is better off. Understand that for the US to be *competitive* with unrestricted free trade *necessarily* requires a drop in income for US workers.
The cost of information flow has been heavily subsidized by US taxpayers - i.e. the Internet. Funny, I don't recall India paying for BITNET or its successors. Its ironic that our investment in IT has been turned into a lethal weapon against our jobs.