The funny thing is that we have the exact same rhyme in Spanish:
Treinta días trae noviembre, Con abril, junio, y septiempre. Los demás treinta-y-uno, Excepto frebrero que tiene veinte-y-ocho, Y en año biciesto veinte-y-nueve.
If that were the case then they would just be seeking damages and a licensing deal.
No, you don't seem to understand that a business has that choice: If they find an infringing party, they can license them the technology and make money out of it, or they can force them to stop infringing.
Apple does not seem to want to make money out of third-parties using their technologies; they want to maintain their competitive edge in the market, so they opted for the latter. If they are found to be correct by a court, they have every right to do so.
Infringing intellectual property is not competition, it's actually just copying.
There is no rule, be it legal or moral, that states that you must share your intellectual property with third parties that want to make money out of it.
Wow, thanks. That was very insightful. I guess that explains why the market for netbooks keeps growing and RIM and HP are doing so well. Only those Apple loyal fanatics buy Macs and iOS devices.
That's very interesting indeed, since it means that only the very small minority of computer users that are Apple fanatics are the ones purchasing iPads. I mean, those 13 million devices sold must be to the same 5% of users; they are so gullible that every one of them buys at least 4 at a time. Idiots.
As soon as they all buy their 5th one, Apple's bubble will surely pop, it can't go on forever; I mean, there is no market at all.
and HTC/Google can work on implementing similar functionality in a non-infringing way.
Isn't that what they would want, and the whole point of an IP fight? Or are you one of those conspiracy theorists that imagines Apple being evil at all costs and doing this just to prevent competition?
Tablets are an expensive way to browse the web, watch videos or play simple games, though they do have a fair number of business uses in areas that don't need keyboards.
Since browsing the web, watching videos and playing simple games is not really a first necessity, people who want such luxury appear to be willing to pay for it.
They're a crappy alternative to a netbook if you want to do actual productive work that needs a keyboard.
Says you. This ignores the many reported instances of creative or professional people using an iPad successfully for actual work.
Plus, you could always attach a Bluetooth keyboard if you have an aversion to typing on flat glass.
Imagine that, a device that is nice for browsing the web, watching videos, playing games, and is useful for productive creative and professional work!
That it costs higher than a crap netbook that does half of this, half as good, does not seem to be an obstacle to adoption.
I think you'll find that "hardware company," unqualified as it was, straddles the "hardware manufacturer" and "hardware design house" classes.
The original poster never suggested that Apple manufactured its own hardware from sand and rare metals, just that they made a profit from selling hardware that they designed themselves.
He or she was responding to someone claiming that Apple was not even this, but a mere software company. The response was correct. Your attempt at nuance is unwarranted and off-topic.
I remember those days. While the tech media and the geeks were regarding them highly, people were not buying them.
Talk to anybody at Best Buy or such store and they will tell you that the regular folk were buying them thinking they were very cheap laptops and a great bargain, and then just as rapidly returning them when they discovered that they ran some philistine operating system that they've never seen; or those that ran Windows were too slow and couldn't play the latest games or videos or whatever.
I always suspected that the market for cheap, underpowered devices was a lot smaller than most of the tech rags admitted. Apparently Dell have come to the same conclusion the hard way.
the retailers and manufacturers don't want to make just 5% (or whatever the margin is on standard laptops) of $150-$250, they want to make 5% of $400-$700.
In other words, they want to make money and do not feel that a razor thin margin is justified or worth the trouble or risk.
If I was in that market, I would sell a small (7-9 inch) netbook at around $200.
That's fine, except that most businesses are in it for the money, not to serve some market that may or may not be there for the sake of making cheapskates and poor folk happy.
Apple is making money hand-over-fist with high-end "ultrabook" and notebook computers, and that's with high margins. This market seems to keep growing while the "netbook" market appears to have dried up or flattened out. Is it any wonder why everybody else wants to join into this profit pool? Maybe they are tired of not making money, continually lowering their prices to compete.
Right, because Louis C.K. was an absolutely unknown personality that had to promote his product from utter obscurity.
Give me a break. When famous bands and celebrities do this, it's a gimmick. They are already known; grasping the public attention comes easy when you already have an audience.
How does that work for a struggling unknown artist? How do they rise above the cacophony of competing acts? Publishers may be bloodsuckers, but they do have a purpose.
So wait, if you're running away from a predator and enter a cave, you suddenly forget why you got there and why you were in such a hurry? Somehow I see this as not really helpful to survival.
No, I did not read too much into that post, I took it at face value. I do not think there is any conspiracy. I never suggested this and it's a straw-man argument to imply it. Please, lets keep this discussion on focus and try to understand each other.
I think there is a clear change in the motivations which results in a switch of focus.
My concern is not that they are in cahoots with Google or any particular advertiser. It is that the developers' intentions--and by extension, the purpose of AdBlock Plus--may no longer align with their users'.
Read the comment from the author. It is clear that their attempts at a survey and basic analytics suggest to him that most people don't play with the settings or are aware of them AT ALL.
Currently this is not a problem since the developers' motivations align with their users'; the automatic subscription to common block-lists helps both.
Since this alignment seems to be changing, a switch in the default configurations will benefit one party and not the other.
He also says in plain language that they hope to eventually make money out of this. The motivation is not some altruistic ideal to improve advertising, but a drive to make money from a very popular extension, using means that fall in a morally gray area.
This is clearly a move to drive change to a point where advertising is present but less intrusive (and also more ethical, i.e. not using psuedo-OS dialogue boxes to fool the gullible).
No. It is clearly a move to attempt to make money from what is perceived to be a captive audience that will not notice.
I don't mind people wanting to make money. However, I see a clear conflict of interest here, when then interests of the source of such money are orthogonal to the actual users of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that after a few cycles of that, most people will figure to buy their booze and food the week before the "leap week."
And those that don't will thin away the population accordingly.
Or we could, you know, leave it the fsck alone.
Hum... Needs more cowbell.
No, no, no. You're thinking about an apple a day.
A month in the lab saves 5 in the bush.
-dZ.
The funny thing is that we have the exact same rhyme in Spanish:
Treinta días trae noviembre,
Con abril, junio, y septiempre.
Los demás treinta-y-uno,
Excepto frebrero que tiene veinte-y-ocho,
Y en año biciesto veinte-y-nueve.
Or something like that.
-dZ.
Or Decembruary.
No, you don't seem to understand that a business has that choice: If they find an infringing party, they can license them the technology and make money out of it, or they can force them to stop infringing.
Apple does not seem to want to make money out of third-parties using their technologies; they want to maintain their competitive edge in the market, so they opted for the latter. If they are found to be correct by a court, they have every right to do so.
Infringing intellectual property is not competition, it's actually just copying.
There is no rule, be it legal or moral, that states that you must share your intellectual property with third parties that want to make money out of it.
-dZ.
Wow, thanks. That was very insightful. I guess that explains why the market for netbooks keeps growing and RIM and HP are doing so well. Only those Apple loyal fanatics buy Macs and iOS devices.
That's very interesting indeed, since it means that only the very small minority of computer users that are Apple fanatics are the ones purchasing iPads. I mean, those 13 million devices sold must be to the same 5% of users; they are so gullible that every one of them buys at least 4 at a time. Idiots.
As soon as they all buy their 5th one, Apple's bubble will surely pop, it can't go on forever; I mean, there is no market at all.
OMG!! My brain is about to explode with a cuteness overload!!
Some people must believe in the system, or else they wouldn't be using it to argue over this.
Perhaps you meant that almost no one those who is inconsequential to and disconnected from the system believes in it.
-dZ.
Isn't that what they would want, and the whole point of an IP fight? Or are you one of those conspiracy theorists that imagines Apple being evil at all costs and doing this just to prevent competition?
-dZ.
Since browsing the web, watching videos and playing simple games is not really a first necessity, people who want such luxury appear to be willing to pay for it.
Says you. This ignores the many reported instances of creative or professional people using an iPad successfully for actual work.
Plus, you could always attach a Bluetooth keyboard if you have an aversion to typing on flat glass.
Imagine that, a device that is nice for browsing the web, watching videos, playing games, and is useful for productive creative and professional work!
That it costs higher than a crap netbook that does half of this, half as good, does not seem to be an obstacle to adoption.
-dZ.
I think you'll find that "hardware company," unqualified as it was, straddles the "hardware manufacturer" and "hardware design house" classes.
The original poster never suggested that Apple manufactured its own hardware from sand and rare metals, just that they made a profit from selling hardware that they designed themselves.
He or she was responding to someone claiming that Apple was not even this, but a mere software company. The response was correct. Your attempt at nuance is unwarranted and off-topic.
-dZ.
Apparently, many people do not mind so. More to the point, apparently Intel, HP, and now Dell have realized this too.
-dZ.
I remember those days. While the tech media and the geeks were regarding them highly, people were not buying them.
Talk to anybody at Best Buy or such store and they will tell you that the regular folk were buying them thinking they were very cheap laptops and a great bargain, and then just as rapidly returning them when they discovered that they ran some philistine operating system that they've never seen; or those that ran Windows were too slow and couldn't play the latest games or videos or whatever.
I always suspected that the market for cheap, underpowered devices was a lot smaller than most of the tech rags admitted. Apparently Dell have come to the same conclusion the hard way.
-dZ.
In other words, they want to make money and do not feel that a razor thin margin is justified or worth the trouble or risk.
That's fine, except that most businesses are in it for the money, not to serve some market that may or may not be there for the sake of making cheapskates and poor folk happy.
Apple is making money hand-over-fist with high-end "ultrabook" and notebook computers, and that's with high margins. This market seems to keep growing while the "netbook" market appears to have dried up or flattened out. Is it any wonder why everybody else wants to join into this profit pool? Maybe they are tired of not making money, continually lowering their prices to compete.
-dZ.
The first thing I'd recommend is not to ask for executive advice from the Slashdot crowd.
Jeez, how'd you ever get promoted?
-dZ.
So you mean that photograph retouching did not exist until Adobe implemented Photoshop?
That's fine, and it can happen, but it is not the norm. And more to the point, this so-called experiment by Louis C.K. does not prove it.
-dZ.
Right, because Louis C.K. was an absolutely unknown personality that had to promote his product from utter obscurity.
Give me a break. When famous bands and celebrities do this, it's a gimmick. They are already known; grasping the public attention comes easy when you already have an audience.
How does that work for a struggling unknown artist? How do they rise above the cacophony of competing acts? Publishers may be bloodsuckers, but they do have a purpose.
-dZ.
In the meantime, the charging sabre-toothed tiger from which you were running away finds you confused and eats you.
I wonder how we made it this far...
So wait, if you're running away from a predator and enter a cave, you suddenly forget why you got there and why you were in such a hurry? Somehow I see this as not really helpful to survival.
-dZ.
No, I did not read too much into that post, I took it at face value. I do not think there is any conspiracy. I never suggested this and it's a straw-man argument to imply it. Please, lets keep this discussion on focus and try to understand each other.
I think there is a clear change in the motivations which results in a switch of focus.
My concern is not that they are in cahoots with Google or any particular advertiser. It is that the developers' intentions--and by extension, the purpose of AdBlock Plus--may no longer align with their users'.
This impacts my trust in the extension.
-dZ.
Read the comment from the author. It is clear that their attempts at a survey and basic analytics suggest to him that most people don't play with the settings or are aware of them AT ALL.
Currently this is not a problem since the developers' motivations align with their users'; the automatic subscription to common block-lists helps both.
Since this alignment seems to be changing, a switch in the default configurations will benefit one party and not the other.
He also says in plain language that they hope to eventually make money out of this. The motivation is not some altruistic ideal to improve advertising, but a drive to make money from a very popular extension, using means that fall in a morally gray area.
-dZ.
No. It is clearly a move to attempt to make money from what is perceived to be a captive audience that will not notice.
I don't mind people wanting to make money. However, I see a clear conflict of interest here, when then interests of the source of such money are orthogonal to the actual users of the product.
dZ.