Cloud Computing for Governments...is such a colossally bad idea. Government data living on any system ultimately controlled by a corporation on that corporation's property is so rife for abuse, we are really opening perhaps the biggest Pandora's box of our times.
Cloud computing != Privately run servers
A push to cloud computing could be moving things to Microsoft created and run server farms, or could be moving things to Google created, but government run and operated server farms, or it could mean moving things to government created and run server farms. Personally, I like the idea of most government agencies just having access to virtual servers in a nice, distributed set of server farms because it solves a lot of networking problems while potentially also getting rid of a lot waste.
By all means we should get rid of the separate servers at all these different departments within the government. Then we just have one group of professionals whose primary job it is to run IT operations, in charge of all the networking and most of the security and backup issues. We'll no longer have to worry about vanishing whitehouse e-mails because of supposedly incompetent IT. or will we have to worry as much about complete incompetents in charge of security for the DoHD. Don't let a corporation run it, but by all means you can let several corporations help design it to specs written by the state.
Dell and HP, like Apple, have long standing codes of required conduct for suppliers, but to my knowledge neither has ever published he results of an audit of those suppliers nor publicly taken any action to provide those providers with incentive to not abuse human rights. How then are either company any better? In fact, Dell and HP both share a large number of chinese suppliers with Apple (according to the Telegraph article) and have announced nothing about requiring them to change their practices.
Yet again Apple is heralded on Slashdot for "inventing" something the rest of the business has been doing for years.
Please provide a citation.
See EICC [eicc.info] or Dell's [dell.com] involvement in it which started in 2004.
What Apple has done differently that I see, is they actually openly published the results of their audits so others can check and so the public can see how long they keep doing business with companies that violate their code of conduct. Clearly Dell and every other company has a published code of conduct created by their PR department. So far I haven't yet found any other company that has actually published the results of an audit yet, nor what companies they have stopped doing business with. Mostly I just see weasel words like about making partners progress towards less human rights violations, which does not even make it clear if they refuse to do business with companies that make no progress and don't stop these abuses, if said companies even know about it.
I'm not even excusing Apple here. I'm just saying they took one small step towards transparency and real accountability in the industry and that deserves our praise. I'll be just as loud decrying them if in two years Apple hasn't checked back, hasn't stopped doing business with these companies, and it is discovered the unfair practices have not been stopped.
So Apple is to give a new code of conduct for it's suppliers, I too have a code of conduct, "Don't buy Apple products." I think mine trumps Apple's code of conduct, whatever their PR department says.
So you buy your computer hardware from companies that do not have an enforced code of conduct for labor overseas thereby contributing to horrible human rights abuses? Seriously, I want to know who you buy hardware from and why you think that is less evil.
Thanks for the links. I'd mod you up if I had not already posted. I rarely carry on my person, but my brother is fanatic about it and since we're flying together in a few weeks (he never flies) it's nice to have some info on how he should pack his pistol to avoid hassles. I think I'll leave mine at home because as much as the article implies the baggage will be handled with extra care, I don't trust the airlines not to lose or damage anything expensive, including my pistol.
It is a Mateba. I've always wanted to on one, just for the novelty. They're getting more and more expensive as collector pieces though, since the company went out of business. It's not "like a revolver". It is a revolver. It's just a revolver that automatically cocks and advances the cylinder with a blowback slide, instead of automatically cocking and pulling a round off the top of the magazine, like most automatics do.
Believe me, I've seen people so inept with computers that both the mouse and the keyboard seem like tools of frustration. And I daresay voice recognition, while getting close, is still not quite at the level for full operability.
If you've ever seen the results of a usability test you'll know problems with mice are the rule, not the exception. Pretty much every usability test I've done with the general public includes at least a few instances of users clicking the wrong mouse button. I've even seen it happen in testing with expert users, in one case all users were security architects or administrators for major ISPs and we still saw mistakes with which mouse button to click. It is almost certainly the most common usability flaw in modern computing.
And I daresay voice recognition, while getting close, is still not quite at the level for full operability.
I don't think we'll see voice recognition take off until we get computers managing the soundsystem for homes. Until they know what is going out of the speakers for video games, movies, television, music, telephone calls (ringer), computer system beeps, etc. they won't be able to filter out those sounds from potential incoming commands.
And also - you CAN write badly written software for Linux.
Of course you can, but given or lack of context we don't know what he was referring to. It could be he was referring to the Alex systems as closed ecosystems only able to run vetted software from their store, or he could have been referring to the needed privileges for applications on different platforms. Who can say. I just ignored that whole bit as being to vague to deserve my attention.
Now don't get me wrong; I'm fine with people making money on Linux, but this whole business model does stink of shameless freeloading. And FOSS freeloaders never seem to last long in the market.
That's because it is so easy to undercut them in the market or at least match their prices. These people can do this for now because they have first mover advantage. o one else is selling simplified Linux laptops with internet and support services. They can even start out charging for freeware apps, because their customers won't know the difference or have alternatives.
This won't work in the long term, however. Someone else can take all their OSS code and do the exact same thing, except with different branding and with all those freeware apps actually free of charge. The market will then force these people to change or die to compete. And I have no problem with them charging for freeware apps to start and making some money off of them. They're taking a risk by being pioneers and others will learn from their mistakes. They deserve the extra cash. Hopefully, however, they won't expect it as an ongoing revenue stream.
And this business does not seem to add enough value.
I disagree. Simply preinstalling and configuring Linux on laptops and offering a full service support and data setup is significant value added. But going forward, their margins will probably get smaller as they have to compete with others who do the same thing; or they will have to start adding additional value. Dedicated support people cost money, and these people are going to discover it is cheaper to pay a couple of programmers to make fixes to Linux, than it is to continually answer phones and work around bugs. If nothing else, that makes this a win for the Linux community.
Rather than developing for a new distro, wouldn't time be better spent creating an Ubuntu, Mandriva, or SUSE store in which for-pay apps are sold alongside free downloads of free-as-in-beer proprietary software and FOSS.
Actually, I think they're being smart by targeting a niche market of really basic and incompetent computer users. The interface for all the distros you mention is inappropriate and too complex for their market. Have you seen the demo. It is a list of about 6 giant buttons down the side for the applications and three tabs at the bottom for various web resources. It is much more appropriate for very basic users.
BTW, I am aware that Ubuntu is considering some sort of "app store" interface; I just don't know exactly how that's intended to operate.
The plan is to build it into the AppCenter package manager in 10.x. I don't think all the details are hashed out yet. In general you'll be able to buy, download, install, and uninstall commercial apps from Canonical using the same package manager as you use for freeware.
You can get a free netbook or lowish spec laptop for that, which will come with Windows and will run Ubuntu quite happily, with many mobile phone contracts over here.
Note, the article quotes 39.95 british pounds per month for this service, but that version includes the high speed data service plan. The laptop and support plan are 9.99 british pounds, or about $20. I'd further note, the actual service quotes 24.99 british pounds with the broadband, not 39.95. So $50 per month including the high speed data plan a wireless router and free setup in your home is not all that expensive compared to prices in the US.
The site doesn't tell you whether everyone in the household is gone, only if one person in the household is gone. A robber would still have to peek in the windows and do whatever it is robbers do to make sure the house is empty.
Maybe you're picturing robbers as guys dressed in black, wearing masks, twirling their mustaches, and carrying big sacks as a profession. Many times robbers are friends or acquaintances. They know who lives in your house and if they can check both your locations via twitter, they know they have a good shot at your house. A lot of robberies are done by people the victim has met who are opportunists. Heck, statistically, walking down the same jogging path as a burglar increases your chances of being burgled.
Hooray, you win today's defective analogy prize.
Multiple fiber lines are quite light. One falling won't take out others, and doesn't even represent a safety problem. Unlike power lines, most phone lines are insulated, and fiber lines need not even carry electricity.
You completely miss the point as usual. You end up with half a dozen companies maintaining their own lines. That means half a dozen times as much construction blocking roads, when they dig. Further, since each company is maintaining its own lines, what are the chances of accidentally severing a competitors line when you dig to do maintenance on your own lines? So you get one company with a break who digs to get to it and in the process knocks out one or more other networks. And it is all for waste. There is no reason the city can't string fiber to every home and rent it to any and all providers.
Sorry, there just isn't enough physical space or EM spectrum. The government either needs to handle data pipes the way they do roads, as a government utility, or they need to build the conduits for the pipes and charge data providers the cost.
At higher frequencies, it's quite easy to make electromagnetic transmission directional. It's conceptually easy to use lots of microwave links to push data around.
As someone who actually passed emag, let me say, the span of frequencies where it is practical to transmit and which are not in use is limited. Further, there needs to be regulation to prevent signals from interfering with one another.
A single fiber can transmit...
Reread my post. The limitation for wired internet is the amount of public right of way land running around a city and to each home, not the capacity of fiber. If the government is not regulating it, a few feet wide swath of dirt is not going to allow many companies to co-exist and access their lines in a reasonable fashion.
There's no good reason to involve government in making and maintaining data pipes...
Here's a very good reason. The government already interfered with making and maintaining data pipes by giving billions in subsidies to a few companies, breaking the market and making it uneconomical for new players to enter and be competitive. It's the government's fault and they are the only one in a position to fix it.
because of the problems inherent in governments: corruption, lack of incentives to do the job right, inherent inefficiency...
All of which are only a subset of the problems inherent in monopolist companies.
the use of force against those who oppose what the government wants to do (don't want that tower on your property?
Local governments here already use public domain to confiscate land on behalf of corporations and then hand the property over. At least with the federal government, there are people easily voted out of office.
So here's the problem. You pose problems but no solutions. Doing nothing does not fix the problem. The feds doing nothing makes the problem worse. You need a coherent and practical solution or you are just wasting everyones time.
The only way to really get ISPs off their collectively slow asses is to increase competition. Too many areas of the country are stuck with only one or two choices...which isn't a choice at all.
The problem with this approach is we've dug ourselves into a hole using tax dollars nd it will take lot more tax dollars to get us out of it. Even if a federal law forbids localities from preventing new companies from laying down last mile pipes in public right of ways, the investment required to get started is huge. Meanwhile existing players can use their position to undercut your prices, because their infrastructure was paid for with hundreds of billions of dollars supplied by our taxes.
Personally, rather than pay all that again to every company who wants to enter the market, I favor public option. Let the feds pay once to build a national utility, or subsidize state and local utilities that supply data lines. Let the companies compete against a public utility, that way we have both competition and a competitor bound to uphold the constitution when it comes to free speech and unreasonable searches.
It's a two way street. Consumers do whatever they can to squeeze corps. Corps squeeze consumers.
Money is power. Not having money anywhere on the scale of corporations, individuals have two real options. They can organize into unions and organizations; and put up with the corruption that results from concentrating power, or they can vote and the government gets involved.
The government does not need to get involved, they need to get out of the way by removing the monopoly cable companies enjoy.
The problem is most of the monopolies cable companies enjoy are the result of local and state government interference and of limited resourced apportioned by the feds. The feds not getting involved is tantamount to handing over control to the corporations who have too much money to not influence local governments. Moreover, local governments have good reason to get involved, since their involvement is the result of the disaster that happened when they did not get involved in the early days of power distribution. dozens of redundant lines making the place hideous and resulting in one line falling and taking down dozens of others, bringing everyone down to the reliability of the worst player. Learn your history lest you repeat it.
Sorry, there just isn't enough physical space or EM spectrum. The government either needs to handle data pipes the way they do roads, as a government utility, or they need to build the conduits for the pipes and charge data providers the cost.
Plus, unlike coal emissions, we can actually USE the waste material and reduce it by reusing it in reactors-- if it is radioactive, that means it is emitting radiation, which can either be used in additional reactors, or worst case in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (not very efficient, but its an option).
As I recall from my one nuclear engineering course, the majority of the volume of waste material is low level radioactive materials such as irradiated machinery, tools, containers, etc. They would be very hard and not very efficient to harness as a power source. That said, the waste problem is manageable and the high level waste that is not easily reprocessed can certainly be fused into a nice stable chunk of glass and stored at a reasonable cost.
Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc. etc. should love the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.
I'm a fan of nuclear power and I think it is one of the least objectionable and most practical options we have for making a real difference. That said, nuclear waste is a significant concern depending upon what rules are in place for generation, reprocessing, and disposal when these plants go online. Also, the potential link with childhood leukemia is a very real concern for environmentalists as well. The best data we have to date (http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.117-a437) seems to indicate there is likely a real link between rates of childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear plants. Revamping our laws to reduce waste is important, but likewise is further research into this topic with strict and accurate methodology; and making sure these plants are located in relatively remote areas away from zoned residential areas.
Writing a 1000+ character reply is hardly dismissive. You've got a valid complaint (or whatever, not here to mince words), but Canonical won't be able to help you, because they don't have the resources to do anything about it.
I thought one of Canonical's big pushes was in helping application developers improve their applications free of charge, to help address this very problem by making applications more usable and competitive compared to offerings on other OS's. I don't think it is fair or productive to speak for them and say they aren't going to do anything to promote more applications moving to Linux, unless you are an official representative of Canonical.
Your belief that a lack of Linux adoption is due to a lack of application friendliness would need some more arguments and/or examples.
That would be ideal, of course, but it is a commonly held opinion, in fact one Shuttleworth seems to share since he was so upset by the poor usability of many applications he offered free usability testing to developers under the condition they would actually make use of the data.
It's not that you don't have a point and that Canonical despite any effort they put in may be unable to make a significant difference in the number and quality of applications offered. It's just that on the other hand, they might have some good ideas for incentivizing application developers and may well be working towards that. Maybe it is a very good question for Mr. Asay.
In order for the app store to be a viable business Apple has to protect the IP of the app holders.
...Please tell me what business school is teaching this concept that a viable retail software business must also police its customers...
While you're making a bit of strawman argument, there is a very valid business case to Apple's protecting of App developer's profits. If Apple can reduce piracy on iPhone Apps, more app developers are motivated to create more applications. As more applications are made, the platform is better for users than other platforms with fewer apps. Thus, more people buy iPhones, making Apple more money. Currently a lot of people buy iPhones because they like the large selection of games and other apps they can buy for it, compared to other phones.
So assuming Apple did ban people from the store for running jailbroken phones as an anti-piracy measure, it could theoretically net them more longterm profit.
To be a little more specific (and to answer my own question a little bit) it seems to me that a fair amount of the problem isn't the OS itself, but the associate applications.
Clearly the larger the install base for an OS, the more applications are likely to be developed for it, but additionally the ease of developing, marketing, and getting those applications to the end user plays a big role. I know the current Canonical roadmap includes an App Store built into the package manager, to facilitate developers marketing and delivering applications to end users, similar to what Apple has done with the iPhone App Store. Ubuntu can also capitalize upon nonproifit collaborative development by acting as a facilitator and contributor to application development needed by larger organizations needing software and with a budget for development.
That said, I think Canonical should do more than just that. The App store in the application manager should be a priority, but to be realistic unless Ubuntu gains a lot of market share, this is going to be a big uphill battle. Several strategies could help alleviate this problem:
Create a good, easy, cross platform development environment so developers can target Ubuntu and another OS (Windows or OS X) simultaneously with first rate applications that work well with both. This would mean either embracing WINE in a big way (since MS is not going to play ball) or making a partnership with Apple to create a more interoperable format for applications that run on both Linux and OS X.
Create an in house application development program that targets multiple platforms and makes better applications on other platforms than are available. Don't make a Photoshop clone for Linux. Make a Photoshop clone for Linux, Windows, and OS X, that is better for some group of users than Photoshop is. Maybe this means more feature-ful, or maybe it just means much cheaper while still good. This group can make commercial software and make a profit, while targeting application niches that are holding up Linux adoption.
Find partners - One of the reasons linux adoption is low is because Linux pre-installs are very rare. Hardware partners that need a free OS and some knowhow to customize it also have the money to pay for application development and other partners who might be willing to target that market.
Even having personally gotten some graphic designers to try the GIMP, I have yet to know any professional designers who find it adequate.
I've worked as a professional graphic designer and as a part-time graphic designer in startups. I do use both Linux and GIMP and it is not only adequate but superior for some tasks. Sadly, this is not all tasks. I mostly have used it for batch processing of images where automating the work via scripts was important. Of late, I use it even less, since OS X has some nice, built in scripting that works well with Photoshop, Pixelmator, and GraphicConverter.
...but does there come a time when you say, "We need a serious Adobe CS competitor for our OS to be competitive on the desktop, so let's make that happen"? If so, what happens then?
This is an interesting question, but I don't think Ubuntu is there yet. A lot of low hanging fruit is available before the professional graphic design niche is worth targeting. Home users and Corporate Workstations are the two biggest of these. The former is mostly there sans a market for good games and reworking the application manager to facilitate generic commercial software. The latter will probably be best entered into by targeting government and education first and letting the market share do more of the work instead of Canonical trying to brute force it.
It's nice to read a post from someone who can intelligently point out real problem spots and ask good questions. Hopefully some of your post makes its way to Mr. Asay so we can hear his take.
Fuck off, little bitch. Here's some text from the blog post you cite:
1)
But he downplays how good a business the iTunes store is.
Here's what the iTunes store has: margins that are better than the best e-commerce companies around;
Yup, which later on in the update he, himself, refutes:
So I’m probably wrong that iTunes is Apple’s best business. (The company’s overall gross margin, after all, is 34 percent.)
You continue to cite:
Sales of nearly $3 billion a year in its existing business; and a new $1 billion business on the way.
Which just shows you know nothing about business. You can lose money or break even with billions in sales, if you don't have good enough margins. The point being, Apple does have billions in sales, but if each sale nets little or no profit, that doesn't change anything other than making a portion of the overhead costs more spread out. You second quote, again, speaks to number of sales not profits.
So, you use a single sentence in the article which quotes Apple representatives has claiming that they don't make much money, then the blog entry goes on to dispute that claim.
If you read all the way to the end of the article you'll see the author refutes much of what he wrote after getting input from people more knowledgeable. More importantly, it wasn't just an Apple representative. It was the CEO repeating comments he's made several times during shareholder financial results reports. So your claim to the contrary, would require Apple to be lying in a forum where the SEC will actually fine them if they are found out, all that over a market that even the pie in the sky estimate here said could be 4% of Apple's profits? I think not.
Here, also from 2008, is an article from Wired which claims that the firm had posted a $500M profit (not gross).
First, if you're citing something you need to provide a URL or link. Second, do you know what the words you're using mean? Gross what? Apple does not break out iTunes sales in their financial reports, so there are no publicly available sources for how much profit they make. Further, Apple regards the profits breakdown on songs to be a trade secret because they don't want competitors to know what the efficiency of their credit card transaction algorithm is, or what bulk deal they have from the credit card companies. Thus, all we have are estimates based either by subtracting estimated ipod sales, or by calculating approximate costs. A good approximation, however does not leave out the substantial cost of credit card transactions or bandwidth and hosting; which the author of the cited article admits in the update that he forgot.
You are absolutely full of shit. But so what? My original top post was simply an opinion expressed lament.
So? Does that mean people should not point out when you have your facts wrong?
You are the motherfucker who made an issue of whether iTunes is or is not profitable.
Yes, people who point out when you are wrong are motherfuckers. If only people would shut up and ignore when you spout off in public when you are clueless about the topic.
Regardless, the firm is engaging in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.
In light of that, I won't bother to tell you what the last terms you used actually mean or why you're full of it.
I won't give them my money any longer. As is my right.
Why would I care. I'm not an advocate for Apple. I was just commenting with a correction so people were not misinformed by your assertions. You can buy turnips and try to put them in your urethra if you want. It's none of my concern.
Suck it.
Yeah, generally vulgar insults are the refuge of the intellectually inferior. Have fun with that.
You seem to be having a normal ego threat response. I pointed out that your comment about Apple making lots of money on iTunes and your implication that they have changed business practices to cash in on that instead of on the businesses where they are making most of their money, was misinformed. Even the pie in the sky estimates of Apples iTunes revenue make it about 4% of their income, while more enlightened estimates put it probably below 1%. I cited an article from one of those pie in the sky people, who realized his mistake when corrected, in the hopes that you'd see not only the logic, but where people that make that assumption went wrong.
Instead of rationally revising your opinion with the input of this new data (as the author largely did), you got emotional and defensive. As if being wrong makes you less of a person, you instead chose to irrationally defend that incorrect opinion, in effect being a less intelligent person. I'm not pointing this out because I want to make you feel bad or look bad. I don't know you and don't really care that much. I just hope you can impartially consider your decision making process and truly consider if you are being reasoned and logical in future.
Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.
The difference is power distribution companies are not allowed to charge exorbitant fees to green power generation companies to transport that power to the end user. They have to charge the same price they charge their own coal fired power generation subsidiaries. Having a monopoly on power distribution, they are restricted from using that to gain an unfair advantage in another market, such as power generation. Claiming green power and coal power are different product even though they go over the same pipes in the same way is the same as claiming television service is different from any other data going over the cable network. You can't artificially raise the price of your competitors from a monopoly position.
You didn't read the article you cited, did you? It made the exact opposite point of what you argue - that iTunes is immensely profitable for the firm. Read the link you posted.
Actually I did read it as you should know if you even read my comments telling you which portions you needed to pay attention to. Please go reread what I wrote. The article mentions the long standing position of Apple and belief of analysts that Apple makes little or nothing on iTunes. Then, it proposes Apple could make a billion dollars a year, which is to say, still less than all the other divisions of Apple make. It bases that upon the theory that Apple's margins could be slightly better than for other products they sell, which the author admits in the update was incorrect. He further admits he failed to take into account the cost of running the servers and the bandwidth costs. his end conclusion is, "But I still think that with the scale it has, I still think that iTunes is a better business than Mr. Jobs makes it out to be." in reference to Jobs saying it doesn't make much money. Seriously, reading comprehension goes beyond just scanning the title, slacker.
Cite that please. You're arguing that they make little to no money from content distribution through iTunes? I think you're full of it.
Sure. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/steve-jobs-tries-to-downplay-the-itunes-stores-profit/...is an article where a NYT pundit postulates that despite Apple having publicly stated they make little money on the operation, he thinks they might actually be making a billion dollars a year (they make 25 billion or so a year as a company). Be sure to read the update at the end where he acknowledges he was mostly wrong after someone explained to him how much credit card transaction fees cost.
we will have better luck waiting for mass adoption of html5 than waiting for a REAL release of the adobe flash plugin. Maybe html5 is whats causing them to wake up
By some reports, as of last week Adobe was stopping the publication of the new version of HTML5 via objections in the W3C working group to the canvas element. Sadly, this is all going on behind closed doors and the only reason anyone knows about it is because Google's Ian Hickson blogged about it. Mind you Adobe is denying any such thing is happening. Hickson wrote "the latest publication of HTML5 is now blocked by Adobe, via an objection that has still not been made public (despite yesterday's promise to make it so)."
Ever since you started making money hands over fist with iTunes...
Ummm... Apple has never started making money hand over fist with iTunes. Income from iTunes and the iPhone app store together are a negligible portion of Apple's revenue. Seriously, they both barely make more than the operational cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Cloud Computing for Governments ...is such a colossally bad idea. Government data living on any system ultimately controlled by a corporation on that corporation's property is so rife for abuse, we are really opening perhaps the biggest Pandora's box of our times.
Cloud computing != Privately run servers
A push to cloud computing could be moving things to Microsoft created and run server farms, or could be moving things to Google created, but government run and operated server farms, or it could mean moving things to government created and run server farms. Personally, I like the idea of most government agencies just having access to virtual servers in a nice, distributed set of server farms because it solves a lot of networking problems while potentially also getting rid of a lot waste.
By all means we should get rid of the separate servers at all these different departments within the government. Then we just have one group of professionals whose primary job it is to run IT operations, in charge of all the networking and most of the security and backup issues. We'll no longer have to worry about vanishing whitehouse e-mails because of supposedly incompetent IT. or will we have to worry as much about complete incompetents in charge of security for the DoHD. Don't let a corporation run it, but by all means you can let several corporations help design it to specs written by the state.
Dell and HP, like Apple, have long standing codes of required conduct for suppliers, but to my knowledge neither has ever published he results of an audit of those suppliers nor publicly taken any action to provide those providers with incentive to not abuse human rights. How then are either company any better? In fact, Dell and HP both share a large number of chinese suppliers with Apple (according to the Telegraph article) and have announced nothing about requiring them to change their practices.
Yet again Apple is heralded on Slashdot for "inventing" something the rest of the business has been doing for years.
Please provide a citation.
See EICC [eicc.info] or Dell's [dell.com] involvement in it which started in 2004.
What Apple has done differently that I see, is they actually openly published the results of their audits so others can check and so the public can see how long they keep doing business with companies that violate their code of conduct. Clearly Dell and every other company has a published code of conduct created by their PR department. So far I haven't yet found any other company that has actually published the results of an audit yet, nor what companies they have stopped doing business with. Mostly I just see weasel words like about making partners progress towards less human rights violations, which does not even make it clear if they refuse to do business with companies that make no progress and don't stop these abuses, if said companies even know about it.
I'm not even excusing Apple here. I'm just saying they took one small step towards transparency and real accountability in the industry and that deserves our praise. I'll be just as loud decrying them if in two years Apple hasn't checked back, hasn't stopped doing business with these companies, and it is discovered the unfair practices have not been stopped.
So Apple is to give a new code of conduct for it's suppliers, I too have a code of conduct, "Don't buy Apple products." I think mine trumps Apple's code of conduct, whatever their PR department says.
So you buy your computer hardware from companies that do not have an enforced code of conduct for labor overseas thereby contributing to horrible human rights abuses? Seriously, I want to know who you buy hardware from and why you think that is less evil.
Thanks for the links. I'd mod you up if I had not already posted. I rarely carry on my person, but my brother is fanatic about it and since we're flying together in a few weeks (he never flies) it's nice to have some info on how he should pack his pistol to avoid hassles. I think I'll leave mine at home because as much as the article implies the baggage will be handled with extra care, I don't trust the airlines not to lose or damage anything expensive, including my pistol.
It is a Mateba. I've always wanted to on one, just for the novelty. They're getting more and more expensive as collector pieces though, since the company went out of business. It's not "like a revolver". It is a revolver. It's just a revolver that automatically cocks and advances the cylinder with a blowback slide, instead of automatically cocking and pulling a round off the top of the magazine, like most automatics do.
Believe me, I've seen people so inept with computers that both the mouse and the keyboard seem like tools of frustration. And I daresay voice recognition, while getting close, is still not quite at the level for full operability.
If you've ever seen the results of a usability test you'll know problems with mice are the rule, not the exception. Pretty much every usability test I've done with the general public includes at least a few instances of users clicking the wrong mouse button. I've even seen it happen in testing with expert users, in one case all users were security architects or administrators for major ISPs and we still saw mistakes with which mouse button to click. It is almost certainly the most common usability flaw in modern computing.
And I daresay voice recognition, while getting close, is still not quite at the level for full operability.
I don't think we'll see voice recognition take off until we get computers managing the soundsystem for homes. Until they know what is going out of the speakers for video games, movies, television, music, telephone calls (ringer), computer system beeps, etc. they won't be able to filter out those sounds from potential incoming commands.
And also - you CAN write badly written software for Linux.
Of course you can, but given or lack of context we don't know what he was referring to. It could be he was referring to the Alex systems as closed ecosystems only able to run vetted software from their store, or he could have been referring to the needed privileges for applications on different platforms. Who can say. I just ignored that whole bit as being to vague to deserve my attention.
Now don't get me wrong; I'm fine with people making money on Linux, but this whole business model does stink of shameless freeloading. And FOSS freeloaders never seem to last long in the market.
That's because it is so easy to undercut them in the market or at least match their prices. These people can do this for now because they have first mover advantage. o one else is selling simplified Linux laptops with internet and support services. They can even start out charging for freeware apps, because their customers won't know the difference or have alternatives.
This won't work in the long term, however. Someone else can take all their OSS code and do the exact same thing, except with different branding and with all those freeware apps actually free of charge. The market will then force these people to change or die to compete. And I have no problem with them charging for freeware apps to start and making some money off of them. They're taking a risk by being pioneers and others will learn from their mistakes. They deserve the extra cash. Hopefully, however, they won't expect it as an ongoing revenue stream.
And this business does not seem to add enough value.
I disagree. Simply preinstalling and configuring Linux on laptops and offering a full service support and data setup is significant value added. But going forward, their margins will probably get smaller as they have to compete with others who do the same thing; or they will have to start adding additional value. Dedicated support people cost money, and these people are going to discover it is cheaper to pay a couple of programmers to make fixes to Linux, than it is to continually answer phones and work around bugs. If nothing else, that makes this a win for the Linux community.
Rather than developing for a new distro, wouldn't time be better spent creating an Ubuntu, Mandriva, or SUSE store in which for-pay apps are sold alongside free downloads of free-as-in-beer proprietary software and FOSS.
Actually, I think they're being smart by targeting a niche market of really basic and incompetent computer users. The interface for all the distros you mention is inappropriate and too complex for their market. Have you seen the demo. It is a list of about 6 giant buttons down the side for the applications and three tabs at the bottom for various web resources. It is much more appropriate for very basic users.
BTW, I am aware that Ubuntu is considering some sort of "app store" interface; I just don't know exactly how that's intended to operate.
The plan is to build it into the AppCenter package manager in 10.x. I don't think all the details are hashed out yet. In general you'll be able to buy, download, install, and uninstall commercial apps from Canonical using the same package manager as you use for freeware.
39.95 a month
You can get a free netbook or lowish spec laptop for that, which will come with Windows and will run Ubuntu quite happily, with many mobile phone contracts over here.
Note, the article quotes 39.95 british pounds per month for this service, but that version includes the high speed data service plan. The laptop and support plan are 9.99 british pounds, or about $20. I'd further note, the actual service quotes 24.99 british pounds with the broadband, not 39.95. So $50 per month including the high speed data plan a wireless router and free setup in your home is not all that expensive compared to prices in the US.
The site doesn't tell you whether everyone in the household is gone, only if one person in the household is gone. A robber would still have to peek in the windows and do whatever it is robbers do to make sure the house is empty.
Maybe you're picturing robbers as guys dressed in black, wearing masks, twirling their mustaches, and carrying big sacks as a profession. Many times robbers are friends or acquaintances. They know who lives in your house and if they can check both your locations via twitter, they know they have a good shot at your house. A lot of robberies are done by people the victim has met who are opportunists. Heck, statistically, walking down the same jogging path as a burglar increases your chances of being burgled.
Hooray, you win today's defective analogy prize. Multiple fiber lines are quite light. One falling won't take out others, and doesn't even represent a safety problem. Unlike power lines, most phone lines are insulated, and fiber lines need not even carry electricity.
You completely miss the point as usual. You end up with half a dozen companies maintaining their own lines. That means half a dozen times as much construction blocking roads, when they dig. Further, since each company is maintaining its own lines, what are the chances of accidentally severing a competitors line when you dig to do maintenance on your own lines? So you get one company with a break who digs to get to it and in the process knocks out one or more other networks. And it is all for waste. There is no reason the city can't string fiber to every home and rent it to any and all providers.
Sorry, there just isn't enough physical space or EM spectrum. The government either needs to handle data pipes the way they do roads, as a government utility, or they need to build the conduits for the pipes and charge data providers the cost.
At higher frequencies, it's quite easy to make electromagnetic transmission directional. It's conceptually easy to use lots of microwave links to push data around.
As someone who actually passed emag, let me say, the span of frequencies where it is practical to transmit and which are not in use is limited. Further, there needs to be regulation to prevent signals from interfering with one another.
A single fiber can transmit...
Reread my post. The limitation for wired internet is the amount of public right of way land running around a city and to each home, not the capacity of fiber. If the government is not regulating it, a few feet wide swath of dirt is not going to allow many companies to co-exist and access their lines in a reasonable fashion.
There's no good reason to involve government in making and maintaining data pipes...
Here's a very good reason. The government already interfered with making and maintaining data pipes by giving billions in subsidies to a few companies, breaking the market and making it uneconomical for new players to enter and be competitive. It's the government's fault and they are the only one in a position to fix it.
because of the problems inherent in governments: corruption, lack of incentives to do the job right, inherent inefficiency...
All of which are only a subset of the problems inherent in monopolist companies.
the use of force against those who oppose what the government wants to do (don't want that tower on your property?
Local governments here already use public domain to confiscate land on behalf of corporations and then hand the property over. At least with the federal government, there are people easily voted out of office.
So here's the problem. You pose problems but no solutions. Doing nothing does not fix the problem. The feds doing nothing makes the problem worse. You need a coherent and practical solution or you are just wasting everyones time.
The only way to really get ISPs off their collectively slow asses is to increase competition. Too many areas of the country are stuck with only one or two choices...which isn't a choice at all.
The problem with this approach is we've dug ourselves into a hole using tax dollars nd it will take lot more tax dollars to get us out of it. Even if a federal law forbids localities from preventing new companies from laying down last mile pipes in public right of ways, the investment required to get started is huge. Meanwhile existing players can use their position to undercut your prices, because their infrastructure was paid for with hundreds of billions of dollars supplied by our taxes.
Personally, rather than pay all that again to every company who wants to enter the market, I favor public option. Let the feds pay once to build a national utility, or subsidize state and local utilities that supply data lines. Let the companies compete against a public utility, that way we have both competition and a competitor bound to uphold the constitution when it comes to free speech and unreasonable searches.
It's a two way street. Consumers do whatever they can to squeeze corps. Corps squeeze consumers.
Money is power. Not having money anywhere on the scale of corporations, individuals have two real options. They can organize into unions and organizations; and put up with the corruption that results from concentrating power, or they can vote and the government gets involved.
The government does not need to get involved, they need to get out of the way by removing the monopoly cable companies enjoy.
The problem is most of the monopolies cable companies enjoy are the result of local and state government interference and of limited resourced apportioned by the feds. The feds not getting involved is tantamount to handing over control to the corporations who have too much money to not influence local governments. Moreover, local governments have good reason to get involved, since their involvement is the result of the disaster that happened when they did not get involved in the early days of power distribution. dozens of redundant lines making the place hideous and resulting in one line falling and taking down dozens of others, bringing everyone down to the reliability of the worst player. Learn your history lest you repeat it.
Sorry, there just isn't enough physical space or EM spectrum. The government either needs to handle data pipes the way they do roads, as a government utility, or they need to build the conduits for the pipes and charge data providers the cost.
Plus, unlike coal emissions, we can actually USE the waste material and reduce it by reusing it in reactors-- if it is radioactive, that means it is emitting radiation, which can either be used in additional reactors, or worst case in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (not very efficient, but its an option).
As I recall from my one nuclear engineering course, the majority of the volume of waste material is low level radioactive materials such as irradiated machinery, tools, containers, etc. They would be very hard and not very efficient to harness as a power source. That said, the waste problem is manageable and the high level waste that is not easily reprocessed can certainly be fused into a nice stable chunk of glass and stored at a reasonable cost.
Note how "environmentalists" is in quotes because anyone rational who claims to care about air pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc. etc. should love the idea of new, very safe nuclear power plants.
I'm a fan of nuclear power and I think it is one of the least objectionable and most practical options we have for making a real difference. That said, nuclear waste is a significant concern depending upon what rules are in place for generation, reprocessing, and disposal when these plants go online. Also, the potential link with childhood leukemia is a very real concern for environmentalists as well. The best data we have to date (http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.117-a437) seems to indicate there is likely a real link between rates of childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear plants. Revamping our laws to reduce waste is important, but likewise is further research into this topic with strict and accurate methodology; and making sure these plants are located in relatively remote areas away from zoned residential areas.
Writing a 1000+ character reply is hardly dismissive. You've got a valid complaint (or whatever, not here to mince words), but Canonical won't be able to help you, because they don't have the resources to do anything about it.
I thought one of Canonical's big pushes was in helping application developers improve their applications free of charge, to help address this very problem by making applications more usable and competitive compared to offerings on other OS's. I don't think it is fair or productive to speak for them and say they aren't going to do anything to promote more applications moving to Linux, unless you are an official representative of Canonical.
Your belief that a lack of Linux adoption is due to a lack of application friendliness would need some more arguments and/or examples.
That would be ideal, of course, but it is a commonly held opinion, in fact one Shuttleworth seems to share since he was so upset by the poor usability of many applications he offered free usability testing to developers under the condition they would actually make use of the data.
It's not that you don't have a point and that Canonical despite any effort they put in may be unable to make a significant difference in the number and quality of applications offered. It's just that on the other hand, they might have some good ideas for incentivizing application developers and may well be working towards that. Maybe it is a very good question for Mr. Asay.
In order for the app store to be a viable business Apple has to protect the IP of the app holders.
...Please tell me what business school is teaching this concept that a viable retail software business must also police its customers...
While you're making a bit of strawman argument, there is a very valid business case to Apple's protecting of App developer's profits. If Apple can reduce piracy on iPhone Apps, more app developers are motivated to create more applications. As more applications are made, the platform is better for users than other platforms with fewer apps. Thus, more people buy iPhones, making Apple more money. Currently a lot of people buy iPhones because they like the large selection of games and other apps they can buy for it, compared to other phones.
So assuming Apple did ban people from the store for running jailbroken phones as an anti-piracy measure, it could theoretically net them more longterm profit.
To be a little more specific (and to answer my own question a little bit) it seems to me that a fair amount of the problem isn't the OS itself, but the associate applications.
Clearly the larger the install base for an OS, the more applications are likely to be developed for it, but additionally the ease of developing, marketing, and getting those applications to the end user plays a big role. I know the current Canonical roadmap includes an App Store built into the package manager, to facilitate developers marketing and delivering applications to end users, similar to what Apple has done with the iPhone App Store. Ubuntu can also capitalize upon nonproifit collaborative development by acting as a facilitator and contributor to application development needed by larger organizations needing software and with a budget for development.
That said, I think Canonical should do more than just that. The App store in the application manager should be a priority, but to be realistic unless Ubuntu gains a lot of market share, this is going to be a big uphill battle. Several strategies could help alleviate this problem:
Even having personally gotten some graphic designers to try the GIMP, I have yet to know any professional designers who find it adequate.
I've worked as a professional graphic designer and as a part-time graphic designer in startups. I do use both Linux and GIMP and it is not only adequate but superior for some tasks. Sadly, this is not all tasks. I mostly have used it for batch processing of images where automating the work via scripts was important. Of late, I use it even less, since OS X has some nice, built in scripting that works well with Photoshop, Pixelmator, and GraphicConverter.
...but does there come a time when you say, "We need a serious Adobe CS competitor for our OS to be competitive on the desktop, so let's make that happen"? If so, what happens then?
This is an interesting question, but I don't think Ubuntu is there yet. A lot of low hanging fruit is available before the professional graphic design niche is worth targeting. Home users and Corporate Workstations are the two biggest of these. The former is mostly there sans a market for good games and reworking the application manager to facilitate generic commercial software. The latter will probably be best entered into by targeting government and education first and letting the market share do more of the work instead of Canonical trying to brute force it.
It's nice to read a post from someone who can intelligently point out real problem spots and ask good questions. Hopefully some of your post makes its way to Mr. Asay so we can hear his take.
Fuck off, little bitch. Here's some text from the blog post you cite: 1)
But he downplays how good a business the iTunes store is. Here's what the iTunes store has: margins that are better than the best e-commerce companies around;
Yup, which later on in the update he, himself, refutes:
So I’m probably wrong that iTunes is Apple’s best business. (The company’s overall gross margin, after all, is 34 percent.)
You continue to cite:
Sales of nearly $3 billion a year in its existing business; and a new $1 billion business on the way.
Which just shows you know nothing about business. You can lose money or break even with billions in sales, if you don't have good enough margins. The point being, Apple does have billions in sales, but if each sale nets little or no profit, that doesn't change anything other than making a portion of the overhead costs more spread out. You second quote, again, speaks to number of sales not profits.
So, you use a single sentence in the article which quotes Apple representatives has claiming that they don't make much money, then the blog entry goes on to dispute that claim.
If you read all the way to the end of the article you'll see the author refutes much of what he wrote after getting input from people more knowledgeable. More importantly, it wasn't just an Apple representative. It was the CEO repeating comments he's made several times during shareholder financial results reports. So your claim to the contrary, would require Apple to be lying in a forum where the SEC will actually fine them if they are found out, all that over a market that even the pie in the sky estimate here said could be 4% of Apple's profits? I think not.
Here, also from 2008, is an article from Wired which claims that the firm had posted a $500M profit (not gross).
First, if you're citing something you need to provide a URL or link. Second, do you know what the words you're using mean? Gross what? Apple does not break out iTunes sales in their financial reports, so there are no publicly available sources for how much profit they make. Further, Apple regards the profits breakdown on songs to be a trade secret because they don't want competitors to know what the efficiency of their credit card transaction algorithm is, or what bulk deal they have from the credit card companies. Thus, all we have are estimates based either by subtracting estimated ipod sales, or by calculating approximate costs. A good approximation, however does not leave out the substantial cost of credit card transactions or bandwidth and hosting; which the author of the cited article admits in the update that he forgot.
You are absolutely full of shit. But so what? My original top post was simply an opinion expressed lament.
So? Does that mean people should not point out when you have your facts wrong?
You are the motherfucker who made an issue of whether iTunes is or is not profitable.
Yes, people who point out when you are wrong are motherfuckers. If only people would shut up and ignore when you spout off in public when you are clueless about the topic.
Regardless, the firm is engaging in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.
In light of that, I won't bother to tell you what the last terms you used actually mean or why you're full of it.
I won't give them my money any longer. As is my right.
Why would I care. I'm not an advocate for Apple. I was just commenting with a correction so people were not misinformed by your assertions. You can buy turnips and try to put them in your urethra if you want. It's none of my concern.
Suck it.
Yeah, generally vulgar insults are the refuge of the intellectually inferior. Have fun with that.
You seem to be having a normal ego threat response. I pointed out that your comment about Apple making lots of money on iTunes and your implication that they have changed business practices to cash in on that instead of on the businesses where they are making most of their money, was misinformed. Even the pie in the sky estimates of Apples iTunes revenue make it about 4% of their income, while more enlightened estimates put it probably below 1%. I cited an article from one of those pie in the sky people, who realized his mistake when corrected, in the hopes that you'd see not only the logic, but where people that make that assumption went wrong.
Instead of rationally revising your opinion with the input of this new data (as the author largely did), you got emotional and defensive. As if being wrong makes you less of a person, you instead chose to irrationally defend that incorrect opinion, in effect being a less intelligent person. I'm not pointing this out because I want to make you feel bad or look bad. I don't know you and don't really care that much. I just hope you can impartially consider your decision making process and truly consider if you are being reasoned and logical in future.
Thats just as horrible as electric utilities making you pay per Killowatt/hour of power.
The difference is power distribution companies are not allowed to charge exorbitant fees to green power generation companies to transport that power to the end user. They have to charge the same price they charge their own coal fired power generation subsidiaries. Having a monopoly on power distribution, they are restricted from using that to gain an unfair advantage in another market, such as power generation. Claiming green power and coal power are different product even though they go over the same pipes in the same way is the same as claiming television service is different from any other data going over the cable network. You can't artificially raise the price of your competitors from a monopoly position.
You didn't read the article you cited, did you? It made the exact opposite point of what you argue - that iTunes is immensely profitable for the firm. Read the link you posted.
Actually I did read it as you should know if you even read my comments telling you which portions you needed to pay attention to. Please go reread what I wrote. The article mentions the long standing position of Apple and belief of analysts that Apple makes little or nothing on iTunes. Then, it proposes Apple could make a billion dollars a year, which is to say, still less than all the other divisions of Apple make. It bases that upon the theory that Apple's margins could be slightly better than for other products they sell, which the author admits in the update was incorrect. He further admits he failed to take into account the cost of running the servers and the bandwidth costs. his end conclusion is, "But I still think that with the scale it has, I still think that iTunes is a better business than Mr. Jobs makes it out to be." in reference to Jobs saying it doesn't make much money. Seriously, reading comprehension goes beyond just scanning the title, slacker.
Cite that please. You're arguing that they make little to no money from content distribution through iTunes? I think you're full of it.
Sure. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/steve-jobs-tries-to-downplay-the-itunes-stores-profit/ ...is an article where a NYT pundit postulates that despite Apple having publicly stated they make little money on the operation, he thinks they might actually be making a billion dollars a year (they make 25 billion or so a year as a company). Be sure to read the update at the end where he acknowledges he was mostly wrong after someone explained to him how much credit card transaction fees cost.
we will have better luck waiting for mass adoption of html5 than waiting for a REAL release of the adobe flash plugin. Maybe html5 is whats causing them to wake up
By some reports, as of last week Adobe was stopping the publication of the new version of HTML5 via objections in the W3C working group to the canvas element. Sadly, this is all going on behind closed doors and the only reason anyone knows about it is because Google's Ian Hickson blogged about it. Mind you Adobe is denying any such thing is happening. Hickson wrote "the latest publication of HTML5 is now blocked by Adobe, via an objection that has still not been made public (despite yesterday's promise to make it so)."
Ever since you started making money hands over fist with iTunes...
Ummm... Apple has never started making money hand over fist with iTunes. Income from iTunes and the iPhone app store together are a negligible portion of Apple's revenue. Seriously, they both barely make more than the operational cost.