Looks like someone learned a little something from the oil industry: Natural Disaster; Raise Prices, blaming the disaster. When the disaster's effects are neutralized, do nothing. Profit!
Apple doesn't want you to have a computer, they want you to have Apple devices where you buy stuff from Apple. They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell. They've been heading that direction for awhile now, this is just a continuation of it. It isn't likely to be too many more years before they lock it down entirely, and Macs are just large stations for accessing the Apple Store/iTunes.
Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything. This is just another step down that road.
This is, of course, exactly correct. My question (and I own plenty of Apple products, mind you) is why this is OK, but when Microsoft tries this sort of thing....
Oh, right. That was a different era. When the U.S. government pretended to care about the consumer / voter and competitors pretended to care about competition.
Please upvote the parent here.
This is EXACTLY the problem. We all know better. We know the Constitution should be protecting us and these laws are subservient to the Bill of Rights. Yet every time we allow these laws--pro or con--to be enacted, we collectively, as a Nation, say, "The Constitution is irrelevant."
Of course, the more we say it, the more the police, legislators and judges believe it and act accordingly.
Seriously? And why would the deep-conversation-engaged driver--talking on a bluetooth headset, for example--be any worse than his counterpart involved in a similar conversation with someone in the passenger seat?
consumers will buy it anyway since there are no ad-free alternatives at all
You're ALMOST right. There IS an ad-free alternative: don't buy anything and--dare I say it--don't pirate it, either. Just don't watch.
You got the beginning spot on, though: consumers will buy it anyway. Just like everything else, we're at the mercy of the majority and the more "they" put up with, the more we have to, as well.
I would guess the unborn child / fetus / growth would find not being murdered / killed / removed somewhat liberating.
I don't think it's fair to state his pro-life stance (whether you agree with it or not) is anti-liberty.
Ah. That's just it, though. The "inventors" of the smartphones, tablets and notebook probably are a bit tired of seeing APPLE make stuff that looks and feels like theirs.
And before you get too excited, realize that I'm typing this on a MacBook.
Here's the point: where does it end? What's past is prologue. And there's just no getting around the fact that just about every invention is based on an existing one, ad nauseum. The merry-go-round of patents and suits has to end.
Make a better product (as Apple does quite well) and people will buy it--protections from the government or not.
I see a multi-million dollar lawsuit in their future. Spying on people's private data w/o their knowledge sounds like a wet dream for a civil class-action lawyer.
Did you read the article? Oh....wait....this is Slashdot.
Anyway, the private data capturing was NOT w/o their knowledge. It was part of what they agreed to in order to receive a free phone, data plan and unlimited texting.
Not to mention these same entities sing the exact opposite tune when they need protection from piracy and duplication of content by the dangerous consumers. They LOVE regulations and laws then.
I don't understand why this should be surprising. I only had to scroll back two days for these twostories.
What makes anyone think the First Amendment is any more important than the Fourth?
Face it, folks, the Constitution has taken a back seat to Child Porn, then Terrorism and now............"Cyber-Bullying".
No one seems to have brought it up so I will.
I don't mind paying a premium for getting an item today. Or for being able to hold the thing in my hands while I'm making a decision.
But they're so worried about getting ripped off, they treat everyone like a criminal. Their security at the front of the store and their policy of requiring GOVERMNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID to return an item, even if purchased with a credit card, is absurd. Next up: a full-fledged TSA groping on the way out the door.
No thanks. Good riddance.
I can't help but wonder whether graphic designers who had spent their entire lives in India or China would struggle with designing for American markets in the same way.
Not to sound too U.S.-centric, but I doubt it: our entertainment and a great deal of our culture is exported to those countries. I'm willing to bet they know a lot more about Hollywood than we do about Bollywood.
Capitalism has a really cruddy underside because someone has to lose for someone else to win but it's also this same reason that people step up to challenges such as this. Having an incentive to produce has worked out pretty well. You can still champion the idea if you want to do it for "ethical" reasons and give your profits away. No one is stopping you.
I know you're arguing FOR capitalism here, but it seems you've still had a bit too much of the Kool-Aid® Obama's been selling. Does the government / socialist system work differently? I can't think of a government program that doesn't have the same "cruddy underside".
For all intents and purposes, authorities are simply very large non-profit organizations that have been granted broad powers by the state to provide public services, and have governing boards comprised of state and local officials, among others.
This is just as much a subsidy as "real" dollars are. The state (read: people) has granted powers to the MTA that allow it to make its own money. Surely no one would seriously argue that the MTA could face real competition and still survive, right?
I think we're all on the same page here, though, and I guess this is somewhat a moot point, but I did feel your reply required this bit of clarification, lest we all begin planning to send Thank You cards to the MTA.
How do I get my Iphone, Ilaptop, Iwhatever to receive Shoutcast radio while I'm driving in my car? I was thinking maybe I could cancel my satellite Sirius-XM and just go with "free" internet radio.
Seriously though, whatever happened to taking your kids to school on horseback? You know, that whole parenting thing? It's not parenting if you let a school bus or some new-fangled automobile do it for you...
Slashdot Mirror
That's what we in Marketing have been trying to tell you geeks for years. Now help me fix my powerpoint.
Looks like someone learned a little something from the oil industry: Natural Disaster; Raise Prices, blaming the disaster. When the disaster's effects are neutralized, do nothing. Profit!
Oh. That must be why so many companies are NOT rushing to build their own marketplaces. Oh, wait...they are. Now why would they do that?
Apple doesn't want you to have a computer, they want you to have Apple devices where you buy stuff from Apple. They want you to sit around and consume the content they sell. They've been heading that direction for awhile now, this is just a continuation of it. It isn't likely to be too many more years before they lock it down entirely, and Macs are just large stations for accessing the Apple Store/iTunes.
Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything. This is just another step down that road.
This is, of course, exactly correct. My question (and I own plenty of Apple products, mind you) is why this is OK, but when Microsoft tries this sort of thing....
Oh, right. That was a different era. When the U.S. government pretended to care about the consumer / voter and competitors pretended to care about competition.
Please upvote the parent here. This is EXACTLY the problem. We all know better. We know the Constitution should be protecting us and these laws are subservient to the Bill of Rights. Yet every time we allow these laws--pro or con--to be enacted, we collectively, as a Nation, say, "The Constitution is irrelevant." Of course, the more we say it, the more the police, legislators and judges believe it and act accordingly.
Seriously? And why would the deep-conversation-engaged driver--talking on a bluetooth headset, for example--be any worse than his counterpart involved in a similar conversation with someone in the passenger seat?
consumers will buy it anyway since there are no ad-free alternatives at all
You're ALMOST right. There IS an ad-free alternative: don't buy anything and--dare I say it--don't pirate it, either. Just don't watch.
You got the beginning spot on, though: consumers will buy it anyway. Just like everything else, we're at the mercy of the majority and the more "they" put up with, the more we have to, as well.
I would guess the unborn child / fetus / growth would find not being murdered / killed / removed somewhat liberating. I don't think it's fair to state his pro-life stance (whether you agree with it or not) is anti-liberty.
Ah. That's just it, though. The "inventors" of the smartphones, tablets and notebook probably are a bit tired of seeing APPLE make stuff that looks and feels like theirs. And before you get too excited, realize that I'm typing this on a MacBook. Here's the point: where does it end? What's past is prologue. And there's just no getting around the fact that just about every invention is based on an existing one, ad nauseum. The merry-go-round of patents and suits has to end. Make a better product (as Apple does quite well) and people will buy it--protections from the government or not.
Only one in five? I'm guessing they got their numbers from Macs with Sophos installed. That should have made it a solid five in five.
Well, yeah. But thanks for keeping Slashdot's SECOND oldest tradition alive: bitching about which articles should not have made the cut.
I see a multi-million dollar lawsuit in their future. Spying on people's private data w/o their knowledge sounds like a wet dream for a civil class-action lawyer.
Did you read the article? Oh....wait....this is Slashdot. Anyway, the private data capturing was NOT w/o their knowledge. It was part of what they agreed to in order to receive a free phone, data plan and unlimited texting.
Not to mention these same entities sing the exact opposite tune when they need protection from piracy and duplication of content by the dangerous consumers. They LOVE regulations and laws then.
I don't understand why this should be surprising. I only had to scroll back two days for these two stories. What makes anyone think the First Amendment is any more important than the Fourth? Face it, folks, the Constitution has taken a back seat to Child Porn, then Terrorism and now............"Cyber-Bullying".
No, no. That was only when Bush was president. Obama fixed everything so people like us again.
No one seems to have brought it up so I will. I don't mind paying a premium for getting an item today. Or for being able to hold the thing in my hands while I'm making a decision. But they're so worried about getting ripped off, they treat everyone like a criminal. Their security at the front of the store and their policy of requiring GOVERMNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID to return an item, even if purchased with a credit card, is absurd. Next up: a full-fledged TSA groping on the way out the door. No thanks. Good riddance.
Ummmm......we DO have dollar coins. They suck, so no one uses them.
I can't help but wonder whether graphic designers who had spent their entire lives in India or China would struggle with designing for American markets in the same way.
Not to sound too U.S.-centric, but I doubt it: our entertainment and a great deal of our culture is exported to those countries. I'm willing to bet they know a lot more about Hollywood than we do about Bollywood.
Seriously? Since when the hell is the ability to buy a phone "invite only"? I swear the social aspect of phone ownership is getting ridiculous.
That's not how I read the post. The *launch / announcement party* is invite only. That doesn't mean purchasing the phone is invite only.
Would this make the obligatory "first post" happen even quicker?
Capitalism has a really cruddy underside because someone has to lose for someone else to win but it's also this same reason that people step up to challenges such as this. Having an incentive to produce has worked out pretty well. You can still champion the idea if you want to do it for "ethical" reasons and give your profits away. No one is stopping you.
I know you're arguing FOR capitalism here, but it seems you've still had a bit too much of the Kool-Aid® Obama's been selling. Does the government / socialist system work differently? I can't think of a government program that doesn't have the same "cruddy underside".
For all intents and purposes, authorities are simply very large non-profit organizations that have been granted broad powers by the state to provide public services, and have governing boards comprised of state and local officials, among others.
This is just as much a subsidy as "real" dollars are. The state (read: people) has granted powers to the MTA that allow it to make its own money. Surely no one would seriously argue that the MTA could face real competition and still survive, right?
I think we're all on the same page here, though, and I guess this is somewhat a moot point, but I did feel your reply required this bit of clarification, lest we all begin planning to send Thank You cards to the MTA.
Off-topic:
How do I get my Iphone, Ilaptop, Iwhatever to receive Shoutcast radio while I'm driving in my car? I was thinking maybe I could cancel my satellite Sirius-XM and just go with "free" internet radio.
Try this.
I can't believe no one (especially in this crowd) has mentioned this, but...
Dude, didn't you see Logan's Run?!?
"Identify."
Seriously though, whatever happened to taking your kids to school on horseback? You know, that whole parenting thing? It's not parenting if you let a school bus or some new-fangled automobile do it for you...