I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. If the efficiency gains of "green" tech were sufficient to justify the costs (in the opinions of those paying for them) then there would be no need to encourage their adoption by force.
That's not true. Most CEOs and managers of businesses think very short-term. Adopting green technology might very well be in the company's best interests over time, but the management is only thinking about the next quarter or so. So, they persist with the status quo, which ends up costing more in the long-run, but doesn't require an up-front investment.
You'd be stealing from the tireless and hard-working weed growers who help keep bong-ra's bong packed, providing inspiration for song-writing, yet never get any royalties from these free downloads.
But such is the way if you don't ever need to make a profit...
Riiiight... because governance should be about turning a profit. The argument that that would be stealing from the people is a stronger argument than that tax is theft.
In my experience, CS3 doesn't install natively on Mac OS 10.5. It works if you install it on 10.4, then upgrade the machine to 10.5. Adobe didn't release any updated installer - they want you to buy CS4 (with a significantly increased price). I don't think it's Apple's doing.
What does it being a Nokia or Motorola have to do with anything we are discussing?
I believe we were discussing marketing and brand recognition in the Smartphone market. The fact that Nokia and Motorola are household words compared to HTC or Android is extremely relevant to the discussion.
Which raises the question - just what the hell did you think we were talking about?
It is a failure to meet their goals. If you, as the CEO of a company, launch an initiative that is intended to put you at #1 or #2 in an industry, but it only gets you to #5 - that is a failure, even if you make a bit of money on the side. You're just redefining "success" downward until it becomes meaningless. Do we even know if Microsoft has made money of WinMo yet?
This game still hasn't played out yet, and even if MS is making some money off WinMo, in the future, it might start losing money and come out as an overall loss and wasted effort. And what if MS could have invested that money and effort into something much more profitable than WinMo, like not releasing Vista for example?
It would be off-point to go into the fact that most Apple products are pretty good. I service Apple products and I often get paid for it. I probably know a bit more about Apple products than you do -- the good the bad and the ugly. It's not relevant to the point I was making which is that marketing and brand names maintain a nearly hypnotic brain control over most people and this is all thanks to marketing.
If it's all about marketing, then how do you explain Apple's devoted fan-base during the "dark years" when there was approximately zero marketing from Apple, and what marketing did happen was incompetent at best?
But Microsoft doesn't want 14% of a market - Microsoft wants to dominate markets. And that was the goal for WinMo. So, WinMo has failed miserably on Microsoft's own aims for the product.
There are plenty of other phone software platforms that no one knows by name. How many of your friends could tell you if their phone runs Symbian or J2ME apps?
But they can tell me if they have a Nokia or a Motorola, and what model. But a HTC? Who the fuck is HTC?
Regardless of the platform, they could at least try to create some sort of brand identification with the handsets.
You wouldn't say that if you've ever tried to understand or repair an item for which all that documentation is not available.
Yes I would, and yes I have.
Documentation is not the same thing as "open source" it's documentation. By this logic, my DVD player is Open Source, because it comes with documentation in the form of a user manual.
Because it explicitly conveys the notion that in addition to having open access to this (copyrighted) circuit design information, you also have a degree of freedom in how you may use it?
No, it's a very poor general-purpose term, because it dilutes the meaning of "open source" in software. We already have plenty of perfectly good terms for homebrew electronics, so why do we need to misuse this term?
Probably because no one calls them "Android Phones". There are 5 phones on the market in the US right now that run Android, made by 2 different manufacturers. There are a half dozen more phones coming out by the end of the year, made by 3 more manufacturers, and that's soon enough that people have seen advertising and may be considering them for purchase. Can you name more than 2 of the phones? Conversely, would you know they were Android phones if a friend talked about getting one?
So... isn't that a problem that should be dealt with? It's basic communication/marketing. One would think that a company whose profits come primarily from advertising and communication should know a thing or two about that.
I dare you to dig a little, there is a lot more of this "open source" stuff out there than software.
I'm well aware of it, I spent my teen and pre-teen years building electronics from freely-available plans. But we never called it "open source" back then, so why start now?
Likewise, with your RMS example, nobody calls swapping recipes "open source," it's just swapping recipes, or "cooking."
I'm not sure that the "Open Source" moniker has any relevance to hardware projects like this. In software, the "source code" is the actual raw material that a complied application is made of. In hardware, the "source" is physical electronic components.
I guess you could call the freely-available plans and schematics "the source" but that doesn't make much sense, because without hardware components, you can't compile it into a working device. So the term doesn't really apply, especially as we've had freely available electronic schematics for decades, and nobody ever called them "open source." This terminology just seems to be a way to seem cool and trendy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. If the efficiency gains of "green" tech were sufficient to justify the costs (in the opinions of those paying for them) then there would be no need to encourage their adoption by force.
That's not true. Most CEOs and managers of businesses think very short-term. Adopting green technology might very well be in the company's best interests over time, but the management is only thinking about the next quarter or so. So, they persist with the status quo, which ends up costing more in the long-run, but doesn't require an up-front investment.
You'd be stealing from the tireless and hard-working weed growers who help keep bong-ra's bong packed, providing inspiration for song-writing, yet never get any royalties from these free downloads.
But such is the way if you don't ever need to make a profit...
Riiiight... because governance should be about turning a profit. The argument that that would be stealing from the people is a stronger argument than that tax is theft.
A PowerPoint presentation document can also be on the web and have an URL, but it doesn't make it a website.
You clearly haven't seen some of the Powerpoints we are subjected to at work.
In my experience, CS3 doesn't install natively on Mac OS 10.5. It works if you install it on 10.4, then upgrade the machine to 10.5. Adobe didn't release any updated installer - they want you to buy CS4 (with a significantly increased price). I don't think it's Apple's doing.
I, for one, welcome our new Virtual Operating System, Linux/Windows powered, Bi-Curious overlords!
Oh wait, I used too many commas, damn.
Curse you, and your directionally proficient girlfriend! I wish I could get that kind of accuracy around here.
What does it being a Nokia or Motorola have to do with anything we are discussing?
I believe we were discussing marketing and brand recognition in the Smartphone market. The fact that Nokia and Motorola are household words compared to HTC or Android is extremely relevant to the discussion.
Which raises the question - just what the hell did you think we were talking about?
It is a failure to meet their goals. If you, as the CEO of a company, launch an initiative that is intended to put you at #1 or #2 in an industry, but it only gets you to #5 - that is a failure, even if you make a bit of money on the side. You're just redefining "success" downward until it becomes meaningless. Do we even know if Microsoft has made money of WinMo yet?
This game still hasn't played out yet, and even if MS is making some money off WinMo, in the future, it might start losing money and come out as an overall loss and wasted effort. And what if MS could have invested that money and effort into something much more profitable than WinMo, like not releasing Vista for example?
But you said it was all about the marketing. This shows that for many, it isn't, therefore your hypothesis is proven false.
It would be off-point to go into the fact that most Apple products are pretty good. I service Apple products and I often get paid for it. I probably know a bit more about Apple products than you do -- the good the bad and the ugly. It's not relevant to the point I was making which is that marketing and brand names maintain a nearly hypnotic brain control over most people and this is all thanks to marketing.
If it's all about marketing, then how do you explain Apple's devoted fan-base during the "dark years" when there was approximately zero marketing from Apple, and what marketing did happen was incompetent at best?
And neither do iPhone users. What the fuck is your point?
But Microsoft doesn't want 14% of a market - Microsoft wants to dominate markets. And that was the goal for WinMo. So, WinMo has failed miserably on Microsoft's own aims for the product.
There are plenty of other phone software platforms that no one knows by name. How many of your friends could tell you if their phone runs Symbian or J2ME apps?
But they can tell me if they have a Nokia or a Motorola, and what model. But a HTC? Who the fuck is HTC?
Regardless of the platform, they could at least try to create some sort of brand identification with the handsets.
You wouldn't say that if you've ever tried to understand or repair an item for which all that documentation is not available.
Yes I would, and yes I have.
Documentation is not the same thing as "open source" it's documentation. By this logic, my DVD player is Open Source, because it comes with documentation in the form of a user manual.
Because it explicitly conveys the notion that in addition to having open access to this (copyrighted) circuit design information, you also have a degree of freedom in how you may use it?
But when was that ever not the case?
No, it's a very poor general-purpose term, because it dilutes the meaning of "open source" in software. We already have plenty of perfectly good terms for homebrew electronics, so why do we need to misuse this term?
That's called a schematic or circuit diagram. It isn't "the source."
Wait, WinMo's success? I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Probably because no one calls them "Android Phones". There are 5 phones on the market in the US right now that run Android, made by 2 different manufacturers. There are a half dozen more phones coming out by the end of the year, made by 3 more manufacturers, and that's soon enough that people have seen advertising and may be considering them for purchase. Can you name more than 2 of the phones? Conversely, would you know they were Android phones if a friend talked about getting one?
So... isn't that a problem that should be dealt with? It's basic communication/marketing. One would think that a company whose profits come primarily from advertising and communication should know a thing or two about that.
I dare you to dig a little, there is a lot more of this "open source" stuff out there than software.
I'm well aware of it, I spent my teen and pre-teen years building electronics from freely-available plans. But we never called it "open source" back then, so why start now?
Likewise, with your RMS example, nobody calls swapping recipes "open source," it's just swapping recipes, or "cooking."
So, one component uses some code. How does that make the whole clock open source?
I'm not sure that the "Open Source" moniker has any relevance to hardware projects like this. In software, the "source code" is the actual raw material that a complied application is made of. In hardware, the "source" is physical electronic components.
I guess you could call the freely-available plans and schematics "the source" but that doesn't make much sense, because without hardware components, you can't compile it into a working device. So the term doesn't really apply, especially as we've had freely available electronic schematics for decades, and nobody ever called them "open source." This terminology just seems to be a way to seem cool and trendy.
Don't tell me we are going to have Office in Linux!
No, Linux will run in Office. It will be a nice upgrade from macro viruses.
Nepenthes attenboroughii.
David Attenborough has rat-eating clones of himself now? The horror... the horror...