Microsoft did the same thing with Apple in the '90s. They bought a huge stake in Apple, right when they were sinking down the toilet and then proclaimed that they were not a monopoly. Having competition - even propped up competition - is better for business.
No. Microsoft bought a small number of non-voting shares as part of a court settlement. There was nothing "huge" about it, and it had nothing to do with the appearance of competition or anything like that.
number 3 confirms what Steve Jobs said in a pcmag article 2 days ago and seems the logically obvious choice.
The pcmag article cites the very same dubious Swedish source we are discussing here. It's bizarre that you would use that as independent confirmation, as it's just repeating the same thing. Shoddy journalism.
I read it as "people were not joining us because of this", which for me makes more sense.
But if those people haven't joined yet, then how would they be "a part of our Xbox LIVE community"? He's clearly referring to people who were already members.
It does, but I don't think he would refer to a single person as "part of our Xbox LIVE community".
Well, no, because many more than one person was banned. That's pretty obvious from context.
Does the image of the keyboard I posted a link to look like a Macbook Pro keyboard?
Which is exactly the point. In the context of the discussion, "those kind of keyboards" refers to Macbook Pro keyboards. Which are nothing like the ADB keyboards. So, it's kind of hard to understand what you are trying to say.
No, he didn't ever say he used "hunt and peck," either with two fingers or four. He said he used "what felt natural," which certainly doesn't imply hunt-and-peck, which is an entirely different beast. Hunt-and-peck is for those who don't know where the keys are, and have to search for them. But there are plenty of people who know where the keys are, and can type fast, but don't use "proper" touch-typing methods.
Intersexed people find the use of the word "hermaphrodite, offensive
Lots of people find stuff offensive. I actually know hermaphrodites who have no problem with the term.
versus a condition that affects their sex organs.
A "condition"? Wow. You make it sound like their naturallly-born body is some kind of disease. I think most would find this a much more offensive description.
How come? Did gay people avoid joining because they couldn't state that they were gay?
Did you even read the summary? People were banned from Xbox Live for stating their sexual orientation. How could that be labeled anything but "exclusion"? They were literally excluded - actively removed - from the community.
If I had to choose between being single and marrying a woman who was only interested in my money I know what I would pick.
You're thinking about the wrong kind of financial incentive. The more apt comparison would be - living with your partner as a lifetime devoted couple without marrying, versus marrying the exact same woman.
If you choose to marry, you get tax incentives, financial benefits and additional security in health care, insurance, and many other areas. Aside from that, you may get thousands of dollars of worth of gifts from friends and family. You may even get a lot more than that as an inheritance. If you don't marry, you don't get any of those financial benefits, and you may even have social or family difficulties (as many parents/grandparent are eager for their offspring to marry and don't approve of the unmarried relationship.
Wow, such a genius statement! I never realized that the iPhone is not the same as a Mac! Thanks for enlightening me.
When the big boys put out their games, etc it's less likely because they are thinking 'what a great platform!'.
No, they don't care about the quality of the platform, they care about the income. They saw even tiny independent developers making good money on the iPhone and decided they wanted some of that money. Not to mention that the games industry has been thinking about how to "monetize" mobile phones for quite some time now.
It's far more likely they are told by Apple 'put this game on our platform and we will give your company X number of $$'s'.
That doesn't seem likely at all what evidence do you have of it? Why would Apple just give away money like that? That's not the way the company has ever operated.
You need to take off the tinfoil hat and use logic.
Since developing an app for such a nubile platform is something they could do in a week or two with maybe two FTE, why not?
This contradicts everything you wrote before it. So, which is it? Did they do it because Apple bribed them, or because it's such an easy thing to do? I'm sure you'll be forthcoming with those financial documents showing free money transferred from Apple to the game developers.
And have you seen the relative difference in quality for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP games versus the ones for the phones?
There's actually not that much difference, plenty of iPhone games have nice 3D graphics, etc. But if you're not a "gamer" and just want to play games casually - you're not really going to care that DS and PSP offer somewhat better titles. Just like the average computer user doesn't need an 8 core workstation with 16GB of RAM, the iPhone meets their needs at a much lower cost.
I don't care either way, as I'm not really into portable gaming. But the argument that people shouldn't play games on their phones is just fucking stupid.
I think it's up to him to come up with some evidence for the claim, not for me to disprove it - and no, having some big-name game titles on the iPhone is not evidence.
A developer is a person or organization that writes software. It doesn't necessarily mean they are good developers - that would be a variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's a way of denying or disowning bad developers. But in reality - there are legions of bad developers, and software is sold every day that is developed with tools like Visual Basic (or worse) - or with good tools, but poor technique.
There are many companies making big money on awful code. If they don't count as developers, then what are they?
Some of us carry smartphones to increase productivity, not play video games on a 4 inch screen.
And some people use smartphones to socialize and play games on a 4 inch screen.
If you want to play games, buy one of those portable game widget things that Nintendo or Sony sells.
So, someone who already has a smartphone should spend potentially hundreds of dollars, and carry a separate device, rather than spending a few bucks for a game on a device they already own? Why, just because you don't approve of games on a phone out of some misguided ideological notions of purity and productivity?
Also, have you seen the relative difference in price for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP games versus the ones for the phones?
All one can really infer from that is Apple is in bed with big game studios.
Oh really? What do you mean by "in bed with"? You don't think it's possible that game developers just thought it would be lucrative to develop for a popular platform?I suppose Apple is also colluding with all those fart app developers, and bribing them to develop for iPhone.
If Apple were "in bed" with the game developers, then wouldn't we see more games released for the Mac? Your allegation seems pretty far-fetched given the antipathy game studios have historically had for Apple.
It being attractive to developers is very much a good thing for you as a user.
Actually, that's not necessarily true.
"Being attractive to developers" is often code for "easy for lazy developers to use." For example, Visual Basic is attractive to many developers, but the resulting software often isn't very good for the users. What's good for users is having the best developers write your applications. And the best developers don't tend to be lazy or averse to learning new techniques.
There are countless examples of this in effect action - from terrible Enterprise software written specifically for IE6 or Office, to Flash games versus console games. It's generally not easy to program for a game console, yet that's where the AAA games are. It's much easier for the developer to slap together a Flash game.
On the contrary—isn’t Free Software in fact a creative way of using a copyright licence to secure a creative commons, to enforce the preservation of a public domain rather than a traditional proprietary copyright?
Not really. If it were about preservation of the Public Domain, then why not simply put the work in the Public Domain? The fact that it isn't released as Public Domain means that the authors want to retain control over the work. Now, that control may be retained "for the greater good" but it is control nonetheless.
I think the biggest problem with your argument is that there's really no such thing as "proprietary copyright." Sure, copyright can be used to protect proprietary code, but it is also used to protect "free" and "open" code from being made proprietary. Copyright itself is neutral - you can use it for open or proprietary purposes.
The two goals usually coincide, but Free Software is a movement, and Open Source is a method.
Actually they are both a little of each. Open Source is a movement (you'll find plenty of evidence of that on Slashdot) and Free Software is a method (otherwise, why would there be licenses and definitions instead of just street marches and political lobbying?)
in no reasonable way could any Free Software developer benefit from ridiculous and draconian copyright laws like these proposed ones.
I don't recall saying they would, or voicing my support for such laws. All I did was state that the purpose of Free and OSS software is not to destroy copyright laws. Rather, the goal is to enable user freedom. I don't see why this should be a controversial statement.
Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.
That doesn't really seem to match reality. The worse, more formulaic music is selling more and making tons of money. There are people who make quality music and sell it online in unencumbered formats, but they aren't making nearly as much money as the "pop" producers.
... which is EXACTLY what they want, so you become wholly dependent on the hard teet of the gov't, and the party of entitlement will then never be voted out.
Way to miss the point, Einstein. The point is that you are still better off working hard and succeeding. High taxes aren't a disincentive to success. Nobody would deliberately fail to pay lower taxes. You're still going to come out ahead earning more.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft did the same thing with Apple in the '90s. They bought a huge stake in Apple, right when they were sinking down the toilet and then proclaimed that they were not a monopoly. Having competition - even propped up competition - is better for business.
No. Microsoft bought a small number of non-voting shares as part of a court settlement. There was nothing "huge" about it, and it had nothing to do with the appearance of competition or anything like that.
Of course, it also means if your phone rings, you're stuck answering it on whatever device it's currently inside.
Except that the iPad doesn't support phone functions, so that won't work.
number 3 confirms what Steve Jobs said in a pcmag article 2 days ago and seems the logically obvious choice.
The pcmag article cites the very same dubious Swedish source we are discussing here. It's bizarre that you would use that as independent confirmation, as it's just repeating the same thing. Shoddy journalism.
That's about the dumbest comment I've seen in a while. Learn to pay attention to context!
Perhaps the author could learn to construct a sentence properly? In the context of that sentence, and the thread, my interpretation was correct.
I read it as "people were not joining us because of this", which for me makes more sense.
But if those people haven't joined yet, then how would they be "a part of our Xbox LIVE community"? He's clearly referring to people who were already members.
It does, but I don't think he would refer to a single person as "part of our Xbox LIVE community".
Well, no, because many more than one person was banned. That's pretty obvious from context.
Does the image of the keyboard I posted a link to look like a Macbook Pro keyboard?
Which is exactly the point. In the context of the discussion, "those kind of keyboards" refers to Macbook Pro keyboards. Which are nothing like the ADB keyboards. So, it's kind of hard to understand what you are trying to say.
That is because those kind of keyboards are mostly a relic of the ADB era of Mac peripherals
The keys on a Macbook Pro are a relic of the ADB era? I don't think so.
No, he didn't ever say he used "hunt and peck," either with two fingers or four. He said he used "what felt natural," which certainly doesn't imply hunt-and-peck, which is an entirely different beast. Hunt-and-peck is for those who don't know where the keys are, and have to search for them. But there are plenty of people who know where the keys are, and can type fast, but don't use "proper" touch-typing methods.
Intersexed people find the use of the word "hermaphrodite, offensive
Lots of people find stuff offensive. I actually know hermaphrodites who have no problem with the term.
versus a condition that affects their sex organs.
A "condition"? Wow. You make it sound like their naturallly-born body is some kind of disease. I think most would find this a much more offensive description.
I think it's likely that Marc Whitten knows more than you do, and that they banned more than one person for expressing their sexual orientation.
Either way, how does banning only one person on these grounds make it not exclusion?
Lesbian and gay are not genders. They might imply one, but they aren't genders themselves.
Yes, but trans-gender and hermaphrodite are genders, so this change covers both "gender expression" and "sexual orientation."
How come? Did gay people avoid joining because they couldn't state that they were gay?
Did you even read the summary? People were banned from Xbox Live for stating their sexual orientation. How could that be labeled anything but "exclusion"? They were literally excluded - actively removed - from the community.
If I had to choose between being single and marrying a woman who was only interested in my money I know what I would pick.
You're thinking about the wrong kind of financial incentive. The more apt comparison would be - living with your partner as a lifetime devoted couple without marrying, versus marrying the exact same woman.
If you choose to marry, you get tax incentives, financial benefits and additional security in health care, insurance, and many other areas. Aside from that, you may get thousands of dollars of worth of gifts from friends and family. You may even get a lot more than that as an inheritance. If you don't marry, you don't get any of those financial benefits, and you may even have social or family difficulties (as many parents/grandparent are eager for their offspring to marry and don't approve of the unmarried relationship.
Mac != iPhone
Wow, such a genius statement! I never realized that the iPhone is not the same as a Mac! Thanks for enlightening me.
When the big boys put out their games, etc it's less likely because they are thinking 'what a great platform!'.
No, they don't care about the quality of the platform, they care about the income. They saw even tiny independent developers making good money on the iPhone and decided they wanted some of that money. Not to mention that the games industry has been thinking about how to "monetize" mobile phones for quite some time now.
It's far more likely they are told by Apple 'put this game on our platform and we will give your company X number of $$'s'.
That doesn't seem likely at all what evidence do you have of it? Why would Apple just give away money like that? That's not the way the company has ever operated.
You need to take off the tinfoil hat and use logic.
Since developing an app for such a nubile platform is something they could do in a week or two with maybe two FTE, why not?
This contradicts everything you wrote before it. So, which is it? Did they do it because Apple bribed them, or because it's such an easy thing to do? I'm sure you'll be forthcoming with those financial documents showing free money transferred from Apple to the game developers.
And have you seen the relative difference in quality for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP games versus the ones for the phones?
There's actually not that much difference, plenty of iPhone games have nice 3D graphics, etc. But if you're not a "gamer" and just want to play games casually - you're not really going to care that DS and PSP offer somewhat better titles. Just like the average computer user doesn't need an 8 core workstation with 16GB of RAM, the iPhone meets their needs at a much lower cost.
I don't care either way, as I'm not really into portable gaming. But the argument that people shouldn't play games on their phones is just fucking stupid.
I think it's up to him to come up with some evidence for the claim, not for me to disprove it - and no, having some big-name game titles on the iPhone is not evidence.
A developer is a person or organization that writes software. It doesn't necessarily mean they are good developers - that would be a variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's a way of denying or disowning bad developers. But in reality - there are legions of bad developers, and software is sold every day that is developed with tools like Visual Basic (or worse) - or with good tools, but poor technique.
There are many companies making big money on awful code. If they don't count as developers, then what are they?
Some of us carry smartphones to increase productivity, not play video games on a 4 inch screen.
And some people use smartphones to socialize and play games on a 4 inch screen.
If you want to play games, buy one of those portable game widget things that Nintendo or Sony sells.
So, someone who already has a smartphone should spend potentially hundreds of dollars, and carry a separate device, rather than spending a few bucks for a game on a device they already own? Why, just because you don't approve of games on a phone out of some misguided ideological notions of purity and productivity?
Also, have you seen the relative difference in price for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP games versus the ones for the phones?
All one can really infer from that is Apple is in bed with big game studios.
Oh really? What do you mean by "in bed with"? You don't think it's possible that game developers just thought it would be lucrative to develop for a popular platform?I suppose Apple is also colluding with all those fart app developers, and bribing them to develop for iPhone.
If Apple were "in bed" with the game developers, then wouldn't we see more games released for the Mac? Your allegation seems pretty far-fetched given the antipathy game studios have historically had for Apple.
It being attractive to developers is very much a good thing for you as a user.
Actually, that's not necessarily true.
"Being attractive to developers" is often code for "easy for lazy developers to use." For example, Visual Basic is attractive to many developers, but the resulting software often isn't very good for the users. What's good for users is having the best developers write your applications. And the best developers don't tend to be lazy or averse to learning new techniques.
There are countless examples of this in effect action - from terrible Enterprise software written specifically for IE6 or Office, to Flash games versus console games. It's generally not easy to program for a game console, yet that's where the AAA games are. It's much easier for the developer to slap together a Flash game.
On the contrary—isn’t Free Software in fact a creative way of using a copyright licence to secure a creative commons, to enforce the preservation of a public domain rather than a traditional proprietary copyright?
Not really. If it were about preservation of the Public Domain, then why not simply put the work in the Public Domain? The fact that it isn't released as Public Domain means that the authors want to retain control over the work. Now, that control may be retained "for the greater good" but it is control nonetheless.
I think the biggest problem with your argument is that there's really no such thing as "proprietary copyright." Sure, copyright can be used to protect proprietary code, but it is also used to protect "free" and "open" code from being made proprietary. Copyright itself is neutral - you can use it for open or proprietary purposes.
The two goals usually coincide, but Free Software is a movement, and Open Source is a method.
Actually they are both a little of each. Open Source is a movement (you'll find plenty of evidence of that on Slashdot) and Free Software is a method (otherwise, why would there be licenses and definitions instead of just street marches and political lobbying?)
in no reasonable way could any Free Software developer benefit from ridiculous and draconian copyright laws like these proposed ones.
I don't recall saying they would, or voicing my support for such laws. All I did was state that the purpose of Free and OSS software is not to destroy copyright laws. Rather, the goal is to enable user freedom. I don't see why this should be a controversial statement.
Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.
That doesn't really seem to match reality. The worse, more formulaic music is selling more and making tons of money. There are people who make quality music and sell it online in unencumbered formats, but they aren't making nearly as much money as the "pop" producers.
but basically destroying/ignoring copyright (which is what FOSS is based on)
Wait, what? FOSS is founded upon copyright. Without copyright and the concept of intellectual property, it wouldn't work.
you can get about 17 MBytes/Sec with a 1.5TB through USPS
Liar! 17 Megabyte files always take 20 minutes to copy. Always.
... which is EXACTLY what they want, so you become wholly dependent on the hard teet of the gov't, and the party of entitlement will then never be voted out.
Way to miss the point, Einstein. The point is that you are still better off working hard and succeeding. High taxes aren't a disincentive to success. Nobody would deliberately fail to pay lower taxes. You're still going to come out ahead earning more.