Look at the iPod, it wasn't exactly the largest media player at the time, nor did it have the most specs.
In portable music players, largest is not best. The iPod succeeded because it was the smallest hard-drive based player on the market. As far as specs go, you're wrong. It was the most advanced product on the market. It had Firewire for transferring music, while everybody else had USB 1. It had a nice screen and menu navigation system, while everybody else had clunky controls like a portable CD player, and very limited LCD displays.
and 3. most media houses are big apple shops anyways. Apple has been big in this area ever since they release the apple printer that matched the screen rez, and became even more entrenched thanks to adobe photoshop
Riiiight. Because the media is run by the designers, printers, and technical staff. Writers and editors take their orders from some Quark/Indesign/Photoshop monkey.
I bought some applications from that store, and they were plagued with problems - for example, one kept asking me to "activate" it, even though I had already paid good money for it, and already activated it. I don't see how anybody would enjoy that miserable experience. People bitch about Apple's restrictive policies, but if that's the alternative, I know which most people would prefer.
Well, some people knew. I knew. I was using a Nokia n90 at the time the iphone came out. Even it had an app store.
Yeah, an app store which nobody used. I also had a Nokia at the time, and the app store was a complete joke. If Apple had released something like that, it never would have succeeded. So I stand by my comment - nobody really expected what the app store would actually be like. Even if someone thought about an app store in the abstract, nobody was predicting such a game-changer.
Indeed, given the historical usage of Macs in DTP and design, it would explain the pro-Apple views that pervade the media.
That's an utterly absurd comment, because the layout people and designers aren't the ones who write the articles or edit the journals. Anyway, I'm talking about websites and publications which have been outright hostile to Macs.
I think it has more to do with insider trading, for example, see Jim Cramer talking about how he tried to manipulate Apple stock prices.
Now we're back to plastic for MacBooks, which is an artificial division used to avoid cannibalism of MacBook Pro sales.
That's not really a big deal. Some people prefer the plastic cases, anyway. There was a time in the PPC when the iBooks were more durable than the Powerbooks, because the Powerbooks would bend, and the latches would fail, while the plastic iBooks were more sturdy.
Well, you be the judge. See if you can dig up an article that speaks about 5th-graders experimenting with oral sex as an "alternative" from newsprint 30 years ago. How about one that reports that over 40% of women have been unfaithful in their marriage.
Just because it wasn't reported in the news, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Apparently, you want to revert to an era where "we just don't talk about those things" so you can pretend you are living in a more "moral" age. People have always been unfaithful, people have always practiced "kinky" or "perverted" sexual acts. Incest has been rife in families for centuries - if anything incest is probably less common now than it once was, because it used to be tolerated more to avoid scandal.
Ever wonder that it's because of the in-your-face prevalence of sex in general that things like "purity rings" were invented less than 20 years ago?
So, basically, it all balances out in the end?
There's a reason we didn't have "virginity rituals" in the 1950s. Because we didn't need to.
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think youth and sexual experimentation was that much different in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, you know what is also at an all-time high of popularity? Divorce. So, what exactly does that say about the true "popularity" of marriage?
You know what people used to do instead of get divorced? Live in loveless marriages, often in misery. Which is preferable?
Also, I'm thinking that a huge percentage of those divorces are coming from people who are in your generation, not the current youth.
It's rather obvious that Hollywood has reduced this sacred act down to nothing more than a publicity stunt in many cases, so I'm supposed to believe that others don't do the same?
What makes it so obvious to you that is has anything to do with Hollywood? I don't think many people are getting their ideas about marriage from movies.
Is it popular because more people love the idea of being together and remaining faithful to one person for the rest of their lives(yeah right, ashleymadison), or does it have more to do with the size of the ring on her finger, and the "awesome" factor of the wedding event itself?
Several reasons - one, because there is enormous social pressure to get married (often from "moralists" like yourself). But probably more importantly is the economic benefit. It simply makes sense for young people to get married, because it gives financial stability, and usually comes with large gifts and property. In today's competitive economic climate, the couple the is truly in love, completely faithful, and unmarried loses out to the cheating couple that isn't really in love but gets married.
or does it have more to do with the size of the ring on her finger, and the "awesome" factor of the wedding event itself?
Oh yeah, that's NEVER been the case before in history, only with this generation.
And yes, this generation IS really that narcissistic, and unfortunately in debt up to their eyeballs trying to prove it. Sad, but true.
You're completely full of shit, and your post is nothing but a misinformed "kids these days" rant.
OK, I was once an impressionable young man, and out of all the role models I looked up to as a kid, "President of the United States" was some guy in a suit that went around giving speeches, ranking all the way up at Did Not Appear.
Exactly.
I was not trying to support the idea that Clinton's lifestyle influenced the youth. I was merely arguing the idea hypothetically if Clinton had any influence.
Personally, I think the poster I was responding to might be one of those "liberal media is corrupting our youth!" whackjobs.
At some point they'll just end up picking off their own product sales and they will become their own worst enemy,
I think that's Apple's old way of thinking. The new Apple realizes that to move forward, it needs to compete with its own products, rather than fearing cannibalism. If the possibility for something better exists, and you don't make it for fear of competing with your own products, then somebody else will, and take that business away from you.
This attitude is clear with iPods, where Apple produced new models at a rapid pace, including variations such as the mini and nano which competed with the more expensive full-size iPod. And finally, it happened with the iPhone, which in many ways makes the iPod obsolete. Apple realized it couldn't rely on the iPod being relevant forever, so came up with the next big thing, and finding extra revenue streams such as the App Store.
We also see it to a lesser degree with the Macs. In earlier times, Apple would deliberately cripple its low-end computers so as not to compete with the more expensive models. However, recently, we've seen Macbooks that are nearly as good as the more expensive Macbook Pros, just without the fancy aluminum case. Sure, there are some spec differences, but it's not like the Macbooks are being hobbled out of fear of cannibalism like they were in the past.
I don't matter what it's for. The fact that Apple made it (or MAY make it in this case) means that thousands of fanboys all over the net are scrambling and grasping at straws to explain just why this is the best way to do things.
Except I don't think it's the fanboys this time, as much as the PC industry pundits and "analysts." It's kind of weird - because much of the coverage and sensationalism seems to be coming from typical PC-centric publications that don't historically cover Apple. I'm guessing that perhaps they got tired of all the naysaying, and decided to be a part of this one to get some hits.
On the other hand, most Apple "fanboys" I know are quite skeptical about this one. This rumor cycle is being driven by a different dynamic.
People knew it needed an app store from the start,
This sounds like revisionist history to me. I don't think anyone outside Apple was even thinking about the concept of an "App Store." Sure, developers wanted native applications and an SDK - but they weren't thinking of an Apple-run store for applications.
Either way, it was only an issue with developers, and the users/consumers didn't really care either way because 3rd-party apps on their phone just wasn't on the radar.
Morals went out the window about 2 generations ago
Umm, read the post again. It says "mores" not "morals" - different things.
With 12-year olds experimenting with oral and anal sex as a "safe" alternative these days, along with the Internet feeding those wicked desires to show off to the world
Sounds like you've been reading too much sensationalistic media. While these things do happen, I don't think they are as widely indulged in as you believe. Even with a more liberal attitude in society, you don't think people are still self-conscious about sex and their bodies? Just as many kids are getting purity rings and indulging in other weird virginity rituals, as are experimenting with anal and oral sex.
Not to mention the way that Hollywood has pretty much shit on the entire aspect of Marriage with their here-today-gone-tomorrow mentality of a once-sacred bond,
It seems to me that marriage is just as popular as ever. The Gen-Y kids seem to love it, which is weird for me as a Gen-Xer - where the influence of feminism and career-driven women made marriage less popular for my generation. Women of Gen-X were very skeptical of marriage, and the way Gen-Y acts today would seem very backwards and anti-feminist to them.
Of course, Bill "Cigar" Clinton didn't help matters much either with his antics and subsequent representation after the fact, which can tend to influence an entire generation as well.
Right, so how do you explain this trend towards marriage and traditional values in the generation that would have been young enough to be influenced by Clinton? I think you're just projecting.
I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs.
That is why this whole argument is moot. Your contention is complete and utter bullshit. The two situations are not even remotely similar.
Aside from the "forcing" issue, you don't see Apple behaving anything like the way Microsoft did to earn their reputation - such as relentlessly spreading FUD, buying out companies just to eliminate the competition, lying in court, attempts to sabotage competing software ("DOS ain't done 'til Notes won't run" etc).
But research doesn't have to occur in a university lab. Do you not think Apple performs research when it makes a new product?
The entire product doesn't just appear in your head as an epiphany.
Actually, sometimes it does.
Most of the innovative products are built on existing research that was not viable 10 years ago, but is now.
Right. So how does that make them not innovative?
Which they copied from XEROX? Making something commercially viable requires marketing and advertising, not innovation.
Copied from Xerox? The first Mac OS might have been inspired by Xerox' research, but it was very different, and a lot of hard word went into making it a viable product. A product prototype or idea is not the same as something ready for market. Otherwise, Xerox would have simply released it as-is. But Xerox did not have the insight to see the value in it, and work it into a usable product.
For example, for the GUI to work, Apple needed an input device - the mouse. This was not an invention of Apple's, but the existing prototypes were not reliable or accurate enough for commercial use - so Apple put a lot of engineering effort into refining those prototypes into something that would work.
The NT kernel, NTFS, Office 2007, Flight Sim, Cleartype, Visual Basic, etc, were innovative for their time.
But all were based on previous research and inventions. By your previous arguments, that makes them not innovative. You can't have it both ways.
You seem to have been confusing invention and innovation. They are separate, but related things. In many cases, more work goes into the evolution and refinement, rather than the invention.
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded? And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.
I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered.
That doesn't make any sense. The terms of the contract stated that Apple could reject applications for any reason whatsoever. It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.
The talk of "shattered dreams" is absurd. I dream of having a three-way with Lucy Liu and Foxy Brown. If they refuse my request and shatter my dreams, then I have no recourse against them. One's dreams are not guaranteed, and very rarely come true.
To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business?
1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.
2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.
3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).
1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others.
WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.
If you want to go beyond the law, then the answer is that Apple has never coerced anybody in the way that Microsoft has.
2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted.
They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.
But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.
What? I've never supported Microsoft. But they should be allowed to do whatever they want, within the limits of the law, whether I support them or not. Personally, I think they've acted shitty for a long time - but there's a difference between acting shitting and breaking the law.
In the same way, I think that Apple is acting shitty with the App Store - but there's no legal reason why their actions should be prohibited at this time.
There will always be people who want to pay zero and there will be, I think, a majority that will be willing to pay something.
That may be true, or it may not be. The Radiohead release doesn't prove anything either way. Not only is it only a single data point, it is a highly skewed one, because it was also one of the first and most widely publicized events of this nature. The novelty factor will most likely wear off quickly.
Well, I went to a "premium" cinema and the audience was well-behaved and quiet. All the families with noisy kids tend to go to the standard cinema, so you get a more mature audience (and there are less seats anyway, as the cinema is smaller and has the super-comfy chairs).
Yes, it's available in cinemas now, in either digital 3D, or as a 2D film print. The quality of the cinematography is really excellent, no quality concerns at all.
Either Bono is just a fucktard, and hasn't really though this through, or he is willing to go to some very unpleasant places to protect his precious "content".
Slashdot Mirror
This PISSES me off. I've owned every Madden since 06 on the Xbox360 and a few on the GameCube.
Eeewww, that's disgusting.
Look at the iPod, it wasn't exactly the largest media player at the time, nor did it have the most specs.
In portable music players, largest is not best. The iPod succeeded because it was the smallest hard-drive based player on the market. As far as specs go, you're wrong. It was the most advanced product on the market. It had Firewire for transferring music, while everybody else had USB 1. It had a nice screen and menu navigation system, while everybody else had clunky controls like a portable CD player, and very limited LCD displays.
and 3. most media houses are big apple shops anyways. Apple has been big in this area ever since they release the apple printer that matched the screen rez, and became even more entrenched thanks to adobe photoshop
Riiiight. Because the media is run by the designers, printers, and technical staff. Writers and editors take their orders from some Quark/Indesign/Photoshop monkey.
At least when Apple announces anything, you know you can order it from the Apple store the next day.
... and have it delivered in three months or so.
"ClimateGate"? Seriously?
No, the onus is on the scientists to provide evidence to support their claims, as it always is.
And that's what they've been doing.
Global warming has become a kind of a scare in the mind of the public that is detached from the scientific reality.
I'd say that's more the case with denialists and conspiracy theorists like yourself.
So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.
I can't say I've ever seen someone throw their iPhone away.
I bought some applications from that store, and they were plagued with problems - for example, one kept asking me to "activate" it, even though I had already paid good money for it, and already activated it. I don't see how anybody would enjoy that miserable experience. People bitch about Apple's restrictive policies, but if that's the alternative, I know which most people would prefer.
Well, some people knew. I knew. I was using a Nokia n90 at the time the iphone came out. Even it had an app store.
Yeah, an app store which nobody used. I also had a Nokia at the time, and the app store was a complete joke. If Apple had released something like that, it never would have succeeded. So I stand by my comment - nobody really expected what the app store would actually be like. Even if someone thought about an app store in the abstract, nobody was predicting such a game-changer.
Indeed, given the historical usage of Macs in DTP and design, it would explain the pro-Apple views that pervade the media.
That's an utterly absurd comment, because the layout people and designers aren't the ones who write the articles or edit the journals. Anyway, I'm talking about websites and publications which have been outright hostile to Macs.
I think it has more to do with insider trading, for example, see Jim Cramer talking about how he tried to manipulate Apple stock prices.
Now we're back to plastic for MacBooks, which is an artificial division used to avoid cannibalism of MacBook Pro sales.
That's not really a big deal. Some people prefer the plastic cases, anyway. There was a time in the PPC when the iBooks were more durable than the Powerbooks, because the Powerbooks would bend, and the latches would fail, while the plastic iBooks were more sturdy.
It's already been a considerable stretch of time for Star Wars.
And already, youngsters find it boring and hackneyed. It really doesn't have a particularly strong story.
Well, you be the judge. See if you can dig up an article that speaks about 5th-graders experimenting with oral sex as an "alternative" from newsprint 30 years ago. How about one that reports that over 40% of women have been unfaithful in their marriage.
Just because it wasn't reported in the news, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Apparently, you want to revert to an era where "we just don't talk about those things" so you can pretend you are living in a more "moral" age. People have always been unfaithful, people have always practiced "kinky" or "perverted" sexual acts. Incest has been rife in families for centuries - if anything incest is probably less common now than it once was, because it used to be tolerated more to avoid scandal.
Ever wonder that it's because of the in-your-face prevalence of sex in general that things like "purity rings" were invented less than 20 years ago?
So, basically, it all balances out in the end?
There's a reason we didn't have "virginity rituals" in the 1950s. Because we didn't need to.
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think youth and sexual experimentation was that much different in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, you know what is also at an all-time high of popularity? Divorce. So, what exactly does that say about the true "popularity" of marriage?
You know what people used to do instead of get divorced? Live in loveless marriages, often in misery. Which is preferable?
Also, I'm thinking that a huge percentage of those divorces are coming from people who are in your generation, not the current youth.
It's rather obvious that Hollywood has reduced this sacred act down to nothing more than a publicity stunt in many cases, so I'm supposed to believe that others don't do the same?
What makes it so obvious to you that is has anything to do with Hollywood? I don't think many people are getting their ideas about marriage from movies.
Is it popular because more people love the idea of being together and remaining faithful to one person for the rest of their lives(yeah right, ashleymadison), or does it have more to do with the size of the ring on her finger, and the "awesome" factor of the wedding event itself?
Several reasons - one, because there is enormous social pressure to get married (often from "moralists" like yourself). But probably more importantly is the economic benefit. It simply makes sense for young people to get married, because it gives financial stability, and usually comes with large gifts and property. In today's competitive economic climate, the couple the is truly in love, completely faithful, and unmarried loses out to the cheating couple that isn't really in love but gets married.
or does it have more to do with the size of the ring on her finger, and the "awesome" factor of the wedding event itself?
Oh yeah, that's NEVER been the case before in history, only with this generation.
And yes, this generation IS really that narcissistic, and unfortunately in debt up to their eyeballs trying to prove it. Sad, but true.
You're completely full of shit, and your post is nothing but a misinformed "kids these days" rant.
OK, I was once an impressionable young man, and out of all the role models I looked up to as a kid, "President of the United States" was some guy in a suit that went around giving speeches, ranking all the way up at Did Not Appear.
Exactly.
I was not trying to support the idea that Clinton's lifestyle influenced the youth. I was merely arguing the idea hypothetically if Clinton had any influence.
Personally, I think the poster I was responding to might be one of those "liberal media is corrupting our youth!" whackjobs.
At some point they'll just end up picking off their own product sales and they will become their own worst enemy,
I think that's Apple's old way of thinking. The new Apple realizes that to move forward, it needs to compete with its own products, rather than fearing cannibalism. If the possibility for something better exists, and you don't make it for fear of competing with your own products, then somebody else will, and take that business away from you.
This attitude is clear with iPods, where Apple produced new models at a rapid pace, including variations such as the mini and nano which competed with the more expensive full-size iPod. And finally, it happened with the iPhone, which in many ways makes the iPod obsolete. Apple realized it couldn't rely on the iPod being relevant forever, so came up with the next big thing, and finding extra revenue streams such as the App Store.
We also see it to a lesser degree with the Macs. In earlier times, Apple would deliberately cripple its low-end computers so as not to compete with the more expensive models. However, recently, we've seen Macbooks that are nearly as good as the more expensive Macbook Pros, just without the fancy aluminum case. Sure, there are some spec differences, but it's not like the Macbooks are being hobbled out of fear of cannibalism like they were in the past.
I don't matter what it's for. The fact that Apple made it (or MAY make it in this case) means that thousands of fanboys all over the net are scrambling and grasping at straws to explain just why this is the best way to do things.
Except I don't think it's the fanboys this time, as much as the PC industry pundits and "analysts." It's kind of weird - because much of the coverage and sensationalism seems to be coming from typical PC-centric publications that don't historically cover Apple. I'm guessing that perhaps they got tired of all the naysaying, and decided to be a part of this one to get some hits.
On the other hand, most Apple "fanboys" I know are quite skeptical about this one. This rumor cycle is being driven by a different dynamic.
People knew it needed an app store from the start,
This sounds like revisionist history to me. I don't think anyone outside Apple was even thinking about the concept of an "App Store." Sure, developers wanted native applications and an SDK - but they weren't thinking of an Apple-run store for applications.
Either way, it was only an issue with developers, and the users/consumers didn't really care either way because 3rd-party apps on their phone just wasn't on the radar.
Morals went out the window about 2 generations ago
Umm, read the post again. It says "mores" not "morals" - different things.
With 12-year olds experimenting with oral and anal sex as a "safe" alternative these days, along with the Internet feeding those wicked desires to show off to the world
Sounds like you've been reading too much sensationalistic media. While these things do happen, I don't think they are as widely indulged in as you believe. Even with a more liberal attitude in society, you don't think people are still self-conscious about sex and their bodies? Just as many kids are getting purity rings and indulging in other weird virginity rituals, as are experimenting with anal and oral sex.
Not to mention the way that Hollywood has pretty much shit on the entire aspect of Marriage with their here-today-gone-tomorrow mentality of a once-sacred bond,
It seems to me that marriage is just as popular as ever. The Gen-Y kids seem to love it, which is weird for me as a Gen-Xer - where the influence of feminism and career-driven women made marriage less popular for my generation. Women of Gen-X were very skeptical of marriage, and the way Gen-Y acts today would seem very backwards and anti-feminist to them.
Of course, Bill "Cigar" Clinton didn't help matters much either with his antics and subsequent representation after the fact, which can tend to influence an entire generation as well.
Right, so how do you explain this trend towards marriage and traditional values in the generation that would have been young enough to be influenced by Clinton? I think you're just projecting.
I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs.
That is why this whole argument is moot. Your contention is complete and utter bullshit. The two situations are not even remotely similar.
Aside from the "forcing" issue, you don't see Apple behaving anything like the way Microsoft did to earn their reputation - such as relentlessly spreading FUD, buying out companies just to eliminate the competition, lying in court, attempts to sabotage competing software ("DOS ain't done 'til Notes won't run" etc).
Innovation results from research.
But research doesn't have to occur in a university lab. Do you not think Apple performs research when it makes a new product?
The entire product doesn't just appear in your head as an epiphany.
Actually, sometimes it does.
Most of the innovative products are built on existing research that was not viable 10 years ago, but is now.
Right. So how does that make them not innovative?
Which they copied from XEROX? Making something commercially viable requires marketing and advertising, not innovation.
Copied from Xerox? The first Mac OS might have been inspired by Xerox' research, but it was very different, and a lot of hard word went into making it a viable product. A product prototype or idea is not the same as something ready for market. Otherwise, Xerox would have simply released it as-is. But Xerox did not have the insight to see the value in it, and work it into a usable product.
For example, for the GUI to work, Apple needed an input device - the mouse. This was not an invention of Apple's, but the existing prototypes were not reliable or accurate enough for commercial use - so Apple put a lot of engineering effort into refining those prototypes into something that would work.
The NT kernel, NTFS, Office 2007, Flight Sim, Cleartype, Visual Basic, etc, were innovative for their time.
But all were based on previous research and inventions. By your previous arguments, that makes them not innovative. You can't have it both ways.
You seem to have been confusing invention and innovation. They are separate, but related things. In many cases, more work goes into the evolution and refinement, rather than the invention.
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded? And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.
I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered.
That doesn't make any sense. The terms of the contract stated that Apple could reject applications for any reason whatsoever. It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.
The talk of "shattered dreams" is absurd. I dream of having a three-way with Lucy Liu and Foxy Brown. If they refuse my request and shatter my dreams, then I have no recourse against them. One's dreams are not guaranteed, and very rarely come true.
To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business?
1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.
2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.
3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).
1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others.
WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.
If you want to go beyond the law, then the answer is that Apple has never coerced anybody in the way that Microsoft has.
2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted.
They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.
But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.
What? I've never supported Microsoft. But they should be allowed to do whatever they want, within the limits of the law, whether I support them or not. Personally, I think they've acted shitty for a long time - but there's a difference between acting shitting and breaking the law.
In the same way, I think that Apple is acting shitty with the App Store - but there's no legal reason why their actions should be prohibited at this time.
There will always be people who want to pay zero and there will be, I think, a majority that will be willing to pay something.
That may be true, or it may not be. The Radiohead release doesn't prove anything either way. Not only is it only a single data point, it is a highly skewed one, because it was also one of the first and most widely publicized events of this nature. The novelty factor will most likely wear off quickly.
Well, I went to a "premium" cinema and the audience was well-behaved and quiet. All the families with noisy kids tend to go to the standard cinema, so you get a more mature audience (and there are less seats anyway, as the cinema is smaller and has the super-comfy chairs).
Is there a decent version of avatar out yet?
Yes, it's available in cinemas now, in either digital 3D, or as a 2D film print. The quality of the cinematography is really excellent, no quality concerns at all.
Either Bono is just a fucktard, and hasn't really though this through, or he is willing to go to some very unpleasant places to protect his precious "content".
Can't is be "all of the above"?