Both parties are correct in making their case. The industry relies on Jobs because he is a major distributor of their goods. Jobs relies on the industry for a good selection of music in his store. If the industry wants to charge more for their material that's actually okay (free market, remember?). But apparently they need Jobs more than he needs them, if the argument over music pricing is any indication.
It's not about greed versus good. Jobs wants your money every bit as much as the other guys do. From a traditional business standpoint, it rarely makes sense to used a fixed price for all merchandise, but in this particular case the flat rates are a big part of Jobs' marketing scheme, and breaking that may eliminate one of Apple's perceived advantages over other music services (people identify iTunes with simplicity). So it's a question of who has the better business plan, not who's out to protect your interests.
Why not? Does the United States have unreasonable working conditions because we work more hours per day than our European counterparts? Do we have terrible standards of living because we get fewer days off than those in the EU?
There are only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Regardless of what pansies we may be here in the U.S., there are a certain number of hours you should not ask a human being to work beyond. Apparently you feel the hours required in a Chinese sweatshop is okay.
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
Legally, you know the answer is none. Morally, no more responsibility falls on Apple than any other company. Yet you and I both know that Apple has the power to affect not just their own manufacturing process, but competing companies who want to save face as well. Can they do this and remain profitable? That is why there is a gray area here.
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
Reports about money earned should be considered relative. Reports about hours worked should not.
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
From what I gather about China you have a large portion of society who are considered second class citizens. Most, if not all, opportunities for work include long hours, low pay, and no benefits. They are not publicly educated as they are in the U.S., and they simply do not have good choices for jobs. Just because working for X employer is the best choice doesn't mean you aren't being overworked and underpaid. And that's probably a gross understatement.
And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But why should that stop us from expressing our distaste for certain corporate practices. If we don't like the way someone does business, we don't just stop using their products, we tell everyone else on the block about our gripes. That is capitalism.
I've thought, since the time when Nintendo was developing the Gamecube, that Apple should license Nintendo's technology. I was hoping Apple would simply start releasing Macs that could play Nintendo games natively via an embedded chipset of some sort. Heck, Panasonic did exactly this with their DVD players. This would give the Macintosh an instant library of fantastic games, and would do nothing to divert Nintendo's focus from games.
I have no problem with more features, and regardless of satisfaction surveys, going with less features is probably not the answer. Take, for instance, the fact that there are plenty of outdated basic phones available that people skip on because they want something the new phones have. People don't want less, they just want to be able to use what they have. Forget metaphors, forget operating systems, just identify what the user wants most and prioritize.
There are a few things that I'd like to see that might already exist: - The phone should always be ready for you to start dialing (unless you are editing a field). - The most commonly used features should have clearly labeled dedicated buttons with one and only one function. - The call log should always be available at the touch of a single button. - The address book should always be available at the touch of a single button. None of this hold-down-the-button shortcut nonsense though. - A camera phone should take a picture instantly with the press of one button. The LCD preview isn't always necessary, so using it should require a total of two button presses. - Sending pictures should take priority. In addition to a nice transfer interface, internet phones should allow you to email yourself any photo you take immediately after you take it, with only one or two button presses.
So if you haven't figured it out yet, my ideal phone (a phone for someone like my dad) needs at least four dedicated buttons for the most common features (besides the talk/hangup buttons and numbers): Call log, address book, camera shutter, camera LCD preview. I realize many phones have these buttons but they add confusion by being dual use and poorly labeled (if at all). It's time to start adding morebuttons if you ask me. Layout matters too. With the exception of the shutter button, aligning these buttons side by side (like the 2nd generation iPod) would be ideal, but probably wouldn't make the most fashion sense.
...and a cheaper price than expected may communicate the wrong message to potential buyers, that message being, "we are desperate and will try anything to stay competitive." Sometimes the lowest price is not the most desirable price for consumers, oddly enough. Sony is riding this wave right now and hoping it carries the PS3.
I should correct myself. VHS VS Betamax might be better compared with DVD VS DivX, since the competing products were released around the same time. But I still smell something.
That's true, but what I was really referring to is the inflexibility that exists with newer Steam titles. Wasn't it impossible to install even store-bought Half-Life 2 without an internet connection and a lengthy download? (I may be misinformed here.) XBox Live is smart in that it does not inconvenience common users. People who download multi-gigabyte games via Steam are not what I would consider a common user.
It sounds like Microsoft has already nailed down the most effective use for online distribution: low-budget titles and demos. For big releases they offer physical media purchased from a store, something your typical user will demand. I see no flaw with this approach. Considering today's bandwidth, doesn't this already beat what's being offered by Steam or the proposed Phantom?
You're right, I forgot the Dreamcast (and I even own one, duh!). The Dreamcast was actually a pretty good start for online console games. I doubt it cost Sega much dough to get it working, and it gave developers the option of having some really cool multiplayer features in their games. The PS2 and Gamecube took a step back by not including a network adapter.
"Anyway, I don't know why you seem intent on making Nintendo out to be ravenously anti-internt."
You said ravenously, not me. But they clearly made a decision to shut down all hopes of 1st party online Gamecube games at some point. Releasing the BBA was like throwing a bone to Sega so they could fulfill their PSO deal.
"...and if I were you, I'd be trusting Nintendo on what's profitable..."
You're right, screw customer feedback let's just take what they're giving!
Fine, I'll say it another way: Saying THE MARKET is not ready for online play sounds pretty anti-online to me, at least when it concerns the Gamecube.
You totally breezed by my point. Nintendo chose to delay online play because it wasn't a self-supporting money-maker! This totally ignores the fact that saying your new game Super Smash Brothers can be played online is a HUGE promotional tool for sales of the game.
"If Nintendo had included networking from the getgo with the cube, there would inevitably be titles that could only be played online, or were only fun when played online. This would decrease sales to gamers who didn't have (necessarily third party and uncontrollable) high speed internet."
A ridiculous statement. If a 3rd party developer wants to do something THAT stupid, let them go for it. Is it really any worse than releasing a Mary Kate & Ashley game?
I'm a big Nintendo supporter. I've also been playing online games since the mid 90s, often using a modem to dial in (you gonna tell me most of the world didn't have a telephone line back then?). The fact is, game companies like Nintendo have avoided online play because they don't understand it and aren't willing to take the sort of risk that's necessary to make it happen.
Brave souls like Id Software got long-distance gaming kick started back before most people even knew the internet existed. This only happened because they had the freedom of developing their games for the PC. Console developers, on the other hand, are constantly at the mercy of the console creators, who, until the XBox was released, never once shipped a console with any sort of online gaming ability built-in. If it ain't in the box when it ships, good luck getting people to buy it.
Saying the world is not ready for online play sounds pretty anti-online to me, at least when it concerns the Gamecube. You, along with Nintendo, are ignoring the fact that online play is not a business of its own, it's a tool that should be promoting the mainstream business of selling games. It doesn't need to make money through fees if it's helping the company sell more copies of Mario Brothers online.
Nintendo sabotaged any hope for PS2-style free online play by not supporting their broadband adapter beyond making it *barely* available for use with Phantasy Star Online. That $5 ethernet adapter should have been fused into the Gamecube's shell at launch.
In this sense none of the three players got it right: the PS2 required an addon network adapter (which they at least bothered to support) and the XBox, suddenly demonstrating more ambitious goals, decided addon hardware and monthly fees should be the gateway to online play. No wonder the market remains small.
One last jab: freely distributed server binaries work great for online PC gaming. Why is it so taboo in the console world?
Details, details! You could be right, but I'm pretty certain it was Dvorak since I don't recall ever reading a Bob Metcalfe article. Of course my journalistic integrity here is zero since I don't have a link, but I imagine Internet failure wasn't a completely uncommon stance in the mid to late 90s.
Classic example of how Microsoft's monopoly combined with their closed document format stifles innovation and evolution. If the.doc format were open we'd see alternative Word-compatible software that would offer competing grammar solutions. Instead our only choice is to make a big fuss!
When in fact you are still behind, because as you point out: You can't develop.
Film and digital are merely subsets of photography. While I'm not learning film photography I'm most certainly still learning about photography in general. I am indeed learning to use shutter speeds, aperture settings, and focal lengths. In digital photography, film is no longer even part of the process. To say a digital-only photographer knows nothing about photography is no different than saying a film-only photographer knows nothing about photography. If I learned to use camera obscura to somehow capture images on mossy rocks I'd still be practicing photography.
Math, on the other hand, is different. The building blocks in math are assumed to be absolute. No matter which technological marvels intervene the fundamentals of math will not change.
Yes, but what you describe could be viewed as using computers as a tool for the teacher. The problem being discussed elsewhere in this thread seems to involve students using the computers themselves. Big difference!
Slashdot Mirror
Both parties are correct in making their case. The industry relies on Jobs because he is a major distributor of their goods. Jobs relies on the industry for a good selection of music in his store. If the industry wants to charge more for their material that's actually okay (free market, remember?). But apparently they need Jobs more than he needs them, if the argument over music pricing is any indication.
It's not about greed versus good. Jobs wants your money every bit as much as the other guys do. From a traditional business standpoint, it rarely makes sense to used a fixed price for all merchandise, but in this particular case the flat rates are a big part of Jobs' marketing scheme, and breaking that may eliminate one of Apple's perceived advantages over other music services (people identify iTunes with simplicity). So it's a question of who has the better business plan, not who's out to protect your interests.
Okay.
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
Legally, you know the answer is none. Morally, no more responsibility falls on Apple than any other company. Yet you and I both know that Apple has the power to affect not just their own manufacturing process, but competing companies who want to save face as well. Can they do this and remain profitable? That is why there is a gray area here.
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
Reports about money earned should be considered relative. Reports about hours worked should not.
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
From what I gather about China you have a large portion of society who are considered second class citizens. Most, if not all, opportunities for work include long hours, low pay, and no benefits. They are not publicly educated as they are in the U.S., and they simply do not have good choices for jobs. Just because working for X employer is the best choice doesn't mean you aren't being overworked and underpaid. And that's probably a gross understatement.
And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But why should that stop us from expressing our distaste for certain corporate practices. If we don't like the way someone does business, we don't just stop using their products, we tell everyone else on the block about our gripes. That is capitalism.
I've thought, since the time when Nintendo was developing the Gamecube, that Apple should license Nintendo's technology. I was hoping Apple would simply start releasing Macs that could play Nintendo games natively via an embedded chipset of some sort. Heck, Panasonic did exactly this with their DVD players. This would give the Macintosh an instant library of fantastic games, and would do nothing to divert Nintendo's focus from games.
I have no problem with more features, and regardless of satisfaction surveys, going with less features is probably not the answer. Take, for instance, the fact that there are plenty of outdated basic phones available that people skip on because they want something the new phones have. People don't want less, they just want to be able to use what they have. Forget metaphors, forget operating systems, just identify what the user wants most and prioritize.
There are a few things that I'd like to see that might already exist:
- The phone should always be ready for you to start dialing (unless you are editing a field).
- The most commonly used features should have clearly labeled dedicated buttons with one and only one function.
- The call log should always be available at the touch of a single button.
- The address book should always be available at the touch of a single button. None of this hold-down-the-button shortcut nonsense though.
- A camera phone should take a picture instantly with the press of one button. The LCD preview isn't always necessary, so using it should require a total of two button presses.
- Sending pictures should take priority. In addition to a nice transfer interface, internet phones should allow you to email yourself any photo you take immediately after you take it, with only one or two button presses.
So if you haven't figured it out yet, my ideal phone (a phone for someone like my dad) needs at least four dedicated buttons for the most common features (besides the talk/hangup buttons and numbers): Call log, address book, camera shutter, camera LCD preview. I realize many phones have these buttons but they add confusion by being dual use and poorly labeled (if at all). It's time to start adding morebuttons if you ask me. Layout matters too. With the exception of the shutter button, aligning these buttons side by side (like the 2nd generation iPod) would be ideal, but probably wouldn't make the most fashion sense.
...and a cheaper price than expected may communicate the wrong message to potential buyers, that message being, "we are desperate and will try anything to stay competitive." Sometimes the lowest price is not the most desirable price for consumers, oddly enough. Sony is riding this wave right now and hoping it carries the PS3.
Because of this, the instant it's released, a million people will rush to buy the game just because of the hype.
Just like they did Daikatana?
I should correct myself. VHS VS Betamax might be better compared with DVD VS DivX, since the competing products were released around the same time. But I still smell something.
I smell Betamax 2.0.
That's true, but what I was really referring to is the inflexibility that exists with newer Steam titles. Wasn't it impossible to install even store-bought Half-Life 2 without an internet connection and a lengthy download? (I may be misinformed here.) XBox Live is smart in that it does not inconvenience common users. People who download multi-gigabyte games via Steam are not what I would consider a common user.
It sounds like Microsoft has already nailed down the most effective use for online distribution: low-budget titles and demos. For big releases they offer physical media purchased from a store, something your typical user will demand. I see no flaw with this approach. Considering today's bandwidth, doesn't this already beat what's being offered by Steam or the proposed Phantom?
...you just didn't get to play online as soon as you would have liked.
Yeah, ten years later than I would have liked.
You're right, I forgot the Dreamcast (and I even own one, duh!). The Dreamcast was actually a pretty good start for online console games. I doubt it cost Sega much dough to get it working, and it gave developers the option of having some really cool multiplayer features in their games. The PS2 and Gamecube took a step back by not including a network adapter.
"Anyway, I don't know why you seem intent on making Nintendo out to be ravenously anti-internt."
You said ravenously, not me. But they clearly made a decision to shut down all hopes of 1st party online Gamecube games at some point. Releasing the BBA was like throwing a bone to Sega so they could fulfill their PSO deal.
"...and if I were you, I'd be trusting Nintendo on what's profitable..."
You're right, screw customer feedback let's just take what they're giving!
Fine, I'll say it another way: Saying THE MARKET is not ready for online play sounds pretty anti-online to me, at least when it concerns the Gamecube.
You totally breezed by my point. Nintendo chose to delay online play because it wasn't a self-supporting money-maker! This totally ignores the fact that saying your new game Super Smash Brothers can be played online is a HUGE promotional tool for sales of the game.
"If Nintendo had included networking from the getgo with the cube, there would inevitably be titles that could only be played online, or were only fun when played online. This would decrease sales to gamers who didn't have (necessarily third party and uncontrollable) high speed internet."
A ridiculous statement. If a 3rd party developer wants to do something THAT stupid, let them go for it. Is it really any worse than releasing a Mary Kate & Ashley game?
I'm a big Nintendo supporter. I've also been playing online games since the mid 90s, often using a modem to dial in (you gonna tell me most of the world didn't have a telephone line back then?). The fact is, game companies like Nintendo have avoided online play because they don't understand it and aren't willing to take the sort of risk that's necessary to make it happen.
Brave souls like Id Software got long-distance gaming kick started back before most people even knew the internet existed. This only happened because they had the freedom of developing their games for the PC. Console developers, on the other hand, are constantly at the mercy of the console creators, who, until the XBox was released, never once shipped a console with any sort of online gaming ability built-in. If it ain't in the box when it ships, good luck getting people to buy it.
Saying the world is not ready for online play sounds pretty anti-online to me, at least when it concerns the Gamecube. You, along with Nintendo, are ignoring the fact that online play is not a business of its own, it's a tool that should be promoting the mainstream business of selling games. It doesn't need to make money through fees if it's helping the company sell more copies of Mario Brothers online. Nintendo sabotaged any hope for PS2-style free online play by not supporting their broadband adapter beyond making it *barely* available for use with Phantasy Star Online. That $5 ethernet adapter should have been fused into the Gamecube's shell at launch. In this sense none of the three players got it right: the PS2 required an addon network adapter (which they at least bothered to support) and the XBox, suddenly demonstrating more ambitious goals, decided addon hardware and monthly fees should be the gateway to online play. No wonder the market remains small. One last jab: freely distributed server binaries work great for online PC gaming. Why is it so taboo in the console world?
Details, details! You could be right, but I'm pretty certain it was Dvorak since I don't recall ever reading a Bob Metcalfe article. Of course my journalistic integrity here is zero since I don't have a link, but I imagine Internet failure wasn't a completely uncommon stance in the mid to late 90s.
He also said the Internet would crash.
nt
http://www.tapwave.com/
I believe three stars is his criteria for a Thumbs Up, not two and a half. Could be me hallucinating though.
Who is this guy/girl who's griping about Microsoft's grammar checker? Build your own, you scrub!
Don't consider me the backbone of Slashdot. I'm sort of new here and evidently not quite nerdy enough :/
Classic example of how Microsoft's monopoly combined with their closed document format stifles innovation and evolution. If the .doc format were open we'd see alternative Word-compatible software that would offer competing grammar solutions. Instead our only choice is to make a big fuss!
When in fact you are still behind, because as you point out: You can't develop.
Film and digital are merely subsets of photography. While I'm not learning film photography I'm most certainly still learning about photography in general. I am indeed learning to use shutter speeds, aperture settings, and focal lengths. In digital photography, film is no longer even part of the process. To say a digital-only photographer knows nothing about photography is no different than saying a film-only photographer knows nothing about photography. If I learned to use camera obscura to somehow capture images on mossy rocks I'd still be practicing photography.
Math, on the other hand, is different. The building blocks in math are assumed to be absolute. No matter which technological marvels intervene the fundamentals of math will not change.
Yes, but what you describe could be viewed as using computers as a tool for the teacher. The problem being discussed elsewhere in this thread seems to involve students using the computers themselves. Big difference!