I guess I don't understand why capitalism is a dirty word around here. Isn't it a good thing that businesses are not run by the state? Does competition not spur innovation?
I think most people think capitalism is a good thing. The problem with capitalism--which I'm not sure anyone has solved--is what do you when someone wins?
Capitalism is about competition. I make a widget, you make a widget, and we try to convince a group of people to buy our widget over our competitor's widget. It keeps prices down. It spurs innovation--my widget is more reliable than yours, your widget is cheaper to manufacture than mine, etc. But in any competition, there will eventually be a winner. More and more people will buy your widget over mine and you will eventually buy me out or I will go bankrupt or whatever and then you will be the only person selling widgets. At that point, innovation slows and prices can rise because there is no pressure. You're just out to make as much money as possible.
So, "unbridled capitalism," as the GP puts it, isn't a good thing because the eventual winner--whoever they might be--will have a monopoly. The question is--and this isn't an easy question--what do you do with the winner? Do you try to prevent a winner? Do you allow a winner and then break them up and start a new game? Are the efficiencies that you get with having one company performing the task worthwhile enough that you create a regulated monopoly?
That's funny because almost all Apple software (bar the high end pro stuff) doesn't have licence keys, online activation and all the other crap Microsoft and others have forced on users over the years.
Uh...have you checked out the Mac App Store lately? That's the only way to get Apple software on your Mac...
[...] the copyright may be valid in France but not necessarily elsewhere [...]
So if the Eiffel Tower ever leaves France, I can take a picture of it? Or if I'm not in France but, say, sitting off the coast with a really really good telephoto lens, I'm good?
Well, I'm sure that we can trust that the people who would block this would have appropriate "country codes" built in so that, as an American, I can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower but a Frenchman cannot.
Nah. The appropriate fanboi opinion is, "Why should I keep track of whether or not it's legal for me to record things in a particular venue? This way, Apple and the venue owner can help me out so that I don't have to risk unnecessary lawsuits and the like. Thanks, Apple!"
Actually, IMHO, Apple does things like this in order to stay on the Music Industry's good side. But Apple will sell out it's customers to the music industry whenever necessary.
It would have to be a *lot* better than my android phone for me to want one though.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried one? If you haven't, how do you know it's not a lot better?
Don't get me wrong, I've never tried one either. But next time I'm in the mall, I'm definitely planning a trip to the Microsoft Store to check it out. So if it's not very impressive next to my iPhone, I'll at least know why.
That's in the same price class as the iPhone, so why don't get the real thing?
The real thing? And you claim that you're no Apple fanboi?
Why would you get a Samsung? Maybe because you think Android is a better OS than iOS? Maybe because the best carrier in your area doesn't have iPhones? Or maybe you just like to think differently.
Why the police would be any different, or why a video recording is any different, is a mystery to me.
It's that audio part that's the problem.
Is a video an audio recording with a bunch of pictures or is it a bunch of pictures with an audio track? You're right that if you pulled out your trusty Nikon and started snapping pictures of the cops, you'd be fine. But if you pulled out a tape recorder and started recording everything they said, you'd be in trouble.
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I point out that the iTunes Store is an example of a low margin/high volume business. Yeah, Apple doesn't make a whole lot of profit on each sale, but when you sell a billion items, it starts to add up. If you ask whether that "break even" is on each sale or a sum total of sales, Apple is mum.
Keep in mind another accounting trick: Apple pays developers when they accumulate more than $250 or once a month. So if I put an App in the App Store and I sell $100 worth in one month, I don't see a nickel. If I sell $100 the next month, I don't see a nickel. If I sell $100 the third month, Apple will send me a check for $210. That means Apple got use of my $300 for three months. Remember that whole "Cash and Short Term Investments" thing in their financial statements? That's where my $300 went--Apple held onto it and made interest from it. Do that with tens of thousands of developers and you're talking about some serious cash.
Let's say I write the incredible killer app. I release it and everybody's gotta have it and I make millions. Even then, Apple gets my revenue for the month to play around with.
The analogy I would use with the Space Shuttle is that it's like using a Humvee to drive to the grocery store and back.
The humvee is an impressive vehicle. But, for the most part, you don't need the capabilities of the humvee just to get groceries and it's a pretty expensive thing to run just to go get groceries.
Similar thing here. The Space Shuttle is an impressive vehicle. It can do some really amazing things. However, we don't need to do those things. We don't need to retrieve satellites from LEO--with launch costs coming down, it's cheaper to just launch a new one. While the "repair" argument could be made, it's rare that it would be necessary and the satellites need to be designed so that they can be repaired in space. The best example of this is Hubble--without the Space Shuttle, Hubble would have shut down decades ago. But Hubble was designed to be serviced by the Space Shuttle. Most satellites aren't. In regards to science, the ISS is a much better platform for research than the Space Shuttle simply because it can stay up longer. So at the moment, the Shuttle's only value is taking people to the ISS. Frankly, that's a really expensive way to do it. And while we can all say that NASA's budget is a tiny amount of the overall national budget and how NASA deserves to have more money, I'd also like to see NASA not waste money flying the Space Shuttle just to drop a few people off at the ISS--no matter how impressive it looks.
Private industry is definitely the way to go here--at least to LEO. Let NASA spend my money figuring out how to get people and associated equipment to the Moon, Mars, etc. Let NASA build the vehicles that will take stuff to the Moon, Mars, and build an infrastructure out there in order to jump start private industry's exploitation. Let someone else figure out how to get Dr. Scientist up to the ISS.
You're right in that it would probably be cheaper to generate it here on Earth. However, there is a finite supply on Earth and lithium, as c0lo mentions, is used in other products. Snagging large chunks of it to turn into Helium-3 may create shortages and increase costs. So at some point, it would become cheaper to make Helium-3 elsewhere.
I find cigarettes have a calming effect that allows me to put up with assholes like yourself. If I quit smoking, I'd probably be in jail for killing someone.
While I'm being mostly facetious, I have noticed that some of my friends get very frustrated over things that don't bother me in the slightest. Stuck in traffic? Turn up the radio and have a cigarette. Calms me right down, versus some of my friends who don't smoke and sit and fume and yell at other drivers.
As I understand it, nicotine at particular doses is both a stimulant and a depressant. It's stimulant properties are one reason that smoking is popular where alcohol is served. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had some random drunken chick come over to me in a bar to bum a cigarette. And have you noticed that since many bars have banned smoking (either by choice or by law), you've seen more caffeine-infused liquor drinks?
People still drink alcohol despite the stench, the expense, the liver problems, hangovers, etc. I suppose the reason they drink is that they're addicted, too.
If you went to your local Apple Store/Best Buy or wherever iPads are sold and bought an iPad for the manufacturer's suggested retail price and then said, "The 2398th person in my store will win themselves this free iPad," there's nothing Apple can do. You're 100% correct.
If you contacted Apple directly and said, "Hey, Apple, I'm planning on giving away 32 iPads at a promotional event for my business. Can you cut me some slack on the prices?" Apple will be more than willing to do so--providing that you follow their rules. Don't like their rules? Then go buy them at retail.
Let's just start with getting people back to the Moon, or to Mars, an asteroid, hell anywhere other than our own orbit -- that's so routine that a space launch is about 20 seconds of local news. If you want space funding, you need to excite the general public about space.
While I agree with you, there is a problem with that theory.
From NASA's point-of-view, the way you excite people about space is by doing new and exciting things. So if these launches are so routine that nobody cares, they won't be excited about them. For evidence, take a look at the Shuttle and Apollo missions. Hell, the Shuttles flew hundreds of missions. So many that nobody cared anymore. Apollo suffered similarly--after Apollo 11, nobody cared. We got to the Moon. What was the line from the Apollo 13 movie? "You guys make going to the Moon about as exciting as a tax audit."
Actually, if you look at the Xerox Star Desktop and the original Macintosh Desktop, they don't look much alike. No menu bar, window borders look a lot different, scrollbars look different, etc.
While I'm with you on (a) and (b), keep in mind that Apple isn't the one being sued here.
I'm Joe Developer. I have received a letter from Lodsys. I have two choices--pay money or fight it in court. So the question is, do I need to hire lawyers or is Apple going to do this for me.
If Apple is going to pay their crack legal team to defend me, I certainly appreciate it. But if I have to pay for the lawyers myself and Apple will only "assist" my legal team, then I'm not real pleased about Apple forcing me to use their APIs.
Apple tried to avoid it by using symbols wherever they could. But as someone else pointed out, that gives new problems, for example in Spanish, where "+" means "sum" not "add".
Exactly!
See, the problem you run into is that "Add Alarm" and "Wekker toevoegen" are going to take up different amounts of space. Thus, you may have to redesign your interface for different languages. At least in the Apple realm, this is relatively easy to do (localized nib files). So the buttons may not appear in the same places or there may be other interface issues that have to be solved. But they are solvable.
Conversely, putting in a bunch of pictures makes the developer's life easier by basically saying, "I'm going to come up with a brand new language that you're going to have to learn if you want to use my software." Then he/she sits there and scratches their head and says, "Gee, I can't understand why these stupid people can't use my software!" or "Gosh, why do people in the Netherlands buy my competitor's software instead of mine?"
But, yes, this meant that Apple had to hire people to localize the text. On the other hand, that created a better experience for people using the system. If your goal is to keep expenses down and you don't care about usability, then by all means--use obtuse symbols and expect your users to figure it out. If you want software that people might actually want to buy, spend the time, effort, and money to localize it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean, "He's gone, Leia."
The iPad does have an SD Card Slot--for an extra $29.
I think most people think capitalism is a good thing. The problem with capitalism--which I'm not sure anyone has solved--is what do you when someone wins?
Capitalism is about competition. I make a widget, you make a widget, and we try to convince a group of people to buy our widget over our competitor's widget. It keeps prices down. It spurs innovation--my widget is more reliable than yours, your widget is cheaper to manufacture than mine, etc. But in any competition, there will eventually be a winner. More and more people will buy your widget over mine and you will eventually buy me out or I will go bankrupt or whatever and then you will be the only person selling widgets. At that point, innovation slows and prices can rise because there is no pressure. You're just out to make as much money as possible.
So, "unbridled capitalism," as the GP puts it, isn't a good thing because the eventual winner--whoever they might be--will have a monopoly. The question is--and this isn't an easy question--what do you do with the winner? Do you try to prevent a winner? Do you allow a winner and then break them up and start a new game? Are the efficiencies that you get with having one company performing the task worthwhile enough that you create a regulated monopoly?
Agreed! As long as the USPTO doesn't actually grant the patent, we're good. And the USPTO is known for being a fair arbiter of such things.
Uh...have you checked out the Mac App Store lately? That's the only way to get Apple software on your Mac...
So if the Eiffel Tower ever leaves France, I can take a picture of it? Or if I'm not in France but, say, sitting off the coast with a really really good telephoto lens, I'm good?
Well, I'm sure that we can trust that the people who would block this would have appropriate "country codes" built in so that, as an American, I can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower but a Frenchman cannot.
Nah. The appropriate fanboi opinion is, "Why should I keep track of whether or not it's legal for me to record things in a particular venue? This way, Apple and the venue owner can help me out so that I don't have to risk unnecessary lawsuits and the like. Thanks, Apple!"
Actually, IMHO, Apple does things like this in order to stay on the Music Industry's good side. But Apple will sell out it's customers to the music industry whenever necessary.
On the Internet, no one knows you're a car.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried one? If you haven't, how do you know it's not a lot better?
Don't get me wrong, I've never tried one either. But next time I'm in the mall, I'm definitely planning a trip to the Microsoft Store to check it out. So if it's not very impressive next to my iPhone, I'll at least know why.
The real thing? And you claim that you're no Apple fanboi?
Why would you get a Samsung? Maybe because you think Android is a better OS than iOS? Maybe because the best carrier in your area doesn't have iPhones? Or maybe you just like to think differently.
Actually, I liked Really.
Why the police would be any different, or why a video recording is any different, is a mystery to me.
It's that audio part that's the problem.
Is a video an audio recording with a bunch of pictures or is it a bunch of pictures with an audio track? You're right that if you pulled out your trusty Nikon and started snapping pictures of the cops, you'd be fine. But if you pulled out a tape recorder and started recording everything they said, you'd be in trouble.
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I point out that the iTunes Store is an example of a low margin/high volume business. Yeah, Apple doesn't make a whole lot of profit on each sale, but when you sell a billion items, it starts to add up. If you ask whether that "break even" is on each sale or a sum total of sales, Apple is mum.
Keep in mind another accounting trick: Apple pays developers when they accumulate more than $250 or once a month. So if I put an App in the App Store and I sell $100 worth in one month, I don't see a nickel. If I sell $100 the next month, I don't see a nickel. If I sell $100 the third month, Apple will send me a check for $210. That means Apple got use of my $300 for three months. Remember that whole "Cash and Short Term Investments" thing in their financial statements? That's where my $300 went--Apple held onto it and made interest from it. Do that with tens of thousands of developers and you're talking about some serious cash.
Let's say I write the incredible killer app. I release it and everybody's gotta have it and I make millions. Even then, Apple gets my revenue for the month to play around with.
So it works out pretty well for Apple.
You owe me a new keyboard.
The analogy I would use with the Space Shuttle is that it's like using a Humvee to drive to the grocery store and back.
The humvee is an impressive vehicle. But, for the most part, you don't need the capabilities of the humvee just to get groceries and it's a pretty expensive thing to run just to go get groceries.
Similar thing here. The Space Shuttle is an impressive vehicle. It can do some really amazing things. However, we don't need to do those things. We don't need to retrieve satellites from LEO--with launch costs coming down, it's cheaper to just launch a new one. While the "repair" argument could be made, it's rare that it would be necessary and the satellites need to be designed so that they can be repaired in space. The best example of this is Hubble--without the Space Shuttle, Hubble would have shut down decades ago. But Hubble was designed to be serviced by the Space Shuttle. Most satellites aren't. In regards to science, the ISS is a much better platform for research than the Space Shuttle simply because it can stay up longer. So at the moment, the Shuttle's only value is taking people to the ISS. Frankly, that's a really expensive way to do it. And while we can all say that NASA's budget is a tiny amount of the overall national budget and how NASA deserves to have more money, I'd also like to see NASA not waste money flying the Space Shuttle just to drop a few people off at the ISS--no matter how impressive it looks.
Private industry is definitely the way to go here--at least to LEO. Let NASA spend my money figuring out how to get people and associated equipment to the Moon, Mars, etc. Let NASA build the vehicles that will take stuff to the Moon, Mars, and build an infrastructure out there in order to jump start private industry's exploitation. Let someone else figure out how to get Dr. Scientist up to the ISS.
Yeah! So you went a bought a song and now you get to pay Apple $25 a year just to put it on all the Apple devices that you bought!
It would depend on how much you need.
You're right in that it would probably be cheaper to generate it here on Earth. However, there is a finite supply on Earth and lithium, as c0lo mentions, is used in other products. Snagging large chunks of it to turn into Helium-3 may create shortages and increase costs. So at some point, it would become cheaper to make Helium-3 elsewhere.
I find cigarettes have a calming effect that allows me to put up with assholes like yourself. If I quit smoking, I'd probably be in jail for killing someone.
While I'm being mostly facetious, I have noticed that some of my friends get very frustrated over things that don't bother me in the slightest. Stuck in traffic? Turn up the radio and have a cigarette. Calms me right down, versus some of my friends who don't smoke and sit and fume and yell at other drivers.
As I understand it, nicotine at particular doses is both a stimulant and a depressant. It's stimulant properties are one reason that smoking is popular where alcohol is served. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had some random drunken chick come over to me in a bar to bum a cigarette. And have you noticed that since many bars have banned smoking (either by choice or by law), you've seen more caffeine-infused liquor drinks?
People still drink alcohol despite the stench, the expense, the liver problems, hangovers, etc. I suppose the reason they drink is that they're addicted, too.
Depends on how you purchased them.
If you went to your local Apple Store/Best Buy or wherever iPads are sold and bought an iPad for the manufacturer's suggested retail price and then said, "The 2398th person in my store will win themselves this free iPad," there's nothing Apple can do. You're 100% correct.
If you contacted Apple directly and said, "Hey, Apple, I'm planning on giving away 32 iPads at a promotional event for my business. Can you cut me some slack on the prices?" Apple will be more than willing to do so--providing that you follow their rules. Don't like their rules? Then go buy them at retail.
I don't think this is a big deal.
On the other hand, here is a list of GSM networks in the US. I can't speak for the quality of them, but here it is nonetheless.
Let's just start with getting people back to the Moon, or to Mars, an asteroid, hell anywhere other than our own orbit -- that's so routine that a space launch is about 20 seconds of local news. If you want space funding, you need to excite the general public about space.
While I agree with you, there is a problem with that theory.
From NASA's point-of-view, the way you excite people about space is by doing new and exciting things. So if these launches are so routine that nobody cares, they won't be excited about them. For evidence, take a look at the Shuttle and Apollo missions. Hell, the Shuttles flew hundreds of missions. So many that nobody cared anymore. Apollo suffered similarly--after Apollo 11, nobody cared. We got to the Moon. What was the line from the Apollo 13 movie? "You guys make going to the Moon about as exciting as a tax audit."
Actually, if you look at the Xerox Star Desktop and the original Macintosh Desktop, they don't look much alike. No menu bar, window borders look a lot different, scrollbars look different, etc.
Shouldn't that be App Makers®, just to differentiate them from Android App Developers?
While I'm with you on (a) and (b), keep in mind that Apple isn't the one being sued here.
I'm Joe Developer. I have received a letter from Lodsys. I have two choices--pay money or fight it in court. So the question is, do I need to hire lawyers or is Apple going to do this for me.
If Apple is going to pay their crack legal team to defend me, I certainly appreciate it. But if I have to pay for the lawyers myself and Apple will only "assist" my legal team, then I'm not real pleased about Apple forcing me to use their APIs.
Apple tried to avoid it by using symbols wherever they could. But as someone else pointed out, that gives new problems, for example in Spanish, where "+" means "sum" not "add".
Exactly!
See, the problem you run into is that "Add Alarm" and "Wekker toevoegen" are going to take up different amounts of space. Thus, you may have to redesign your interface for different languages. At least in the Apple realm, this is relatively easy to do (localized nib files). So the buttons may not appear in the same places or there may be other interface issues that have to be solved. But they are solvable.
Conversely, putting in a bunch of pictures makes the developer's life easier by basically saying, "I'm going to come up with a brand new language that you're going to have to learn if you want to use my software." Then he/she sits there and scratches their head and says, "Gee, I can't understand why these stupid people can't use my software!" or "Gosh, why do people in the Netherlands buy my competitor's software instead of mine?"
Take a look at the Control Panel in this picture of the original Macintosh desktop. Notice how there's no text. Notice how you have almost no idea what half the controls do. Now look at the same set of controls for System 6.0.8. Which one do you think is easier to understand?
But, yes, this meant that Apple had to hire people to localize the text. On the other hand, that created a better experience for people using the system. If your goal is to keep expenses down and you don't care about usability, then by all means--use obtuse symbols and expect your users to figure it out. If you want software that people might actually want to buy, spend the time, effort, and money to localize it.