There is nothing to understand in a rabit fanboy of anything. Unless you want irrational reasons.
If you want actual reason, the GP is spot on. The main difference between Apple and the rest of the world is that they sell a complete package.
The package that Apple sell is polished at most levels. That is their selling point - they took care of designing everything so that it all works together - and you feel it when using their product.
The price is not bad especially after a refresh. But you get a very limited set of options, that means, overall, it will be more expensive: for example you cannot buy the 17in laptop with a crappy graphic card or a slower CPU to save a buck. Generally, however, Apple does not make unusable machine. If you buy the cheapest one, it will still give good user experience. That means the cheapest Mac is generally way more expensive than PC equivalent. But it is a "safe" buy.
Apple makes crazy decision about tech supported (get rid of floppy,...) and software aswell (walled garden). Since there is only a single Mac provider, people get pissed about that. But well, nobody force you to buy - and you know it in advance - it is not hidden in the fine lines !
Apple stuff are available soon after they are announced. You can actually buy the stuff ! Similarly, they do not promise stuff. People that bought the first iPhone knew they wouldnt get the MMS, Copy-Paste,... You get what's on the box - no surprises or false hopes.
Apple is fashion. Something the geek does not care of, but the rest of the world does.
Remember, the vast majority of people do not buy a Mac. No need to scratch your head for a reason to buy one. No need to feel superior if you don't buy one either - you are just following the majority.
You can get pissed at people that buy a Mac and try to convince you it is the best thing since sliced bread with ads level arguments - they are annoying - but well they are the same guys that, long ago, were trying to convince you that Win95 was the best thing since sliced bread. Get over it.
OMG, a billionaire gives 70.000 $ to an association - that is indeed a very strong backing. With all that money they will be able to lobby for a good week at least.
Photoshop is just one element of a tool chain that start at some artist in a studio to some publishing plant somewhere - with many steps and middle-men between. That is a lot of stuff to migrate - not just replacing the workstation of some random web developer in a corner of the basement. Micro-Dobe will lose their customer while they migrate/adapt to something else.
In the long term, this is most certainly a loss for Mac. However, that does not automatically mean a big victory for MS. Some customers will learn to live without Adobe. I have, for example, seen a little printing shop that were using Photoshop only just for changing color profiles - I'm sure they would find some way to deal with the loss. Other businesses will have the opportunity to look for non-Adobe workflow - not the kind of activity you want your client to engage into.
Your English is not bad, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying. We had the same opinion anyway, so there is no need to discuss about it further.
China has a requirement that whenever the state purchases technology from a foreign interest, all "IP" for enabling technologies and know-how must be transferred as well.
That's sounds like good use for public money. Does anyone know if our governments (EU/US) have similar requirement ?
It seems to me that China, as corrupt and authoritarian as it may be, is taking quite a lot of step to improve China and not just selling its population to the lowest bidder. We have had several similar-ish requirements when we tried to sell software in China. By contrast, we were selling in the Middle East aswell, and there were no similar constraints.
Ah of course, if you just pick a few words in the middle of a sentence you can get any meaning out of it... I can have a bit of fun too:
I think we need regulation but we need regulation that is actually have any proof that it's doing what it's suppose for
Everybody just assumes that we need copyright law and patent protection,
My proof is history.
Why do you think that we need copyright law and patent protection ? What is this historical proof you are talking about ? I personally think we should get rid of it. See, I can even quote myself to save some typing:
Well, maybe we should just say - screw the protection for little inventor and artist and get rid of patents and copyright.
I'm sure you will tell me that this is not a good solution because the little independent artists that sell their music will be copied to death by big Labels. And you will tell me that big companies that have gazillon dollars will just find a workaround. But to that I will simply respond ( I quote myself again )
but I ended thinking that any system we can think off is bad in the long term, so it is better to change it to *anything* from time to time just to keep the market off balance.
Just to be clear, do you criticize me for not believing that "the free market will solve it all" (first line) or you criticize me for being a "free market" zealot (second line) ?
Because suppressing patent and copyright is indeed the plain application of "the free market will solve it all" mantra: relying on the market to sort it out rather than using artificial government regulation. And you give here some example of how the world was better with a free market.
In any case, I'm too old to believe in simple solution like "kill all the regulations, save the world". I think patents and copyrights just cost us more than they benefit us (you demonstrated that bit). But I'm being a bit pessimistic and I believe that even without those regulation, the big corps that have gazillion dollar today will manage to find a way to screw us. You may try to humour me - what proof do you have that, for example, the RIAA associates will not find a way to make our life miserable again in the long term, if we suppressed the copyrights today ?
No you don't. You just repeat the mantra like a priest. It's the same mantra as "the free market will solve it all" and "privatization is good for every good and service".
Well - they make better product and innovate. Just in the meta-universe that is the immensely intricate web of international law and regulation.
That would be interesting if "us" were direct beneficiary of this parallel market. But all I can think off, is that all this is a "broken window fallacy" type scenario with lawyer as "glaziers".
Well, maybe we should just say - screw the protection for little inventor and artist and get rid of patents and copyright. That is not good solution, and probably bad in the long term, but I ended thinking that any system we can think off is bad in the long term, so it is better to change it to *anything* from time to time just to keep the market off balance.
From an end-user point of view, the iPhone (like Android) is a well designed smartphone with a convenient app store.
There is no shortage of application of any genre on the store, no real difference with Android.
The real authoritarian part of the iPhone and all other Android phone, is the shitty contract you need to take with the operator. If you are ok with that, then there is the fact that the phone are made in China - which people seems happy enough considering that everything is made in China.
That's it. The rest is software and optional - people do not care if the firmware of their microwave is opensource or not - and they do not care where the app in the store are coming from, as long as they are there.
And that's where the problem is - You can buy Monkey Island today on iOS.
The most powerful weapon is here in the hand of the developer - the day they stop developing for iPhone (and really, you need to learn a new language so you don't become an iOS dev by accident), people will stop buying it aswell.
Major events like releasing a new product, quarter results,... are all factored in the stock price before the event itself occurs.
The days after the event, there is an adjustment positive or negative if the event was better/not as good as expected. There are other examples: Apple stock falling after their most profitable quarter in history. Bank stock increasing after announcing worse losses on record.
Without starting a technical discussion, there are thousands of people thinking the same as you do before buying a share. Everything you can think of about a company, thousands of people think about the same stuff. Some will think like you, some will think the opposite. But everybody knows what you know. There are unfortunately stuff that you do not know - but everybody else does. All of that is summarized in one single number: the market price.
Buying short or buying long is the result of guessing what will be the unknown (insider type unknown). There are loads of theories how to guess the unknown but for Joe investor that invest a bit in his free time, the best is faith in the company and luck.
They have done those 3 mistakes and see where they are. They took a beating and climbed back on top.
Maybe things will turn out differently (the mobile market is *very* different and very much more mainstream than the PC market was at the time, and unlike before, people are asking for a walled garden), or maybe not.
Apple "mistakes" in the meanwhile has pressured HTC, Dell, Samsung,... to come up with nice smartphone and tablets, tons better than the crap they were selling with Windows Mobile previously. They have created a new market for mobile apps - something that makes my, as an iPhone user, but also countless other Android user's life better.
So, well, maybe that will kill them, that's the way of the capitalism - but for now, we enjoy a very nice competitive market.
"Humans are a flexible, adaptable, learning machine."
They also have a very limited capacity, all considered. Without calculator and search engine and whatnot, it is very likely that only a small fraction of the population would be able to acquire all the required skills needed to live in a modern society. Whole field of modern science like climatology, physics,... would probably out of reach of human being.
That is sad in a way. Without modern tools, I would probably not be able to live in the same condition as my great-grand parents - soon that will even be the exclusive knowledge of historian to figure out how they did it. But as you said, human evolves and that is not a bad thing/
I read it as "Your internet is so filled with image, graphical wizbang, etc that we need to accelerate it with the graphic card as if it was a game." Hell, nobody seem to complain when introduce a video tag in HTML or when they talk about 3D api in javascript... Makes it difficult to complain when the resulting browsers have become a bit more complex than Lynx.
"ANY restaurant website", "All Flash games, site navigation, business apps, etc.", "universally... available on all platforms flash currently is"
Same argumentation than people stuck with IE.
"any", "all", "universally" those are impossible requirements that will not be not even be fulfilled by future version of flash. Funny from someone that uses Firefox that, even today, is still far from working with any IE site, does not have all the internal webapp ported to it and is far from universally available in enterprise.
Yes, I guess they bought defective unit or fake. Working one can be kept it in the box in the basement. Hint: if it requires a network or power connection, that is a fake, don't fall for it you are hurting US economy.
.Net is IE and Java is Netscape. At some point, IE was better than Netscape and kept improving until Netscape died. Only after that it was abandoned.
Java like Netscape run on multi-platform, IE the MS-only solution that MS put all its money on improving until it beats the competition.
Microsoft cannot really uses its monopole to kill java, I hope Oracle does not do it for them - or at least does it quick so we can all work on an alternative.
"there are patches (PDF for sure), already in 4.1"... "But 4.1 is not yet public"
Well that's the definition of unpatched flaw. Unpatched in this context does not mean that nobody has a fix, it means that there is no patch available to the general public of the iPhone.
Moreover, 4.1 is still in beta. If it happens that the patch fails the beta, by for example causing side-effects with some user, Apple may not have the choice but to put it out of 4.1, or delay 4.1.
Because he released his work under a scheme offered by the government. His choice, not yours - not happy with the terms, don't buy it - but do not infringe his rights.
Can we stop arguing and just go calling it stealing. Same lost battle than Hacker is not a Cracker.
In any case, here you deprive somebody of the money he should have received, so it sort of makes sense. (well, unlike what people says, who really would pay once they have seen a movie ? Probably the same oldtime making the difference between stealing and copyright violation. The younger, they have trouble even accepting the fact that producing music, movies or GPL code has any value at all, if it is available for free as a torrent.)
That's the point - they have a book that already tell them the truth ( that's called faith ). So if the science theory does not match the truth, the science must be wrong (fallacy) unless:
- God tell them science is ok in their heart.
- Some person with better connection with God and tremendous credibility tell them it's ok.
- Their faith evolve (no pun intended), as happen normally for those that will meet people with other faith (Christian Scientist for example), experience life more, try to do actual science to prove creationism,...
Slashdot Mirror
"just trying to understand the rabid fanbois"
There is nothing to understand in a rabit fanboy of anything. Unless you want irrational reasons.
If you want actual reason, the GP is spot on. The main difference between Apple and the rest of the world is that they sell a complete package.
Remember, the vast majority of people do not buy a Mac. No need to scratch your head for a reason to buy one. No need to feel superior if you don't buy one either - you are just following the majority.
You can get pissed at people that buy a Mac and try to convince you it is the best thing since sliced bread with ads level arguments - they are annoying - but well they are the same guys that, long ago, were trying to convince you that Win95 was the best thing since sliced bread. Get over it.
OMG, a billionaire gives 70.000 $ to an association - that is indeed a very strong backing. With all that money they will be able to lobby for a good week at least.
In the long term, this is most certainly a loss for Mac. However, that does not automatically mean a big victory for MS. Some customers will learn to live without Adobe. I have, for example, seen a little printing shop that were using Photoshop only just for changing color profiles - I'm sure they would find some way to deal with the loss. Other businesses will have the opportunity to look for non-Adobe workflow - not the kind of activity you want your client to engage into.
Your English is not bad, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying. We had the same opinion anyway, so there is no need to discuss about it further.
China has a requirement that whenever the state purchases technology from a foreign interest, all "IP" for enabling technologies and know-how must be transferred as well.
That's sounds like good use for public money. Does anyone know if our governments (EU/US) have similar requirement ?
It seems to me that China, as corrupt and authoritarian as it may be, is taking quite a lot of step to improve China and not just selling its population to the lowest bidder. We have had several similar-ish requirements when we tried to sell software in China. By contrast, we were selling in the Middle East aswell, and there were no similar constraints.
I think we need regulation but we need regulation that is actually have any proof that it's doing what it's suppose for
Everybody just assumes that we need copyright law and patent protection,
My proof is history.
Why do you think that we need copyright law and patent protection ? What is this historical proof you are talking about ?
I personally think we should get rid of it. See, I can even quote myself to save some typing:
Well, maybe we should just say - screw the protection for little inventor and artist and get rid of patents and copyright.
I'm sure you will tell me that this is not a good solution because the little independent artists that sell their music will be copied to death by big Labels. And you will tell me that big companies that have gazillon dollars will just find a workaround. But to that I will simply respond ( I quote myself again )
but I ended thinking that any system we can think off is bad in the long term, so it is better to change it to *anything* from time to time just to keep the market off balance.
Cheers
Because suppressing patent and copyright is indeed the plain application of "the free market will solve it all" mantra: relying on the market to sort it out rather than using artificial government regulation. And you give here some example of how the world was better with a free market.
In any case, I'm too old to believe in simple solution like "kill all the regulations, save the world". I think patents and copyrights just cost us more than they benefit us (you demonstrated that bit). But I'm being a bit pessimistic and I believe that even without those regulation, the big corps that have gazillion dollar today will manage to find a way to screw us. You may try to humour me - what proof do you have that, for example, the RIAA associates will not find a way to make our life miserable again in the long term, if we suppressed the copyrights today ?
No you don't. You just repeat the mantra like a priest. It's the same mantra as "the free market will solve it all" and "privatization is good for every good and service".
That would be interesting if "us" were direct beneficiary of this parallel market. But all I can think off, is that all this is a "broken window fallacy" type scenario with lawyer as "glaziers".
Well, maybe we should just say - screw the protection for little inventor and artist and get rid of patents and copyright. That is not good solution, and probably bad in the long term, but I ended thinking that any system we can think off is bad in the long term, so it is better to change it to *anything* from time to time just to keep the market off balance.
The real authoritarian part of the iPhone and all other Android phone, is the shitty contract you need to take with the operator. If you are ok with that, then there is the fact that the phone are made in China - which people seems happy enough considering that everything is made in China.
That's it. The rest is software and optional - people do not care if the firmware of their microwave is opensource or not - and they do not care where the app in the store are coming from, as long as they are there.
And that's where the problem is - You can buy Monkey Island today on iOS. The most powerful weapon is here in the hand of the developer - the day they stop developing for iPhone (and really, you need to learn a new language so you don't become an iOS dev by accident), people will stop buying it aswell.
The days after the event, there is an adjustment positive or negative if the event was better/not as good as expected. There are other examples: Apple stock falling after their most profitable quarter in history. Bank stock increasing after announcing worse losses on record.
Without starting a technical discussion, there are thousands of people thinking the same as you do before buying a share. Everything you can think of about a company, thousands of people think about the same stuff. Some will think like you, some will think the opposite. But everybody knows what you know. There are unfortunately stuff that you do not know - but everybody else does. All of that is summarized in one single number: the market price.
Buying short or buying long is the result of guessing what will be the unknown (insider type unknown). There are loads of theories how to guess the unknown but for Joe investor that invest a bit in his free time, the best is faith in the company and luck.
Yeah, he could have had better taste when stealing.
With the CO2, now, we seem to try a bit too hard to keep the horses.
Apple "mistakes" in the meanwhile has pressured HTC, Dell, Samsung, ... to come up with nice smartphone and tablets, tons better than the crap they were selling with Windows Mobile previously. They have created a new market for mobile apps - something that makes my, as an iPhone user, but also countless other Android user's life better.
So, well, maybe that will kill them, that's the way of the capitalism - but for now, we enjoy a very nice competitive market.
They also have a very limited capacity, all considered. Without calculator and search engine and whatnot, it is very likely that only a small fraction of the population would be able to acquire all the required skills needed to live in a modern society. Whole field of modern science like climatology, physics, ... would probably out of reach of human being.
That is sad in a way. Without modern tools, I would probably not be able to live in the same condition as my great-grand parents - soon that will even be the exclusive knowledge of historian to figure out how they did it. But as you said, human evolves and that is not a bad thing/
I read it as "Your internet is so filled with image, graphical wizbang, etc that we need to accelerate it with the graphic card as if it was a game." Hell, nobody seem to complain when introduce a video tag in HTML or when they talk about 3D api in javascript ... Makes it difficult to complain when the resulting browsers have become a bit more complex than Lynx.
On a side note:
have never used IE
"I personally haven't come across any websites that only work in IE..."
Nicely done !
Same argumentation than people stuck with IE.
"any", "all", "universally" those are impossible requirements that will not be not even be fulfilled by future version of flash.
Funny from someone that uses Firefox that, even today, is still far from working with any IE site, does not have all the internal webapp ported to it and is far from universally available in enterprise.
By the same standard, I guess you must still be using IE.
Yes, I guess they bought defective unit or fake. Working one can be kept it in the box in the basement. Hint: if it requires a network or power connection, that is a fake, don't fall for it you are hurting US economy.
Java like Netscape run on multi-platform, IE the MS-only solution that MS put all its money on improving until it beats the competition.
Microsoft cannot really uses its monopole to kill java, I hope Oracle does not do it for them - or at least does it quick so we can all work on an alternative.
Well that's the definition of unpatched flaw. Unpatched in this context does not mean that nobody has a fix, it means that there is no patch available to the general public of the iPhone.
Moreover, 4.1 is still in beta. If it happens that the patch fails the beta, by for example causing side-effects with some user, Apple may not have the choice but to put it out of 4.1, or delay 4.1.
Because he released his work under a scheme offered by the government. His choice, not yours - not happy with the terms, don't buy it - but do not infringe his rights.
In any case, here you deprive somebody of the money he should have received, so it sort of makes sense. (well, unlike what people says, who really would pay once they have seen a movie ? Probably the same oldtime making the difference between stealing and copyright violation. The younger, they have trouble even accepting the fact that producing music, movies or GPL code has any value at all, if it is available for free as a torrent.)
Like in the UK, when they used anti-terrorism law to fine people that were putting their rubbish in the wrong bin or people with noisy children..
(OK not the best source in the world but worrying regardless)
- God tell them science is ok in their heart. ...
- Some person with better connection with God and tremendous credibility tell them it's ok.
- Their faith evolve (no pun intended), as happen normally for those that will meet people with other faith (Christian Scientist for example), experience life more, try to do actual science to prove creationism,