Railroads became monopolies through government intervention (local, state and federal).
What? Do yourself a favor and read some more history. Most railroads were monopolies because they were natural monopolies. Some railroads were granted legal protection of monopoly status, but that is the exception, not the rule.
the telegraph monopolies also developed through government intervention.
That's a ridiculous claim to assert. Can you support that with any kind of evidence? Because everyone else who has studied the rise of Western Union Telegraph Company can tell you that their monopoly did not arise from government intervention.
I will agree that once one company has gained dominant position in any of the industries that are considered "natural monopolies" through government intervention, it is very hard (approaching impossible in some cases) for competitors to arise even if the government gets out of the way.
FYI, that's not what I claimed, so you are "agreeing" with something different than what I said. If I understand correctly, you are claiming that natural monopoly effects will prevent competitors to entering a market when that market is deregulated... but you are saying that the same factors have no effect in a nascent market?
The only thing worse than excessively strong regulation is gradual deregulation where the barriers to entering the market are left in place, but the companies already in the industry are allowed to operate with a free hand.
Given that there are significant market-created barriers to entry (such as infrastructure costs, the cost of acquiring rights-of-way, etc), a completely unregulated market would yield these results anyway.
If you want a truly competitive market, you need to remove naturally-occurring barriers to entry (by building out a public infrastructure, for example). Or, if that is not desirable, you try to find the best possible substitute for a free-as-in-economically-free market, which may (if properly regulated) be a regulated monopoly provider.
In truth, the deregulation we've had does exactly what you say... but that is because the most significant barriers to entry are not regulatory in nature.
How do we know that? No one has ever tried letting either spring up according to whoever wanted to enter the market. In both areas the government stepped in and regulated into existence monopolies almost as soon as the industry appeared. Certainly the theory of natural monopoly sounds good, but we have no evidence that it is actually true.
False.
Railroads are a perfect example. Natural monopolies led to abusive practices (like gouging) by monopoly holders.
Another example is wire services, the direct predecessor to telecom industry.
If we can't find an example of this happening in the modern telecom industry, it is because we did our job in preventing it from happening.
But go ahead, keep those free-market-conquers-all blinders on, if you so choose.
Nope, your maximum liability is whatever the bank will let you overdraw, plus fees.
Well, that's the point of having an account with no overdraft protection. They will not let you overdraw. So while the fees hit your account for each returned item, pushing you into the red, it doesn't reduce your cash available in that account by more than the $50 you had in it.
So you let the account ride with a negative balance until the fraud investigation is settled (it would be a good idea to switch to live checks at your employer, at that point).
The point is that while you can be temporarily be charged fees by the bank, the perpetrator has not been able to defraud you of more than $50.
They're not tagged "tagged" when they're tagged. They're not tagged "english" when they're english. What's the point of tagging an article with "story"? It doesn't aid in any search. It doesn't provide any additional information. It's pointless, so why have it?
Look at the firehose and you'll see why the "story" tag makes sense. It's to differentiate the submissions that have graduated.
I am technically correct, and that is the best type of correct.
No, that is the worst kind of correct. It does not allow one to make up different interpretations to confirm our pre-existing beliefs. The best kind of correct is when the correctness leads to the maximum of amount of feel-good among believers.
*This post is ambiguously serious. This is the best kind of serious.
While you raise a lot of really good points in your post...
While I'm on a roll, bonus points if banks implement separate deposit and withdrawal account numbers so that I don't have to give potentially untrustworthy employees in the HR division my real account number for direct deposit.
This already exists and is cheap for the individual. Just open an additional savings account with $50 under your main account, and then set up recurring transfers to move the entirety of your paycheck to your regular savings or checking account. Make sure you do not have overdraft protection on this account. Then your maximum liability is $50.
Excuse me, but I don't value your personal value system of believing in a free market.
That's not a personal value system. It's how things work. You are free to believe the sun orbits around the earth too, if you choose. You would just happen to be wrong in that case as well.
tl;dr: shouting "you're wrong and I am right" does not make you right.
If it was tl;dr -- then you have no basis claiming that my post was shouting "you're wrong and I'm right". Because most assuredly, that is not the case.
Successful business model need not imply customers are the best off.
(actually, the worse off they are (while maintaining sales), the higher the profit can become).
What does that have to do with the price of tea in London? As long as there is competition, someone can offer a combination of better services and lower costs that are better for the customer.
But that's just an objection to your personal value system.
It's quite apparent that you do not understand what a value system is, since you keep misapplying the term. The economic system we operate under exists, and operates according to predictable rules on the micro level (which is what we're discussing). This is not a value system. It's just the way things are.
The value system I refer to is the sum of the weight each person assigns to individual criteria when making economic decisions.
Why do people seem to need to justify their opinion? People have different opinions, and it doesn't mean you, or they, are wrong... If you get this, stop trying to justify your position-just accept that people can disagree...
I can respect others' opinions... I clearly stated that in my post... the issue is that his opinion passes a value judgment on my opinion that I believe to be invalid. He calls my position foolish, because he does not understand it. I do not wish him to think I am a fool; therefore I need to explain my position to him.
So you actually LIKE to pay for the ability to view ads?
That is not what I wrote, nor how I feel.
Do yourself a favor and throw out your "jump to conclusions" mat.
Menawhile my full explanation of how I feel about it is provided. If you don't want to read it, don't bother writing a response that asks a question already answered.
Of all the ways they could screw up, this has to rank near the top for maximum carnage on people's real life.
That's a bit heavy-handed. It's just money, inconvenience, and credit score that will be harmed. No real damage to life and limb.
This is Warhammer, after all -- they could have unleashed a few Dwarven Berserkers on their customers to "encourage" multiple subscriptions or something.
You can dispute the charge with a debit transaction also... the process takes up to two months, but can be expedited to less than a week if the merchant cooperates right away.
Meanwhile, the cash is held in suspense until the dispute is resolved, meaning you'll still be left with no cash and a rash of bank charges if the sum held in suspense prevented you from having sufficient funds for clearing items.
No thanks.
Debit cards are bad, bad juju if you give someone else the authority to initiate charges against them.
4) are the damages enough to realistically sue them and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees ?
No.
Aw, come on. This is a perfect example of why we have class-action lawsuits. It's not worth it for any single member of the class to pursue it in the courtroom, but banded together with sufficient legal representation, they could put the hurt on EA.
This would be perfect, I can see it now:
Court findings: For the plaintiffs, the sum of $1,000,000 to be split among the class and awarded in vouchers for three months of free play on Warhammer Online, plus lawyers' fees of $10,000,000 to be awarded in cash to the legal representation team.
That's completely unacceptable when you are already paying. That's why personal preferences towards advertising are completely irrelevant.
You are assigning a moral absolutism to your personal feelings about it. Somehow your feelings about what is acceptable to you trump everyone else's opinion of what is acceptable? And that anyone who acts in conflict with your own personal opinion is a fool?
This is why I have an issue with not only your position, but also the assumption from which you argue it. Your personal value system does not apply to everyone else.
Sure, you never abridge free will by preventing people from acting... but you pass a value judgment on them for doing so. It's not surprising that people might take offense to it.
Sorry to double-post. HTML closing tag fixed. (I did say I was tired)
So because many people will go along with something and will not oppose it on principle, and therefore precedent for it exists, that automatically means it's not exploitative and is not an instance of double-dipping?
You feel exploited by a company having more than one revenue stream. Fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is extrapolating your feelings to everyone else. This principle of yours is yours... not mine. Do not assume it applies to everyone else who goes along with something. Maybe they go along with it because it does not violate any principle of theirs -- in my case, if I feel I'm getting fair value out of the deal, I don't feel exploited.
You seem to so badly need to make this a matter of taste or preference. No. I oppose this not because I find it distasteful, or like something better. I'm sorry you automatically assume everything is that shallow. I oppose it because I believe it's wrong.
And I do not believe it is wrong. And yet you feel that it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for your (misguided, IMO) principles. It is a matter of taste and preference, insofar as taste and preference include our values of what is right and wrong in an economic transaction. Because consumer-level economic transactions are all about taste and preference.
What have I limited? Back this up, please. I have not been calling for the government to use force to stop them. I have not in any way tried to prevent anyone from doing what they like. What I have done is explain that I won't be going along with this, and that I did not arrive at that decision by flipping a coin. It's the case for several good reasons.
You have not directly limited anything. But what you believe to be the correct solution (black/white -- only one revenue source for content/app providers) would limit my options as a consumer of technology. Basically, you have an objection to a problem that I don't believe exists, and I'll explain why below.
Your need to trivialize this by making it a matter of taste or preference, ignoring my principled objection, and acting like I am somehow limiting anyone by speaking my mind weakens your argument more than I likely could.
Please, do not put thoughts in my mind or words in my mouth. I stated my positions in response to yours, no need to start assuming things about me that were not written, said, or thought by me. You speaking your mind, I have no objection to -- what I do have objection to is the results of how you think content/app revenue should work. This is not about you... it is about your specific position on this issue, which necessarily involves your value system and your opinions, which I needed to address if I'm going to explain why I disagree with you. Please do not take it as a personal attack, it is no such thing.
Let me sum up my point very clearly so we don't get bogged down in more unfounded claims (my "need", etc).
The decision to enter an economic transaction is simple -- is what I get out of the deal worth the same or more than what I put into it? How we value what we put into it and what we get out of it may vary. For example, you place a high value on things that you feel are exploitative, and you have a different set of behaviors that you consider exploitative than I do. There is not anything wrong with that.
Elaborating of the exploitation issue -- this is the thing that I do think is misguided about your position: that a company that has more than one revenue stream is somehow exploitative because of "double-dipping", which makes their business model morally incorrect. You still have the choice of accepting or refusing their terms for the good or service provided. As long as you have that choice, and have the information needed to make that choice, the
So because many people will go along with something and will not oppose it on principle, and therefore precedent for it exists, that automatically means it's not exploitative and is not an instance of double-dipping?
You feel exploited by a company having more than one revenue stream. Fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is extrapolating your feelings to everyone else. This principle of yours is yours... not mine. Do not assume it applies to everyone else who goes along with something. Maybe they go along with it because it does not violate any principle of theirs -- in my case, if I feel I'm getting fair value out of the deal, I don't feel exploited.
You seem to so badly need to make this a matter of taste or preference. No. I oppose this not because I find it distasteful, or like something better. I'm sorry you automatically assume everything is that shallow. I oppose it because I believe it's wrong.
And I do not believe it is wrong. And yet you feel that it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for your (misguided, IMO) principles. It is a matter of taste and preference, insofar as taste and preference include our values of what is right and wrong in an economic transaction. Because consumer-level economic transactions are all about taste and preference.
What have I limited? Back this up, please. I have not been calling for the government to use force to stop them. I have not in any way tried to prevent anyone from doing what they like. What I have done is explain that I won't be going along with this, and that I did not arrive at that decision by flipping a coin. It's the case for several good reasons.
You have not limited anything. But what you believe to be the correct solution (black/white -- only one revenue source for content/app providers) would limit my options as a consumer of technology. Basically, you have an objection to a problem that I don't believe exists, and I'll explain why below.
Your need to trivialize this by making it a matter of taste or preference, ignoring my principled objection, and acting like I am somehow limiting anyone by speaking my mind weakens your argument more than I likely could.Please, do not put thoughts in my mind or words in my mouth. I stated my positions in response to yours, no need to start assuming things about me that were not written, said, or thought by me. You speaking your mind, I have no objection to -- what I do have objection to is the results of how you think content/app revenue should work. This is not about you... it is about your specific position on this issue, which necessarily involves your value system and your opinions, which I needed to address if I'm going to explain why I disagree with you. Please do not take it as a personal attack, it is no such thing.
Let me sum up my point very clearly so we don't get bogged down in more unfounded claims (my "need", etc).
The decision to enter an economic transaction is simple -- is what I get out of the deal worth the same or more than what I put into it? How we value what we put into it and what we get out of it may vary. For example, you place a high value on things that you feel are exploitative, and you have a different set of behaviors that you consider exploitative than I do. There is not anything wrong with that.
Elaborating of the exploitation issue -- this is the thing that I do think is misguided about your position: that a company that has more than one revenue stream is somehow exploitative because of "double-dipping", which makes their business model morally incorrect. You still have the choice of accepting or refusing their terms for the good or service provided. As long as you have that choice, and have the information needed to make that choice, they have done nothing wrong or exploitative. There is no reason they should limit their offerings to [pay + ad-free] or [f
But I really have to comment on one of the items from your announcement post, regarding the aims of the project:
Also be Windows admin friendly. Even if it's open source, you shouldn't have to be a developer to put Open Source applications on Windows.
Is this some kind of back-handed comment based on the general view at Microsoft about Open-source software, or the general view that MS would like to push out to userland? That people should use MS OSS because you need to be a developer to use it on other platforms?
I wonder if you're aware that you're making excuses. The real objection is not about whether you like to see ads or don't like to see ads. No. The objection is that the moment you see a single ad you did not wish to see, you have lost control over the device. That's completely unacceptable when you are already paying. That's why personal preferences towards advertising are completely irrelevant.
False. That's your objection, not mine. My objection would have nothing to do with control. It has to do with functionality. If the appliance does what I want from it, I have no problem. There are no excuses involved, since there is nothing to excuse.
That makes it a fair exchange. However, when you are paying for a phone, phone service, and the application, and still see ads, this is no longer justifiable. It's a form of double-dipping. Thus, it's an adversarial way of relating to your customers because it amounts to taking advantage of them.
And yet millions of people pay for cable television, or for magazines, which still have ads in them. I fail to see the problem. When people have the choice of services or appliances to use, then the problem solves itself. Content servers find a way to operate profitably with some kind of split revenue from customer billing and from ad revenues. Why shouldn't ad serving subsidize subscription cost?
It has nothing to do with whether anyone likes ads. It has to do with the fact that a company is making money from ad revenue without earning that money by providing something of value in return.
I don't understand. You can freely choose not to accept the services of that company, and not have to see any ads from them. Bully for you -- stand by your principles and don't do business with that company. Meanwhile, the fact that the company has two separate revenue streams doesn't bother me -- our CHOICE is to evaluate whether the service provided is worth the cost, where the cost includes the inconvenience or annoyance of ads, and the cash we lay out to the company.
Do you ever wonder why there are so many companies that take advantage, exploit, and find ways to screw people over? It's because we reward them with our business.
And that's our individual choice to make. You place a high value on maintaining "control" of your devices, or on not needing to see ads. I don't. So when presented with the same choice, you and I may choose differently. The market sorts out what business model is successful, not your personal value system.
It's foolish to reward this behavior because it's parasitic in nature.
That's silly. All profit-seeking enterprise is parasitic in nature if you look at it that way.
The only time this would be acceptable would be for free apps that would otherwise cost money. Please read this quote from the summary and tell me whether you believe Apple is going to restrict these ad functions to free apps only
No need to re-read, since I disagree with your premise. Why should we not have a choice between apps that are free and ad-laden, expensive and ad-free, or some other combination? Why does it have to be black-and-white? Why can't I choose an app that gives me what I believe to be the best service, but costs me some cash and also serves ads? Why not let the market decide which model (or even likely multiple models) is out there for me to choose from?
And for that matter, so what if this were to go to the ridiculous extreme and Apple requires all apps to serve ads, or they won't get approved? So what? Then you can simply not use an Apple appliance. Nothing is forcing you to do business with them.
Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. Because of a set of values YOU hold, that are far from universal, you want to limit the choices available to me as a consumer, and to developers also?
Yeah, while the premise is the same, implementations are not. The device being tested in the US is not the same as the delivery mechanism Woods uses, hence no invalidation for prior art.
Besides, what Woods should really be recognized for is not the spray-on delivery, but instead the advances in culturing techniques. This was the real breakthrough, IMO.
Of note, Woods got a lot of criticism for using her methods without it going through clinical trials. They're still not out of clinical trials, AFAIK...
Slashdot Mirror
What? Do yourself a favor and read some more history. Most railroads were monopolies because they were natural monopolies. Some railroads were granted legal protection of monopoly status, but that is the exception, not the rule.
That's a ridiculous claim to assert. Can you support that with any kind of evidence? Because everyone else who has studied the rise of Western Union Telegraph Company can tell you that their monopoly did not arise from government intervention.
FYI, that's not what I claimed, so you are "agreeing" with something different than what I said. If I understand correctly, you are claiming that natural monopoly effects will prevent competitors to entering a market when that market is deregulated... but you are saying that the same factors have no effect in a nascent market?
Given that there are significant market-created barriers to entry (such as infrastructure costs, the cost of acquiring rights-of-way, etc), a completely unregulated market would yield these results anyway.
If you want a truly competitive market, you need to remove naturally-occurring barriers to entry (by building out a public infrastructure, for example). Or, if that is not desirable, you try to find the best possible substitute for a free-as-in-economically-free market, which may (if properly regulated) be a regulated monopoly provider.
In truth, the deregulation we've had does exactly what you say... but that is because the most significant barriers to entry are not regulatory in nature.
False.
Railroads are a perfect example. Natural monopolies led to abusive practices (like gouging) by monopoly holders.
Another example is wire services, the direct predecessor to telecom industry.
If we can't find an example of this happening in the modern telecom industry, it is because we did our job in preventing it from happening.
But go ahead, keep those free-market-conquers-all blinders on, if you so choose.
Aw, crap. Please, can I get an exception this one time? Please?
I've been a little busy building and programming my fleshy robot companion, so I'm behind a couple seasons on watching Futurama and other nerd canon.
I promise I'll get caught up as soon as I get the hip actuators working properly.
Well, that's the point of having an account with no overdraft protection. They will not let you overdraw. So while the fees hit your account for each returned item, pushing you into the red, it doesn't reduce your cash available in that account by more than the $50 you had in it.
So you let the account ride with a negative balance until the fraud investigation is settled (it would be a good idea to switch to live checks at your employer, at that point).
The point is that while you can be temporarily be charged fees by the bank, the perpetrator has not been able to defraud you of more than $50.
Look at the firehose and you'll see why the "story" tag makes sense. It's to differentiate the submissions that have graduated.
No, that is the worst kind of correct. It does not allow one to make up different interpretations to confirm our pre-existing beliefs. The best kind of correct is when the correctness leads to the maximum of amount of feel-good among believers.
*This post is ambiguously serious. This is the best kind of serious.
Just goes to show... that people do not tend to mod up wall-of-text posts.
Paragraphs are a useful convention, as are line breaks.
This already exists and is cheap for the individual. Just open an additional savings account with $50 under your main account, and then set up recurring transfers to move the entirety of your paycheck to your regular savings or checking account. Make sure you do not have overdraft protection on this account. Then your maximum liability is $50.
That's not a personal value system. It's how things work. You are free to believe the sun orbits around the earth too, if you choose. You would just happen to be wrong in that case as well.
If it was tl;dr -- then you have no basis claiming that my post was shouting "you're wrong and I'm right". Because most assuredly, that is not the case.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in London? As long as there is competition, someone can offer a combination of better services and lower costs that are better for the customer.
It's quite apparent that you do not understand what a value system is, since you keep misapplying the term. The economic system we operate under exists, and operates according to predictable rules on the micro level (which is what we're discussing). This is not a value system. It's just the way things are.
The value system I refer to is the sum of the weight each person assigns to individual criteria when making economic decisions.
I can respect others' opinions... I clearly stated that in my post... the issue is that his opinion passes a value judgment on my opinion that I believe to be invalid. He calls my position foolish, because he does not understand it. I do not wish him to think I am a fool; therefore I need to explain my position to him.
That is not what I wrote, nor how I feel.
Do yourself a favor and throw out your "jump to conclusions" mat.
Menawhile my full explanation of how I feel about it is provided. If you don't want to read it, don't bother writing a response that asks a question already answered.
That's a bit heavy-handed. It's just money, inconvenience, and credit score that will be harmed. No real damage to life and limb.
This is Warhammer, after all -- they could have unleashed a few Dwarven Berserkers on their customers to "encourage" multiple subscriptions or something.
Meanwhile, the cash is held in suspense until the dispute is resolved, meaning you'll still be left with no cash and a rash of bank charges if the sum held in suspense prevented you from having sufficient funds for clearing items.
No thanks.
Debit cards are bad, bad juju if you give someone else the authority to initiate charges against them.
Aw, come on. This is a perfect example of why we have class-action lawsuits. It's not worth it for any single member of the class to pursue it in the courtroom, but banded together with sufficient legal representation, they could put the hurt on EA.
This would be perfect, I can see it now:
Court findings: For the plaintiffs, the sum of $1,000,000 to be split among the class and awarded in vouchers for three months of free play on Warhammer Online, plus lawyers' fees of $10,000,000 to be awarded in cash to the legal representation team.
You are assigning a moral absolutism to your personal feelings about it. Somehow your feelings about what is acceptable to you trump everyone else's opinion of what is acceptable? And that anyone who acts in conflict with your own personal opinion is a fool?
This is why I have an issue with not only your position, but also the assumption from which you argue it. Your personal value system does not apply to everyone else.
Sure, you never abridge free will by preventing people from acting... but you pass a value judgment on them for doing so. It's not surprising that people might take offense to it.
You feel exploited by a company having more than one revenue stream. Fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is extrapolating your feelings to everyone else. This principle of yours is yours... not mine. Do not assume it applies to everyone else who goes along with something. Maybe they go along with it because it does not violate any principle of theirs -- in my case, if I feel I'm getting fair value out of the deal, I don't feel exploited.
And I do not believe it is wrong. And yet you feel that it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for your (misguided, IMO) principles. It is a matter of taste and preference, insofar as taste and preference include our values of what is right and wrong in an economic transaction. Because consumer-level economic transactions are all about taste and preference.
You have not directly limited anything. But what you believe to be the correct solution (black/white -- only one revenue source for content/app providers) would limit my options as a consumer of technology. Basically, you have an objection to a problem that I don't believe exists, and I'll explain why below.
Please, do not put thoughts in my mind or words in my mouth. I stated my positions in response to yours, no need to start assuming things about me that were not written, said, or thought by me. You speaking your mind, I have no objection to -- what I do have objection to is the results of how you think content/app revenue should work. This is not about you... it is about your specific position on this issue, which necessarily involves your value system and your opinions, which I needed to address if I'm going to explain why I disagree with you. Please do not take it as a personal attack, it is no such thing.
Let me sum up my point very clearly so we don't get bogged down in more unfounded claims (my "need", etc).
The decision to enter an economic transaction is simple -- is what I get out of the deal worth the same or more than what I put into it? How we value what we put into it and what we get out of it may vary. For example, you place a high value on things that you feel are exploitative, and you have a different set of behaviors that you consider exploitative than I do. There is not anything wrong with that.
Elaborating of the exploitation issue -- this is the thing that I do think is misguided about your position: that a company that has more than one revenue stream is somehow exploitative because of "double-dipping", which makes their business model morally incorrect. You still have the choice of accepting or refusing their terms for the good or service provided. As long as you have that choice, and have the information needed to make that choice, the
You feel exploited by a company having more than one revenue stream. Fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is extrapolating your feelings to everyone else. This principle of yours is yours... not mine. Do not assume it applies to everyone else who goes along with something. Maybe they go along with it because it does not violate any principle of theirs -- in my case, if I feel I'm getting fair value out of the deal, I don't feel exploited.
And I do not believe it is wrong. And yet you feel that it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for your (misguided, IMO) principles. It is a matter of taste and preference, insofar as taste and preference include our values of what is right and wrong in an economic transaction. Because consumer-level economic transactions are all about taste and preference.
You have not limited anything. But what you believe to be the correct solution (black/white -- only one revenue source for content/app providers) would limit my options as a consumer of technology. Basically, you have an objection to a problem that I don't believe exists, and I'll explain why below.
But I really have to comment on one of the items from your announcement post, regarding the aims of the project:
Is this some kind of back-handed comment based on the general view at Microsoft about Open-source software, or the general view that MS would like to push out to userland? That people should use MS OSS because you need to be a developer to use it on other platforms?
False. That's your objection, not mine. My objection would have nothing to do with control. It has to do with functionality. If the appliance does what I want from it, I have no problem. There are no excuses involved, since there is nothing to excuse.
And yet millions of people pay for cable television, or for magazines, which still have ads in them. I fail to see the problem. When people have the choice of services or appliances to use, then the problem solves itself. Content servers find a way to operate profitably with some kind of split revenue from customer billing and from ad revenues. Why shouldn't ad serving subsidize subscription cost?
I don't understand. You can freely choose not to accept the services of that company, and not have to see any ads from them. Bully for you -- stand by your principles and don't do business with that company. Meanwhile, the fact that the company has two separate revenue streams doesn't bother me -- our CHOICE is to evaluate whether the service provided is worth the cost, where the cost includes the inconvenience or annoyance of ads, and the cash we lay out to the company.
And that's our individual choice to make. You place a high value on maintaining "control" of your devices, or on not needing to see ads. I don't. So when presented with the same choice, you and I may choose differently. The market sorts out what business model is successful, not your personal value system.
That's silly. All profit-seeking enterprise is parasitic in nature if you look at it that way.
No need to re-read, since I disagree with your premise. Why should we not have a choice between apps that are free and ad-laden, expensive and ad-free, or some other combination? Why does it have to be black-and-white? Why can't I choose an app that gives me what I believe to be the best service, but costs me some cash and also serves ads? Why not let the market decide which model (or even likely multiple models) is out there for me to choose from?
And for that matter, so what if this were to go to the ridiculous extreme and Apple requires all apps to serve ads, or they won't get approved? So what? Then you can simply not use an Apple appliance. Nothing is forcing you to do business with them.
Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. Because of a set of values YOU hold, that are far from universal, you want to limit the choices available to me as a consumer, and to developers also?
Finally! My true calling is found.
Yeah, while the premise is the same, implementations are not. The device being tested in the US is not the same as the delivery mechanism Woods uses, hence no invalidation for prior art.
Besides, what Woods should really be recognized for is not the spray-on delivery, but instead the advances in culturing techniques. This was the real breakthrough, IMO.
Of note, Woods got a lot of criticism for using her methods without it going through clinical trials. They're still not out of clinical trials, AFAIK...
Giggity.
What do you mean?
We have always been at war with Multitasking.
No, I think Job's quote was taken out of context.
They're the leader in the paste-eating market.
Not sure about the cutting market, but it would make sense -- every emo likes Apple, right?