They don't have to go on forever. They just have to do it whenever the threat of competition crops up - soon, competitors will stop trying. The benefit to consumers is only short term;in the long term, the consumers will pay the price for the ultimate lack of competition engendered by this system.
I don't have answers, but I'm no longer so foolish as to refuse to see the problem.
If you read the article instead of the summary, you'll see that he's actually well aware of that and it's not just him saying "derp we weren't ready for the arrival of LTE" (in spite of how the summary makes that appear to be the case).
Haven't you learned not to trust slashdot summaries? Of course there's selective out-of-context quoting - but ultimately he acknowledged several major problems that led to the current situation. LTE was listed as one of them, but indirectly. If you're actually interested, the article is a good read; and shows that they're not *quite* so out of touch as the/. summary leads you to believe.
. The lower the barriers to entry (and with Amazon, they are very low (except that Amazon is the sole supplier (but I digress))), the lower the cost for the new competitors to jump in.
You skipped the part where - any time new competitors do jump in - the established businesses can afford to once again cut their prices until the new competitors can no longer compete.
Eventually, equilibrium is reached at the point where the cost of entering the market plus the time value of the startup money is just covered by the profit over the average lifespan of a new entrant. It is a naturally self-regulating system that seeks the optimal market price of consumer goods and constantly adjusts for the changing time value of money. Pretty cool stuff, rig
Assuming that everyone is acting in rational self-interest. Once you leave the "rational" part out - as the larger players inevitably do - then you have the situation above, where any new competitors are effectively locked out.
That's a valid point as well though. GGP's post carries an implicit assumption that the move to non-PC devices inherently cripples the ability to create content, when nothing is further from the truth. I'm fairly comfortable in stating that more unencumbered digital content is being created now than ever before - as a direct result of the massive availability of mobile, non-PC devices.
That's funny because our overlords in Cupertino were telling us for years that everyone wants to be an artist with things like iLife and what not. I guess they decided it was time for a new gospel.
I'm not sure why this was relevant?
Selective quoting doesn't make much sense when the rest of my comment agrees with what you said.
Or that they express creativity in ways that occur outside of the time they spend on a desktop computer? That some people might be creative in ways that eschew digital devices altogether?
I feel like we're arguing two different points that are only tangentially related.
If not for the phone, these people would have other cameras, it's true. However, they woul dnot carry these cameras with them everywhere. They'd bring them for special occasions and even use them sometimes. And the cameras they did have likely wouldn't be high (or even low-) end DSLRs. They'd be cheap consumer-grade cameras.
So now they have an embedded cheap consumer-grade camera that they carry with them every where, and use to capture a virtual butt-ton more pictures than they ever would have otherwise. Net result: more content being created than ever before. Nobody is saying if it's good content or bad, but it *is* more content, from people who otherwise likely would have created a fraction of the amount - if any at all.
On the other hand, never did understand using a tablet to take pictures. It's just awkward.
It's one of the reasons why Mac OS X rules. The system actually has system-wide spellchecker so it works everywhere. Things like that are missing from Windows and Linux and that's why you need to use apps like Word. Google's online tools are completely missing these things.
On the other hand, they're universally present in modern browsers - even on mobile devices they're common - so if you're using a browser to type a message, you get spellchecking automatically.
On the third hand, TFA was about grammar and not spelling. And no OS or browser has integrated grammar checking.
still depends on the recipient. If he doesn't care or don't know the proper grammar, won't matter a lot. In fact, "wrong" grammar could be a part of a subculture where the proper one is bad. And is not just for english, i'm very aware about how this is going for spanish, and probably other languages suffer the same problem too.
Proper grammar is definitely contextual. When speaking to your peers, grammar may vary based on what is acceptable among them - so that one doesn't "stand out" or come across as trying to be "above" them. It's ridiculous that this is necessary - that speaking intelligently among any group can get you singled out as not belonging - but it's hardly new.
During my couple years as a landscaper after high school, I quickly learned that speaking proper English ain't no way to earn the respect of coworkers. (And - trust me on this - correcting them was *definitely* not the answer.)
What coincides? That the industry realizes most people treat their computers as appliances, while at the same time technology allows them to create the actual computing appliances that better meets he needs of those people?
Of course that's no coincidence - you can't have the second without the first preceding it. But building what people want according to how they use their devices does not add up to a conspiracy to prevent them from creating unmanaged content.
This isn't about what coders and 3d content creators will be using. It's about the rest of the computing world, which happens to be the overwhelming majority.
PCs aren't going away but they will eventually fit into a more niche market.
What becomes of media creators? Do we have to buy more and more dedicated gadgets?
The media creators will still have their toys, but this is all about the media consumers. Big money hates that every joe can create content and IP without them getting a cut, so they're pushing for a (licenced) media delivery only internet and killing the tools end users have for being creative.
It couldn't possibly be that most content consumers are simply not interested in creating content? Or that they express creativity in ways that occur outside of the time they spend on a desktop computer? That some people might be creative in ways that eschew digital devices altogether? That -just maybe - the market is in consumption and not creation?
Nah you're right. A conspiracy is far more plausible.
I use Mac and Linux. this has nothing to do with Windows..
a) just because none have been found does not mean that none will be found. And all that needs to occur is for your user account to be compromised - root access not required. b) I'm not referring to documents you want to open. I'm referring to those that can be opened in hidden iframes without you ever knowing it. c) I've found (so far) every embedded viewer is annoying to use in a browser window, but this is a matter of opinion. However it does speka to your "the way it was meant to be used" argument.
But hey,if you want to go on believing that you're immune to any compromise just because of your OS choice, that's your call. I prefer to play it safe no matter what OS I'm running.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to go on forever. They just have to do it whenever the threat of competition crops up - soon, competitors will stop trying. The benefit to consumers is only short term;in the long term, the consumers will pay the price for the ultimate lack of competition engendered by this system.
I don't have answers, but I'm no longer so foolish as to refuse to see the problem.
If you read the article instead of the summary, you'll see that he's actually well aware of that and it's not just him saying "derp we weren't ready for the arrival of LTE" (in spite of how the summary makes that appear to be the case).
Haven't you learned not to trust slashdot summaries? Of course there's selective out-of-context quoting - but ultimately he acknowledged several major problems that led to the current situation. LTE was listed as one of them, but indirectly. If you're actually interested, the article is a good read; and shows that they're not *quite* so out of touch as the /. summary leads you to believe.
. The lower the barriers to entry (and with Amazon, they are very low (except that Amazon is the sole supplier (but I digress))), the lower the cost for the new competitors to jump in.
You skipped the part where - any time new competitors do jump in - the established businesses can afford to once again cut their prices until the new competitors can no longer compete.
Eventually, equilibrium is reached at the point where the cost of entering the market plus the time value of the startup money is just covered by the profit over the average lifespan of a new entrant. It is a naturally self-regulating system that seeks the optimal market price of consumer goods and constantly adjusts for the changing time value of money. Pretty cool stuff, rig
Assuming that everyone is acting in rational self-interest. Once you leave the "rational" part out - as the larger players inevitably do - then you have the situation above, where any new competitors are effectively locked out.
That was so perfunctory.
Put some feeling into it next time, or don't bother. Can't believe you're making a mod waste valuable points on that lackluster attempt at trolling.
Based on the excerpt I am not even remotely tempted to follow the link. Something about preferring coherently written prose.
I don't think you're a shill.
I think you're a troll parodying a shill.
No, not in this case - based on context, the word "effect" would have put that sentence at odds with the rest of his message.
If his point were that spelling and grammar were NOT important, then yes - this would have been a correct use of effect.
However I usually get quite annoyed at people who think that Spelling and Grammar effect the quality or correctness of your message.
As in, "I get annoyed when people think that S&G is causally related to a message's quality and correctness."
But - this is not what he was saying, nor was it how he phrased it.
I plea brevity, and not loaded language ;)
That's a valid point as well though. GGP's post carries an implicit assumption that the move to non-PC devices inherently cripples the ability to create content, when nothing is further from the truth. I'm fairly comfortable in stating that more unencumbered digital content is being created now than ever before - as a direct result of the massive availability of mobile, non-PC devices.
Annnnd ... whoosh, unless I miss my guess.
That's funny because our overlords in Cupertino were telling us for years that everyone wants to be an artist with things like iLife and what not. I guess they decided it was time for a new gospel.
I'm not sure why this was relevant?
Selective quoting doesn't make much sense when the rest of my comment agrees with what you said.
Or that they express creativity in ways that occur outside of the time they spend on a desktop computer? That some people might be creative in ways that eschew digital devices altogether?
I feel like we're arguing two different points that are only tangentially related.
If not for the phone, these people would have other cameras, it's true. However, they woul dnot carry these cameras with them everywhere. They'd bring them for special occasions and even use them sometimes. And the cameras they did have likely wouldn't be high (or even low-) end DSLRs. They'd be cheap consumer-grade cameras.
So now they have an embedded cheap consumer-grade camera that they carry with them every where, and use to capture a virtual butt-ton more pictures than they ever would have otherwise. Net result: more content being created than ever before. Nobody is saying if it's good content or bad, but it *is* more content, from people who otherwise likely would have created a fraction of the amount - if any at all.
On the other hand, never did understand using a tablet to take pictures. It's just awkward.
Can't... help... myself...
..and Grammar affect the quality...
There. FTFY.
Ahhh. Better now.
It's one of the reasons why Mac OS X rules. The system actually has system-wide spellchecker so it works everywhere. Things like that are missing from Windows and Linux and that's why you need to use apps like Word. Google's online tools are completely missing these things.
On the other hand, they're universally present in modern browsers - even on mobile devices they're common - so if you're using a browser to type a message, you get spellchecking automatically.
On the third hand, TFA was about grammar and not spelling. And no OS or browser has integrated grammar checking.
still depends on the recipient. If he doesn't care or don't know the proper grammar, won't matter a lot. In fact, "wrong" grammar could be a part of a subculture where the proper one is bad. And is not just for english, i'm very aware about how this is going for spanish, and probably other languages suffer the same problem too.
Proper grammar is definitely contextual. When speaking to your peers, grammar may vary based on what is acceptable among them - so that one doesn't "stand out" or come across as trying to be "above" them. It's ridiculous that this is necessary - that speaking intelligently among any group can get you singled out as not belonging - but it's hardly new.
During my couple years as a landscaper after high school, I quickly learned that speaking proper English ain't no way to earn the respect of coworkers. (And - trust me on this - correcting them was *definitely* not the answer.)
I'd consider %18 a significant amount. What if your wallet magically lost %18 of your money.
Every week. And that's just what the fed takes!
What coincides? That the industry realizes most people treat their computers as appliances, while at the same time technology allows them to create the actual computing appliances that better meets he needs of those people?
Of course that's no coincidence - you can't have the second without the first preceding it. But building what people want according to how they use their devices does not add up to a conspiracy to prevent them from creating unmanaged content.
This isn't about what coders and 3d content creators will be using. It's about the rest of the computing world, which happens to be the overwhelming majority.
PCs aren't going away but they will eventually fit into a more niche market.
What becomes of media creators? Do we have to buy more and more dedicated gadgets?
The media creators will still have their toys, but this is all about the media consumers. Big money hates that every joe can create content and IP without them getting a cut, so they're pushing for a (licenced) media delivery only internet and killing the tools end users have for being creative.
It couldn't possibly be that most content consumers are simply not interested in creating content? Or that they express creativity in ways that occur outside of the time they spend on a desktop computer? That some people might be creative in ways that eschew digital devices altogether? That -just maybe - the market is in consumption and not creation?
Nah you're right. A conspiracy is far more plausible.
Which - when run through GP's i-filter - yields:
iThet iHunky iMoost iBe-a iMesseeng iVeet iMy iOold iLady
Um, it would work on a desktop with wired ethernet too... It's only the phone which would need to use wifi...
Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.
FTFY.
How does that work exactly?
grep "search term" /dev/mypc_and_theinternet?
I use Mac and Linux. this has nothing to do with Windows..
a) just because none have been found does not mean that none will be found. And all that needs to occur is for your user account to be compromised - root access not required.
b) I'm not referring to documents you want to open. I'm referring to those that can be opened in hidden iframes without you ever knowing it.
c) I've found (so far) every embedded viewer is annoying to use in a browser window, but this is a matter of opinion. However it does speka to your "the way it was meant to be used" argument.
But hey ,if you want to go on believing that you're immune to any compromise just because of your OS choice, that's your call. I prefer to play it safe no matter what OS I'm running.
Thanks! That cleared iit right up!
I'm confused.
Could you make this into a car analogy instead?
I'm pretty sure it's got something to do with dipping the gas pump nozzle in the tank and using Premium vs Cheap?