Transferring knowledge acquired in one context to another is a pretty hard problem. [ . . . ] I have to wonder how much these game-learned skills will really transfer to the business world.
I for one can't count the number of times I've thought, "You know, this customer issue is *perfectly* suited to a plasma grenade or a Spartan Laser...":)
In all seriousness, I think you're right... and I think the extent to which "game-learned" skills will transfer is vanishingly, astonishingly low. And I think it also bears mentioning that a service like xbox live is awash with faceless 10 year olds screaming obscenities and racist screeds, and their 17 year old older brothers who think that "CaptainSmokeaBlunt" is... like... the Funniest. Gamertag. EVAR!... dude. I've seen little-to-no evidence of anything I'd call "leadership" there.
And cue WoW players to tell us how WoW's hardcore raiding scene is evidence of strong leadership skills -- as opposed to systematic self-selection of socially awkward people with bad time management skills -- in 3... 2... 1...
I'm not a fan of Scientology any more than you appear to be, but I will point out this, from the OCA entry:
Even the name of the Oxford Capacity Analysis has been criticised as misleading. The Times comments that the test "has nothing to do with Oxford University" and suggests that "Scientologists use the word "Oxford" to give it credence."
[ . . . ] In early 2001, Israeli police said they observed bulldozers destroying an ancient arched structure located adjacent to the eastern wall of the Temple Mount in the course of construction during which 6,000 square meters of the Temple Mount were dug up by tractors, paved, and declared to be open air mosques, which is assumed to have intermixed the underlying strata. Some of the earth and rubble removed was dumped in the El-Azaria and in the Kidron Valleys, and some of it (as of September 2004) remained in mounds on the site. The excavation and removal of earth with minimal archaeological supervision became an issue of controversy [ . . . ]
Both of these seem to contradict your statements. Does this mean wikipedia is always objective & always right? No... not in the least. But your claims that it's nothing but bias & whitewash are also provably false with a mere 5 minutes worth of research.
More to the point: like anybody really gives a shit that anybody bought an iPhone on a credit card anyway? It's not like you're using it to charge $2000 worth of blow and whores.... imagine the damage to your credibility if it were to come to light that you bought a mobile phone with a credit card! Pass the ammunition and praise the lord, that's the stuff Drudge loves to hear about!
Let's see... on the one hand, we have you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, with your erudite analysis of "stone cold law" from the 1800's... on the other hand, we have a page hosted by and published by the United States Treasury, indicating that on this particular matter, you're full of shit, and talking out your ass...
Because it saves me time on things like keeping track of my schedule and appointments (datebooks etc never worked, and something that's not accessible everywhere and on a server I run just didn't do it for me) thus reducing the chaos that was my life full of missed appointments and undone tasks (resulting in angry significant others) [...]
You know what? It's just not even worth responding... Your claims are so ridiculous that it's laughable. Go troll elsewhere, fanboy. I'm happy to have a real discussion about what efficiencies might be gained from using Linux, but outlandish claims and ridiculous anecdotes don't exactly further the dialogue.
Yes, but what you fail to realize: Using linux will MAKE you into a system administrator
What you fail to realize: The vast majority of people who are NOT systems administrators by trade do not have the time, patience, or inclination to be made into a system administrator.
Incidentally, how does running all those things "for the heck of it" translate to exponential gains in productivity? You really mean to tell me that fiddling with keeping an email server & calendaring application online in-house makes you MORE productive than, oh, I don't know, pointing Thunderbird at GMail? You plainly state that you're not a dev and don't write any of the code running on your server... so why reinvent the wheel? How is that in any way a "more productive" use of your time?
And I make changes to those setups all the time. I figure something out that will make them run more efficiently, or make them more scalable, or more accessible, etc. I do this because I can. Because my Free OS gives me the toolset and the applications to do so.
Let's be clear here.
"Busy" != "Productive"
What you just stated above is this: "I spend time constantly fiddling with tweaking & configuring my tools." That's not "productive", unless you're a systems administrator. What you've described is better termed "pouring your time & effort down a black hole"... which I'll certainly concede may be fun, if you're the sort of person who gets off on fiddling with gadgets... but it is certainly not making you more productive, it's simply giving you another thing to play with in your free time.
Seems to me that the time savings from one or more of these obvious or garden variety chores can easily be shown to be exponential.
Problem is, we're not talking about time saved on specific tasks that happen "now and then" (if at *all* for most computer users), we're talking about exponential increases in *productivity* -- what you get done, using your computer. And unless you are a system administrator, none of what you just listed as possibilities for "exponential time savings" are frequent enough occurrences that they would amount to any more than an occasional, incremental bump in productivity for the average "general computing" user.
Well, thanks for explaining elementary statistics to me. But let's look at what you wrote:
Statistically speaking, as you increase the number of samples, you can get a pretty good feel for the reality of things. There are plenty of people out there who have exponentially increased their productivity after a switch to Linux - myself included.
To reword that: "I believe that I have exponentially increased my productivity by switching to Linux. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to state that there are plenty of people out there." You are generalizing from your single data point, just as you accused the original poster of doing.
I never claimed that you could reason from my ONE example to a generalization.
You most certainly did, by stating that "plenty of people" have seen this increase, and giving yourself -- a single data point -- as an example, with no corroborating evidence for your assertion that a simple change of OS gave you *exponential* increases in productivity. (A claim which I remain quite skeptical of, unless your definition of "productivity" varies wildly from what I would consider "productive" use of a computer.)
However, the fact remains that there are two opposing possibilities, and that I would like to see the true statistics of the thing. I remain neutral until I see the facts.
And yet the lack of any statistics didn't keep you from arguing to the grandparent that Linux provides exponential gains in productivity to a statistically valid set of users, and that he was way off base because he claimed that for him, Linux has always been 80% of the functionality at 5 times the effort. How curious...
This is the Linux I know, and it is why I have Linux on that other partition so I can boot it up now and then and see what the state of Linux is.
And this is also the general outline of my experience... and it's the primary reason I have a MacOS system with Parallels running WinXP for the occasional drop into Windows if I need to test / install / run something there. My experience with Linux in the past few years (Gentoo, Fedora, Red Hat before it was Fedora, and Ubuntu) has been frustrating, and "80% of the way with 500% of the effort" is spot-on. That said, I *am* quite keen to get my hands on a small Dell or System76 system with Linux preinstalled, and see what the new state of Ubuntu is on "supported" hardware, to see how it runs there. I'll concede that I may be pleasantly surprised, and will certainly be happy to admit it if I am...
My real problem with Linux has been that I just don't have the time or patience to endlessly dick around with my computer settings. If a preinstalled, fully vendor-supported Linux system will eliminate that need, then great... until then, I'm quite happy with my Mac Book, with a full BSD Unix subsystem for when I need a slice of Unixy goodness. I expect I'll spring for one of the low-end Dells sometime in early 2008 to see if it looks like something I could actually use at this point. I've been told Ubuntu has made great strides in usability on the desktop, and a large part of my frustration in the past was hardware -- driver incompatibilities and other such nonsense.
One of the things they taught us in one of our most basic courses (critical thinking) is that you can't reason from one experience to a generalization. [ . . . ] There are plenty of people out there who have exponentially increased their productivity after a switch to Linux - myself included. I'd like to see a real survey, and real statistical analysis of the results, detailing real-world productivity by OS.
Translation: "Watch as I make the same logical error I've just claimed you made!"
Your claims of increased productivity are no more statistically valid as an indicator of Linux's effects on productivity than the GP poster's claims that it's been a productivity drain. And as far as the GP poster's over-arching point, that Linux suffers from multiple, subtly-incompatible systems competing for marketshare with one another, I think he's actually making a very useful point that Linux developers would do well to bear in mind.
In short, you admit that you've not seen a "real" statistical analysis of the productivity gains or losses related to an OS switch... so why even bother to chime in, except to tell us you're a CS major and you've compiled some Linux stuff from source? (As for your claim of "exponentially" increasing your productivity by simply switching to a new OS... come on now. I'd think that a critical thinking class would also teach you that making wildly inaccurate & unfounded claims with no supporting evidence is typically met with derision and skepticism...)
Looking at it another way, perhaps Apple has decided that getting people hooked on small, reliable, solid devices like the iPod and the iPhone will be a "gateway" purchase for users when it comes time to buy a new computer... create a positive brand awareness with small devices people love & carry with them everywhere, everyday, and perhaps those people will be more likely to part with MORE money when they decide they need a new computer and see that, "Hey, those guys that make the iPod also make a computer? Hmm... neat!" That's more or less my path to the dark side of being a Mac user.:)
Agreed on the corporate comment, but perhaps Apple's route into the corporate world is through the IT shops... as a software engineer, I'd love nothing more than to have a unix-based desktop system to replace my WinXP laptop. I spend most of my productive moments in Eclipse, or on a Unix or Linux server command line... if I could switch tomorrow to a Mac Book Pro at work, I would do so in a heartbeat... but my company's IT department still won't support Macs except as test systems in our test labs (web site testing, usability, etc.), even though it means that my WinXP system is so bogged down with security garbage (AntiVirus, Firewall, Drive Encryption, USB device lock to prevent writing to USB devices, and a constant stream of MSFT patches that keep failing) that I'm far less productive, and can only really get work done when I'm VPN'ed into the corporate network. Given that Mac's can run MSFT Office... well, that would pretty much seal the deal for me over a Linux system, because I need to be able to use Exchange, and I need to be able to read & write powerpoint, excel, and word docs... I'm aware that OpenOffice can do the last three, but I've actually found it to be problematic with formatting inconsistencies... maybe it's specific to the templates, etc. my company uses, but it's a very real problem.
It's there. Its been there for a while now. Certainly, on my box at work I don't spend any time on what would be considered "routine maintenance" if I were running Windows. Everything just runs.
I'm skeptical that this is all there is to it for "the masses", but I'll conceded that it has been a year and a half since I tried, so it's entirely possible a lot of the fit and finish has improved since then. I'm curious -- did you buy these systems off-the-shelf, build them yourself, or something in between? And how long did it take you to get these systems to the point of "everything just runs"? I'm not asking this question as an "AHA! GOTCHA!" type of thing, I'm really curious... as someone who clearly knows a bit about Linux and is comfortable with the platform, was it really *that easy* to get your systems set up? Or did it require a fair amount of technical know-how initially, but now they're more or less on autopilot?
Now picture what happens just before Christmas 2008 if half the new adopters, plus everyone who participated originally, did it again - 30% market share in just over a year. Of course that won't happen... but it could.
And it could also rain fine Irish whiskey into my open mouth when I clap my hands... and frankly, that's a lot more
likely to happen in the real world than every Linux user converting 2 people, and every one of them converting someone else, in the next 2 years, unbundling or not.
I like Linux as a server OS. As a desktop OS, it's been -- at best -- frustrating to work with. I tried converting to Linux (Ubuntu) on my home desktop about 1.5 years ago. Before that, I also fiddled around with Red Hat (as far back as 6.2, I believe), then Fedora, then Gentoo... so I'm certainly not a newbie to Linux, though I wouldn't consider myself a Linux expert. I had a host of driver, stability, and peripheral issues, and I have *some* idea of WTF I'm doing on Linux. Trying to convert my family & friends to Linux is a non-starter, because frankly, I just don't have the time or patience to be on-call tech support to my well-loved, but not-terribly-technical friends & family.
So, when it came time to buy a new laptop a year ago, I outsourced my Unix-y desktop configuration, and bought a Mac Book Pro... which has a wonderful BSD-based Unix subsystem, a lovely GUI, and reliable tools for all of the tasks I care to do at home. Until some company can offer a Ubuntu experience as painless as my Mac OS X experience has been, I'm going to be a very reluctant switcher to Linux... Software, especially an Operating System, should be a tool to get things done with. If I find I have to spend more time fixing and maintaining my tools than I do actually using them, something is wrong with that equation, and that's the situation I found myself in trying to switch to Linux. And to be fair, none of this should be taken as me saying that Windows is a lick better. With it's constant anti-spyware / antivirus / security patching requirements and bloat, it's just as much a pain in the ass to use as Linux was.
Until any Linux distribution reaches the point where users are not asked to sacrifice their free time & energy "because it's free software!", it will not reach widespread acceptance and distribution, regardless of government intervention & regulation. It's close, but anybody who has written software knows that that last 10 - 20% of the project takes a disproportionate amount of effort.
Once someone purchases the hardware it becomes THEIR hardware to with as they please.
Agreed. In fact, you're absolutely free to *not install the 1.1.1 update* as well, and continue using your hardware with your hacked firmware and application software, without any penalty or issue. It's not as if the device is phoning home and Apple is sending out some sort of a self-destruct code to your phone. My understanding of these "bricked" iPhones is that the vast majority of them are simply "returned to factory default settings". In what way is it a surprise that the manufacturer would release an update that simply assumes you have not hacked and tweaked your firmware & os, and simply fails to take that into account?
All this means is that they KNEW it was going to break the things - it was intentionally put out there to break it. [...] Because Apple did it though, it's perfectly OK.
You're confusing coincidence with intent. Apple knew it might break things, and they issued a warning. Are they under an obligation to test their software with every possible known hack in the wild and support those hacks through every upgrade? If you have proof that they *intentionally* released this update simply to break existing hacks, then I would submit that making a piece of software that will intentionally & maliciously disable your device an *optional* installation is a bit silly. "Would you like to install this virus? It will destroy your hard drive and ruin your day!" (ACCEPT) (DECLINE)
What if (this is hypothetical since the only thing this firmware update seems to have done is broken iPhones)
I _needed_ some fix that was part of this update? Then what? Or what if it's some sort of security update - like the Wireless encryption not being properly implemented and therefore suceptible - Apple designs a firmware fix - EVERYONE needs that.
And in what way does your *need* for the fix obligate Apple to take into account the hacks you've performed on your device? Think about what you're saying for a second -- becuase you *need* a security fix, Apple should be obligated to make YOUR personal set of hacks a supported part of their device? If you want manufacturer support for your device, then you should expect that they will support it as they designed it, not as you would like it to be designed... and if you don't like how they support it, then you are *free* to buy an OpenMoko Neo1973 or a TrollTech QTopia phone, or some other, more hack-friendly device.
Software does not destroy your warranty clauses and should not be expected to do so.
Agreed! Apple should say, "If you have a problem with this upgrade, bring it in to the genius bar, and we'll do our level best to flash it with the latest 1.1.1 firmware, and make sure the phone activates properly, unless you don't have an AT&T account, in which case you can go sign up for one to activate your phone. If we can't flash it, we'll give you a replacement with the 1.1.1 firmware preinstalled that you're welcome to go activate via itunes." That is a reasonable amount of support, and about as much support anybody hacking their device should expect.
I agree that, *if Apple intentionally wrote code to brick anybody's iPhone*, they should be punished for it. I think it's unlikely that any bricking was intentional, because I think we'd have seen it happen to ANY iPhone that was modified from the default Apple-provided software image, if it was an intentional breakage of modified iPhones, and that's simply not the case.
How in hell do you want to buy a device with is locked to a single carrier
For those of us who were already Cingular customers, it wasn't that big a deal to continue being "locked" to a single carrier. I've been a Sprint customer, and am now a Cingular/AT&T customer (better coverage in the area I just moved to on Cingular than Sprint). I've never received stellar customer service from either of them, but they've gotten the job done.
Yes, I would've liked to bring my iPhone with me, and be able to use it on the O2 network when I went to Ireland a month ago, but I have an older unlocked Motorola phone that still does the trick just fine when I travel. I simply bought a local sim card, popped it in, and was activated in minutes. Would be nice if I could get rid of / donate the other phone, but until such time as they release unlock codes for international usage, I'll simply not use my iPhone abroad. I can live with that restriction, considering when I was on Sprint, I didn't even have the *chance* that I could use it because it was an incompatible network.
and more, whith a soldered battery (we are talking about a PHONE here!)
I have to admit, I don't really understand this complaint... I've *never* bought a second battery for any cell phone I've owned, nor have I ever swapped out the original battery... maybe my usage requirements just don't get me through the recharge cycles required, or maybe I'm just too much of a gadget nerd and usually upgrade to a new phone before it becomes an issue... but this one really didn't enter into my decision. I'll freely admit I may regret that choice someday.
which is imo (and in other's opinions) overpriced, and not even the "best" in their class?
Overpriced? Yes, it's steep. But not really much more than the Treo 700 my friend bought through Sprint that I was drooling over shortly before the iPhone was released. And from my experience with the iPhone, the iPhone is a lot more usable, less crash- and lockup-prone, and generally more reliable than my friend's Treo. So overpriced, and "not even best in class" are certainly debatable conclusions.
The iPhone hits the sweet spot of the sorts of things I would typically want to use a phone for -- phone calls, occasional email messaging, calendaring that gets back to my computer (and then syncs to my work computer) automatically, occasional web browsing... I love the device for its functionality, because it's just about exactly the sort of functions I find useful to have in my pocket. And the fact that it also has ipod functionality built in is wonderful, because it's one less device I need to carry around every day. Many (I daresay MOST) people do not have a real need to be able to install dozens of third party apps and utilities on their phone. How many people really *NEED* to ssh over a VPN tunnel to a Linux server? For those people, the iPhone may not be the right phone... but you have to understand that they're also a very small piece of any segment of the phone market.
Hell, I don't even own an Ipod because it's not good enough for me. Having the Apple in the white shining surface may make you cool in the eyes of the teenagers, but doesn't mean a thing for me.
And here, you've declared your bias. If you had simply said, "it's not good enough for me because it's lacking features I consider critical," then I would have easily agreed, and said, "You're right, perhaps the ipod isn't the right MP3 player for everybody." But when you start generalizing about the only reason to own one being the shiny logo making the owner cool in the eyes of the teenagers, then you're simply trolling. Begone.
Apple has all of the major metropolitan areas covered with Apple stores and their recent agreements with Best Buy, CompUSA and others only assure that their products are well exposed to the greater public.
While I don't disagree that, if you're looking for a Mac, you can find a Mac, take a look at the distribution of stores on these store lists from the apple website. You're "well-served" if you live on the west coast, or in the northeast... outside of that, well, you're probably going to be driving for a bit to find one. The recent agreements with BestBuy, CompUSA, etc., are nice, but I know that my local Best Buy is still displaying old iMacs, old MacBooks & MBP's... it can be hard to try before you buy. I think the author's point is a pretty good one -- most people aren't going to drive 2 hours to go test out using a new computer... Apple probably won't lure in "casual" switchers until they're able to find them at their local Target/Best Buy/CompUSA/etc.
Technically, what he did was "lock the screen", using the "sleep/wake" button.
Now what do we have to guide us as to what "sleep" mode is? Laptops! Do they do *anything* while on sleep mode? no. So it was reasonable for him to expect that pressing sleep would deactivate the thing.
And if the iPhone *were* a Laptop, I would agree with you wholeheartedly! But, since the iPhone is not a laptop, perhaps it's reasonable to crack open the manual and understand just what happens when you press the sleep button? Again, from page 14 of the iPhone manual:
When iPhone is locked, nothing happens if you touch the screen. You can still listen to music and adjust the volume, and use the button on the included stereo headset to play or pause a song, or answer or end a call. By default, if you don't touch the screen for a minute, iPhone locks automatically.
Given that it's possible to press that sleep/wake button while you're using the ipod function, and the music keeps playing, is it *really* reasonable to expect that you've somehow powered off the device? Apple's design & engineering teams are good, no doubt, but even *their* electrical devices require a current.
I concur as well with the poster who said cell phones in general ought to have a "max X dollars" spending mode, but this is more of a request for a new feature than a design bug.
And if that's a feature you want, AT&T is willing to enable spending limits on your account. It costs $4.99 a month, and is offered to prevent an "unexpected" bill because your two teenagers didn't realize that text messaging all their friends constantly and downloading 500 ringtones apiece actually had a price associated with it. It can be put in place for sms, content access, downloads, talk time, and some other limits as well, I believe. Once the phone hits that monthly limit, the feature is disabled, insofar as it does not affect emergency (911) calls, or calls to/from an "allowed" list of numbers (e.g., "You can call & be called by mom & dad, but not all your friends.") Is the $4.99 fee a bit over the top? Absolutely. Is the feature available? You bet.
Could it be that say, I've owned three different models and I've never had to look anything up?
Clearly, Mr. Levy didn't feel he had to look anything up, either. And he owned three of the same model of iphone!
Snarkiness aside, I understand the point you're making, but I just don't think it holds much water in this case. He went in and defined email accounts. He went in and turned on automatic mail checking. And now he's complaining that the device doesn't prevent him from using it *the way he's explicitly configured it to behave*? If you're not sure whether or not you'll incur international roaming charges, call AT&T support, or Apple Support, and ask. If you're really nervous about it, leave the damn phone at home, and get a pay-as-you-go package at your destination (Did he *really* need THREE "emergency call" iPhones on his cruise?). He had plenty of options, and plenty of information at his disposal, if only he had chosen to use it... I have trouble feeling much sympathy for him.
And anyway, despite my lack of sympathy, you can bet that he'll be given a huge discount by AT&T on the amount he owes (perhaps the free pass he surely wants), simply due to the fact that this is making so much noise here on slashdot, and I'm sure in other online forums.
The designer's for sure. It is their job that one doesn't have to read a 50 page manual in order to avoid a $4200 bill on a phone that was never used and seemingly asleep. Think about it.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've thought about it, and I find that the idea of laying the blame at the feet of the designer is ill-conceived, and poorly executed... I hope you don't mind?
And yet, it's completely unacceptable for the iPhone -- a computer, loaded with a significant payload of complex software, despite it's simple touchscreen interface -- to have a manual that's about 100 pages long, and for the user to be expected to at least peruse a couple sections of it in order to learn how to operate the device properly? Given the complex feature set, I think the designers have done a remarkable job of making those features easy to use. That does not, unfortunately, mean the device is foolproof, as Mr. Levy has so ably demonstrated.
Yes, Blame the user! Why didn't everyone think of that? What an amazing point of view.
And whose fault would you consider it? The user bought an electronic device, and disregarded the instructions for the proper usage of that device. Default iPhone settings are:
"Auto-check" email is not enabled. This must be enabled in the Settings.
No predefined email accounts. You must select accounts to sync to (or specifically create accounts on) the device.
But, despite the fact that he had to specifically perform operations 1 & 2 above, you think he gets a free pass because he says, "Ooops, my bad, I didn't realize! LOL!"?
How expensive should a simple mistake cost?
In this case, a "simple mistake" costs just US $4800. In relation to how much many other "simple mistakes" can cost, that's not so bad. Plus, nobody's dead, nobody's severely injured, and nobody's going to prison.
Is it really unimaginable for someone to look at the black screen of the iPhone and think it's "off"?
When the documentation for the iPhone clearly states that turning the pretty screen black does not constitute turning it off, I think it's pretty unimaginable, yes.
Here is where you outlined how a user should handle the phones power management (emphasis mine)
Correction: Here is how the Apple documentation outlines how a user should handle the phone's power management. This isn't my documentation, it's Apple's. If only the included it with every iPhone! Oh wait...
First off, you have people reading manuals for phones. Yes I know, RTFM, etc. Really, you need to get over that. People don't read manuals for common items.
And whose fault is that? It's a complex device. If you're not certain how it works, what magic formula should you use to learn how it works? Could it be that the user's guide is included with the device for a reason?
I am 100% certain that you have used some piece of technology without reading 100% of the documentation.
And you are 100% correct that I don't read every page of every manual of every device I buy. However, I also am 100% certain that if I don't understand how the device works, and I'm afraid I'm going to break it or cost myself a lot of money by setting it up improperly, I *do* read the manual.
Not to mention you listed it as page 14 of the manual. 14 pages doesn't sound like much, but it is when I just want to turn off a phone.
Yes, because skimming through the first 14 pages of a graphics-and-white-space-heavy document is completely unreasonable. As is using the Index or Table of Contents to find what you're looking for quickly. Heaven forbid any piece of technology be complex enough to warrant a few pages of documentation, and an hour of time to understand its major functions!
Then you go on to list 4 power management functions, which does not appear exhaustive. So we have 4+ ways of "almost but probably not" turning a phone off.
And which part of "To turn the iPhone completely off" is unclear, pray tell?
Finally, you point out that it is called a "sleep/wake" button and neither an "on/off" nor "power" button. With that sentence you are implying the users are dumb for thinking that button should turn off the phone.
Yes, they are. Because the documentation for the device clearly states that pressing that simply pressing that button does NOT "turn off the phone." To "turn off the phone," you should follow the procedure labeled "to turn iPhone completely off".
Yes, maybe he should have enabled "Airplane Mode" despite the obvious fact he was no where near a plane.
If he had bothered, once again, to RTFM, then he would have s
I just came back from 2 weeks in Ireland. I used the phone in a pinch to try and find directions when I was semi-lost in Dublin. The rest of the time, I used the ipod features, and only checked my email when wifi was available in the hotel. Total international data rates for my iphone for the entire trip: Just under US $8.
I suspect Mr. Levy never bothered to RTFM on his device, and then left his phone(s) in the "sleep" mode (display off, radios on), for the duration of his cruise. From Page 14 of the iPhone User Guide:
To Lock iPhone -- Press the Sleep/Wake button.
To Unlock iPhone -- Press the Home button or the Sleep/Wake button, then drag the slider.
To Turn iPhone completely off -- Press and hold the Sleep/Wake button for a few seconds until the red slider appears, then drag the slider. When iPhone is off, incoming calls go straight to voicemail.
To Turn iPhone on -- Press and hold the Sleep/Wake button until the Apple logo appears.
Note that they call it a "Sleep/Wake button", not an "on/off" button, or a "power" button.
Other than that, he could have enabled "Airplane Mode", which does the following (User Guide, page 22):
When you turn on airplane mode, [a small airplane icon] appears in the status bar at the top of the screen. No cell phone, radio, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth signals are emitted from iPhone.
You cannot:
Make phone calls
Send or receive email
Browse the Internet
Send or receive text messages
Stream YouTube videos
Get stock quotes
Get maps locations
Get weather reports
If allowed by the aircraft operator and applicable laws and regulations, you can continue to use iPhone to:
Listen to music and watch video
Listen to visual voicemail
Check your calendar
Take or view pictures
Hear alarms
Use the stopwatch or timer
Use the calculator
Take notes
Read text messages and email messages stored on iPhone
Oh, and you can also disable automatic checking of email in the iPhone settings. The default behavior is to check every so often, but you can set it to "Manual", which means you have to tell the iPhone to check email, it won't go out automatically and try downloading messages.
There's warnings about "Additional fees may apply" plastered all over the iPhone manual when discussing international roaming, as well. So to all the people crying that this just shows the iPhone is an overhyped piece of crap, or that this is evidence of some sort of collusion between Apple and AT&T to suck their customers dry, get over it. The guy didn't read his manual, and now he's learning that that was a costly mistake. If you go to Ireland with your brand new Nokia E70 or Treo 650, and leave it on, charging, and set to automatically check email periodically, you're going to have the same fucking problem.
Dell won't make linux look good. [ . . . ]
Let a company that cares about linux do something like this.
With all of the vaunted cost savings, lean hardware requirements, and rock-solid stability of Linux, I fail to see how Dell could make Linux look bad. I've heard the same line you've surely heard here on/. dozens of times: "I'm running Gentoo on my toaster with 2 KB of ram and a 32MB flash drive. It's my home media server!"
What this really sounds like is, "I'm going to blame Dell for the fact that Linux has a lot of the same problems that Windows has for the average user." Yes, Linux *can* be more secure. But the average "Joe User" isn't going to give 2 shits about security, they're going to click away, run whatever programs & trojans they download, and enter their root password "because the computer asked for it." Yes, Linux *can* run on old or weak hardware better than Windows. But this is irrelevant, because they're not installing Linux on an old Windows box to eke another year or two out of the hardware. They're buying a brand new, reasonably powerful Dell desktop or laptop that's significantly better than the 5 year old box sitting on their desk. Yes, Linux *can* be had cheaper than Windows. But all of that bloatware helps reduce the overall price of the Dell system because it subsidizes part of the hardware. And it's the total price tag that counts, not the individual per-O/S cost. So no, none of those are selling points that will really drive Linux adoption by Dell customers.
Don't get me wrong -- I use Linux day in and day out on servers at work, and I like it. But anybody who knows enough about Linux to want it on their computer hasn't been stopped from building their own Linux system, and probably with more bang for the same buck than it'd cost them to buy that Dell. And anybody who doesn't know enough about Linux to want it on their computer is going to buy "whatever my cousin Bob runs", or "whatever it is I use at work," especially if it's $20 - 50 cheaper than the "Free Software" alternative due to the bloatware subsidies.
My prediction is that Dell's Linux consumer systems will sell at a very slow pace, and the entire program will most likely fizzle out or be cut back drastically at some point due to lack of interest. As I said -- people who want Linux don't need to wait for Dell. People who don't know what Linux is are not going to just start choosing it because it's an option. They're going to choose what they know -- what they use at work, or what they've been using at home -- and that is, more than likely, Windows. Linux will not be a viable "mainstream" desktop (NOTE: Mainstream > "I use it, and installed it for my grandma & three cousins too, so fuck you, MSFT fanboi.") until it gets a reasonable desktop share within corporations, which is where "Joe User" will get forced to learn a little about how the system works, and start thinking, "Gee, maybe I'll just get this at home too next time I buy a system, since I know how it works."
Not sure why it's so hard to believe.
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I find it somewhat hard to believe but this story over at PC world, indicates that the iPod has sold over 100 million units. It also asks how many are broken and replaced which makes me believe the number may be more accurate.
The press release doesn't say that there are 100 million units presently in use by 100 million people around the world today, now, right here. It says that they've moved 100 million ipods. Some percentage of that 100 million has surely been broken, been stolen, been lost, been destroyed, etc. Some percentage is probably sitting on a desktop somewhere and almost never gets used. But the total number sold apparently is over 100 million.
Anecdotally, I have gone through three ipods... a 3G which I carelessly dropped on concrete from about 5 feet, and a 5G which replaced the broken 3G, which I use every day. I was also given a nano as a gift, and I use that at the gym, so I don't have to worry about dropping the 5G. Looking around at the gym, I would also estimate 30% or so of the people in my line of sight at any time there are plugged into a nano or shuffle; In addition, ipods are a very common sight on desks during the day at work, too.
I don't think 100 million ipods sold to date is a particularly unbelievable number. If they told me there were 100 million ipods sold, and they're all still alive "in the wild," that would be pretty hard to swallow.
Did you even read the post - most DAPs can support quite a few formats, even if their original firmware doesn't - the Rockbox project supports Ogg/AAC/AC3 and musepak on may DAPs even though their original firmware does not. Thats what I mean by when I say that supported formats is an artificial feature - it means that the people who wrote the original firmware were too damned lazy or had a vested interest in not supporting certain formats (thing wma players not supporting AAC).
You know, I'm not certain you read your own post. What it means is they need to produce the DAP within a particular development budget & schedule, and/or at a particular price point. This necessarily limits the scope (and hence, feature-set) of the product. How many thousands of pet audio formats are there out there that you could legitimately claim, by your standard, that the DAP "should" support? Or maybe you'd care to rephrase your comment, and say that "DAPs should support the formats that *I* consider valuable, and would like to use," at which point you can begin holding your breath waiting for the industry to revolve around you, and hope against hope that DAP manufacturers will stop trying to differentiate their products from one another in an attempt to win your hard-earned money.
I understand your analogy. I'm simply pointing out that it's silly to claim that supported formats are somehow not "features" of a DAP, when they most certainly are. Your choices are:
buy one with the all the features you want, if you're lucky enough to find one that meets all of your requirements
buy one that's close to what you need and adjust your expectations by limiting the number of songs you carry, or transcoding some of your library
buy one that has the hardware specs you want, and install new software (i.e., rockbox, or some other firmware replacement) that will allow you to play your chosen formats.
Spend hundreds or thousands of dollars and hours building one that's exactly what you want from scratch.
To extend your analogy to the point of the ridiculous (which is, incidentally, a short stretch), is it also some sort of horrible travesty that every computer you buy doesn't come preinstalled with every piece of software required to understand every possible file format you can throw at it? Talk amongst yourselves.
I think we should just have DAP players compete on price and actual features rather than artificially based on what formats they support.
Um... in what world is a supported format not a feature of a player? Considering their primary raison d'etre is to play music, isn't it pretty important that it support the formats you intend to play?
(though it'd be fun to have a good DAP that only supported royalty free formats to bring down the price).
Yes, because if the iPod only supported royalty-free formats, it would cost like, US$5 - US$10 less than it does currently. And it would have the additional "feature" of being completely incompatible with the music collections of 95% of the population who has a digital music library today.
I'd rather spend the extra $10 on "royalty" payments and save myself the time of re-ripping a couple hundred CDs into YET ANOTHER lossy format. My time is more valuable than that $10 royalty payment.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, I think you're right... and I think the extent to which "game-learned" skills will transfer is vanishingly, astonishingly low. And I think it also bears mentioning that a service like xbox live is awash with faceless 10 year olds screaming obscenities and racist screeds, and their 17 year old older brothers who think that "CaptainSmokeaBlunt" is... like... the Funniest. Gamertag. EVAR!... dude. I've seen little-to-no evidence of anything I'd call "leadership" there.
And cue WoW players to tell us how WoW's hardcore raiding scene is evidence of strong leadership skills -- as opposed to systematic self-selection of socially awkward people with bad time management skills -- in 3... 2... 1...
And this, from the Temple Mount page:
Both of these seem to contradict your statements. Does this mean wikipedia is always objective & always right? No... not in the least. But your claims that it's nothing but bias & whitewash are also provably false with a mere 5 minutes worth of research.
More to the point: like anybody really gives a shit that anybody bought an iPhone on a credit card anyway? It's not like you're using it to charge $2000 worth of blow and whores.... imagine the damage to your credibility if it were to come to light that you bought a mobile phone with a credit card! Pass the ammunition and praise the lord, that's the stuff Drudge loves to hear about!
Clarence Thomas is that you?
Let's see... on the one hand, we have you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, with your erudite analysis of "stone cold law" from the 1800's... on the other hand, we have a page hosted by and published by the United States Treasury, indicating that on this particular matter, you're full of shit, and talking out your ass...
Hmm... who to believe... who to believe...
Incidentally, how does running all those things "for the heck of it" translate to exponential gains in productivity? You really mean to tell me that fiddling with keeping an email server & calendaring application online in-house makes you MORE productive than, oh, I don't know, pointing Thunderbird at GMail? You plainly state that you're not a dev and don't write any of the code running on your server... so why reinvent the wheel? How is that in any way a "more productive" use of your time? Let's be clear here.
"Busy" != "Productive"
What you just stated above is this: "I spend time constantly fiddling with tweaking & configuring my tools." That's not "productive", unless you're a systems administrator. What you've described is better termed "pouring your time & effort down a black hole"... which I'll certainly concede may be fun, if you're the sort of person who gets off on fiddling with gadgets... but it is certainly not making you more productive, it's simply giving you another thing to play with in your free time.
To reword that: "I believe that I have exponentially increased my productivity by switching to Linux. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to state that there are plenty of people out there." You are generalizing from your single data point, just as you accused the original poster of doing.
You most certainly did, by stating that "plenty of people" have seen this increase, and giving yourself -- a single data point -- as an example, with no corroborating evidence for your assertion that a simple change of OS gave you *exponential* increases in productivity. (A claim which I remain quite skeptical of, unless your definition of "productivity" varies wildly from what I would consider "productive" use of a computer.)
And yet the lack of any statistics didn't keep you from arguing to the grandparent that Linux provides exponential gains in productivity to a statistically valid set of users, and that he was way off base because he claimed that for him, Linux has always been 80% of the functionality at 5 times the effort. How curious...
My real problem with Linux has been that I just don't have the time or patience to endlessly dick around with my computer settings. If a preinstalled, fully vendor-supported Linux system will eliminate that need, then great... until then, I'm quite happy with my Mac Book, with a full BSD Unix subsystem for when I need a slice of Unixy goodness. I expect I'll spring for one of the low-end Dells sometime in early 2008 to see if it looks like something I could actually use at this point. I've been told Ubuntu has made great strides in usability on the desktop, and a large part of my frustration in the past was hardware -- driver incompatibilities and other such nonsense.
Your claims of increased productivity are no more statistically valid as an indicator of Linux's effects on productivity than the GP poster's claims that it's been a productivity drain. And as far as the GP poster's over-arching point, that Linux suffers from multiple, subtly-incompatible systems competing for marketshare with one another, I think he's actually making a very useful point that Linux developers would do well to bear in mind.
In short, you admit that you've not seen a "real" statistical analysis of the productivity gains or losses related to an OS switch... so why even bother to chime in, except to tell us you're a CS major and you've compiled some Linux stuff from source? (As for your claim of "exponentially" increasing your productivity by simply switching to a new OS... come on now. I'd think that a critical thinking class would also teach you that making wildly inaccurate & unfounded claims with no supporting evidence is typically met with derision and skepticism...)
Looking at it another way, perhaps Apple has decided that getting people hooked on small, reliable, solid devices like the iPod and the iPhone will be a "gateway" purchase for users when it comes time to buy a new computer... create a positive brand awareness with small devices people love & carry with them everywhere, everyday, and perhaps those people will be more likely to part with MORE money when they decide they need a new computer and see that, "Hey, those guys that make the iPod also make a computer? Hmm... neat!" That's more or less my path to the dark side of being a Mac user. :)
Agreed on the corporate comment, but perhaps Apple's route into the corporate world is through the IT shops... as a software engineer, I'd love nothing more than to have a unix-based desktop system to replace my WinXP laptop. I spend most of my productive moments in Eclipse, or on a Unix or Linux server command line... if I could switch tomorrow to a Mac Book Pro at work, I would do so in a heartbeat... but my company's IT department still won't support Macs except as test systems in our test labs (web site testing, usability, etc.), even though it means that my WinXP system is so bogged down with security garbage (AntiVirus, Firewall, Drive Encryption, USB device lock to prevent writing to USB devices, and a constant stream of MSFT patches that keep failing) that I'm far less productive, and can only really get work done when I'm VPN'ed into the corporate network. Given that Mac's can run MSFT Office... well, that would pretty much seal the deal for me over a Linux system, because I need to be able to use Exchange, and I need to be able to read & write powerpoint, excel, and word docs... I'm aware that OpenOffice can do the last three, but I've actually found it to be problematic with formatting inconsistencies... maybe it's specific to the templates, etc. my company uses, but it's a very real problem.
I like Linux as a server OS. As a desktop OS, it's been -- at best -- frustrating to work with. I tried converting to Linux (Ubuntu) on my home desktop about 1.5 years ago. Before that, I also fiddled around with Red Hat (as far back as 6.2, I believe), then Fedora, then Gentoo... so I'm certainly not a newbie to Linux, though I wouldn't consider myself a Linux expert. I had a host of driver, stability, and peripheral issues, and I have *some* idea of WTF I'm doing on Linux. Trying to convert my family & friends to Linux is a non-starter, because frankly, I just don't have the time or patience to be on-call tech support to my well-loved, but not-terribly-technical friends & family.
So, when it came time to buy a new laptop a year ago, I outsourced my Unix-y desktop configuration, and bought a Mac Book Pro... which has a wonderful BSD-based Unix subsystem, a lovely GUI, and reliable tools for all of the tasks I care to do at home. Until some company can offer a Ubuntu experience as painless as my Mac OS X experience has been, I'm going to be a very reluctant switcher to Linux... Software, especially an Operating System, should be a tool to get things done with. If I find I have to spend more time fixing and maintaining my tools than I do actually using them, something is wrong with that equation, and that's the situation I found myself in trying to switch to Linux. And to be fair, none of this should be taken as me saying that Windows is a lick better. With it's constant anti-spyware / antivirus / security patching requirements and bloat, it's just as much a pain in the ass to use as Linux was.
Until any Linux distribution reaches the point where users are not asked to sacrifice their free time & energy "because it's free software!", it will not reach widespread acceptance and distribution, regardless of government intervention & regulation. It's close, but anybody who has written software knows that that last 10 - 20% of the project takes a disproportionate amount of effort.
You're confusing coincidence with intent. Apple knew it might break things, and they issued a warning. Are they under an obligation to test their software with every possible known hack in the wild and support those hacks through every upgrade? If you have proof that they *intentionally* released this update simply to break existing hacks, then I would submit that making a piece of software that will intentionally & maliciously disable your device an *optional* installation is a bit silly. "Would you like to install this virus? It will destroy your hard drive and ruin your day!" (ACCEPT) (DECLINE)
The only thing aside from the numerous security updates and enabling of new features you mean, right? And in what way does your *need* for the fix obligate Apple to take into account the hacks you've performed on your device? Think about what you're saying for a second -- becuase you *need* a security fix, Apple should be obligated to make YOUR personal set of hacks a supported part of their device? If you want manufacturer support for your device, then you should expect that they will support it as they designed it, not as you would like it to be designed... and if you don't like how they support it, then you are *free* to buy an OpenMoko Neo1973 or a TrollTech QTopia phone, or some other, more hack-friendly device.
Agreed! Apple should say, "If you have a problem with this upgrade, bring it in to the genius bar, and we'll do our level best to flash it with the latest 1.1.1 firmware, and make sure the phone activates properly, unless you don't have an AT&T account, in which case you can go sign up for one to activate your phone. If we can't flash it, we'll give you a replacement with the 1.1.1 firmware preinstalled that you're welcome to go activate via itunes." That is a reasonable amount of support, and about as much support anybody hacking their device should expect.
I agree that, *if Apple intentionally wrote code to brick anybody's iPhone*, they should be punished for it. I think it's unlikely that any bricking was intentional, because I think we'd have seen it happen to ANY iPhone that was modified from the default Apple-provided software image, if it was an intentional breakage of modified iPhones, and that's simply not the case.
Yes, I would've liked to bring my iPhone with me, and be able to use it on the O2 network when I went to Ireland a month ago, but I have an older unlocked Motorola phone that still does the trick just fine when I travel. I simply bought a local sim card, popped it in, and was activated in minutes. Would be nice if I could get rid of / donate the other phone, but until such time as they release unlock codes for international usage, I'll simply not use my iPhone abroad. I can live with that restriction, considering when I was on Sprint, I didn't even have the *chance* that I could use it because it was an incompatible network.
I have to admit, I don't really understand this complaint... I've *never* bought a second battery for any cell phone I've owned, nor have I ever swapped out the original battery... maybe my usage requirements just don't get me through the recharge cycles required, or maybe I'm just too much of a gadget nerd and usually upgrade to a new phone before it becomes an issue... but this one really didn't enter into my decision. I'll freely admit I may regret that choice someday.
Overpriced? Yes, it's steep. But not really much more than the Treo 700 my friend bought through Sprint that I was drooling over shortly before the iPhone was released. And from my experience with the iPhone, the iPhone is a lot more usable, less crash- and lockup-prone, and generally more reliable than my friend's Treo. So overpriced, and "not even best in class" are certainly debatable conclusions.
The iPhone hits the sweet spot of the sorts of things I would typically want to use a phone for -- phone calls, occasional email messaging, calendaring that gets back to my computer (and then syncs to my work computer) automatically, occasional web browsing... I love the device for its functionality, because it's just about exactly the sort of functions I find useful to have in my pocket. And the fact that it also has ipod functionality built in is wonderful, because it's one less device I need to carry around every day. Many (I daresay MOST) people do not have a real need to be able to install dozens of third party apps and utilities on their phone. How many people really *NEED* to ssh over a VPN tunnel to a Linux server? For those people, the iPhone may not be the right phone... but you have to understand that they're also a very small piece of any segment of the phone market.
And here, you've declared your bias. If you had simply said, "it's not good enough for me because it's lacking features I consider critical," then I would have easily agreed, and said, "You're right, perhaps the ipod isn't the right MP3 player for everybody." But when you start generalizing about the only reason to own one being the shiny logo making the owner cool in the eyes of the teenagers, then you're simply trolling. Begone.
While I don't disagree that, if you're looking for a Mac, you can find a Mac, take a look at the distribution of stores on these store lists from the apple website. You're "well-served" if you live on the west coast, or in the northeast... outside of that, well, you're probably going to be driving for a bit to find one. The recent agreements with BestBuy, CompUSA, etc., are nice, but I know that my local Best Buy is still displaying old iMacs, old MacBooks & MBP's... it can be hard to try before you buy. I think the author's point is a pretty good one -- most people aren't going to drive 2 hours to go test out using a new computer... Apple probably won't lure in "casual" switchers until they're able to find them at their local Target/Best Buy/CompUSA/etc.
And if the iPhone *were* a Laptop, I would agree with you wholeheartedly! But, since the iPhone is not a laptop, perhaps it's reasonable to crack open the manual and understand just what happens when you press the sleep button? Again, from page 14 of the iPhone manual:
Given that it's possible to press that sleep/wake button while you're using the ipod function, and the music keeps playing, is it *really* reasonable to expect that you've somehow powered off the device? Apple's design & engineering teams are good, no doubt, but even *their* electrical devices require a current.
And if that's a feature you want, AT&T is willing to enable spending limits on your account. It costs $4.99 a month, and is offered to prevent an "unexpected" bill because your two teenagers didn't realize that text messaging all their friends constantly and downloading 500 ringtones apiece actually had a price associated with it. It can be put in place for sms, content access, downloads, talk time, and some other limits as well, I believe. Once the phone hits that monthly limit, the feature is disabled, insofar as it does not affect emergency (911) calls, or calls to/from an "allowed" list of numbers (e.g., "You can call & be called by mom & dad, but not all your friends.") Is the $4.99 fee a bit over the top? Absolutely. Is the feature available? You bet.
Snarkiness aside, I understand the point you're making, but I just don't think it holds much water in this case. He went in and defined email accounts. He went in and turned on automatic mail checking. And now he's complaining that the device doesn't prevent him from using it *the way he's explicitly configured it to behave*? If you're not sure whether or not you'll incur international roaming charges, call AT&T support, or Apple Support, and ask. If you're really nervous about it, leave the damn phone at home, and get a pay-as-you-go package at your destination (Did he *really* need THREE "emergency call" iPhones on his cruise?). He had plenty of options, and plenty of information at his disposal, if only he had chosen to use it... I have trouble feeling much sympathy for him.
And anyway, despite my lack of sympathy, you can bet that he'll be given a huge discount by AT&T on the amount he owes (perhaps the free pass he surely wants), simply due to the fact that this is making so much noise here on slashdot, and I'm sure in other online forums.
Why is it that nobody even bats an eyelash when a one-trick device like a Whirlpool Clothes Dryer has a 21 page use & care manual? Improper setup & maintenance of that device could cause a lot more than $4800 worth of property damage, and even loss of life...
And yet, it's completely unacceptable for the iPhone -- a computer, loaded with a significant payload of complex software, despite it's simple touchscreen interface -- to have a manual that's about 100 pages long, and for the user to be expected to at least peruse a couple sections of it in order to learn how to operate the device properly? Given the complex feature set, I think the designers have done a remarkable job of making those features easy to use. That does not, unfortunately, mean the device is foolproof, as Mr. Levy has so ably demonstrated.
Think about it.
And whose fault would you consider it? The user bought an electronic device, and disregarded the instructions for the proper usage of that device. Default iPhone settings are:
But, despite the fact that he had to specifically perform operations 1 & 2 above, you think he gets a free pass because he says, "Ooops, my bad, I didn't realize! LOL!"?
In this case, a "simple mistake" costs just US $4800. In relation to how much many other "simple mistakes" can cost, that's not so bad. Plus, nobody's dead, nobody's severely injured, and nobody's going to prison.
When the documentation for the iPhone clearly states that turning the pretty screen black does not constitute turning it off, I think it's pretty unimaginable, yes.
Correction: Here is how the Apple documentation outlines how a user should handle the phone's power management. This isn't my documentation, it's Apple's. If only the included it with every iPhone! Oh wait...
And whose fault is that? It's a complex device. If you're not certain how it works, what magic formula should you use to learn how it works? Could it be that the user's guide is included with the device for a reason?
And you are 100% correct that I don't read every page of every manual of every device I buy. However, I also am 100% certain that if I don't understand how the device works, and I'm afraid I'm going to break it or cost myself a lot of money by setting it up improperly, I *do* read the manual.
Yes, because skimming through the first 14 pages of a graphics-and-white-space-heavy document is completely unreasonable. As is using the Index or Table of Contents to find what you're looking for quickly. Heaven forbid any piece of technology be complex enough to warrant a few pages of documentation, and an hour of time to understand its major functions!
And which part of "To turn the iPhone completely off" is unclear, pray tell?
Yes, they are. Because the documentation for the device clearly states that pressing that simply pressing that button does NOT "turn off the phone." To "turn off the phone," you should follow the procedure labeled "to turn iPhone completely off".
If he had bothered, once again, to RTFM, then he would have s
I suspect Mr. Levy never bothered to RTFM on his device, and then left his phone(s) in the "sleep" mode (display off, radios on), for the duration of his cruise. From Page 14 of the iPhone User Guide:
Note that they call it a "Sleep/Wake button", not an "on/off" button, or a "power" button.
Other than that, he could have enabled "Airplane Mode", which does the following (User Guide, page 22):
Oh, and you can also disable automatic checking of email in the iPhone settings. The default behavior is to check every so often, but you can set it to "Manual", which means you have to tell the iPhone to check email, it won't go out automatically and try downloading messages.
There's warnings about "Additional fees may apply" plastered all over the iPhone manual when discussing international roaming, as well. So to all the people crying that this just shows the iPhone is an overhyped piece of crap, or that this is evidence of some sort of collusion between Apple and AT&T to suck their customers dry, get over it. The guy didn't read his manual, and now he's learning that that was a costly mistake. If you go to Ireland with your brand new Nokia E70 or Treo 650, and leave it on, charging, and set to automatically check email periodically, you're going to have the same fucking problem.
What this really sounds like is, "I'm going to blame Dell for the fact that Linux has a lot of the same problems that Windows has for the average user." Yes, Linux *can* be more secure. But the average "Joe User" isn't going to give 2 shits about security, they're going to click away, run whatever programs & trojans they download, and enter their root password "because the computer asked for it." Yes, Linux *can* run on old or weak hardware better than Windows. But this is irrelevant, because they're not installing Linux on an old Windows box to eke another year or two out of the hardware. They're buying a brand new, reasonably powerful Dell desktop or laptop that's significantly better than the 5 year old box sitting on their desk. Yes, Linux *can* be had cheaper than Windows. But all of that bloatware helps reduce the overall price of the Dell system because it subsidizes part of the hardware. And it's the total price tag that counts, not the individual per-O/S cost. So no, none of those are selling points that will really drive Linux adoption by Dell customers.
Don't get me wrong -- I use Linux day in and day out on servers at work, and I like it. But anybody who knows enough about Linux to want it on their computer hasn't been stopped from building their own Linux system, and probably with more bang for the same buck than it'd cost them to buy that Dell. And anybody who doesn't know enough about Linux to want it on their computer is going to buy "whatever my cousin Bob runs", or "whatever it is I use at work," especially if it's $20 - 50 cheaper than the "Free Software" alternative due to the bloatware subsidies.
My prediction is that Dell's Linux consumer systems will sell at a very slow pace, and the entire program will most likely fizzle out or be cut back drastically at some point due to lack of interest. As I said -- people who want Linux don't need to wait for Dell. People who don't know what Linux is are not going to just start choosing it because it's an option. They're going to choose what they know -- what they use at work, or what they've been using at home -- and that is, more than likely, Windows. Linux will not be a viable "mainstream" desktop (NOTE: Mainstream > "I use it, and installed it for my grandma & three cousins too, so fuck you, MSFT fanboi.") until it gets a reasonable desktop share within corporations, which is where "Joe User" will get forced to learn a little about how the system works, and start thinking, "Gee, maybe I'll just get this at home too next time I buy a system, since I know how it works."
Anecdotally, I have gone through three ipods... a 3G which I carelessly dropped on concrete from about 5 feet, and a 5G which replaced the broken 3G, which I use every day. I was also given a nano as a gift, and I use that at the gym, so I don't have to worry about dropping the 5G. Looking around at the gym, I would also estimate 30% or so of the people in my line of sight at any time there are plugged into a nano or shuffle; In addition, ipods are a very common sight on desks during the day at work, too.
I don't think 100 million ipods sold to date is a particularly unbelievable number. If they told me there were 100 million ipods sold, and they're all still alive "in the wild," that would be pretty hard to swallow.
I understand your analogy. I'm simply pointing out that it's silly to claim that supported formats are somehow not "features" of a DAP, when they most certainly are. Your choices are:
- buy one with the all the features you want, if you're lucky enough to find one that meets all of your requirements
- buy one that's close to what you need and adjust your expectations by limiting the number of songs you carry, or transcoding some of your library
- buy one that has the hardware specs you want, and install new software (i.e., rockbox, or some other firmware replacement) that will allow you to play your chosen formats.
- Spend hundreds or thousands of dollars and hours building one that's exactly what you want from scratch.
To extend your analogy to the point of the ridiculous (which is, incidentally, a short stretch), is it also some sort of horrible travesty that every computer you buy doesn't come preinstalled with every piece of software required to understand every possible file format you can throw at it? Talk amongst yourselves.Yes, because if the iPod only supported royalty-free formats, it would cost like, US$5 - US$10 less than it does currently. And it would have the additional "feature" of being completely incompatible with the music collections of 95% of the population who has a digital music library today.
I'd rather spend the extra $10 on "royalty" payments and save myself the time of re-ripping a couple hundred CDs into YET ANOTHER lossy format. My time is more valuable than that $10 royalty payment.