I meant moderation as in parental control.;) A 2 yr old that understood moderation would have beaten me to it by about 25 years.
My niece is about 5-6 yrs old (I'm a bad uncle -sigh-) and my mother lets her play some games. The first were Dora the Explorer because it was her favorite show, but she stunk at them. She was about 4 then. Once she finally got the whole mouse control thing under control, she didn't want to play alone. It was more for the attention.
Now they play search and find games from Reflexive.net... There was 3 of them so far, I believe. They fill the 'room' with tons of different objects and have you find 8-10 of them. She doesn't play it alone as she doesn't read well enough yet, but it's her favorite type of game.
I try to bring other stuff for her to do, though, also. She loves coloring and other creative stuff, so I try to find stuff she hasn't done. I got her a bunch of cheap scrapbooking supplies, but mom and sis can't be bothered to help her take some pictures, apparently. I think she'd really get a kick out of it, and it's something that could easily become a job skill. (The creative/arrangement portions, anyhow.)
Yeah, it seems early to think of things like that, especially when it's not my kid, but why not? I don't push her into things, and I don't ever mention the 'job' thing because I don't want it to be about that for her. I'm one of the few people I've met that enjoy their job for the work, instead of the pay. (If at all.) I'd like to see her have that, too, and the earlier she learns a 'hobby' (I was only about 3 years older) then the more prepared she'll be.
My sister has no hobbies and she's going to college to be a pharmacist. She's only going for the money, and I pity her.
Anyhow, off track... My point is that it's possible that TV has harmful effects. But then, they've proven that sawdust, when giving to lab rats in stupid quanities, causes cancer. Can you think of anything less commonplace than sawdust? Extremes suck.
Those examples are incredibly simple and obvious. They're nothing like 'TV makes babies autistic.'
Why are they so obvious? Because most of us have experienced these effects. I was picked on as a kid, and I have low self-esteem. Abuse, since it's 'beyond your control' (whether it is or not) can obviously make you depressed because it sucks and you can't do anything about it. Educational programming is MEANT to help children learn.
Name someone that can say 'I know TV made me autistic.' I'll even settle for 'I know TV made my child austistic' if they can state a reason, instead of just this study.
There's nobody on Earth that can say that with any reasonable certainty.
You can't make a commercial first person hack and slash in ASCII. Graphics are needed for that, whatever you think. The experience simply isn't the same. So games like Dynasty Warriors 3/4/5 and Dead Rising couldn't exist on the NES.
So good CPUs and GPUs DID create a new genre, and thus gameplay ideas.
Maybe they aren't likely to create a lot more, but it's not an 'assumption' on anyone's part that they did it.
As for the Wiimote creating new gameplay ideas... So far, there's nothing on the Wii that couldn't be done on the standard gamepad. Maybe it's a little more fun, and a little more intuitive and easy... But they already exist.
Okami is a prime example... The celestial brush would have been perfect for the Wiimote... But the ps2's analog controls handle it fine. If it had been conceived after the Wii was announced, people would claim it couldn't have been done on a gamepad. And they would have been wrong.
We can, as long as you only want it to print 'Hello World' to the screen and exit. If you actually want to it to do something useful, there's a complexity issue that gets in the way.
You might as well as 'Why haven't they made the perfect car?'
'Ever-increasing amounts'... I'd say you were 100% correct. But controlled amounts, with a hand in what they watch as well as when? I think maybe then you'd see the real thing that's harming them, not the TV.
To paraphrase an old saying... TV's don't make people autistic, people do.
Okay, at the risk of sounding argumentative... What if taking TV away was the wrong thing?
Example: When I was about 10, my parents took me and my sister to see a movie. We loved it and wanted to see another, naturally. Like little brats everywhere, we asked, again and again, if we could see another right then. There was even one on that we wanted to see. My father said 'If you ask 1 more time, I will never take you to see a movie again.' or something close. So we respond 'Ah, c'mon, please' or something of the sort. I had a job and paid my own way in before I saw another movie.
I'm sure my Dad thought it was best to teach us a lesson. But all I'll remember about that is that my dad is grumpy and that I felt even more different from all the other kids because I didn't go to the movies for around 8 years. I didn't even remember what it was like. I've been to the movies with him since then, but it took 5 or 6 years of going with my mother and sister and without him for him to finally give up and go with us again.
Even though this is a true story, it's a bit extreme. I suggest that maybe removing TV from a child's life is the same. Everyone else in class talks about Sesame Street or the Rugrats or whatever, and the child has no idea what they mean and only know that they are missing out on something and feel lonely.
As always, moderation is the key.
I'm totally against the 'here's the remote, watch whatever' parenting technique, but I'm equally against the 'you can only watch this 1 show, at this 1 time because all other shows are bad for you' technique.
I thought we were talking about Hydrogen Power, not HydroPower. (water power) Or is this another Bushism?
Nope, looks like the submitter just has no idea what it means. Only reference to that in the article is an link to another article that does indeed talk about water power.
As far as 'where to get it'... I've always wondered where they thought they'd get unlimited amounts of any limited resource. We can't destroy the oceans for it, and we can't scoop it out of the sun. (At least, I think we can't.) The article talks about nuclear and fossil fuels... That's the problem we already have... How is this a solution?
We're going to have to sit down and decide to be responsible about the environment some day. We can't keep putting it off forever.
While I am inclined to completely ignore this study, it's not on a 'correlation/causation' basis. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that television is such a huge factor for autism.
I think it's merely a scapegoat. Why were those 0-3 yr old children watching TV? Hint: It's not because they have control over their life and can do whatever they want. That's just 1 factor.
Now, if as you say, the results of this are carried further and more research done, I think we'll find the culprit is not TV, but rather what the parents didn't do that TV replaced. I'm not a parent, and even considering talking about what they should have done will get a slew of pointless 'you aren't a parent and you don't understand' posts, so I won't bother. They wouldn't listen anyhow, if they are replacing proper development with TV. But maybe a 'scientist' will find the real cause here and maybe, just maybe, they'll listen.
I applaud your decision not to smoke, btw. I wish more people would consider the health of those they love. On a side note, I kissed a smoker once and swore that would never happen again. I simply don't consider any girls that smoke as dateable now. (It removes a huge percentage of the population, unfortunately.)
lol Actually, I called in sick to work and I was playing video games... Hehe. But I usually read./ from work, yes.
But think of this... Current management makes them go to the office to work. Because they think it's necessary for productivity. Maybe management is already doing its job! Not everyone can handle the added responsibility of working from home, and they seem to think the majority of their workforce is in that category. Maybe they are right.
Others noted that communication and collaboration is also much easier in the workplace. I agree with that also.
In the end, I'm sure there are more factors that I haven't bothered to think about yet.
While I enjoy working from home now and then, I only do it when I have a -need- to work at home.
There is no 'blindly' about it. I don't usually yell this, but I'm going to quote the GPP for truth, here.
"CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!"
Correlation may show signs that they are related. It may even show extremely strong, almost irrefutable signs. But it never proves it. Everyone that screams this saying knows this.
If you really think higher correlation means causation, take a look at venganza.org again. The correlation between the lack of pirates and global warming is approaching 'certainty'. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the lack of pirates does not cause global warming. But the correlation is extremely strong.
Of course it sometimes happens that there is causation that is causing the correlation. That's just common sense, too. But it's a logical fallacy to believe that correlation means causation.
And BTW, the study could EASILY be backwards. Maybe autistic children make parents move to towns with cable. It's just as likely, from the given facts.
Sad if it were true, yes. Clover may be gone, but someone else owns the rights to Okami now. (Capcom)
If you think Capcom can't see how well the Celestial Brush would work on the Wii, you're crazy. And most of the work is done. There's no new graphics or sounds or anything to create. Wii isn't HD, so they don't have to worry about redoing the textures in higher resolution.
It's just programming. (Yeah, I know it's isn't "that simple" but the money is there to be had, and Capcom will run the numbers, you can bet on it.)
"it is also the least financially efficient way of getting production work done in an age of broadband."
Have you got -any- proof of that? Some people do NOT work well away from the office. I'm guessing that game programmers, designers, and other game-jobs have huge amounts of people in that category.
In fact, anyone with ANY interest in games has a compulsion to play games. Try having a doctor do paperwork at the golf course and you'll see exactly the same thing. The temptation is just too close at hand.
Oh gee, look... Another story from someone who can't join a group about how lame the group is.
I'm a Mensan and I just happen to think that most jocks are complete losers. Everything they work so hard for means absolutely nothing to me. And it means everything to them.
I'm not a typical Mensan. I don't go to the meetings (although I've thought about some of the gaming sessions locally) and I generally don't even read the magazine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they freaks that value their appearance in a magazine are pretty much the worst of the bunch. The articles are trash and the editorials are boring. And quite often they're completely wrong about whatever it is they are talking about. So I stopped reading it.
Why do I keep paying the dues? It looks great on my resume and I keep thinking about going to the games stuff. In 3 years I haven't ever quite found the time... But 1 day. Hehe.
So I look around at jock magazines, and I see the same cruft and I judge jocks by that. And not just them. Frat-guys, car-junkies, drug-junkies, whatever. None of that interests me and their literature makes them all losers in my eyes.
So tell me again how you and your friends are superior because you CAN'T join the club?
(Obviously, I'm sick of people saying 'smart people are stupid' merely because they can't keep up.)
I think maybe you missed his point... 'Microsoft' controller. There are plenty of third party controllers to take a picture of and use, but/. chose a Microsoft one.
The answer is simple. EB/Gamestop only accept pre-orders that they can 'guarantee'. They have decided that they can only guarantee this many for each of the stores. Chances are that there will be a ton of them on the shelf on launch day, and you'll be able to go pick one up. But if you want a 'guarantee' then you pre-order.
There's nothing stopping them from opening up for additional pre-orders next week, either. They are simply being responsible to their customers and not promising what they aren't sure they can deliver.
I applaud them for that.
Not that it doesn't make me angry at all... There's no way I'll get a pre-order when I manage to get to the store a few hours from now. My store is 'small' and always tells me they aren't likely to get extras of things that aren't pre-ordered for normal stuff.
And if I miss the launch, a little patience probably won't kill me. I hope.
It isn't really so concrete, though, is it? I'm perfectly happy with my 19". Would a 30" really help? Maybe... If I had a 30", would a 50"? What about a 100"?
Maybe 30" isn't the magic number, either. Maybe 30" is really TOO big and would cut my productivity because I have to constantly move my whole head to view the screen, instead of just my eyes.
I have a 37" LCD HDTV as a monitor at home. (Mainly for games.) I find I have to sit all the way across the room (Like 8' away) in order to properly view the screen. I'd get the same benefit from a ~ 22" screen that is much closer, and there wouldn't be all that wasted room space.
At work, I'm not even sure a 30" screen would fit on my desk... I seriously doubt it would make me more productive.
Also, it's worth noting that the upgrade from 15" to 19" didn't do much for my productivity at work.
Who said he was chained to it? You're assuming he has no money in his bank account and is counting on this 'job' to feed him. It is entirely possible he can quit at any time and be perfectly fine.
It's also a mistake to assume he has no other skills. The simple fact is, this is his -best- skill, not necessarily his only skill.
As for the 'new game' mentality... Someone in a previous thread noted that he only plays 1 game professionally: Halo. There's been quite a few games in that genre since then, and he didn't bother to 'practice' them so he could play them professionally. So he's not stuck with this problem, either.
No, it's quite possible that the opposite of all this is true. He may actually enjoy games MORE now because he has money riding on them. There's an adrenaline rush there that you can't get from just gaming. And he only plays 1 game professionally, but he's free to play all the others just for fun.
I suspect all your arguments were used for the first person to get paid big money to play sports, too. And several hundred (thousand?) people do it yearly now.
While I will agree that most devs will work where the money is, there will be plenty that go where they can work faster/better. And some of those will produce apps that manage to get 'killer app' status. It doesn't take many of these to make consumers want this alternative platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant moderation as in parental control. ;) A 2 yr old that understood moderation would have beaten me to it by about 25 years.
My niece is about 5-6 yrs old (I'm a bad uncle -sigh-) and my mother lets her play some games. The first were Dora the Explorer because it was her favorite show, but she stunk at them. She was about 4 then. Once she finally got the whole mouse control thing under control, she didn't want to play alone. It was more for the attention.
Now they play search and find games from Reflexive.net... There was 3 of them so far, I believe. They fill the 'room' with tons of different objects and have you find 8-10 of them. She doesn't play it alone as she doesn't read well enough yet, but it's her favorite type of game.
I try to bring other stuff for her to do, though, also. She loves coloring and other creative stuff, so I try to find stuff she hasn't done. I got her a bunch of cheap scrapbooking supplies, but mom and sis can't be bothered to help her take some pictures, apparently. I think she'd really get a kick out of it, and it's something that could easily become a job skill. (The creative/arrangement portions, anyhow.)
Yeah, it seems early to think of things like that, especially when it's not my kid, but why not? I don't push her into things, and I don't ever mention the 'job' thing because I don't want it to be about that for her. I'm one of the few people I've met that enjoy their job for the work, instead of the pay. (If at all.) I'd like to see her have that, too, and the earlier she learns a 'hobby' (I was only about 3 years older) then the more prepared she'll be.
My sister has no hobbies and she's going to college to be a pharmacist. She's only going for the money, and I pity her.
Anyhow, off track... My point is that it's possible that TV has harmful effects. But then, they've proven that sawdust, when giving to lab rats in stupid quanities, causes cancer. Can you think of anything less commonplace than sawdust? Extremes suck.
Those examples are incredibly simple and obvious. They're nothing like 'TV makes babies autistic.'
Why are they so obvious? Because most of us have experienced these effects. I was picked on as a kid, and I have low self-esteem. Abuse, since it's 'beyond your control' (whether it is or not) can obviously make you depressed because it sucks and you can't do anything about it. Educational programming is MEANT to help children learn.
Name someone that can say 'I know TV made me autistic.' I'll even settle for 'I know TV made my child austistic' if they can state a reason, instead of just this study.
There's nobody on Earth that can say that with any reasonable certainty.
You can't make a commercial first person hack and slash in ASCII. Graphics are needed for that, whatever you think. The experience simply isn't the same. So games like Dynasty Warriors 3/4/5 and Dead Rising couldn't exist on the NES.
So good CPUs and GPUs DID create a new genre, and thus gameplay ideas.
Maybe they aren't likely to create a lot more, but it's not an 'assumption' on anyone's part that they did it.
As for the Wiimote creating new gameplay ideas... So far, there's nothing on the Wii that couldn't be done on the standard gamepad. Maybe it's a little more fun, and a little more intuitive and easy... But they already exist.
Okami is a prime example... The celestial brush would have been perfect for the Wiimote... But the ps2's analog controls handle it fine. If it had been conceived after the Wii was announced, people would claim it couldn't have been done on a gamepad. And they would have been wrong.
We can, as long as you only want it to print 'Hello World' to the screen and exit. If you actually want to it to do something useful, there's a complexity issue that gets in the way.
You might as well as 'Why haven't they made the perfect car?'
Okay, maybe 'lack' has connotations that are incorrect.
How about 'unplenitude.' It's a perfectly cromulent word, I assure you.
'Ever-increasing amounts' ... I'd say you were 100% correct. But controlled amounts, with a hand in what they watch as well as when? I think maybe then you'd see the real thing that's harming them, not the TV.
To paraphrase an old saying... TV's don't make people autistic, people do.
Okay, at the risk of sounding argumentative... What if taking TV away was the wrong thing?
Example: When I was about 10, my parents took me and my sister to see a movie. We loved it and wanted to see another, naturally. Like little brats everywhere, we asked, again and again, if we could see another right then. There was even one on that we wanted to see. My father said 'If you ask 1 more time, I will never take you to see a movie again.' or something close. So we respond 'Ah, c'mon, please' or something of the sort. I had a job and paid my own way in before I saw another movie.
I'm sure my Dad thought it was best to teach us a lesson. But all I'll remember about that is that my dad is grumpy and that I felt even more different from all the other kids because I didn't go to the movies for around 8 years. I didn't even remember what it was like. I've been to the movies with him since then, but it took 5 or 6 years of going with my mother and sister and without him for him to finally give up and go with us again.
Even though this is a true story, it's a bit extreme. I suggest that maybe removing TV from a child's life is the same. Everyone else in class talks about Sesame Street or the Rugrats or whatever, and the child has no idea what they mean and only know that they are missing out on something and feel lonely.
As always, moderation is the key.
I'm totally against the 'here's the remote, watch whatever' parenting technique, but I'm equally against the 'you can only watch this 1 show, at this 1 time because all other shows are bad for you' technique.
I thought we were talking about Hydrogen Power, not HydroPower. (water power) Or is this another Bushism?
Nope, looks like the submitter just has no idea what it means. Only reference to that in the article is an link to another article that does indeed talk about water power.
As far as 'where to get it'... I've always wondered where they thought they'd get unlimited amounts of any limited resource. We can't destroy the oceans for it, and we can't scoop it out of the sun. (At least, I think we can't.) The article talks about nuclear and fossil fuels... That's the problem we already have... How is this a solution?
We're going to have to sit down and decide to be responsible about the environment some day. We can't keep putting it off forever.
While I am inclined to completely ignore this study, it's not on a 'correlation/causation' basis. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that television is such a huge factor for autism.
I think it's merely a scapegoat. Why were those 0-3 yr old children watching TV? Hint: It's not because they have control over their life and can do whatever they want. That's just 1 factor.
Now, if as you say, the results of this are carried further and more research done, I think we'll find the culprit is not TV, but rather what the parents didn't do that TV replaced. I'm not a parent, and even considering talking about what they should have done will get a slew of pointless 'you aren't a parent and you don't understand' posts, so I won't bother. They wouldn't listen anyhow, if they are replacing proper development with TV. But maybe a 'scientist' will find the real cause here and maybe, just maybe, they'll listen.
I applaud your decision not to smoke, btw. I wish more people would consider the health of those they love. On a side note, I kissed a smoker once and swore that would never happen again. I simply don't consider any girls that smoke as dateable now. (It removes a huge percentage of the population, unfortunately.)
I nearly spit my soda. You got me there. hehe. It's not often that someone uses my logic against me, and even more rare when it's hilarious.
lol Actually, I called in sick to work and I was playing video games... Hehe. But I usually read ./ from work, yes.
But think of this... Current management makes them go to the office to work. Because they think it's necessary for productivity. Maybe management is already doing its job! Not everyone can handle the added responsibility of working from home, and they seem to think the majority of their workforce is in that category. Maybe they are right.
Others noted that communication and collaboration is also much easier in the workplace. I agree with that also.
In the end, I'm sure there are more factors that I haven't bothered to think about yet.
While I enjoy working from home now and then, I only do it when I have a -need- to work at home.
There is no 'blindly' about it. I don't usually yell this, but I'm going to quote the GPP for truth, here.
c ausation
"CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!"
Correlation may show signs that they are related. It may even show extremely strong, almost irrefutable signs. But it never proves it. Everyone that screams this saying knows this.
If you really think higher correlation means causation, take a look at venganza.org again. The correlation between the lack of pirates and global warming is approaching 'certainty'. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the lack of pirates does not cause global warming. But the correlation is extremely strong.
Of course it sometimes happens that there is causation that is causing the correlation. That's just common sense, too. But it's a logical fallacy to believe that correlation means causation.
Some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_
And BTW, the study could EASILY be backwards. Maybe autistic children make parents move to towns with cable. It's just as likely, from the given facts.
Sad if it were true, yes. Clover may be gone, but someone else owns the rights to Okami now. (Capcom)
If you think Capcom can't see how well the Celestial Brush would work on the Wii, you're crazy. And most of the work is done. There's no new graphics or sounds or anything to create. Wii isn't HD, so they don't have to worry about redoing the textures in higher resolution.
It's just programming. (Yeah, I know it's isn't "that simple" but the money is there to be had, and Capcom will run the numbers, you can bet on it.)
"it is also the least financially efficient way of getting production work done in an age of broadband."
Have you got -any- proof of that? Some people do NOT work well away from the office. I'm guessing that game programmers, designers, and other game-jobs have huge amounts of people in that category.
In fact, anyone with ANY interest in games has a compulsion to play games. Try having a doctor do paperwork at the golf course and you'll see exactly the same thing. The temptation is just too close at hand.
Oh gee, look... Another story from someone who can't join a group about how lame the group is.
I'm a Mensan and I just happen to think that most jocks are complete losers. Everything they work so hard for means absolutely nothing to me. And it means everything to them.
I'm not a typical Mensan. I don't go to the meetings (although I've thought about some of the gaming sessions locally) and I generally don't even read the magazine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they freaks that value their appearance in a magazine are pretty much the worst of the bunch. The articles are trash and the editorials are boring. And quite often they're completely wrong about whatever it is they are talking about. So I stopped reading it.
Why do I keep paying the dues? It looks great on my resume and I keep thinking about going to the games stuff. In 3 years I haven't ever quite found the time... But 1 day. Hehe.
So I look around at jock magazines, and I see the same cruft and I judge jocks by that. And not just them. Frat-guys, car-junkies, drug-junkies, whatever. None of that interests me and their literature makes them all losers in my eyes.
So tell me again how you and your friends are superior because you CAN'T join the club?
(Obviously, I'm sick of people saying 'smart people are stupid' merely because they can't keep up.)
Apparently the policy for hardware is different than games, then. I was told that preordering a game guaranteed that I'd get it first day.
I think maybe you missed his point... 'Microsoft' controller. There are plenty of third party controllers to take a picture of and use, but /. chose a Microsoft one.
The answer is simple. EB/Gamestop only accept pre-orders that they can 'guarantee'. They have decided that they can only guarantee this many for each of the stores. Chances are that there will be a ton of them on the shelf on launch day, and you'll be able to go pick one up. But if you want a 'guarantee' then you pre-order.
There's nothing stopping them from opening up for additional pre-orders next week, either. They are simply being responsible to their customers and not promising what they aren't sure they can deliver.
I applaud them for that.
Not that it doesn't make me angry at all... There's no way I'll get a pre-order when I manage to get to the store a few hours from now. My store is 'small' and always tells me they aren't likely to get extras of things that aren't pre-ordered for normal stuff.
And if I miss the launch, a little patience probably won't kill me. I hope.
Stop filling in the ???s! You're ruining Slashdot with your good sense!!
Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. And with that clause in the EULA, he's right. It's just another example of how ridiculous EULA's are.
It isn't really so concrete, though, is it? I'm perfectly happy with my 19". Would a 30" really help? Maybe... If I had a 30", would a 50"? What about a 100"?
Maybe 30" isn't the magic number, either. Maybe 30" is really TOO big and would cut my productivity because I have to constantly move my whole head to view the screen, instead of just my eyes.
I have a 37" LCD HDTV as a monitor at home. (Mainly for games.) I find I have to sit all the way across the room (Like 8' away) in order to properly view the screen. I'd get the same benefit from a ~ 22" screen that is much closer, and there wouldn't be all that wasted room space.
At work, I'm not even sure a 30" screen would fit on my desk... I seriously doubt it would make me more productive.
Also, it's worth noting that the upgrade from 15" to 19" didn't do much for my productivity at work.
Um, maybe that's because more people play the lottery than attempt to have a career playing video games? How about:
More people made MORE money...
As CEO of a company
Playing sports
Making movies
Singing
As head of a country
As drug kingpins
In the stock market
No, this is news because it's so rare. That's the way news works... The stuff that doesn't happen every day is what gets talked about.
Who said he was chained to it? You're assuming he has no money in his bank account and is counting on this 'job' to feed him. It is entirely possible he can quit at any time and be perfectly fine.
It's also a mistake to assume he has no other skills. The simple fact is, this is his -best- skill, not necessarily his only skill.
As for the 'new game' mentality... Someone in a previous thread noted that he only plays 1 game professionally: Halo. There's been quite a few games in that genre since then, and he didn't bother to 'practice' them so he could play them professionally. So he's not stuck with this problem, either.
No, it's quite possible that the opposite of all this is true. He may actually enjoy games MORE now because he has money riding on them. There's an adrenaline rush there that you can't get from just gaming. And he only plays 1 game professionally, but he's free to play all the others just for fun.
I suspect all your arguments were used for the first person to get paid big money to play sports, too. And several hundred (thousand?) people do it yearly now.
I'm sorry, I have to ask... Did you really mean 'defenestrate'? Because I've never heard of a court throwing a lawyer out of a window.
But I definitely agree that it's a combination of 1 and 3 that stops this and many other lawsuits that would help clean up our legal system.
While I will agree that most devs will work where the money is, there will be plenty that go where they can work faster/better. And some of those will produce apps that manage to get 'killer app' status. It doesn't take many of these to make consumers want this alternative platform.