What risks and liability do you think lie behind putting some software on a thumb drive?
1st -- The risk and liability stems from the fact that there is no guarantee it will work next week, or with the next update, and sooner or later it may not work, and you may be up a creek because its an unofficial and unsupported process, and you have no recourse if Apple breaks it down the road, or if it doesn't work on some unit for some reason.
2nd -- enterprises are used to imaging PCs in bulk, and remote installation services, and all sorts of enterprisey goodness.
Wandering around with thumbdrives to install operating systems manually one at a time is pretty amateur hour, and it doesn't scale all that well in an organization with 100,000 PCs...
After that, the "IT guy" can use detailed instructions available on the 'net and create an installer/boot DVD or USB thumbdrive. It's easy as that! I can't see any other good way to deploy to multiple machines on businesses.
And this is the crux of the problem with Apple and the enterprise.
Competent enterprise IT departments expect competent enterprise support.
The fact that they CAN go and figure out how to do something by reading some blog on the net is not how they are going to get things done.
This is why Red Hat has a functioning business model.
Enterprises don't want hacks and tricks lifted from blogs even if they work. They want a formally documented and supported process backed by an entity that stands behind it.
Its not because they aren't competent, its because for them, risk and liability management are just as important as the actual solutions.
Treaties are never truly "binding", they are merely a framework of agreements.
A treaty is only worth anything if its valuable enough to both sides that either side will abide by the terms so as to gain the benefit.
A treaty that wasn't even ratified by the US is worthless to the UK. They can run it through a paper shredder and send the bits to the USA and say its done. What's the US going to do? Say, "well then we're not going to hold up our end of the treaty... oh er... wait... we weren't going to do that anyway... ok then, carry on."
And who all your friends are. And everything they say to you or about you.
They get your birthday and age the day all your friends wish you a happy birthday...
They get your eye color from the photographs.
Give me 6 months of google+ data along with what gets linked to your profile using google search, google analytics, and google ads, and I'll know more about you than you thought possible...
I just strikes me as odd that we have so much contempt for the arrogance and hubris of anyone else does something big and pointless, while taking fierce pride in our own equally "big and pointless" endeavors.
Metal detectors don't detect non-metal weaponry. The procedures in place are there because everyone knows the ones you're proposing were bollocks in the first place.
There's not a lot of real weaponry that isn't metallic.
And while exotic toys like ceramic handguns exist, they aren't going to bring a plane down. A bottle of suntan lotion isn't either.
In commercial mass-transit vehicles, you follow the rules.
So make rules worth following.
By "seedy hitchhikers," I meant "potential terrorists."
You don't subject everyone to invasive security checks on something with 1 in a billion odds.
Frankly I don't know how you get to the airport, the odds of dying on the trip to the airport are orders of magnitude higher than dying due to a terrorist attack on the plane. Yet you braved those much greater risks without even a 2nd thought.
You're proposing to open a hole in physical security.
The physical security is swiss cheese.
The guy in the seat behind you can kill you in seconds with his shoelace.
And if they were really concerned you were going to blow up the plane with your bottle of suntan lotion, why did they take it from you, casually toss it in a plastic bin, and then let you onto the plane?
Planes falling from the sky is very bad for business.
This doesn't happen all that much. Terrorists are to blame for only a tiny fraction of the ones that do. And airline security hasn't prevented the times it has.
You always have the choice to travel without insisting everyone take a risk along with you
So do you. If your so afraid of your fellow traveller, why don't YOU get YOUR own plane, and fly ALL BY YOURSELF.
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
One wouldn't. No more than one would use the memory manager I wrote in university for an operating systems class.
As an academic pursuit however its quite interesting, and as another working fully open source kernel, it its a worthwhile topic in any "comparative operating systems architecture" classes.
They aren't really asserting that they have no control.
They are asserting that they have no *legal obligation* whatsoever to remove the links.
That doesn't mean that they cannot remove links voluntarily if they personally find the content being linked to objectionable, as is evidently the case for child porn.
True, but you could only influence it if you knew in advance that it worked like that.
Right, but that's sort of the antithesis of something being random.
My point was the alternative scenario I provided still contained a glitch, but there was no way to predict or control who would be affected even if you knew in advance that it worked like that, and as a result it was still random who got picked.
Ones precise position in the queue was random. Whether or not you were within the first 2 days or not isn't random.
That other viable options are available means that our freedom of movement is preserved without causing undue burden
The TSA has already asserted they have the authority to implement the same sorts of checks on riding a bus or taking a train.
Walking is not a "viable" option to cross even the continental united states.
It doesn't guarantee anything about the form of transportation
It doesn't limit anything about the form of transportation either.
But I agree that the freedom movement isn't really where this argument should center. Its more squarely in the "unreasonable search and seizure" arena.
freedom to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger
Although a nudie scan and groped by thugs isn't how I'd treat "welcome visitors"... but sounds about right for "hostile strangers".
Speaking as the hypothetical CEO of American Airlines...
Because you're not the only one on the plane.
I'm more than confident the majority of the flying public would happily use this airline if we offered basic common sense screening with a metal detector. Indeed, as a product differentiator I think we could use this feature to attract business.
Get your own.
As the CEO of American Airlines, I assure you we have a whole fleet of modern planes to work with. The problem is not plaines. The problem is I am not allowed to offer this hassle free service.
Pick up all the seedy hitchhikers you want.
You call them "seedy hitchhikers" I call them "People who are willing to accept the extremely low risk of "terrorism" in exchange for their dignity, and a vastly quicker and less invasive check-in process."
Deal with the consequences yourself.
If I were given the chance, I would.
Don't insist on dragging the rest of the flying public with you.
The rest of the flying public is free to choose from any of the other anal probing airlines if that is the sort of treatment they enjoy. Nobody would ever be forced onto one of our hassle-free planes against their will.
I lend quite often. It's called I switch my password to something temporary to let a buddy play...
This is in blatent violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to.
And while your buddy is playing an online game, you can't login. Even if you own 20 other multiplayer games and wish to play something that is not in use....
or just signin once to their machine, download the game, and put the hack on to put Steam into permanent offline mode on their machine.
Effectively cracking the system to let your friend play it. Why not just have your friend torrent a cracked copy? How is what you've done any better?
Plus this method ensures you can't lend someone an online game, and/or that the lendee can't do any multi-player.
A random choice that is limited to a particular subset is NOT random for the entire set.
Yes and no.
In this case, only applicants from the first 2 days of the application time were considered by the random selector. This clearly unfair, because its quite easy to predict and even control whether you are eligible to get picked.
However if the error was something more esoteric, like every 5th applicant was not considered by the random number generator, (and we recognize that this is an online system not a phsyical queue... so there is no way to know if your application is first, second, third, etc...) then there would be no way to know or predict or control whether you were eligible to get picked, and the process is still effectively very fair and random because there is randomness with respect to your precise position within the queue.
Lastly, if you build 12 subs, the 12th sub is going to be about ½ the cost of the first. The first subs are going to be more expensive until the workers figure out the best way to put things together better. And I am not talking about spreading R&D costs over multiple units [which is also true]. We are talking about assembling a highly complex machine. Planes tend to be the same.
This is certainly true. However is any of the savings realized and passed on to the buyer?
Or do the contractors (Boeing et al) who actually build them simply make more money on subsequent units?
I'd choose to fly on an airline with no identity checks, a metal detector for screening, and perhaps some security on each flight in a heart beat. Why am I denied that option?
You can get in the line for the airline that irradiates you and then probes your ass hole if that makes you feel safe in plane...
Microsoft has the salt, so they will be able to check certain passwords. Hash 123456, salt it, compare with the table.
But the salt isn't necessarily the same for every login.
Many login systems create random salt for EACH account, and store it with the hash.
The point of salt isnt to make the hashes impossible to do lookups on (otherwise you couldnt do logins),
Of course.
its to make existing rainbow tables worthless.
If your login database is stolen, and you use the same salt for each account, then its a fairly simple effort to generate new rainbow tables for your chosen salt.
This is one reason why unique salt for each account is preferable.
but I have yet to hear a coherent case for why it violates the Constitution, given that we're the one choosing to fly when other options are available
While I have yet to hear why other options being available has anything to do with anything?
If they put fences up and did TSA style checking at state borders, and subjected everyone who crossed on foot, by rail, or by car to security checks and identification checks... would that violate the constitution?
What if "Private Jets owners who purchased trusted traveller status" were exempt from the checks? Would the availability of this "other option" make everything ok. Even if it was exorbitantly priced and only a few people could realistically take advantage of it.
After all, "The constitution doesn't gaurantee inexpensiveness" either.
Or maybe the constitution guaranteed people the freedom to travel within the republics borders. Period. In all reasonable forms.
To travel as a **passenger** in a privately owned vehicle that is properly maintained and licensed by its operator... quite frankly I think "papers please" is a violation of the constitutional freedom of movement.
Otherwise, what DOES the constitution guarantee exactly? That one can walk around the country in a government issued loincloth, nothing more, nothing less.
If he's so much as riding in a cart pulled by a bicycle the government can probe him analy at will?
After all, he chose this form of transportation... he could have chosen something else.
If the company you rented the server from is in Texas, then that company should pay Texas sales tax.
I agree. However, this case is a bit more complex.
Here we have company A, in texas, with a stack of servers located in texas. They have a presence in texas and nobody is arguing about that. Then we have company B, in alabama, he's a web developer who provides hosting services to his customers. Company B leases servers from company A. Then we have company C, in michigan, they sell socks. They hired B in Alabama to design and host a web store. Then we have Mommy D, in california. She has a pair of socks that need replacing. She orders some online from Company C.
The questions at hand are:
Does company A collect Texas state taxes from company B for its hosting service. Reasonable people would say this is reasonable.
Does company B have to collect Texas state taxes from company C simply because the site B is hosting for C is on a server B is leasing from A is in texas. Reasonable people would say this is silly.
Finally does company C in michigan have to collect Texas taxes from Mommy D in California simply because company C is hosted by company B in alabama which leases servers from Company A in texas?
Reasonable people are asking what kind of crack you'd have to be on to think this is reasonable.
Your rented storage example doesn't really capture this situation.
1) Yes.. I am saying FOR ME.. HBO/SHOWTIME is a better value based on MY USAGE.. I'm sure it is true for some other people, but certainly not everyone.
And I remain skeptical that there is really THAT much there you want to watch, that you are getting better value. But if you say so I won't debate the point.
2) I am a HUGE fan of net neutrality.. Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with Service Caps on your service.
But it has *everything* to do with an ISP charging netflix in order for netflix's traffic to get to the customer.
Right now I have a service cap at home.. which I routinely brush up against.. if Netflix was paying my ISP to allow their traffic to be sent to their customers without being counted against the cap it would definitly be worth it (TO ME) to pay $18/month just not to have to worry about it.
Customer who wants his service caps raised should pay for larger service caps. Don't pay netflix to pay your ISP. Pay your ISP yourself.
Granted some ISPs are behind in the game and either do not offer or charge exorbitant rates for larger caps but that will correct itself if the market demands larger caps. The last thing we want is for ever lower caps while the ISPs chases after all the content providers for payola to bypass them.
At the end of the day the consumer should pay for their bandwidth use, not the content provider.
So $17.99 a month (with BlueRay) is $216 a year... They don't have enough new movies available that I want to watch ever month to make it work $18 a month. For $9 a month I can get HBO/Showtime from my cable company
Wait did you just argue that HBO/Showtime (@ $108 per year for those keeping score) is "good value" while netflix is "bad value" @ $216 (with unlimited streaming and bluray/dvd service).
I've had HBO, and its not half as good as good as netflix. So even at half the price its still not better value.
If Netflix was using that increase to payoff the ISPs to get their traffic excluded from the caps it might be worth it.
I see you are not a fan of net neutrality.
or rent a On Demand movie (when I can find one I want to watch for $6.00).
So if you watch 3 movies on-demand a month, you break even with netflix. On-demand only is good value if you barely watch movies at all.
There's not a lot of people in the iPhone set that are complaining about on-device performance, or maybe I just haven't seen it.
The iphone 4 users aren't complaining much yet because not much that doesn't run acceptably fast on them gets into apple's walled garden in the first place.
Earlier iphone users are feeling the pain of sluggishishness though on some of the new stuff. I know several that can't wait to get out of them into new phones because they are too slow.
Slashdot Mirror
What risks and liability do you think lie behind putting some software on a thumb drive?
1st -- The risk and liability stems from the fact that there is no guarantee it will work next week, or with the next update, and sooner or later it may not work, and you may be up a creek because its an unofficial and unsupported process, and you have no recourse if Apple breaks it down the road, or if it doesn't work on some unit for some reason.
2nd -- enterprises are used to imaging PCs in bulk, and remote installation services, and all sorts of enterprisey goodness.
Wandering around with thumbdrives to install operating systems manually one at a time is pretty amateur hour, and it doesn't scale all that well in an organization with 100,000 PCs...
After that, the "IT guy" can use detailed instructions available on the 'net and create an installer/boot DVD or USB thumbdrive. It's easy as that! I can't see any other good way to deploy to multiple machines on businesses.
And this is the crux of the problem with Apple and the enterprise.
Competent enterprise IT departments expect competent enterprise support.
The fact that they CAN go and figure out how to do something by reading some blog on the net is not how they are going to get things done.
This is why Red Hat has a functioning business model.
Enterprises don't want hacks and tricks lifted from blogs even if they work. They want a formally documented and supported process backed by an entity that stands behind it.
Its not because they aren't competent, its because for them, risk and liability management are just as important as the actual solutions.
Treaties are never truly "binding", they are merely a framework of agreements.
A treaty is only worth anything if its valuable enough to both sides that either side will abide by the terms so as to gain the benefit.
A treaty that wasn't even ratified by the US is worthless to the UK. They can run it through a paper shredder and send the bits to the USA and say its done. What's the US going to do? Say, "well then we're not going to hold up our end of the treaty... oh er... wait... we weren't going to do that anyway... ok then, carry on."
First Name, Last Name and Gender
And who all your friends are.
And everything they say to you or about you.
They get your birthday and age the day all your friends wish you a happy birthday...
They get your eye color from the photographs.
Give me 6 months of google+ data along with what gets linked to your profile using google search, google analytics, and google ads, and I'll know more about you than you thought possible...
Yeah, what is it with "these knuckleheads"?
I mean its completely different from when a Texas rancher carves his named out in the forest on his ranch 3 miles long so that its visible from space.
And I'm sure only crazy people would carve a mountain into a memorial of its leaders right?
Ironically, it was never finished due to lack of funding, so only the heads were done. This is what it was supposed to end up like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gutzon_Borglum's_model_of_Mt._Rushmore_memorial.jpg
I just strikes me as odd that we have so much contempt for the arrogance and hubris of anyone else does something big and pointless, while taking fierce pride in our own equally "big and pointless" endeavors.
"Fat and Dumb" yes... but what made you think they were "Happy". They never struck me as the slightest bit happy.
Metal detectors don't detect non-metal weaponry. The procedures in place are there because everyone knows the ones you're proposing were bollocks in the first place.
There's not a lot of real weaponry that isn't metallic.
And while exotic toys like ceramic handguns exist, they aren't going to bring a plane down. A bottle of suntan lotion isn't either.
In commercial mass-transit vehicles, you follow the rules.
So make rules worth following.
By "seedy hitchhikers," I meant "potential terrorists."
You don't subject everyone to invasive security checks on something with 1 in a billion odds.
Frankly I don't know how you get to the airport, the odds of dying on the trip to the airport are orders of magnitude higher than dying due to a terrorist attack on the plane. Yet you braved those much greater risks without even a 2nd thought.
You're proposing to open a hole in physical security.
The physical security is swiss cheese.
The guy in the seat behind you can kill you in seconds with his shoelace.
And if they were really concerned you were going to blow up the plane with your bottle of suntan lotion, why did they take it from you, casually toss it in a plastic bin, and then let you onto the plane?
Planes falling from the sky is very bad for business.
This doesn't happen all that much. Terrorists are to blame for only a tiny fraction of the ones that do. And airline security hasn't prevented the times it has.
You always have the choice to travel without insisting everyone take a risk along with you
So do you. If your so afraid of your fellow traveller, why don't YOU get YOUR own plane, and fly ALL BY YOURSELF.
Not trying to troll here, but why would one use GNU Hurd?
One wouldn't. No more than one would use the memory manager I wrote in university for an operating systems class.
As an academic pursuit however its quite interesting, and as another working fully open source kernel, it its a worthwhile topic in any "comparative operating systems architecture" classes.
Actually Stallman from what I've seen and read isn't particularly interested in Hurd at this point as part of his "Freedom" agenda.
He is quite satisfied with the Linux kernel.
Hurd however is interesting from an academic standpoint, and is entirely worthwhile on that front.
They aren't really asserting that they have no control.
They are asserting that they have no *legal obligation* whatsoever to remove the links.
That doesn't mean that they cannot remove links voluntarily if they personally find the content being linked to objectionable, as is evidently the case for child porn.
True, but you could only influence it if you knew in advance that it worked like that.
Right, but that's sort of the antithesis of something being random.
My point was the alternative scenario I provided still contained a glitch, but there was no way to predict or control who would be affected even if you knew in advance that it worked like that, and as a result it was still random who got picked.
Ones precise position in the queue was random. Whether or not you were within the first 2 days or not isn't random.
That other viable options are available means that our freedom of movement is preserved without causing undue burden
The TSA has already asserted they have the authority to implement the same sorts of checks on riding a bus or taking a train.
Walking is not a "viable" option to cross even the continental united states.
It doesn't guarantee anything about the form of transportation
It doesn't limit anything about the form of transportation either.
But I agree that the freedom movement isn't really where this argument should center. Its more squarely in the "unreasonable search and seizure" arena.
freedom to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger
Although a nudie scan and groped by thugs isn't how I'd treat "welcome visitors"... but sounds about right for "hostile strangers".
Speaking as the hypothetical CEO of American Airlines...
Because you're not the only one on the plane.
I'm more than confident the majority of the flying public would happily use this airline if we offered basic common sense screening with a metal detector. Indeed, as a product differentiator I think we could use this feature to attract business.
Get your own.
As the CEO of American Airlines, I assure you we have a whole fleet of modern planes to work with. The problem is not plaines. The problem is I am not allowed to offer this hassle free service.
Pick up all the seedy hitchhikers you want.
You call them "seedy hitchhikers" I call them "People who are willing to accept the extremely low risk of "terrorism" in exchange for their dignity, and a vastly quicker and less invasive check-in process."
Deal with the consequences yourself.
If I were given the chance, I would.
Don't insist on dragging the rest of the flying public with you.
The rest of the flying public is free to choose from any of the other anal probing airlines if that is the sort of treatment they enjoy. Nobody would ever be forced onto one of our hassle-free planes against their will.
I lend quite often. It's called I switch my password to something temporary to let a buddy play...
This is in blatent violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to.
And while your buddy is playing an online game, you can't login. Even if you own 20 other multiplayer games and wish to play something that is not in use....
or just signin once to their machine, download the game, and put the hack on to put Steam into permanent offline mode on their machine.
Effectively cracking the system to let your friend play it. Why not just have your friend torrent a cracked copy? How is what you've done any better?
Plus this method ensures you can't lend someone an online game, and/or that the lendee can't do any multi-player.
A random choice that is limited to a particular subset is NOT random for the entire set.
Yes and no.
In this case, only applicants from the first 2 days of the application time were considered by the random selector. This clearly unfair, because its quite easy to predict and even control whether you are eligible to get picked.
However if the error was something more esoteric, like every 5th applicant was not considered by the random number generator, (and we recognize that this is an online system not a phsyical queue... so there is no way to know if your application is first, second, third, etc...) then there would be no way to know or predict or control whether you were eligible to get picked, and the process is still effectively very fair and random because there is randomness with respect to your precise position within the queue.
Lastly, if you build 12 subs, the 12th sub is going to be about ½ the cost of the first. The first subs are going to be more expensive until the workers figure out the best way to put things together better. And I am not talking about spreading R&D costs over multiple units [which is also true]. We are talking about assembling a highly complex machine. Planes tend to be the same.
This is certainly true. However is any of the savings realized and passed on to the buyer?
Or do the contractors (Boeing et al) who actually build them simply make more money on subsequent units?
I'd choose to fly on an airline with no identity checks, a metal detector for screening, and perhaps some security on each flight in a heart beat. Why am I denied that option?
You can get in the line for the airline that irradiates you and then probes your ass hole if that makes you feel safe in plane...
Microsoft has the salt, so they will be able to check certain passwords. Hash 123456, salt it, compare with the table.
But the salt isn't necessarily the same for every login.
Many login systems create random salt for EACH account, and store it with the hash.
The point of salt isnt to make the hashes impossible to do lookups on (otherwise you couldnt do logins),
Of course.
its to make existing rainbow tables worthless.
If your login database is stolen, and you use the same salt for each account, then its a fairly simple effort to generate new rainbow tables for your chosen salt.
This is one reason why unique salt for each account is preferable.
I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.
Wait you'd stop buying ubisoft because they are trying to kill the 2ndary market, because you buy on steam where they already did?
Hell.. on steam... you can't even lend or give a game away, never mind resell it.
but I have yet to hear a coherent case for why it violates the Constitution, given that we're the one choosing to fly when other options are available
While I have yet to hear why other options being available has anything to do with anything?
If they put fences up and did TSA style checking at state borders, and subjected everyone who crossed on foot, by rail, or by car to security checks and identification checks... would that violate the constitution?
What if "Private Jets owners who purchased trusted traveller status" were exempt from the checks? Would the availability of this "other option" make everything ok. Even if it was exorbitantly priced and only a few people could realistically take advantage of it.
After all, "The constitution doesn't gaurantee inexpensiveness" either.
Or maybe the constitution guaranteed people the freedom to travel within the republics borders. Period. In all reasonable forms.
To travel as a **passenger** in a privately owned vehicle that is properly maintained and licensed by its operator... quite frankly I think "papers please" is a violation of the constitutional freedom of movement.
Otherwise, what DOES the constitution guarantee exactly? That one can walk around the country in a government issued loincloth, nothing more, nothing less.
If he's so much as riding in a cart pulled by a bicycle the government can probe him analy at will?
After all, he chose this form of transportation... he could have chosen something else.
They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process.
And that somehow makes it ok?
If the company you rented the server from is in Texas, then that company should pay Texas sales tax.
I agree. However, this case is a bit more complex.
Here we have company A, in texas, with a stack of servers located in texas. They have a presence in texas and nobody is arguing about that.
Then we have company B, in alabama, he's a web developer who provides hosting services to his customers.
Company B leases servers from company A.
Then we have company C, in michigan, they sell socks. They hired B in Alabama to design and host a web store.
Then we have Mommy D, in california. She has a pair of socks that need replacing. She orders some online from Company C.
The questions at hand are:
Does company A collect Texas state taxes from company B for its hosting service. Reasonable people would say this is reasonable.
Does company B have to collect Texas state taxes from company C simply because the site B is hosting for C is on a server B is leasing from A is in texas. Reasonable people would say this is silly.
Finally does company C in michigan have to collect Texas taxes from Mommy D in California simply because company C is hosted by company B in alabama which leases servers from Company A in texas?
Reasonable people are asking what kind of crack you'd have to be on to think this is reasonable.
Your rented storage example doesn't really capture this situation.
1) Yes.. I am saying FOR ME.. HBO/SHOWTIME is a better value based on MY USAGE.. I'm sure it is true for some other people, but certainly not everyone.
And I remain skeptical that there is really THAT much there you want to watch, that you are getting better value. But if you say so I won't debate the point.
2) I am a HUGE fan of net neutrality.. Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with Service Caps on your service.
But it has *everything* to do with an ISP charging netflix in order for netflix's traffic to get to the customer.
Right now I have a service cap at home.. which I routinely brush up against.. if Netflix was paying my ISP to allow their traffic to be sent to their customers without being counted against the cap it would definitly be worth it (TO ME) to pay $18/month just not to have to worry about it.
Customer who wants his service caps raised should pay for larger service caps. Don't pay netflix to pay your ISP. Pay your ISP yourself.
Granted some ISPs are behind in the game and either do not offer or charge exorbitant rates for larger caps but that will correct itself if the market demands larger caps. The last thing we want is for ever lower caps while the ISPs chases after all the content providers for payola to bypass them.
At the end of the day the consumer should pay for their bandwidth use, not the content provider.
So $17.99 a month (with BlueRay) is $216 a year... They don't have enough new movies available that I want to watch ever month to make it work $18 a month. For $9 a month I can get HBO/Showtime from my cable company
Wait did you just argue that HBO/Showtime (@ $108 per year for those keeping score) is "good value" while netflix is "bad value" @ $216 (with unlimited streaming and bluray/dvd service).
I've had HBO, and its not half as good as good as netflix. So even at half the price its still not better value.
If Netflix was using that increase to payoff the ISPs to get their traffic excluded from the caps it might be worth it.
I see you are not a fan of net neutrality.
or rent a On Demand movie (when I can find one I want to watch for $6.00).
So if you watch 3 movies on-demand a month, you break even with netflix. On-demand only is good value if you barely watch movies at all.
There's not a lot of people in the iPhone set that are complaining about on-device performance, or maybe I just haven't seen it.
The iphone 4 users aren't complaining much yet because not much that doesn't run acceptably fast on them gets into apple's walled garden in the first place.
Earlier iphone users are feeling the pain of sluggishishness though on some of the new stuff. I know several that can't wait to get out of them into new phones because they are too slow.