Well, okay. You've got a point. Let's assume that cost is the primary factor. People'd rather pay a ridiculous amount of money than even bother with GIMP!!
Not if a large enough percentage of your user base pirates already.
You're right. If 50 million people suddenly start using piracy solely as a way of not spending money on the PSP, they won't make money.
If anything, the growing attitude of "don't buy it, get this firwmare patch and download it here instead!" will hasten the death of systems like the PSP. It'll take a while, but eventually even good games will fail.
When PC gaming dies and Nintendo no longer sells ROMs on the Wii, I'll be happy to entertain this thought. Right now, niether history nor reality are backing this assumption up.
If we hadn't let the programmers run amok and force them to write efficient code, what we had back then was 'good enough' for most people. ( not all, but most )
Okay, so we'd have ended up with fewer apps that took longer to write because. What's the phrase? W00t?
So what? Windows can't "run" Photoshop without falling over.
Wrong. Dumb, too.
who (apart from a few anally-retentive advertising typesetters) actually needs Photoshop?
I'll answer both the spirit and the literal meaning of your question:
Literal: Just about anybody working in Film or TV. Quite a few working on games. Actually it's pretty common in a lot of small businesses. We use images all over the place, being able to edit and share them is good.
Spirit: Need isn't as important as 'want'. I could ask you if you really need to run Linux if, for example, you've already paid the Microsoft tax. The chances are pretty good that even if I put together a really compelling argument, you wouldn't care because you've got your way you want to do things. In that particular case, you'd have answered your own question: Everybody who wants Photoshop needs it.
Use occam's razor and go with the simplest explanation: People pirate because they want free shit and it's easier in some cases than going to the store.
So why do we only see occasional cases of measurable effects on it?
Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. You might forget that strict permission levels don't imply security when the person behind the keyboard is an idiot.
Honestly speaking, I can understand his panty twistedness. I'm suffering from it, too. For the last several years here on Slashdot I have heard all about how Windows' popularity causing more viruses was a myth and the magical thing about Linux was that it was 'more' secure because of its permissions structure and yadda yadda yadda. But now we get to Apple, who frankly has a lot of people here looking to put down, and suddenly the reverse 'true'.
I'm not an Apple fan, nor am I Microsoft or *nix hater or anything like that. (Frankly I cannot even cast stones about the behaviour here as I have contributed to it on other topics.) I just feel like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh sometimes. It's all about the agenda, not about facts or even best pratices. It is frustrating. Bullshit is still bullshit even if the majority agrees with it.
... and laugh and laugh... Oh, we're Mac users - we don't need stuff like virus and malware checkers! Now, let the explanations begin about how this is a wonderful intuitive "feature" and not a flaw.
Mac users aren't the only ones living in glass houses, here. There's something to be learned for everybody here. If Mac user humility here is your highest concern with this article then you are turning into what you despise.
I close my eyes and use my imagination to picture a world where you can no longer install software on your computer, but you must go online, log on to the cloud, and request a yearly renewal license you cannot afford to type up a document - even a few lines you used to be able to do in Notepad -, or generate any kind of digital content.
Will never ever happen.
You think I'm crazy? Come back and read this in 2020 or 2080, and see what kind of world you live in then.
I don't think you're crazy, but I do think you're missing a couple of critical bits of info. 1.) Microsoft has proven time and time again it cannot create a monopoly of everything it touches. 2.) There are companies and people outside of Microsoft writing software. The only way Microsoft could pull that off is if they made it in such a way that the masses would actually want it. (Just like Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer. That is, of course, despite popular opinion around here.)
So I'll make my predictions for both 2020 and 2080 here. Some ugly bullshitty stuff happened regarding IP and DMCA etc by 2020. By 2080 everybody's keeping things in the 'cloud', but not for legal reasons, rather for convenience. Nobody's paying a cent (not even an ad-view) to write documents and nobody's jailed for not using the cloud. By the time 2080 comes around, you will be wrong,.
Getting people used to auto updates, even in linux, is about this idea of getting people used to monthly charges over software.
Though I don't disagree that Microsoft would love to get into the OS rental market, I don't think this statement has much to go on. The automatic update is about preventing another Blaster from embarrasing them, at least as near as I can tell.
An absolutely secure OS would also eliminate the need for virus scanners, and the yearly/monthly subscription fees associated with getting updated virus signature files.
I don't think MS has a pay-for anti-virus product. Certainly not one that means much to them. Having a reputation as the least secure OS certainly isn't helping their marketing. $10 says they'd rather have perfect security than revenue from selling a virus scanner. (Although the humor in that is the human experience suffers every time security precautions are put into place.)
You will never get an absolutely secure OS from a company like MS...
You never will from anybody.
Security scares are a great way to nudge people into obeying some centralized high command.
Did Mozilla get taken over by Microsoft or something?
Why does dropping support for a 10 year old OS automatically mean a bad thing? Perhaps the peeps involved in Mozilla development realized that fewer OS's to support means more resources can be dedicated to moving forward with the app.
Honestly the only real flaw in my theory is that it could applied to Microsoft, too.
Grey goo, space elevator, portal, warpspeed, hyperspace. Scyance. Oh sorry, that last one's not from science fiction, it's from that channel (what's it called?) that shows wrestling.
Heck, it'd go even quicker if the Vogons decided to build a hyperspace bypass! Come to think of it, if somebody travelled backwards in time incorrectly and destroyed the universe, the internet would probably be destroyed in negative minutes!!
I only know one guy who actually makes a point of not spending money and pirating instead. I work with lots of people who have the appropriate knowledge to actively pirate to avoid spending money, but they don't. I'm sure most have, at one point or another, downloaded at least one song and/or movie. But, for a variety of reasons, don't bother to make it a money saving excercise.
I have software for sale out there right now. I'm sure there are cracked versions out there but nothing in my income levels indicates that at all.
As much as I'd like to agree with him, I think someone's reaching just a little too far...
I personally cannot decide if he's reaching too far or not until I get an actual number of how much is really 'lost' by piracy. (Funny how internet usage is growing every year but Video game revenue keeps going up and up!)
Oh please. This isn't about the 'spirit' of April Fools, it's about people not being able to disconnect from Slashdot for a day. "One predictable day out of the year is useless, so subscribing is a total waste of money! BITCHBITCHBITCHBITCHBITCH!!!
Slashdot Mirror
As if cost isn't a factor...
Well, okay. You've got a point. Let's assume that cost is the primary factor. People'd rather pay a ridiculous amount of money than even bother with GIMP!!
Not if a large enough percentage of your user base pirates already.
You're right. If 50 million people suddenly start using piracy solely as a way of not spending money on the PSP, they won't make money.
If anything, the growing attitude of "don't buy it, get this firwmare patch and download it here instead!" will hasten the death of systems like the PSP. It'll take a while, but eventually even good games will fail.
When PC gaming dies and Nintendo no longer sells ROMs on the Wii, I'll be happy to entertain this thought. Right now, niether history nor reality are backing this assumption up.
If we hadn't let the programmers run amok and force them to write efficient code, what we had back then was 'good enough' for most people. ( not all, but most )
Okay, so we'd have ended up with fewer apps that took longer to write because. What's the phrase? W00t?
And when people have reduced budgets because the economy tanks, "design over function" companies like BMW, Dyson and Apple will go by the wayside.
I read earlier today that Apple's profits went up this quarter.
So what? Windows can't "run" Photoshop without falling over.
Wrong. Dumb, too.
who (apart from a few anally-retentive advertising typesetters) actually needs Photoshop?
I'll answer both the spirit and the literal meaning of your question:
Literal: Just about anybody working in Film or TV. Quite a few working on games. Actually it's pretty common in a lot of small businesses. We use images all over the place, being able to edit and share them is good.
Spirit: Need isn't as important as 'want'. I could ask you if you really need to run Linux if, for example, you've already paid the Microsoft tax. The chances are pretty good that even if I put together a really compelling argument, you wouldn't care because you've got your way you want to do things. In that particular case, you'd have answered your own question: Everybody who wants Photoshop needs it.
Use occam's razor and go with the simplest explanation: People pirate because they want free shit and it's easier in some cases than going to the store.
So why do we only see occasional cases of measurable effects on it?
Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. You might forget that strict permission levels don't imply security when the person behind the keyboard is an idiot.
Honestly speaking, I can understand his panty twistedness. I'm suffering from it, too. For the last several years here on Slashdot I have heard all about how Windows' popularity causing more viruses was a myth and the magical thing about Linux was that it was 'more' secure because of its permissions structure and yadda yadda yadda. But now we get to Apple, who frankly has a lot of people here looking to put down, and suddenly the reverse 'true'.
I'm not an Apple fan, nor am I Microsoft or *nix hater or anything like that. (Frankly I cannot even cast stones about the behaviour here as I have contributed to it on other topics.) I just feel like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh sometimes. It's all about the agenda, not about facts or even best pratices. It is frustrating. Bullshit is still bullshit even if the majority agrees with it.
May I be the first to laugh...
Not if you're a Linux user.
... and laugh and laugh... Oh, we're Mac users - we don't need stuff like virus and malware checkers! Now, let the explanations begin about how this is a wonderful intuitive "feature" and not a flaw.
Mac users aren't the only ones living in glass houses, here. There's something to be learned for everybody here. If Mac user humility here is your highest concern with this article then you are turning into what you despise.
What is Office Live about then?
Office Live is a bunch of security updates?
I close my eyes and use my imagination to picture a world where you can no longer install software on your computer, but you must go online, log on to the cloud, and request a yearly renewal license you cannot afford to type up a document - even a few lines you used to be able to do in Notepad -, or generate any kind of digital content.
Will never ever happen.
You think I'm crazy? Come back and read this in 2020 or 2080, and see what kind of world you live in then.
I don't think you're crazy, but I do think you're missing a couple of critical bits of info. 1.) Microsoft has proven time and time again it cannot create a monopoly of everything it touches. 2.) There are companies and people outside of Microsoft writing software. The only way Microsoft could pull that off is if they made it in such a way that the masses would actually want it. (Just like Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer. That is, of course, despite popular opinion around here.)
So I'll make my predictions for both 2020 and 2080 here. Some ugly bullshitty stuff happened regarding IP and DMCA etc by 2020. By 2080 everybody's keeping things in the 'cloud', but not for legal reasons, rather for convenience. Nobody's paying a cent (not even an ad-view) to write documents and nobody's jailed for not using the cloud. By the time 2080 comes around, you will be wrong,.
Getting people used to auto updates, even in linux, is about this idea of getting people used to monthly charges over software.
Though I don't disagree that Microsoft would love to get into the OS rental market, I don't think this statement has much to go on. The automatic update is about preventing another Blaster from embarrasing them, at least as near as I can tell.
An absolutely secure OS would also eliminate the need for virus scanners, and the yearly/monthly subscription fees associated with getting updated virus signature files.
I don't think MS has a pay-for anti-virus product. Certainly not one that means much to them. Having a reputation as the least secure OS certainly isn't helping their marketing. $10 says they'd rather have perfect security than revenue from selling a virus scanner. (Although the humor in that is the human experience suffers every time security precautions are put into place.)
You will never get an absolutely secure OS from a company like MS...
You never will from anybody.
Security scares are a great way to nudge people into obeying some centralized high command.
Steve jobs would smirk at that.
What possible components can firefox need from SP3?
Vulnerabilities that the various service packs fix.
Or is it that not one can be bothered to keep a VMware XPsp2 system running to test with.
As I've already stated, it takes resources to do that. Every OS they have to test ... why am I explaining the obvious?
Did Mozilla get taken over by Microsoft or something?
Why does dropping support for a 10 year old OS automatically mean a bad thing? Perhaps the peeps involved in Mozilla development realized that fewer OS's to support means more resources can be dedicated to moving forward with the app.
Honestly the only real flaw in my theory is that it could applied to Microsoft, too.
Yeah, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Open Source shilling on this site.
Oh, wait, are we using the same definition of 'shill'?
We are think for ourselves,. you apparently are looking for am excuse to not think. I suggest you find a religious site.
I wonder how many people with relatively low UIDs find this statement rather amusing.
Grey goo, space elevator, portal, warpspeed, hyperspace. Scyance. Oh sorry, that last one's not from science fiction, it's from that channel (what's it called?) that shows wrestling.
SoyFy. Not made from real Sci-Fi!
Let's just hope klingon isn't added to a future revision of this list.
Not likely unless dingleberry is no longer considered a 'rad' word.
There should be equal consequences both for yelling "fire!" when there is none, and for yelling "no fire!" when there is.
It's funny how out for blood we can be when hindsight is on our side.
By a nuclear war for example.
Heck, it'd go even quicker if the Vogons decided to build a hyperspace bypass! Come to think of it, if somebody travelled backwards in time incorrectly and destroyed the universe, the internet would probably be destroyed in negative minutes!!
Look at me, I'm Mr. Insightful, mod me up!
Yeah cos people are buying 5 or 6 iPhones a month now because of the irreplacable battery.
Or five years of Gmail user smugness.
Followed by envy.
I only know one guy who actually makes a point of not spending money and pirating instead. I work with lots of people who have the appropriate knowledge to actively pirate to avoid spending money, but they don't. I'm sure most have, at one point or another, downloaded at least one song and/or movie. But, for a variety of reasons, don't bother to make it a money saving excercise.
I have software for sale out there right now. I'm sure there are cracked versions out there but nothing in my income levels indicates that at all.
Yep. Makes you wonder why GTA4 was available for download a full week before release, yet it still went on to make half a billion dollars.
As much as I'd like to agree with him, I think someone's reaching just a little too far...
I personally cannot decide if he's reaching too far or not until I get an actual number of how much is really 'lost' by piracy. (Funny how internet usage is growing every year but Video game revenue keeps going up and up!)
Oh please. This isn't about the 'spirit' of April Fools, it's about people not being able to disconnect from Slashdot for a day. "One predictable day out of the year is useless, so subscribing is a total waste of money! BITCHBITCHBITCHBITCHBITCH!!!
Flamebait??? He's spot on. Mod him "goddamn right!"
Slashdot is operational 364 days a year. One day of silliness and it's BITCHBITCHBITCHBITCHBITCH. Your problem's between the chair and the keyboard.