That didn't work too well for Mike Rowe, of Mike Rowe Software. It was genuinely his name, but a certain agressive trademark defender made him give up his domain.
To be fair, it's blatantly obvious that he chose his name as a parody of 'Microsoft'. "Mike Rowe Soft". MS had no choice but to pursue that. In this particular case it's unlikely an argument could be made that the submitter's domain name was chosen as a play on this other company's trademark.
Here's just yet another libelous juvenile review. This, despite the overwhelming evidence that/. readers don't want this crap.
Just a tip: Slashdot looks at the comment count, too. When their threads start getting a whopping 10 posts, then we'll start seeing fewer of them. But when everybody complains...
Which is what? Saying that a single company needs to do it instead of the community simply begs the issue. What are they going to do?
We have to rewind to my original post to see my answer to that. In my original post, I said: "It's easy for me to say "put Linux on a neat product!", but picking the right product, making it work, and convincing somebody to do it... well if I could provide a step by step of how to realistically pull that off, I'd deserve more than a +5." I'm not claiming to have the answer.
What wonderful thing is it going to do? As I pointed out, simply slapping Linux on a computer and writing a touchscreen driver isn't going to do the trick. Existing general-purpose applications aren't designed for touch. And writing a comprehensive set of general-purpose touch applications is prohibitive for a single company with little to no market share. Look how much time and effort Apple has spent on iLife and iWork. Or how long it's taken to do Open Office.
Yep, we agree.
And writing some sort of killer dedicated application, like a home controller or multimedia system, is all about the dedicated system and not the underlying OS. How many people know what OS their cable STB or Tivo is running? As long as it's doing it's job, how many even care?
And that tends to kill the whole idea of doing the whole thing to "promote" Linux, doesn't it?
Depending on how it's handled, sure, it could. There's two big problems here: 1.) Nobody's being terribly proactive. The Linux Community is quite happy re-treading on established ground, at least from a perspective that the masses would care about. 2.) There's this big fat line between Linux and any given distribution. "It's just the kernel!" On yawn-o-rama. There's all this networking or file system code, but when it comes to end-user solutions, the selection's not so great. It'd be nice to see a little more bold-ness coming from the developers. "Here's a neat new way to store and play back all your movies! Just buy a small machine, hook it up to your TV, install this Distro, and you're off!"... or whatever.
Oh well, you're right, there's still a challenge there. No denying it. The problem is that nobody's really pursuing it, either. Not successfully, anyway. It's not impossible. It's just not going to happen automatically.
The iPhone UI was designed from the ground up as a touch interface, maximizing the use of space and screen real estate in a portable device. All of the applications it uses were redesigned to take advantage of that interface. With that in mind, just what, exactly, is a Linux-based touch-screen desktop computer going to do?
That would have been a good question to ask, a little over a year ago before the iPhone came out. Now if somebody did an iPhone-esque UI, they'd just be copying what they saw instead of starting with the simple goal of making a touch-screen-based-phone-that-doesn't-suck. Following the parade instead of leading it.
Speaking of which, from what I gather the screen uses a "smart" border and not capacitance, so it only recognizes single finger presses and not multi-touch gestures. No pinches, no two finger Jeff Han rotations and zooms. Touch-wise, it's speaking at a kindergarten level. With all of that in mind, and given the limitations of the hardware, I fail to see just how revolutionary the device could be, even if you managed to convince the Linux developer community to to support it.
Actually I agree with you. The problem is, I'm not pitching this particular product as 'the one'. But, since people keep getting stuck in that mudpit anyway, I'll take a stab at answering. First, it wouldn't be the Linux Community, it'd be the company building the product. They choose Linux as their OS, start from there. Second, you don't see how 'revolutionary' it is. Big Fucking Deal. That wasn't a requirement, either. I said it had to be a good product. All that means is that it needs to serve a useful purpose. Look at the iPhone. First with a touch screen? No. First to browse the web? No. First to play music/videos? No. Revolutionary? Only in its acceptance. The touch screen is reasonably intuitive. Its web browser is darned close to working like the web browser on a desktop machine. (Even with tabs!) iTunes is the market leader. Apple did a few things right and had a hit on their hands. (Arguably they have a strong brand, too. No denying that.) Apple faced exactly that problem with their OS and what'd they do? Well they didn't throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't see how our OS can do any better."
"And without groundbreaking applications to pique a user's imagination, the concept that this computer could "promote" Linux is..., well... totally out of touch with reality."
Duh. So maybe it's time to quit trying to rewrite what's already been written and start innovating. That's the point I've been making the whole time.
"Maybe just program it the best you can and stop relying on dishonest gimmicks?... People have ported Linux to far more interesting devices before and it really hasn't changed a thing."
I didn't say anything about dishonest gimmicks. I said put it on a product people like and it'll get the Linux name out there. Like I said, the masses don't care. Linux is invisible to them. Raise that visibility. Look at FireFox. It's starting to gain some mainstream momentum. Why? Because it's good? No, because it's better than Internet Explorer. Not just better, but better in ways that are meaningful to lots of people. Gecko rendering core? PFtbtb. Tabs? Ooo! That's what Linux needs, that is if the goal is to get it on millions of desktops.
"People have ported Linux to far more interesting devices before and it really hasn't changed a thing."
That's because they're following the parade instead of leading it. Again, see FireFox.
Why do people have to treat devices like this as being nothing more than a stepping stone for the all-powerful Linux? Propagandizing like that is just the thing that keeps people from taking people like you seriously.
Nobody takes Linux people seriously because the difference between it and Windows/Mac is, from their perspective anyway, trivial. So, yes, finding a way to get them to notice it is on some people's minds. You gotta better idea? Something a little better than IBM's quickly-evaporating-commercial?
A pure Linux fanboy wrote that blog post that made its way to Slashdot's homepage. He just wants HP to put Linux on the hot new product, when really this is a Windows Tablet with a few new cool apps writen for it.
You're right. But he does have a point, although that may not have been intentional. If Linux were to power a nifty device that caught the attention of the masses, that'd certainly be a good first step towards gaining mass acceptance.
But... well really there's nothing insightful about what I just said. Nothing new, anyway. It's easy for me to say "put Linux on a neat product!", but picking the right product, making it work, and convincing somebody to do it... well if I could provide a step by step of how to realistically pull that off, I'd deserve more than a +5.
Every consumer-level broadband service I've ever heard of has had unofficial, unpublished limits that would result in a warning or in cancellation of service. This is just one further reason why nobody should be in the least bit surprised about Comcast's move.
Uh.. okay. They're uncommunicative, but that's okay because we know there's some undefined limit and so the burden's on us... Right.
They're opening up, they're communicating their terms of service much more clearly, and they're making their limits official and explicit instead of letting you trip over them in the dark. And yet somehow you want to complain about them being uncommunicative!
That's not what I complained about. Actually I didn't even really complain about anything, I made a request. If you're still confused, go back and reread.
"Failure to communicate"? What a bunch of bullshit. How do you think everybody found out about their grand October plan in advance? Oh right, because Comcast announced it.
The limits were in place before they announced it. That's why there's been a lot of drama orbitting Comcast in the last year or two.
They are providing what they advertise! They stopped saying "unlimited" years ago, you admit this yourself. It should come as absolutely no shock whatsoever that, years after they stop advertising "unlimited", they now stop providing it.
Welp, you listened to one bit that I said, now listen to the other: They didn't say they weren't unlimited anymore, either. That's a big-fat-important detail right there.
I'll say it again: you have no contract. Everything is subject to change at any time. If you go to the grocery store and suddenly the price of your favorite bread has doubled, you have no real grounds for complaint. Likewise here.
That'd be a great rebuttal, if I had said they had a legal obligation to do so. This conversation has gotten circular. I'm talking about how they need to maintain their trust with their customers. That's it. Please pay attention to this because you've already missed it twice.
Change is the only constant in life. If you signed up with Comcast service years ago expecting to receive exactly the same service at exactly the same price until the end of time, that misconception is your fault, not theirs.
Communication by ommission is not communication. Their failure to communicate most certainly is their fault.
Except that they currently aren't advertising "unlimited", and as far as I know they have not done so for quite a while.
Lots of people adopted cable modems back when unlimited was the standard marketing term. Then, they suddenly stop talking about it. True, they don't say unlimited anymore, but they don't say limited either. It's, at best, in the fine print. So far, they're the first to behave that way, at least in the general public sense. It matters.
Not to mention, 250GB/month is functionally equivalent to "unlimited" for 99% of their customers.
No, it's not. It's an altering of the deal. You cannot say that anybody will never that cap. They could discover new streaming content. They could have a friend come by and f' it up. Comcast could change the limit. Anything could happen. This possibility was not considered when the service was started up. Worse, people were lured into thinking they'd never run into a problem with it.
That limit is far beyond what most people could possibly use. If you are using more than 250GB/month, then maybe a cheap home-grade connection is not for you.
They should provide what they advertise. If they can't, they should be up front with their customers and do what they can to ease the transition. Stupid rationale like "That outta be enough for everybody" is not an answer.
I get that, I just don't understand why you'd make such a request. Without a contract, they have every right to make changes to their services at any time.
For the simple reason that they still require customers to survive. They spent years advertising unlimited service, then suddenly it changes. That breeds distrust. They're well within their right to do that, you're right about that. I don't have Comcast now, but when I move and need to reconnect my internet service, they're going to have to live with the fact that I may utterly avoid them now. Not because I use that much bandwidth, but because it's not like I can easily uproot my internet connection and get a new one. I don't want to use a service that has a track record of spontaneously changing the terms of service so dramatically.
So, basically, I'm making a request that they be decent. They don't have to, just like I don't have to use them as a service. It's up to them if they want to re-earn my trust.
How does this prove me a fanboy, and of which product. This is a non-sequitur, just a strawman argument to cover up your own fanboyism and attack after failing to get a joke.
Heh. Uh huh.
Having to tell people when you've made a joke is considered the hallmark of a poor comedian and to have to ask for this is considered decisive proof that one lacks a sense of humour.
*Shrug* I'll give you credit, though, you're spot on with the bit about the poor comedian.
How do you come to this conclusion? don't bother answering, you'll only froth at the mouth more, we both no there is no basis for this claim beyond your need to attack me for having a divergent opinion.
Nah, it's not about having a divergent opinion. It's about having an ignorant opinion. Actually... ignorant's not quite the wrong word. Group think? Hmmm I can't find the right word. But anyway, I've already gone over this in my previous post.
Yes, its called proof reading, if you tried it you might not have so many spelling mistakes in your posts.
Hehe. In your previous line you said 'no' instead of 'know'.
Makes little difference in the long run, created for the same purpose, to make an artificial demand.
Except... it wasn't Apple. Retailers pull shit, that ain't Apple's fault. There's plenty of other things to criticize Apple for (like Mobile Me not working...), but this one's just the latest sensationalist headline to get the Group Think movement babbling.
Hard to respond without a response is it? You just said you cant refute what I said, rather turning back on a strawman and non-sequitur (nested strawman at that), very poor debating skills, good sir.
*Shrug* You dug a hole and fell into it. That ain't my fault.
All Iphone owners I know don't use it as a smart phone or nav device, they bought it because it looked shiny (and if this is important to you by all means don't let me stop you, I've already said aesthetics is the Iphones most well developed feature), most people who actually need an smart phone don't care about aesthetics, hence why blackberries and Imate JasJams look hideous in comparison.
Well, this'll be an interesting test of whether or not we're actually dicsussing or arguing this little matter. All the people I know with an iPhone, most of my coworkers in fact, are using the phones to do a lot of web browsing, game playing, music playing, and they're having fun with the software store. With the exception of the App Store, the generation 1 dudes were still constantly using it for stuff. (as opposed to a short lived "well that was fun for about a week..." process that a lot of other geek toys went through.) I think the main reason for this is that most of them use GMail and the iPhone plays nicely with it. They also use it a lot for sending quick instant messages via AIM. If you were to look around the studio where I work, you'd see iPhones being used in much the same way PDAs were envisioned to be used back in 2000. That's why I bought an iPod Touch off of one of them. I don't even have my Treo in my pocket anymore, it sits on my desk. When I need to call up information about a scene I've just worked on, I turn it on, do a GMail search, and give the answer. Not bad considering that the Touch is much more tethered than the iPhone given its lack of cell phone capability.
I'm personally watching people use these phones. A phone is not just a phone if it can actually handle the other tasks it has been designed to do. I work in a place where people have to roam about from building to building a lot, but at least it's covered by WiFi. None of these people would consider it 'crippled' because they're doing more useful stuff with it than they were with their previous phones. (Treos, Blackberries, you name it.) That's why I want to ge
This is perfectly reasonable if they're up front about it. I have a request... I would like a method to see what my consumption so far is so I can plan appropriately.
I have another request: Existing customers should not be forced over to this new policy until they either cancel or move. At least show the customers they pulled in via their advertising a little mercy.
Please explain to which product I am being fanboyish to?
Nothing?
Then its not fanboyism...."
Hehe. Anybody who 'fought' in the great Playstation 3 Flame War would see the silliness of this statement and chuckle quietly to themselves.
No, unlike a fanboy I will actually backup what I claim.... When I do indulge in fanboyism I generally attach a decent reason to it and it doesn't prevent me from buying competing products or lead me to attack.
Okay. So when you originally responded to me, you didn't back up your claim. You didn't attach a decent reason. You're not buying an iPhone. Your sarcasm could be interpreted as an attack. So are you taking the scenic route in saying that you are a fanboy? Seriously, man. Reread what you said.
Indeed, just as sad to see Apple fanboys and Apple themselves (paying people to line up outside apple stores and limiting supplies in some countries to give the illusion of demand) resorting to just these tactics to convince people otherwise.
Actually it was the company/store trying to sell the iPhones (Orange) that paid the actors to show up. Thank you for illustrating my point about spreading propoganda'esque bullshit, though. So long as the important-detail-omitted sensationalist headlines keep getting relayed, you lot are all happy.
Just in case you didn't get it, my original post was a joke but now I feel that I must point out your hypocrisy. A hypocrite is someone who would accuse others of what they do themselves or if you would prefer, pot, kettle, black.
I'd respond but it's hard to take this comment too seriously after the last bit. Hehe.
Is it wrong to show people the downside of what they might purchase?
Not at all. That's something you should have done in the first place, then we'd be discussing instead of arguing. You're behaving all high and mighty, but your original post that kicked it all off is betraying your civility. That's what's sad about this whole thing. I had to bust your chops to get you to talk about it. For all the iPhone bullshit (Both pro and con, I mean. You're right, it's overhyped, hence the tension...) that's floated around Slashdot for the last your, your post is the FIRST TIME I've run across anybody who has actually mentioned a competitive phone that actually supports Flash. I'm actually happy we had this discussion because I'm walking away some information I can use when I go phone shopping in December.
But... heh... I see why the Flash conversation hasn't gone on as much as it should have. Your phone doesn't support Flash, it supports Flash Lite. While that is better than what the iPhone can do, are you really getting much more out of it than Flash ads? Maybe I'm just being fickle here, but the main reason I want Flash on my mobile phone is to play Flash games. It's dumbfuck stupid that Apple didn't release it with that, otherwise my iPod Touch would be even more valuable to me.
I've drifted off topic, though. I did look at the specs on your phone and I found it kind of interesting. No GPS. No touchscreen. Significanly fewer pixels for displaying web pages. No Wi-Fi... wtf? How can you actually web browse on this thing? Every important feature it needs to do that is 'crippled'. Who would want to pay.... well I think I've made my point. I could sit here and tell you what a phone you are using can't do, and you'd justifiably think I was an idiot for ignoring what it does do. Still though, you'd probably still think more highly of me then than if I had said "it's crippled, you're trying to justify spending your money."
I'm amazed these silly discussions still have steam a year after the iPhone's release. "I'm smarter than you because I didn't buy a product." *Yawn.*
because they are trying to justify spending A$700 on a crippled device
That's not Fanboy to English. It's Fanboy-A to Fanboy-B. You're behaving the same way you're complaining about other people behaving.
This level of over-zealous silliness amazes me. "The iPhone doesn't support Flash just like every other cell phone on the planet. That means it's crippled!" It's sad to see people waiting in line for hours to get an iPhone. It isn't much less sad to see people devoting energy to a propaganda'esque movement to convince people that have never used one that an iPhone is simply a $200 lump of plastic with a 2 year committment.
Well whether or not it's false, I think the key issue is whether a reasonable person would find it misleading. What I mean is, even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say it's not intentionally deceptive, and even if you think Apple is trying to say something that's true, I can still see how it would lead someone to assume things that are false.
I could see that. I'm somebody who has been using cell phones to browse the web for years. The iPhone's ability to load and properly render pages is nothing short of amazing, at least in comparison to everything else I've used. For me, the statement acceptable. But... I wonder how many people purchased the iPhone with it being the first time they've tried a mobile-internet experience? I could see potential frustration there when their favorite flash games don't work.
I dunno, I'm usually in strong favor of protecting consumers. But even I have a point where I think it's harmful to be too literal. True, the iPhone's not as capable as a desktop PC with a web browser. It's also true that realistically speaking, I'm not going to drive my Jeep to the peek of any mountain.
That said, I'd be more apt to shake my pitchfork at Apple over that ad if they implied that you could toss your computer and use the iPhone exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
That didn't work too well for Mike Rowe, of Mike Rowe Software. It was genuinely his name, but a certain agressive trademark defender made him give up his domain.
To be fair, it's blatantly obvious that he chose his name as a parody of 'Microsoft'. "Mike Rowe Soft". MS had no choice but to pursue that. In this particular case it's unlikely an argument could be made that the submitter's domain name was chosen as a play on this other company's trademark.
Two very different things, here.
Here's just yet another libelous juvenile review. This, despite the overwhelming evidence that /. readers don't want this crap.
Just a tip: Slashdot looks at the comment count, too. When their threads start getting a whopping 10 posts, then we'll start seeing fewer of them. But when everybody complains...
Which is what? Saying that a single company needs to do it instead of the community simply begs the issue. What are they going to do?
We have to rewind to my original post to see my answer to that. In my original post, I said: "It's easy for me to say "put Linux on a neat product!", but picking the right product, making it work, and convincing somebody to do it ... well if I could provide a step by step of how to realistically pull that off, I'd deserve more than a +5." I'm not claiming to have the answer.
What wonderful thing is it going to do? As I pointed out, simply slapping Linux on a computer and writing a touchscreen driver isn't going to do the trick. Existing general-purpose applications aren't designed for touch. And writing a comprehensive set of general-purpose touch applications is prohibitive for a single company with little to no market share. Look how much time and effort Apple has spent on iLife and iWork. Or how long it's taken to do Open Office.
Yep, we agree.
And writing some sort of killer dedicated application, like a home controller or multimedia system, is all about the dedicated system and not the underlying OS. How many people know what OS their cable STB or Tivo is running? As long as it's doing it's job, how many even care?
And that tends to kill the whole idea of doing the whole thing to "promote" Linux, doesn't it?
Depending on how it's handled, sure, it could. There's two big problems here: 1.) Nobody's being terribly proactive. The Linux Community is quite happy re-treading on established ground, at least from a perspective that the masses would care about. 2.) There's this big fat line between Linux and any given distribution. "It's just the kernel!" On yawn-o-rama. There's all this networking or file system code, but when it comes to end-user solutions, the selection's not so great. It'd be nice to see a little more bold-ness coming from the developers. "Here's a neat new way to store and play back all your movies! Just buy a small machine, hook it up to your TV, install this Distro, and you're off!" ... or whatever.
Oh well, you're right, there's still a challenge there. No denying it. The problem is that nobody's really pursuing it, either. Not successfully, anyway. It's not impossible. It's just not going to happen automatically.
The iPhone UI was designed from the ground up as a touch interface, maximizing the use of space and screen real estate in a portable device. All of the applications it uses were redesigned to take advantage of that interface. With that in mind, just what, exactly, is a Linux-based touch-screen desktop computer going to do?
That would have been a good question to ask, a little over a year ago before the iPhone came out. Now if somebody did an iPhone-esque UI, they'd just be copying what they saw instead of starting with the simple goal of making a touch-screen-based-phone-that-doesn't-suck. Following the parade instead of leading it.
Speaking of which, from what I gather the screen uses a "smart" border and not capacitance, so it only recognizes single finger presses and not multi-touch gestures. No pinches, no two finger Jeff Han rotations and zooms. Touch-wise, it's speaking at a kindergarten level. With all of that in mind, and given the limitations of the hardware, I fail to see just how revolutionary the device could be, even if you managed to convince the Linux developer community to to support it.
Actually I agree with you. The problem is, I'm not pitching this particular product as 'the one'. But, since people keep getting stuck in that mudpit anyway, I'll take a stab at answering. First, it wouldn't be the Linux Community, it'd be the company building the product. They choose Linux as their OS, start from there. Second, you don't see how 'revolutionary' it is. Big Fucking Deal. That wasn't a requirement, either. I said it had to be a good product. All that means is that it needs to serve a useful purpose. Look at the iPhone. First with a touch screen? No. First to browse the web? No. First to play music/videos? No. Revolutionary? Only in its acceptance. The touch screen is reasonably intuitive. Its web browser is darned close to working like the web browser on a desktop machine. (Even with tabs!) iTunes is the market leader. Apple did a few things right and had a hit on their hands. (Arguably they have a strong brand, too. No denying that.) Apple faced exactly that problem with their OS and what'd they do? Well they didn't throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't see how our OS can do any better."
"And without groundbreaking applications to pique a user's imagination, the concept that this computer could "promote" Linux is..., well... totally out of touch with reality."
Duh. So maybe it's time to quit trying to rewrite what's already been written and start innovating. That's the point I've been making the whole time.
"Maybe just program it the best you can and stop relying on dishonest gimmicks? ... People have ported Linux to far more interesting devices before and it really hasn't changed a thing."
I didn't say anything about dishonest gimmicks. I said put it on a product people like and it'll get the Linux name out there. Like I said, the masses don't care. Linux is invisible to them. Raise that visibility. Look at FireFox. It's starting to gain some mainstream momentum. Why? Because it's good? No, because it's better than Internet Explorer. Not just better, but better in ways that are meaningful to lots of people. Gecko rendering core? PFtbtb. Tabs? Ooo! That's what Linux needs, that is if the goal is to get it on millions of desktops.
"People have ported Linux to far more interesting devices before and it really hasn't changed a thing."
That's because they're following the parade instead of leading it. Again, see FireFox.
Why do people have to treat devices like this as being nothing more than a stepping stone for the all-powerful Linux? Propagandizing like that is just the thing that keeps people from taking people like you seriously.
Nobody takes Linux people seriously because the difference between it and Windows/Mac is, from their perspective anyway, trivial. So, yes, finding a way to get them to notice it is on some people's minds. You gotta better idea? Something a little better than IBM's quickly-evaporating-commercial?
A pure Linux fanboy wrote that blog post that made its way to Slashdot's homepage. He just wants HP to put Linux on the hot new product, when really this is a Windows Tablet with a few new cool apps writen for it.
You're right. But he does have a point, although that may not have been intentional. If Linux were to power a nifty device that caught the attention of the masses, that'd certainly be a good first step towards gaining mass acceptance.
But... well really there's nothing insightful about what I just said. Nothing new, anyway. It's easy for me to say "put Linux on a neat product!", but picking the right product, making it work, and convincing somebody to do it ... well if I could provide a step by step of how to realistically pull that off, I'd deserve more than a +5.
I beg to differ, the U.S.A. is the most fascist country on earth right now.
If that were true, the Daily Show would be considerably less funny.
I think this would be a good time to point out that Barack Obama and his running mate are lawyers.
BFD.
Your comment should not have been modded troll.
"Does automated payment with an automatic and a ski mask count?"
Only if you send a robot to do it.
Every consumer-level broadband service I've ever heard of has had unofficial, unpublished limits that would result in a warning or in cancellation of service. This is just one further reason why nobody should be in the least bit surprised about Comcast's move.
Uh.. okay. They're uncommunicative, but that's okay because we know there's some undefined limit and so the burden's on us... Right.
They're opening up, they're communicating their terms of service much more clearly, and they're making their limits official and explicit instead of letting you trip over them in the dark. And yet somehow you want to complain about them being uncommunicative!
That's not what I complained about. Actually I didn't even really complain about anything, I made a request. If you're still confused, go back and reread.
"Failure to communicate"? What a bunch of bullshit. How do you think everybody found out about their grand October plan in advance? Oh right, because Comcast announced it.
The limits were in place before they announced it. That's why there's been a lot of drama orbitting Comcast in the last year or two.
They are providing what they advertise! They stopped saying "unlimited" years ago, you admit this yourself. It should come as absolutely no shock whatsoever that, years after they stop advertising "unlimited", they now stop providing it.
Welp, you listened to one bit that I said, now listen to the other: They didn't say they weren't unlimited anymore, either. That's a big-fat-important detail right there.
I'll say it again: you have no contract. Everything is subject to change at any time. If you go to the grocery store and suddenly the price of your favorite bread has doubled, you have no real grounds for complaint. Likewise here.
That'd be a great rebuttal, if I had said they had a legal obligation to do so. This conversation has gotten circular. I'm talking about how they need to maintain their trust with their customers. That's it. Please pay attention to this because you've already missed it twice.
Change is the only constant in life. If you signed up with Comcast service years ago expecting to receive exactly the same service at exactly the same price until the end of time, that misconception is your fault, not theirs.
Communication by ommission is not communication. Their failure to communicate most certainly is their fault.
Except that they currently aren't advertising "unlimited", and as far as I know they have not done so for quite a while.
Lots of people adopted cable modems back when unlimited was the standard marketing term. Then, they suddenly stop talking about it. True, they don't say unlimited anymore, but they don't say limited either. It's, at best, in the fine print. So far, they're the first to behave that way, at least in the general public sense. It matters.
Not to mention, 250GB/month is functionally equivalent to "unlimited" for 99% of their customers.
No, it's not. It's an altering of the deal. You cannot say that anybody will never that cap. They could discover new streaming content. They could have a friend come by and f' it up. Comcast could change the limit. Anything could happen. This possibility was not considered when the service was started up. Worse, people were lured into thinking they'd never run into a problem with it.
That limit is far beyond what most people could possibly use. If you are using more than 250GB/month, then maybe a cheap home-grade connection is not for you.
They should provide what they advertise. If they can't, they should be up front with their customers and do what they can to ease the transition. Stupid rationale like "That outta be enough for everybody" is not an answer.
I get that, I just don't understand why you'd make such a request. Without a contract, they have every right to make changes to their services at any time.
For the simple reason that they still require customers to survive. They spent years advertising unlimited service, then suddenly it changes. That breeds distrust. They're well within their right to do that, you're right about that. I don't have Comcast now, but when I move and need to reconnect my internet service, they're going to have to live with the fact that I may utterly avoid them now. Not because I use that much bandwidth, but because it's not like I can easily uproot my internet connection and get a new one. I don't want to use a service that has a track record of spontaneously changing the terms of service so dramatically.
So, basically, I'm making a request that they be decent. They don't have to, just like I don't have to use them as a service. It's up to them if they want to re-earn my trust.
If you don't have a contract, you have absolutely no right to expect them to give you the same service next month as they gave you this month.
The operative word in my previous post being 'request'. Heh.
How does this prove me a fanboy, and of which product. This is a non-sequitur, just a strawman argument to cover up your own fanboyism and attack after failing to get a joke.
Heh. Uh huh.
Having to tell people when you've made a joke is considered the hallmark of a poor comedian and to have to ask for this is considered decisive proof that one lacks a sense of humour.
*Shrug* I'll give you credit, though, you're spot on with the bit about the poor comedian.
How do you come to this conclusion? don't bother answering, you'll only froth at the mouth more, we both no there is no basis for this claim beyond your need to attack me for having a divergent opinion.
Nah, it's not about having a divergent opinion. It's about having an ignorant opinion. Actually... ignorant's not quite the wrong word. Group think? Hmmm I can't find the right word. But anyway, I've already gone over this in my previous post.
Yes, its called proof reading, if you tried it you might not have so many spelling mistakes in your posts.
Hehe. In your previous line you said 'no' instead of 'know'.
Makes little difference in the long run, created for the same purpose, to make an artificial demand.
Except... it wasn't Apple. Retailers pull shit, that ain't Apple's fault. There's plenty of other things to criticize Apple for (like Mobile Me not working...), but this one's just the latest sensationalist headline to get the Group Think movement babbling.
Hard to respond without a response is it? You just said you cant refute what I said, rather turning back on a strawman and non-sequitur (nested strawman at that), very poor debating skills, good sir.
*Shrug* You dug a hole and fell into it. That ain't my fault.
All Iphone owners I know don't use it as a smart phone or nav device, they bought it because it looked shiny (and if this is important to you by all means don't let me stop you, I've already said aesthetics is the Iphones most well developed feature), most people who actually need an smart phone don't care about aesthetics, hence why blackberries and Imate JasJams look hideous in comparison.
Well, this'll be an interesting test of whether or not we're actually dicsussing or arguing this little matter. All the people I know with an iPhone, most of my coworkers in fact, are using the phones to do a lot of web browsing, game playing, music playing, and they're having fun with the software store. With the exception of the App Store, the generation 1 dudes were still constantly using it for stuff. (as opposed to a short lived "well that was fun for about a week..." process that a lot of other geek toys went through.) I think the main reason for this is that most of them use GMail and the iPhone plays nicely with it. They also use it a lot for sending quick instant messages via AIM. If you were to look around the studio where I work, you'd see iPhones being used in much the same way PDAs were envisioned to be used back in 2000. That's why I bought an iPod Touch off of one of them. I don't even have my Treo in my pocket anymore, it sits on my desk. When I need to call up information about a scene I've just worked on, I turn it on, do a GMail search, and give the answer. Not bad considering that the Touch is much more tethered than the iPhone given its lack of cell phone capability.
I'm personally watching people use these phones. A phone is not just a phone if it can actually handle the other tasks it has been designed to do. I work in a place where people have to roam about from building to building a lot, but at least it's covered by WiFi. None of these people would consider it 'crippled' because they're doing more useful stuff with it than they were with their previous phones. (Treos, Blackberries, you name it.) That's why I want to ge
This is perfectly reasonable if they're up front about it. I have a request... I would like a method to see what my consumption so far is so I can plan appropriately.
I have another request: Existing customers should not be forced over to this new policy until they either cancel or move. At least show the customers they pulled in via their advertising a little mercy.
Please explain to which product I am being fanboyish to?
Nothing?
Then its not fanboyism...."
Hehe. Anybody who 'fought' in the great Playstation 3 Flame War would see the silliness of this statement and chuckle quietly to themselves.
No, unlike a fanboy I will actually backup what I claim.... When I do indulge in fanboyism I generally attach a decent reason to it and it doesn't prevent me from buying competing products or lead me to attack.
Okay. So when you originally responded to me, you didn't back up your claim. You didn't attach a decent reason. You're not buying an iPhone. Your sarcasm could be interpreted as an attack. So are you taking the scenic route in saying that you are a fanboy? Seriously, man. Reread what you said.
Indeed, just as sad to see Apple fanboys and Apple themselves (paying people to line up outside apple stores and limiting supplies in some countries to give the illusion of demand) resorting to just these tactics to convince people otherwise.
Actually it was the company/store trying to sell the iPhones (Orange) that paid the actors to show up. Thank you for illustrating my point about spreading propoganda'esque bullshit, though. So long as the important-detail-omitted sensationalist headlines keep getting relayed, you lot are all happy.
Just in case you didn't get it, my original post was a joke but now I feel that I must point out your hypocrisy. A hypocrite is someone who would accuse others of what they do themselves or if you would prefer, pot, kettle, black.
I'd respond but it's hard to take this comment too seriously after the last bit. Hehe.
Is it wrong to show people the downside of what they might purchase?
Not at all. That's something you should have done in the first place, then we'd be discussing instead of arguing. You're behaving all high and mighty, but your original post that kicked it all off is betraying your civility. That's what's sad about this whole thing. I had to bust your chops to get you to talk about it. For all the iPhone bullshit (Both pro and con, I mean. You're right, it's overhyped, hence the tension...) that's floated around Slashdot for the last your, your post is the FIRST TIME I've run across anybody who has actually mentioned a competitive phone that actually supports Flash. I'm actually happy we had this discussion because I'm walking away some information I can use when I go phone shopping in December.
But... heh... I see why the Flash conversation hasn't gone on as much as it should have. Your phone doesn't support Flash, it supports Flash Lite. While that is better than what the iPhone can do, are you really getting much more out of it than Flash ads? Maybe I'm just being fickle here, but the main reason I want Flash on my mobile phone is to play Flash games. It's dumbfuck stupid that Apple didn't release it with that, otherwise my iPod Touch would be even more valuable to me.
I've drifted off topic, though. I did look at the specs on your phone and I found it kind of interesting. No GPS. No touchscreen. Significanly fewer pixels for displaying web pages. No Wi-Fi... wtf? How can you actually web browse on this thing? Every important feature it needs to do that is 'crippled'. Who would want to pay.... well I think I've made my point. I could sit here and tell you what a phone you are using can't do, and you'd justifiably think I was an idiot for ignoring what it does do. Still though, you'd probably still think more highly of me then than if I had said "it's crippled, you're trying to justify spending your money."
I'm amazed these silly discussions still have steam a year after the iPhone's release. "I'm smarter than you because I didn't buy a product." *Yawn.*
I'll translate that from Fanboy to English.
because they are trying to justify spending A$700 on a crippled device
That's not Fanboy to English. It's Fanboy-A to Fanboy-B. You're behaving the same way you're complaining about other people behaving.
This level of over-zealous silliness amazes me. "The iPhone doesn't support Flash just like every other cell phone on the planet. That means it's crippled!" It's sad to see people waiting in line for hours to get an iPhone. It isn't much less sad to see people devoting energy to a propaganda'esque movement to convince people that have never used one that an iPhone is simply a $200 lump of plastic with a 2 year committment.
See the OP's corrected comment about horribly designed sites. No site should require Flash to be used. None.
Lots of people play Flash games. Statement refuted.
Well whether or not it's false, I think the key issue is whether a reasonable person would find it misleading. What I mean is, even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say it's not intentionally deceptive, and even if you think Apple is trying to say something that's true, I can still see how it would lead someone to assume things that are false.
I could see that. I'm somebody who has been using cell phones to browse the web for years. The iPhone's ability to load and properly render pages is nothing short of amazing, at least in comparison to everything else I've used. For me, the statement acceptable. But ... I wonder how many people purchased the iPhone with it being the first time they've tried a mobile-internet experience? I could see potential frustration there when their favorite flash games don't work.
I dunno, I'm usually in strong favor of protecting consumers. But even I have a point where I think it's harmful to be too literal. True, the iPhone's not as capable as a desktop PC with a web browser. It's also true that realistically speaking, I'm not going to drive my Jeep to the peek of any mountain.
That said, I'd be more apt to shake my pitchfork at Apple over that ad if they implied that you could toss your computer and use the iPhone exclusively.
why do supposedly intelligent fellow overhype a clumsy device?
Probably because, unlike you, they've used it.
I'm waiting on the drunken lawyer version, Port
I'm waiting for the Wii version, P.