This is exactly how I sound when I lose an eBay auction that I really wanted to win. "Ha! I really didn't want that rare comic after all. I was just sticking it to those other suckers that beat me." *whimper*
[quote]What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event"?[/quote]
Agreed. Only Windows users should protect their data during a major revision of an operating system.
"But that's okay. If 99% of the people hate it and don't buy it then Apple will have reached its target goal."
That's not what the article says. It says that 26% of people were interested in buying the phone, and of that 26%, only 1% would pay the asking price. That means 0.26% of people would buy it, and that's far below the 1% target Jobs is looking to reach. That's a troublesome figure.
There's one other factor here: iPhones will, in a large part, initially go to early adopters. There is little doubt in my mind that newer, better iPhones will be out *before* the contracts of those early adopters have expired. There is a built-in penalty for being an early adopter here, and the penalty compounds the longer you wait to buy it.
"My email client (not Outlook) is set to render the body of a message as text only. No freaking HTML."
Oh yeah? I get all my email by Morse Code...no freaking ASCII. All of our bandwidth problems are from people wanting "readable" email with "characters" and "punctuation." And while we're at it, what is with color photography and color television!? Obviously, if something looks nice, it must be DESTROYED!
Please don't say you're serious. What *doesn't* play in Media Player? Only two formats that matter: iTunes, RealPlayer. (Oh, and Quicktime, but I have to bundle that with iTunes like Apple does.)
All I know is this is something that Microsoft always does well. (Ok, I can't read that with a straight face either, but I digress.) Except for the ol' operating system, they're pretty open with products (oh, and except for Office, and.... well ok lots of things). With formats, however, they accept their role as market share leader with some class. It's not like there aren't a million free ways to encode WMVs. Same is not true of Apple.
Am I saying they should? No. I am saying that the longer it takes, the more annoying it is.
True, my analogy is not perfect, but here is the key: Apple doesn't let you play WMA/WMV on iPods because they don't like Microsoft. Microsoft won't let you play Apple audio on Media Player because...oh wait...because *Apple* won't let them. So, Apple is hampering things coming and going. If anyone seriously thinks Microsoft wouldn't allow iTunes music to be played in their software, you are plumb loco. They're even showing iPod connectivity with the 360 as a feature, although they don't hame the iPod by name. (They too can be equally childish when it comes to "the other computer."
"Nope. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They simply have no competition."
This is not accurate. Apple has a potential monopoly because they have secured almost 90% of the market and refuse to license their DRM. That's monopolistic behavior. Can you imagine if Microsoft, with their massive market share on PCs didn't license WMA/WMV, and insisted those formats be used with its systems?
It's important to separate logic from fanboy rose-colored glasses. Apple has made an incredible product, but has already been slapped in France (who cares, I know), and the US judiciary has already approved a motion to go forward with antitrust action against them if someone should so choose.
The question for Apple is this--if they open up their DRM, will people still buy iPods? I think the answer is absolutely yes, and they should stop being so stubborn about something that could potentially cripple them in the courts. If they thought scratch-tastic Nanos were an annoying issue, hundreds of lawsuits around the world will be worse.
"We've always supspected that Bill Gates was building a doomsday weapon, now we know how. Thanks for uncovering his nefarious plots."
I think the entire notion of demonizing Bill Gates as the only person in the computer world who's after money and dominance is old and broken. Petulantly clinging to this notion requires that you close your eyes to the equally stubborn behavior of just about every other major company, including Apple (people will instantly be offended when I say this) and Sony (which some will automatically hate, and to be honest, since the rootkit, I have a hard time maintaining my neutrality toward them).
I have breaking news to the small minded: Everyone wants to make as much money as they can and are willing to sell their souls to do it *cough* Google *cough*. Honestly, how much are souls worth when a fifth condo is so much more willing to impress the babes?
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly how I sound when I lose an eBay auction that I really wanted to win. "Ha! I really didn't want that rare comic after all. I was just sticking it to those other suckers that beat me." *whimper*
[quote]What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event"?[/quote] Agreed. Only Windows users should protect their data during a major revision of an operating system.
"But that's okay. If 99% of the people hate it and don't buy it then Apple will have reached its target goal." That's not what the article says. It says that 26% of people were interested in buying the phone, and of that 26%, only 1% would pay the asking price. That means 0.26% of people would buy it, and that's far below the 1% target Jobs is looking to reach. That's a troublesome figure. There's one other factor here: iPhones will, in a large part, initially go to early adopters. There is little doubt in my mind that newer, better iPhones will be out *before* the contracts of those early adopters have expired. There is a built-in penalty for being an early adopter here, and the penalty compounds the longer you wait to buy it.
"My email client (not Outlook) is set to render the body of a message as text only. No freaking HTML." Oh yeah? I get all my email by Morse Code...no freaking ASCII. All of our bandwidth problems are from people wanting "readable" email with "characters" and "punctuation." And while we're at it, what is with color photography and color television!? Obviously, if something looks nice, it must be DESTROYED!
This is just fanboi word play. I don't even know why I bother.
Actually, now you're talking about Mac. They're the ones that charge you for a decimal point OS upgrade.
Please don't say you're serious. What *doesn't* play in Media Player? Only two formats that matter: iTunes, RealPlayer. (Oh, and Quicktime, but I have to bundle that with iTunes like Apple does.) All I know is this is something that Microsoft always does well. (Ok, I can't read that with a straight face either, but I digress.) Except for the ol' operating system, they're pretty open with products (oh, and except for Office, and .... well ok lots of things). With formats, however, they accept their role as market share leader with some class. It's not like there aren't a million free ways to encode WMVs. Same is not true of Apple.
Am I saying they should? No. I am saying that the longer it takes, the more annoying it is.
True, my analogy is not perfect, but here is the key: Apple doesn't let you play WMA/WMV on iPods because they don't like Microsoft. Microsoft won't let you play Apple audio on Media Player because...oh wait...because *Apple* won't let them. So, Apple is hampering things coming and going. If anyone seriously thinks Microsoft wouldn't allow iTunes music to be played in their software, you are plumb loco. They're even showing iPod connectivity with the 360 as a feature, although they don't hame the iPod by name. (They too can be equally childish when it comes to "the other computer."
Please remove your tinfoil hats at this time.
"Nope. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They simply have no competition."
This is not accurate. Apple has a potential monopoly because they have secured almost 90% of the market and refuse to license their DRM. That's monopolistic behavior. Can you imagine if Microsoft, with their massive market share on PCs didn't license WMA/WMV, and insisted those formats be used with its systems?
It's important to separate logic from fanboy rose-colored glasses. Apple has made an incredible product, but has already been slapped in France (who cares, I know), and the US judiciary has already approved a motion to go forward with antitrust action against them if someone should so choose.
The question for Apple is this--if they open up their DRM, will people still buy iPods? I think the answer is absolutely yes, and they should stop being so stubborn about something that could potentially cripple them in the courts. If they thought scratch-tastic Nanos were an annoying issue, hundreds of lawsuits around the world will be worse.
"We've always supspected that Bill Gates was building a doomsday weapon, now we know how. Thanks for uncovering his nefarious plots." I think the entire notion of demonizing Bill Gates as the only person in the computer world who's after money and dominance is old and broken. Petulantly clinging to this notion requires that you close your eyes to the equally stubborn behavior of just about every other major company, including Apple (people will instantly be offended when I say this) and Sony (which some will automatically hate, and to be honest, since the rootkit, I have a hard time maintaining my neutrality toward them). I have breaking news to the small minded: Everyone wants to make as much money as they can and are willing to sell their souls to do it *cough* Google *cough*. Honestly, how much are souls worth when a fifth condo is so much more willing to impress the babes?