The truth of it is that style, over quality, is the driving market force for most of Apple's consumers. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (except for admittedly picky people like myself) but it IS a sign that the iMobile won't be a terribly high-powered device. It'll be all form.
If it's a GSM phone, it'll suffer the same poor audio quality, low data speeds, and structural penetration issues that all 900mHz phones suffer from. If it's a CDMA phone it'll HAVE to be sold through Verizon or Sprint directly, since those carriers' networks are locked on their end, no the phone's. If it's sold "unbranded" you'll lose half the market right away, especially the high-end users, the vast majority of which are on Verizon or Sprint, for the data options.
The RAZR is the perfect example of Style over Substance in the cellphone market. By all accounts, it's a terrible phone. It's wider than it should be, it has lousy battery life, it's fragile, has a terrible OS, delivers little to no advanced features, and cost (at launch) more than most PDA phones. But it was chique, and so it sold in droves. Remember when it was so absurdly cool to own an iPod? Now your grandmother's cat's litterbox has a dock, and came with a free nano.
Apple DOES sell form. When was the last time you heard anyone in an Apple store say "I want that one because it can do 1.4billion more calculations per second than the one over there in black" No, the prevailing sentiment is: It's cute. That's what sells Apple, and pretty much all that sells Apple to the VAST MAJORITY of their users. It isn't the software library, it isn't the 10 day return policy, it isn't "tested and reliable" hardware. That is the deciding factor for less than 1% of their customers (though admittedly those who should loudest and post most frequently on/.)
I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".
Ultimately they're in the same boat as Google is now: Trying to "mandate cool" rather than putting out good products and letting people decide that they're cool. And that's a ship that sinks fast.
Most audio devices publish their S/N ratio, THD (at a given percentage), and a few other statistics. Most of these can't be measured without a somewhat destructive opening of the box. THD, for example, is measured directly on the board.
Also, most manufacturers (at least respectable ones) publish these numbers to show their devices don't sound like ass. Compare the iPod to the Gigabeat. Same song, same compression, same headphones. The iPod will sound worse, period.
Will it sound bad enough for you to care? That's up to you.
Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs? Because it under performs compared to every other player in the market. How does a minor upgrade in processors constitute a 37% increase in speed?
Expect the iMobile (not iPhone, remember) to be expensive, poorly integrated with service providers (or an MVNO) and a mediocre phone / mediocre mp3 player.
But it'll have HYPE, and so it'll sell. That iPod you just bought your kids for Christmas will be old hat, and the new iMobile make phone calls, text message badly, shoot crappy pictures, and make the cheerleader want to go out with you.
Or at least that's what the ads will say. Maybe I'm just too jaded to bite into the Apple hype. Too many worms.
When that feature costs $200, makes the device largely unavailable to consumers, and cuts its life expectancy from 20,000hrs to 6,000. Especially when there isn't a particularly compelling reason to add that feature other than to attempt to gain market supremacy in another area (home DVD play).
Secondly, it doesn't matter what "most people do" - the reason they haven't before is because the option wasn't available before. Just like "most people don't move their game controller around".
The ability to surf the internet on a TV, even a high definition TV, is absurd. Either the resolution will be too low (most people are not running 1080p), or the screen will be too large to be comfortable to read. I have a 114" projected image. Do you think I want to read your misinformed comments on three inch high letters? No, I'll read them on a screen so I don't have to move my head side to side to read a whole line. And even if browsers on a PS3 (or any game machine) were "as good" as on my computer, they'd be no better, so why would I bother to dig out a keyboard and mouse and plug them into my PS3 when I could just as easily get up and go sit at a computer, or pull out a laptop? Being able to do something "almost as good" as a machine people already own isn't something people will pay for. It'll just be there.
Over the course of the console's lifetime, that's roughly $250. So in the end, you're paying more for an XBox 360 than a PS3.
But the marginal utility of holding that money for 5 years, rather than handing it to Sony all up front means that, despite the prices being lower, I get more out of the money I spent on Microsoft. Especially if I (as most people who compare side-by-side have) prefer the Microsoft online system. PS3's internet capabilities are pretty...useless.
From my 360, I can stream movies and music from any machine on my network (not just Media Center PCs). I can rent HD movies for $5. I can get free content for the games I own. I can play lots and lots of games against other people, exchange video clips, text messages, and voice chat with my friends. I can download mini-games, and play them. I can develop my own mini-games and play them, with the development package costing NOTHING. And when all else fails, I can sit down to some Gears of War, Oblivion, or Blue Dragon and get some nice gaming done.
My local Fry's Electronics has PS3s just sitting around, not being sold. They've not had a Wii in stock for months.
And Microsoft has the capital to launch another system 3 years from now. Sony doesn't. Period.
Palm is a dying OS. Windows Mobile 5 has a massive library of applications, and doesn't require you to learn another language. Plus, the ability to sync with the ever-more-popular exchange servers wirelessly...even Palm is putting Windows on their devices...
Sorry, but I can't stand an "os" without a file explorer or remote sync abilities.
On, and most of them don't lose memory any more readily than palm devices anymore. So boo-hoo, your 2-year-old GPS system wasn't a great PDA. My phone is a better GPS system than most.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on browsers. Right now, IE makes up little more than 50% in all the flavors it comes in, with IE7 barely pulling 7% (as of the end of November, the most recent stats I could find).
50% is not a monopoly, sorry. And public roads and power companies are VASTLY different, given that the government (be it state, federal, or local) maintains public roads. And do you really want the government to have MORE control over the internet? What about the rest of the world, which the US government has no business policing?
What makes you think you can sue MS? You can't sue Google (successfully) just because your page gets blocked by them, even though they are arguably obstructing trade on your site. You can't sue VeriSign for not giving you a free certificate, even though some people won't shop at non-VeriSign secured sites.
Really, I'd hope people don't sue for this. If your sole source of income relies on a system you can't control, then you have a bad business model, plain and simple. Be it Google, or Microsoft, or VeriSign.
Plus...do you really want to make it EASIER to phish? That's just more junk mail in your inbox, because it'll continue to work.
Right, but if the PHP group didn't happen to be in the top 10 of the "Development" tags you'd have been out of luck. And what happens when there's a thousand tags and a hundred thousand groups?
The site UI isn't expandable. It can't handle the kind of growth Microsoft wants the site to have.
I just logged in, and tried to find a PHP/MySQL group to join.
There is no group "search" feature under the "search for a group" link. You can only browse in a very obfuscated fashion. Honestly, they'd better change the interface soon, or you won't be able to find things.
Plus, requiring a Live ID means that search engines can't index...and suddenly your site is a thousand times less useful.
But I bet that sweet MSN Search is going to index it! Like anyone uses that willingly.
I hate to break it to all the Apple fans, but despite what the article may imply, there is not, in fact, a significant increase in Apple's sales. Apple's market share has grown by a half of a percent since January (% of total computers online running some variant of Apple's OS, source: w3cschools.com). By contrast, Windows XP has grown by 4% in that time. In fact, every part of the Windows family has grown except Windows 98/2000. So it seems that what's really happening is that the bottom-end users are switching to Macs. The people who were running Windows 98, 8 years after it came out, have finally switched to Mac.
And I'm sure they're a market force to be reckoned with. Be afraid! The users who replace their computers once every 8 years are the BEST indicators of a company's health.
What about the fact that the iPod family is the only sector of Apple still in the black? Every other part of that company is losing money (source: 2005 Apple Annual Report). Their computers are a marketing move, not an actual product. They are an image, nothing more.
And the Safari browser amounts to less than a tenth of a percent of the browsers online. Spending excessive hours making something "safari compatible" (since it isn't particularly standards compliant in my experience as a web developer) is a waste of a programmer's time and a company's money. Do you worry about what your web site looks like to the color blind (~5% of online population)? That's a much better place to spend your time than on Safari compatibility.
And god forbid they actually make something "safari native" or "safari exclusive" unless it's a plugin that shows you what every page would look like if you were running Firefox.
Or, as works with EVERY public forum.
"Things you post in a public space are public knowledge and use. That's WHY you posted them in a public space, right?"
It's not like they'll delve into your Inbox and claim that they can use the content of messages you post.
But I'm sure, in order to make MS look like the bad guy, someone is going to claim that they will.
Ever notice how much stuff in Apple's forums end up in their FAQ or in future products? Isn't that why people post it there to begin with, so that others (even large corporations) can use it? Am I missing something?
If you wanted to sell the source code, why would you post it for free on a community page, regardless of who owns that page?
Yes, ties are "elitist", but the commercial where the home movie of the Mac guy is a hot chick, and the PC's is a hairy guy in drag (take that, Transvestite & Transgender communities! Apple thinks you're a joke!) is the picture of respect?
The Mac is a stoned college drop-out, and the PC is a successful business man. I guess if you find the guy in a tie/elitist/ then we know which side of the fence you fall on.
Yeah, seriously! How horrible that rich people should pay the homeless for their time! They should be ignored, or paid mere pennies (rather than 20,000 yen) for it.
That's your argument huh?
Oh, and the "poor developers" who are losing out? Getting screwed? Hardly. People paying a premium for the system aren't doing it to have a sweet piece of modern art in their living room. They're going to go out and buy games and accessories. It's not like the systems are just going to sit in some closet for a year. It isn't like MS went out and bought all the units and had them destroyed. This is Capitalism in action: someone willing to pay more for something in limited supply is going to get it. That's what paying more does.
The only people who lose out are the employees who don't get a bonus for "up-selling". But since that system of bonuses isn't (to my knowledge) particularly popular in Japan, I won't lose any sleep over it.
I personally think it's brilliant. I'm going to go put a homeless guy (or two) in front of every Best Buy I can find. In return, he'll get a warm coat and an umbrella, a comfy chair, and I'll stop by and drop off food on a regular basis. When I get the system, I'll give him some cash and send him on his way.
I know, I'm being completely heartless. Better that I ignore him, take time off my job, and rather than working the next week (and producing things, improving the economy in my small way), I'll sit around in line while some homeless guy starves, and freezes.
Your grasp on economics AND ethics are astounding. I am in awe.
In order to get us all off the Arabs vs. Jews, I'd like to give everyone a few other vicious, petty rivalries to gripe over.
>Ninjas vs. Pirates >Apple vs. Microsoft (cleverly abbreviated M$) >Why your group of local televised-catch-playing-millionaires is better than everyone else's
There are pleanty more, but lets go ahead and lay off the Arabs/Jews thing in an article about Ireland forcing Catholic views in their domain registry.
Why isn't there a "Tangent" modifier yet,/.? It could be a -2 for Tangent-ness...that would be handy!
Re:i dissed them for lousy linux support on news.c
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
"the other OSes are gaining in popularity, and quickly" "windows sucks, it is losing popularity at a growing rate and will continue you to do so..."
Really? Where do you get these numbers? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you pretty much pulled those out of the ether. Sadly, it isn't true. *nix adoption tapered off since January 2005, and has only grown by 0.2% in the last 18 months. Meanwhile Windows XP is at its highest rate ever, 74.3% - and its growth is somewhat slowed by the impending release of Windows Vista.
I know inside the Linux bubble it feels like/everyone/ and their dog is using Linux, and that thanks to the efforts of groups like Unbutu will finally bring Unix to the masses. To put the argument in your form, from the POV of the AVERAGE USER:
I upgrade my computer about every 2.8 years, so I don't really care about upgrading to someone's corporate agenda.
When I buy a computer it comes from Dell or HP, and has Windows already. The cost of Windows is part of the cost of a computer, like tires for a car.
I've always run (at least lately) virus scan, adware scan, and spyware scans. They are a part of life. I'm not going to sacrafice the ability to easily install and use software and having someone to gripe to when it doesn't work, in exchange for slightly fewer running processes. I don't even know what processes are.
I author Flash for a living. It's one of the few areas where the non-programming elite can rapidly author. Grumble that windows sucks all you want, I'm over here in the camp that's got ~88% of the market. That means that I have the deciding power, and I have the MASSIVE support networks when I want to do something. Horray, you don't author in.net! That's short-sighted, and your elitist attitude and irrational MS hatred will keep you from getting good work in the future. You sure showed me.
Re:i dissed them for lousy linux support on news.c
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Little to no support for "most" OSes? You must mean "most" in the sense of "lots of tiny changes between different versions being different"
What it comes down to is that a)someone who's *GASP* NOT a programmer can use flash to create dynamic content, which to this day AJAX hasn't really made happen, and b) it IS supported on the MAJORITY of OSes, even though a wide variety make up the final 3.4% of the market.
There seems to be an ego among *nix fanboys that if there isn't a linux version it's not worth using...but really, that just means you haven't gotten off your ass and written one. Who's fault is that? Isn't that what makes linux so 733t[sarcasm]?
Flash holds the majority hand. You represent (with your "most" OSes) less than 4% of even POTENTIAL users, and most of those machines are un-manned servers. Realistically, they've let about 1.5-2% of the market go by not giving away a free plugin. I think they'll survive. And way to pull a FoxNews by saying "most OSes" when you know very well that you are in the vast minority. Misleading intentionaly to proove a point just means you're on the weaker side of the argument - and still a lier.
Apple's attempt is to leverage an existing monopoly IN THE PORTABLE MUSIC PLAYER INDUSTRY (where their market share numbers are within a few percent of MS's OS numbers) to promote another one - their Music Store (not the OS->mp3 player...read the whole post next time). Couple that with anti-competative, sometimes legally-questionable gaurding of their DRM scheme to lock users to their platform, software, and product line and you have a Monopolistic Exploitation. It'd be like if AT&T told you that you could only plug AT&T phones into their phone jacks...[check your MaBell history].
And why should monopolies be illegal? Most/. readers have the good sense to understand that increased government oversight isn't really good for anyone but the overseers and their friends. Effective monopolies happen because the marketplace either won't support exclusive competition (like in OS-land) or because there has yet to be a viable alternative. Not because the big-bad-robber-barron-executive is profiting off the misery of all those below him, but because the benefits of working WITH them outweigh the costs of it.
"This is just an honest-to-god attempt from Apple to corner the digital music market. Kudos if they succeed, boo and an antimonopoly lawsuit on their houses if they subsequently try to use that monopoly to choke, say, the rest of the entertainment industry."
And you're against monopolies huh? Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. By restricting their DRM scheme, Apple locks users into their software / hardware offering. They are harming the users by providing a crippled product that can only be used as a part of their package, and not by necessity but by design. Ask the average iTunes user if they think the music the BOUGHT and PAID FOR can be played on another mp3 player if they choose to, and you'll find that most think it can. But, alas, that's not the case. MS "Plays For Sure" has been licensed to over 300 different device manufacturers, and yet is still listed by the RIAA as an acceptable method of file protection. Apple FairPlay has never been licensed. When government laws forced them to license to competitors (for anti-trust reason) Apple Legal said "I shit on you and your legal system, France". Phenomonal.
Apple created a pretty good music player. It was quick and had a lot of storage like the Creative products before it. It's teired file storage sytem helped you quickly find music - like the Creative products before it (patent violation!). To get people hooked, at first you could put anything on it. You could even just drag-and-drop files into the architecture! The problem is that once it got popular enough, they locked down the system so that you can only use THEIR music. THEIR software. THEIR online store. THEIR licenses. THEIR record labels. And God help you if you ever decide you want to switch AWAY from their system. Making the "legal" music purchases only work with their products effectively increases the cost of adopting an alternative, helping to maintain their monopoly (antitrust!). $400 player stopped working after 18mo, but you have $500 worth of music (you good little consumer, you)? That means a new player from Apple costs you $400, but a new player from Creative costs $850 - $350 for the player and $500 to replace all the music you already bought and now sits useless on your hard drive. No thanks, Apple. I refuse to be plugged into the Matrix by my little white headphones.
And what's with making a personal attack at the tail end of a post? That's how you spot the weaker side of the argument everytime. Can't argue the points, argue the person? Whoever modded me "insightful" probably recognized that I have VALID and WELL RESEARCHED points to make, even if they don't agree with them. Or maybe they just missed hitting the "flaimbait" button and I got lucky this time.
When Apple disabled the functionality to "download from iPod" (iTunes 4.7) the actual file system became a part of the DRM scheme, and thus protected by the DMCA. When a third party (Real Networks) allowed users to transfer files to their iPods, Apple sued under DMCA, claiming that any use of 3rd party software (including windows explorer, mind you!) was a violation of the DMCA. See details here: Apple Accuses RealNetworks of Hacking [PCWorld.com]
And there's a whole bunch of "terms and agreements" you agree to when you purchase an iPod and install iTunes for the first time. The legal notice included in both the iPod manual (at least the last one I had, which I admit is a few versions back. I stopped using iPods the first time my battery died and they told me it'd cost $160 to replace it) and in the iTunes install expressly forbid the use of non-Apple-approved software to interface with the iPod. While this isn't legally binding, it does allow them to sue. And sue they do.
(from article linked above):
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the IPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws", says Apple's statement. "We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our IPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future IPods."
Is THAT the company you're backing? Threatening their own customers and calling them criminals in an official press release? Just sounds like a little kid throwing a tantrum.
Microsoft never made it difficult / impossible to install a 3rd party media player on any system they've ever made. Nor did they do that with a browser. That's the line fed by money-grubbing anti-trust lawyers to uninformed users.
The primary argument the ACTUAL anti-trust lawsuit was based on was that Microsoft was leveraging the dominance of one product to the advantage of the other, giving it an "unfair competative advantage". The fact that Windows Media Player came pre-installed made paying for a product like Real Networks's RealPlayer (a particualry crappy piece of software, I might add) very unlikely for the average user. When WMP moved from being just a basic media player to including things like playlists, internet streaming (before it was called 'podcasting') and visualizers, it became a competitor for programs like WinAmp and RealPlayer. Anti-trust lawyers argued somewhat successfully that this amounted to Microsoft unfairly leveraging market dominance and discouraging competition.
Now, YOU have no problem arguing that Apple is somehow above this. Let's look at the iPod: Clearly the market leader in mobile media players, they REQUIRE you to install iTunes to load music onto it. They even go so far as to SUE other companies that make software that can download to the iPod (see: RealNetworks, WinAmp iPod plugin, etc). It isn't even for DRM stuff. Just transfering unencrypted files to and from an iPod constitutes a crime (according to Apple legal) if you aren't using iTunes.//technically// using the Windows Explorer to do so is a violation of the "terms and agreements" you apparently agree to when you buy an iPod.
So get off your high horse, Mac Zealot. All that's white and cheap plastic isn't gold.
Locking out all but trusted software and hardware (maybe), you claim? Egads, this sounds a whole lot like the Apple plan:
"If they HAVE to buy everything from us, we'll be rich."
MS would never lock out competition. As [pieterh] pointed out (though they were trying to insult MS at the time), encouraging others to dump billions into development has saved MS money in the long run, plus they reap the rewards. If the platform is stronger, more people will buy it, write for it, etc. The user experience is greatly improved by 3rd party software. Try and have one company get everything right, and you get the iLife Suite of Awfulness.
But then again, MS can't really ever close a software platform. They'd be brought up on anti-trust lawsuits, AGAIN. Remember: You can't bundle a media player with your media platform (unless you're Apple) and you can't bundle a browser with your internet-connected platform (unless you're Apple).
Slashdot Mirror
The truth of it is that style, over quality, is the driving market force for most of Apple's consumers. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (except for admittedly picky people like myself) but it IS a sign that the iMobile won't be a terribly high-powered device. It'll be all form.
/.)
If it's a GSM phone, it'll suffer the same poor audio quality, low data speeds, and structural penetration issues that all 900mHz phones suffer from. If it's a CDMA phone it'll HAVE to be sold through Verizon or Sprint directly, since those carriers' networks are locked on their end, no the phone's. If it's sold "unbranded" you'll lose half the market right away, especially the high-end users, the vast majority of which are on Verizon or Sprint, for the data options.
The RAZR is the perfect example of Style over Substance in the cellphone market. By all accounts, it's a terrible phone. It's wider than it should be, it has lousy battery life, it's fragile, has a terrible OS, delivers little to no advanced features, and cost (at launch) more than most PDA phones. But it was chique, and so it sold in droves. Remember when it was so absurdly cool to own an iPod? Now your grandmother's cat's litterbox has a dock, and came with a free nano.
Apple DOES sell form. When was the last time you heard anyone in an Apple store say "I want that one because it can do 1.4billion more calculations per second than the one over there in black" No, the prevailing sentiment is: It's cute. That's what sells Apple, and pretty much all that sells Apple to the VAST MAJORITY of their users. It isn't the software library, it isn't the 10 day return policy, it isn't "tested and reliable" hardware. That is the deciding factor for less than 1% of their customers (though admittedly those who should loudest and post most frequently on
I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".
Ultimately they're in the same boat as Google is now: Trying to "mandate cool" rather than putting out good products and letting people decide that they're cool. And that's a ship that sinks fast.
Most audio devices publish their S/N ratio, THD (at a given percentage), and a few other statistics. Most of these can't be measured without a somewhat destructive opening of the box. THD, for example, is measured directly on the board.
Also, most manufacturers (at least respectable ones) publish these numbers to show their devices don't sound like ass. Compare the iPod to the Gigabeat. Same song, same compression, same headphones. The iPod will sound worse, period.
Will it sound bad enough for you to care? That's up to you.
Better don your tin foil hat...
t m
The cameras have facial recognition now.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0112-06.h
Apple sells form, not function. They sell image.
Why doesn't the iPod publish audio specs? Because it under performs compared to every other player in the market. How does a minor upgrade in processors constitute a 37% increase in speed?
Expect the iMobile (not iPhone, remember) to be expensive, poorly integrated with service providers (or an MVNO) and a mediocre phone / mediocre mp3 player.
But it'll have HYPE, and so it'll sell. That iPod you just bought your kids for Christmas will be old hat, and the new iMobile make phone calls, text message badly, shoot crappy pictures, and make the cheerleader want to go out with you.
Or at least that's what the ads will say. Maybe I'm just too jaded to bite into the Apple hype. Too many worms.
When that feature costs $200, makes the device largely unavailable to consumers, and cuts its life expectancy from 20,000hrs to 6,000. Especially when there isn't a particularly compelling reason to add that feature other than to attempt to gain market supremacy in another area (home DVD play).
The ability to surf the internet on a TV, even a high definition TV, is absurd. Either the resolution will be too low (most people are not running 1080p), or the screen will be too large to be comfortable to read. I have a 114" projected image. Do you think I want to read your misinformed comments on three inch high letters? No, I'll read them on a screen so I don't have to move my head side to side to read a whole line. And even if browsers on a PS3 (or any game machine) were "as good" as on my computer, they'd be no better, so why would I bother to dig out a keyboard and mouse and plug them into my PS3 when I could just as easily get up and go sit at a computer, or pull out a laptop? Being able to do something "almost as good" as a machine people already own isn't something people will pay for. It'll just be there.
But the marginal utility of holding that money for 5 years, rather than handing it to Sony all up front means that, despite the prices being lower, I get more out of the money I spent on Microsoft. Especially if I (as most people who compare side-by-side have) prefer the Microsoft online system. PS3's internet capabilities are pretty...useless.
From my 360, I can stream movies and music from any machine on my network (not just Media Center PCs). I can rent HD movies for $5. I can get free content for the games I own. I can play lots and lots of games against other people, exchange video clips, text messages, and voice chat with my friends. I can download mini-games, and play them. I can develop my own mini-games and play them, with the development package costing NOTHING. And when all else fails, I can sit down to some Gears of War, Oblivion, or Blue Dragon and get some nice gaming done.
My local Fry's Electronics has PS3s just sitting around, not being sold. They've not had a Wii in stock for months.
And Microsoft has the capital to launch another system 3 years from now. Sony doesn't. Period.
Palm is a dying OS. Windows Mobile 5 has a massive library of applications, and doesn't require you to learn another language. Plus, the ability to sync with the ever-more-popular exchange servers wirelessly...even Palm is putting Windows on their devices...
Sorry, but I can't stand an "os" without a file explorer or remote sync abilities.
On, and most of them don't lose memory any more readily than palm devices anymore. So boo-hoo, your 2-year-old GPS system wasn't a great PDA. My phone is a better GPS system than most.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on browsers. Right now, IE makes up little more than 50% in all the flavors it comes in, with IE7 barely pulling 7% (as of the end of November, the most recent stats I could find).
a sp
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
50% is not a monopoly, sorry. And public roads and power companies are VASTLY different, given that the government (be it state, federal, or local) maintains public roads. And do you really want the government to have MORE control over the internet? What about the rest of the world, which the US government has no business policing?
What makes you think you can sue MS? You can't sue Google (successfully) just because your page gets blocked by them, even though they are arguably obstructing trade on your site. You can't sue VeriSign for not giving you a free certificate, even though some people won't shop at non-VeriSign secured sites.
Really, I'd hope people don't sue for this. If your sole source of income relies on a system you can't control, then you have a bad business model, plain and simple. Be it Google, or Microsoft, or VeriSign.
Plus...do you really want to make it EASIER to phish? That's just more junk mail in your inbox, because it'll continue to work.
Right, but if the PHP group didn't happen to be in the top 10 of the "Development" tags you'd have been out of luck. And what happens when there's a thousand tags and a hundred thousand groups?
The site UI isn't expandable. It can't handle the kind of growth Microsoft wants the site to have.
Passive voice can't be correct. It gets flagged by the Microsoft Grammar Checker.
Heh. Cole Smith got Judo-p0wnd.
I just logged in, and tried to find a PHP/MySQL group to join. There is no group "search" feature under the "search for a group" link. You can only browse in a very obfuscated fashion. Honestly, they'd better change the interface soon, or you won't be able to find things. Plus, requiring a Live ID means that search engines can't index...and suddenly your site is a thousand times less useful. But I bet that sweet MSN Search is going to index it! Like anyone uses that willingly.
I hate to break it to all the Apple fans, but despite what the article may imply, there is not, in fact, a significant increase in Apple's sales. Apple's market share has grown by a half of a percent since January (% of total computers online running some variant of Apple's OS, source: w3cschools.com). By contrast, Windows XP has grown by 4% in that time. In fact, every part of the Windows family has grown except Windows 98/2000. So it seems that what's really happening is that the bottom-end users are switching to Macs. The people who were running Windows 98, 8 years after it came out, have finally switched to Mac.
And I'm sure they're a market force to be reckoned with. Be afraid! The users who replace their computers once every 8 years are the BEST indicators of a company's health.
What about the fact that the iPod family is the only sector of Apple still in the black? Every other part of that company is losing money (source: 2005 Apple Annual Report). Their computers are a marketing move, not an actual product. They are an image, nothing more.
And the Safari browser amounts to less than a tenth of a percent of the browsers online. Spending excessive hours making something "safari compatible" (since it isn't particularly standards compliant in my experience as a web developer) is a waste of a programmer's time and a company's money. Do you worry about what your web site looks like to the color blind (~5% of online population)? That's a much better place to spend your time than on Safari compatibility.
And god forbid they actually make something "safari native" or "safari exclusive" unless it's a plugin that shows you what every page would look like if you were running Firefox.
Or, as works with EVERY public forum. "Things you post in a public space are public knowledge and use. That's WHY you posted them in a public space, right?" It's not like they'll delve into your Inbox and claim that they can use the content of messages you post. But I'm sure, in order to make MS look like the bad guy, someone is going to claim that they will. Ever notice how much stuff in Apple's forums end up in their FAQ or in future products? Isn't that why people post it there to begin with, so that others (even large corporations) can use it? Am I missing something? If you wanted to sell the source code, why would you post it for free on a community page, regardless of who owns that page?
Yes, ties are "elitist", but the commercial where the home movie of the Mac guy is a hot chick, and the PC's is a hairy guy in drag (take that, Transvestite & Transgender communities! Apple thinks you're a joke!) is the picture of respect? The Mac is a stoned college drop-out, and the PC is a successful business man. I guess if you find the guy in a tie /elitist/ then we know which side of the fence you fall on.
Yeah, seriously! How horrible that rich people should pay the homeless for their time! They should be ignored, or paid mere pennies (rather than 20,000 yen) for it. That's your argument huh? Oh, and the "poor developers" who are losing out? Getting screwed? Hardly. People paying a premium for the system aren't doing it to have a sweet piece of modern art in their living room. They're going to go out and buy games and accessories. It's not like the systems are just going to sit in some closet for a year. It isn't like MS went out and bought all the units and had them destroyed. This is Capitalism in action: someone willing to pay more for something in limited supply is going to get it. That's what paying more does. The only people who lose out are the employees who don't get a bonus for "up-selling". But since that system of bonuses isn't (to my knowledge) particularly popular in Japan, I won't lose any sleep over it. I personally think it's brilliant. I'm going to go put a homeless guy (or two) in front of every Best Buy I can find. In return, he'll get a warm coat and an umbrella, a comfy chair, and I'll stop by and drop off food on a regular basis. When I get the system, I'll give him some cash and send him on his way. I know, I'm being completely heartless. Better that I ignore him, take time off my job, and rather than working the next week (and producing things, improving the economy in my small way), I'll sit around in line while some homeless guy starves, and freezes. Your grasp on economics AND ethics are astounding. I am in awe.
You "can do" without it, eh? You and 7% of the market (split evenly between *nix and Mac).
I think you "can do" a slightly better one-liner than that. Or maybe you can't.
Just admit it, you're going to steal it and claim you use Linux for everything.
In order to get us all off the Arabs vs. Jews, I'd like to give everyone a few other vicious, petty rivalries to gripe over.
/.? It could be a -2 for Tangent-ness...that would be handy!
>Ninjas vs. Pirates
>Apple vs. Microsoft (cleverly abbreviated M$)
>Why your group of local televised-catch-playing-millionaires is better than everyone else's
There are pleanty more, but lets go ahead and lay off the Arabs/Jews thing in an article about Ireland forcing Catholic views in their domain registry.
Why isn't there a "Tangent" modifier yet,
"the other OSes are gaining in popularity, and quickly"
/everyone/ and their dog is using Linux, and that thanks to the efforts of groups like Unbutu will finally bring Unix to the masses. To put the argument in your form, from the POV of the AVERAGE USER:
.net! That's short-sighted, and your elitist attitude and irrational MS hatred will keep you from getting good work in the future. You sure showed me.
"windows sucks, it is losing popularity at a growing rate and will continue you to do so..."
Really? Where do you get these numbers? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you pretty much pulled those out of the ether. Sadly, it isn't true. *nix adoption tapered off since January 2005, and has only grown by 0.2% in the last 18 months. Meanwhile Windows XP is at its highest rate ever, 74.3% - and its growth is somewhat slowed by the impending release of Windows Vista.
I know inside the Linux bubble it feels like
I upgrade my computer about every 2.8 years, so I don't really care about upgrading to someone's corporate agenda.
When I buy a computer it comes from Dell or HP, and has Windows already. The cost of Windows is part of the cost of a computer, like tires for a car.
I've always run (at least lately) virus scan, adware scan, and spyware scans. They are a part of life. I'm not going to sacrafice the ability to easily install and use software and having someone to gripe to when it doesn't work, in exchange for slightly fewer running processes. I don't even know what processes are.
I author Flash for a living. It's one of the few areas where the non-programming elite can rapidly author. Grumble that windows sucks all you want, I'm over here in the camp that's got ~88% of the market. That means that I have the deciding power, and I have the MASSIVE support networks when I want to do something. Horray, you don't author in
Little to no support for "most" OSes? You must mean "most" in the sense of "lots of tiny changes between different versions being different"
a sp
What it comes down to is that a)someone who's *GASP* NOT a programmer can use flash to create dynamic content, which to this day AJAX hasn't really made happen, and b) it IS supported on the MAJORITY of OSes, even though a wide variety make up the final 3.4% of the market.
There seems to be an ego among *nix fanboys that if there isn't a linux version it's not worth using...but really, that just means you haven't gotten off your ass and written one. Who's fault is that? Isn't that what makes linux so 733t[sarcasm]?
Flash holds the majority hand. You represent (with your "most" OSes) less than 4% of even POTENTIAL users, and most of those machines are un-manned servers. Realistically, they've let about 1.5-2% of the market go by not giving away a free plugin. I think they'll survive. And way to pull a FoxNews by saying "most OSes" when you know very well that you are in the vast minority. Misleading intentionaly to proove a point just means you're on the weaker side of the argument - and still a lier.
Source: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
Apple's attempt is to leverage an existing monopoly IN THE PORTABLE MUSIC PLAYER INDUSTRY (where their market share numbers are within a few percent of MS's OS numbers) to promote another one - their Music Store (not the OS->mp3 player...read the whole post next time). Couple that with anti-competative, sometimes legally-questionable gaurding of their DRM scheme to lock users to their platform, software, and product line and you have a Monopolistic Exploitation. It'd be like if AT&T told you that you could only plug AT&T phones into their phone jacks...[check your MaBell history].
/. readers have the good sense to understand that increased government oversight isn't really good for anyone but the overseers and their friends. Effective monopolies happen because the marketplace either won't support exclusive competition (like in OS-land) or because there has yet to be a viable alternative. Not because the big-bad-robber-barron-executive is profiting off the misery of all those below him, but because the benefits of working WITH them outweigh the costs of it.
And why should monopolies be illegal? Most
"This is just an honest-to-god attempt from Apple to corner the digital music market. Kudos if they succeed, boo and an antimonopoly lawsuit on their houses if they subsequently try to use that monopoly to choke, say, the rest of the entertainment industry."
And you're against monopolies huh? Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. By restricting their DRM scheme, Apple locks users into their software / hardware offering. They are harming the users by providing a crippled product that can only be used as a part of their package, and not by necessity but by design. Ask the average iTunes user if they think the music the BOUGHT and PAID FOR can be played on another mp3 player if they choose to, and you'll find that most think it can. But, alas, that's not the case. MS "Plays For Sure" has been licensed to over 300 different device manufacturers, and yet is still listed by the RIAA as an acceptable method of file protection. Apple FairPlay has never been licensed. When government laws forced them to license to competitors (for anti-trust reason) Apple Legal said "I shit on you and your legal system, France". Phenomonal.
Apple created a pretty good music player. It was quick and had a lot of storage like the Creative products before it. It's teired file storage sytem helped you quickly find music - like the Creative products before it (patent violation!). To get people hooked, at first you could put anything on it. You could even just drag-and-drop files into the architecture! The problem is that once it got popular enough, they locked down the system so that you can only use THEIR music. THEIR software. THEIR online store. THEIR licenses. THEIR record labels. And God help you if you ever decide you want to switch AWAY from their system. Making the "legal" music purchases only work with their products effectively increases the cost of adopting an alternative, helping to maintain their monopoly (antitrust!). $400 player stopped working after 18mo, but you have $500 worth of music (you good little consumer, you)? That means a new player from Apple costs you $400, but a new player from Creative costs $850 - $350 for the player and $500 to replace all the music you already bought and now sits useless on your hard drive. No thanks, Apple. I refuse to be plugged into the Matrix by my little white headphones.
And what's with making a personal attack at the tail end of a post? That's how you spot the weaker side of the argument everytime. Can't argue the points, argue the person? Whoever modded me "insightful" probably recognized that I have VALID and WELL RESEARCHED points to make, even if they don't agree with them. Or maybe they just missed hitting the "flaimbait" button and I got lucky this time.
Sorry, allow me to clarify:
When Apple disabled the functionality to "download from iPod" (iTunes 4.7) the actual file system became a part of the DRM scheme, and thus protected by the DMCA. When a third party (Real Networks) allowed users to transfer files to their iPods, Apple sued under DMCA, claiming that any use of 3rd party software (including windows explorer, mind you!) was a violation of the DMCA. See details here: Apple Accuses RealNetworks of Hacking [PCWorld.com]
And there's a whole bunch of "terms and agreements" you agree to when you purchase an iPod and install iTunes for the first time. The legal notice included in both the iPod manual (at least the last one I had, which I admit is a few versions back. I stopped using iPods the first time my battery died and they told me it'd cost $160 to replace it) and in the iTunes install expressly forbid the use of non-Apple-approved software to interface with the iPod. While this isn't legally binding, it does allow them to sue. And sue they do.
(from article linked above):
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the IPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws", says Apple's statement. "We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our IPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future IPods."
Is THAT the company you're backing? Threatening their own customers and calling them criminals in an official press release? Just sounds like a little kid throwing a tantrum.
Microsoft never made it difficult / impossible to install a 3rd party media player on any system they've ever made. Nor did they do that with a browser. That's the line fed by money-grubbing anti-trust lawyers to uninformed users.
//technically// using the Windows Explorer to do so is a violation of the "terms and agreements" you apparently agree to when you buy an iPod.
The primary argument the ACTUAL anti-trust lawsuit was based on was that Microsoft was leveraging the dominance of one product to the advantage of the other, giving it an "unfair competative advantage". The fact that Windows Media Player came pre-installed made paying for a product like Real Networks's RealPlayer (a particualry crappy piece of software, I might add) very unlikely for the average user. When WMP moved from being just a basic media player to including things like playlists, internet streaming (before it was called 'podcasting') and visualizers, it became a competitor for programs like WinAmp and RealPlayer. Anti-trust lawyers argued somewhat successfully that this amounted to Microsoft unfairly leveraging market dominance and discouraging competition.
Now, YOU have no problem arguing that Apple is somehow above this. Let's look at the iPod: Clearly the market leader in mobile media players, they REQUIRE you to install iTunes to load music onto it. They even go so far as to SUE other companies that make software that can download to the iPod (see: RealNetworks, WinAmp iPod plugin, etc). It isn't even for DRM stuff. Just transfering unencrypted files to and from an iPod constitutes a crime (according to Apple legal) if you aren't using iTunes.
So get off your high horse, Mac Zealot. All that's white and cheap plastic isn't gold.
Locking out all but trusted software and hardware (maybe), you claim? Egads, this sounds a whole lot like the Apple plan: "If they HAVE to buy everything from us, we'll be rich." MS would never lock out competition. As [pieterh] pointed out (though they were trying to insult MS at the time), encouraging others to dump billions into development has saved MS money in the long run, plus they reap the rewards. If the platform is stronger, more people will buy it, write for it, etc. The user experience is greatly improved by 3rd party software. Try and have one company get everything right, and you get the iLife Suite of Awfulness. But then again, MS can't really ever close a software platform. They'd be brought up on anti-trust lawsuits, AGAIN. Remember: You can't bundle a media player with your media platform (unless you're Apple) and you can't bundle a browser with your internet-connected platform (unless you're Apple).