This is the sort of philosophy that simply breeds consumer irresponsibility and stunts technological growth.
"I don't understand why they don't make condoms more durable. If I poke it with a pin, it should still work just the same." Obviously, this consumer's newborn was conceived by fault of the manufacturer.
This is not to say that I don't believe part of usability can be durability, but truthfully, there's something to be said for taking good care of the things one owns. Especially the more delicate and expensive the things are. If I wind up scratching up the face on my cell phone because I placed it in my pocket with my keys, that's my fault, especially if I've already been given detailed care instructions. If a consumer wants something that has more research invested in its durability than its functionality, then the consumer dictates that to the market by boycotting purchase of the opposite, or being willing to wait for the upgrade which involves both instead of demanding such quick technological turnover. Complaining about something that's already been disclaimed with instructions of care and use is a practice in futility. Don't purchase something that has explicit care instructions and then blame the manufacturer for not providing for your own negligence unless you want to make a show of how little you care for your own money and time. If you want anything to last, you need to take care of it.
(and as an aside, I'd say there's a marked difference between the manufacturer providing an item with an exploding battery and the customer continuously dropping their purchase on the sidewalk/in the tub).
Unfortunately, the quotes found in the article are irrelevant to the topic at hand regarding freedom of speech. While Gingrich states that he's for the engaging of Iran and Syria, he doesn't say anything about his domestic strategy within that quote, nor is there any further description available within the article to expound on the meaning of "different set of rules" toward reduction of terrorists' rights to freedom of speech, who qualifies as a "terrorist" or what that means for the rest of us internet-using non-terrorists. We can blame Mr. Yates of the Union Leader staff or if we can find a transcript equally lacking detail, we can blame Newt. Regardless, I would say it's wiser to react to vague notions with a hint of destruction than sit idly by and watch as our freedoms are stripped away by loose words.
In regards to the relevance of Mr. Gingrich's extreme intelligence, I think we should in general RTFA. I think it would behoove us to read fully anything someone in a position of great influence had to say, regardless of the person's intelligence. I'd be just as worried about bad ideas coming from the mouths of geniuses in power as I would be of fools. A bad idea used from a position of power will function like a bad idea, no matter whose it is.
I very much would like them to be able to call it "iPodCase", and "iAudioCase" instead of "gFruitProt" or "mKoreaBag". No need for originality here:)
Point taken and understood. And yet notice that neither of the companies listed here that Apple is asking to C&D are not iPod accessory companies. iSkin http://www.iskin.com/ has made loads of profits, basing their product very much around assisting Apple with theirs. These TightPod cases aren't for iPods, and so to complain that Apple's actions are infringing on the ability of a company to properly represent the purpose of their product is moot.
My conjecture was that regardless its own motives (I apologize; "ulterior" was a bad word to use before), which I very much acknowledge, Apple's possessive nature results in exposing other companies that simply use the popularity of the name to what they believe is their advantage, yet what is eventually damaging to the diversity of the market and brand name recognition- the same recognition which oftentimes assigns the level of quality and reliability, regardless of what product line we're discussing. The idea behind calling it a TightPod is overtly based in name recognition and association with the ever popular, click-wheeled, MP3 storage/playing device, rather than embracing a more befitting, equally catchy product name. I'd much rather have, say, a "LapJacket" than some starkly less original and misleading sobriquet for my laptop case. It's more descriptive and more unique, and it doesn't depend on the success of other names in order to motivate sales and can therefore make a name for itself. Which is what I thought was always one of the benefits of capitalism.
At the end of the day, aside from its own ulterior motives, Apple is just forcing people to be original. Ahh, the few but priceless trickle benefits of capitalism. It becomes a rather boring market if we're all basing our product name off of the guy who made original successful use of the moniker.
As for the POD Line 6 products-is the capitalization just there for emphasis, or is it indicative of an acronym? That may influence business/naming strategies as well as disputes.
Also, perhaps this is just me, but it doesn't appear that in this case Apple is ripping off a name in order to emulate enormous success. More likely, herein exists a coincidental usage that proved more profitable for one manufacturer than the other. We don't seem to encounter the same useless mimicking for profit's sake caused by feeble marketing teams.
Besides, if there's anything that's a better rip off, it's the "i" prefix. Can't trademark a letter... can you?
iHope not.
f so, we're all n a shtload of a pckle.
I apologize for getting personal, but it is a story like this that really gets me to say... you are amazing, and an example for everyone. I work as an admissions counselor at a very small private university and we come across high school students on a case-by-case basis all the time whose responsibilities outweigh their age in our society. My distinct kudos to you and the example you set for anyone else who thinks that s/he is trapped in a position of immobility because of the fact s/he has to provide for someone and go to high school. It is not a desirable position, and you provide hope to a lot of people because of your effort and motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the sort of philosophy that simply breeds consumer irresponsibility and stunts technological growth.
"I don't understand why they don't make condoms more durable. If I poke it with a pin, it should still work just the same." Obviously, this consumer's newborn was conceived by fault of the manufacturer.
This is not to say that I don't believe part of usability can be durability, but truthfully, there's something to be said for taking good care of the things one owns. Especially the more delicate and expensive the things are. If I wind up scratching up the face on my cell phone because I placed it in my pocket with my keys, that's my fault, especially if I've already been given detailed care instructions. If a consumer wants something that has more research invested in its durability than its functionality, then the consumer dictates that to the market by boycotting purchase of the opposite, or being willing to wait for the upgrade which involves both instead of demanding such quick technological turnover. Complaining about something that's already been disclaimed with instructions of care and use is a practice in futility. Don't purchase something that has explicit care instructions and then blame the manufacturer for not providing for your own negligence unless you want to make a show of how little you care for your own money and time. If you want anything to last, you need to take care of it.
(and as an aside, I'd say there's a marked difference between the manufacturer providing an item with an exploding battery and the customer continuously dropping their purchase on the sidewalk/in the tub).
Unfortunately, the quotes found in the article are irrelevant to the topic at hand regarding freedom of speech. While Gingrich states that he's for the engaging of Iran and Syria, he doesn't say anything about his domestic strategy within that quote, nor is there any further description available within the article to expound on the meaning of "different set of rules" toward reduction of terrorists' rights to freedom of speech, who qualifies as a "terrorist" or what that means for the rest of us internet-using non-terrorists. We can blame Mr. Yates of the Union Leader staff or if we can find a transcript equally lacking detail, we can blame Newt.
Regardless, I would say it's wiser to react to vague notions with a hint of destruction than sit idly by and watch as our freedoms are stripped away by loose words.
In regards to the relevance of Mr. Gingrich's extreme intelligence, I think we should in general RTFA. I think it would behoove us to read fully anything someone in a position of great influence had to say, regardless of the person's intelligence. I'd be just as worried about bad ideas coming from the mouths of geniuses in power as I would be of fools. A bad idea used from a position of power will function like a bad idea, no matter whose it is.
Point taken and understood. And yet notice that neither of the companies listed here that Apple is asking to C&D are not iPod accessory companies. iSkin http://www.iskin.com/ has made loads of profits, basing their product very much around assisting Apple with theirs. These TightPod cases aren't for iPods, and so to complain that Apple's actions are infringing on the ability of a company to properly represent the purpose of their product is moot.
My conjecture was that regardless its own motives (I apologize; "ulterior" was a bad word to use before), which I very much acknowledge, Apple's possessive nature results in exposing other companies that simply use the popularity of the name to what they believe is their advantage, yet what is eventually damaging to the diversity of the market and brand name recognition- the same recognition which oftentimes assigns the level of quality and reliability, regardless of what product line we're discussing. The idea behind calling it a TightPod is overtly based in name recognition and association with the ever popular, click-wheeled, MP3 storage/playing device, rather than embracing a more befitting, equally catchy product name.
I'd much rather have, say, a "LapJacket" than some starkly less original and misleading sobriquet for my laptop case. It's more descriptive and more unique, and it doesn't depend on the success of other names in order to motivate sales and can therefore make a name for itself. Which is what I thought was always one of the benefits of capitalism.
At the end of the day, aside from its own ulterior motives, Apple is just forcing people to be original. Ahh, the few but priceless trickle benefits of capitalism. It becomes a rather boring market if we're all basing our product name off of the guy who made original successful use of the moniker.
As for the POD Line 6 products-is the capitalization just there for emphasis, or is it indicative of an acronym? That may influence business/naming strategies as well as disputes.
Also, perhaps this is just me, but it doesn't appear that in this case Apple is ripping off a name in order to emulate enormous success. More likely, herein exists a coincidental usage that proved more profitable for one manufacturer than the other. We don't seem to encounter the same useless mimicking for profit's sake caused by feeble marketing teams.
Besides, if there's anything that's a better rip off, it's the "i" prefix. Can't trademark a letter... can you?
iHope not.
f so, we're all n a shtload of a pckle.
I apologize for getting personal, but it is a story like this that really gets me to say... you are amazing, and an example for everyone. I work as an admissions counselor at a very small private university and we come across high school students on a case-by-case basis all the time whose responsibilities outweigh their age in our society. My distinct kudos to you and the example you set for anyone else who thinks that s/he is trapped in a position of immobility because of the fact s/he has to provide for someone and go to high school. It is not a desirable position, and you provide hope to a lot of people because of your effort and motivation.