you have effectively unplugged your career
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
As the saying goes, the only truly secure computer is one unplugged and placed in a closet. With true security and safety comes a serious downside - you are not a known quantity to anybody else online.
Practically every company in the world does this. A company that knows its market can design a product for each segment, targeting the poorest and richest customer alike.
Agreed.
Manufacturing cost is hardly relevant to the end user; what matters in any market is how much customers are willing to pay.
Well, I'd say both are important.
I'm sure the Macintosh IIsi was a bad machine, but "it didn't cost any less to manufacture!" isn't a valid argument.
I understand your points, and agree with them - that product range are created by companies, and manufacturing costs are not the whole story.
But when companies create product ranges where perceived benefit doesn't match up with actual cost for high-involvement purchases, people feel, well, ripped off. The IIsi case and this thread demonstrate that. We can all buy components for only slightly more than Apple, so there's little opportunity to hide the cost. It's a risk companies take. Apple bet that the IIsi's form factor would sell it (and probably sunk a lot into R&D) but instead of being enamored with the small size (like the Air), people were cheesed off at how it was stunted.
I'd also argue that with the case of computers, the cost of components does relate more directly to consumer decisions than with other products. A macbook pro compared to a macbook has, simply, higher-quality parts: chicklet keyboard for the macbook, machined, aluminum, responsive keyboard for the pro. 13" screen for the macbook, 15" for the pro. 60-gig for the macbook, larger for the pro. And so on. These are acceptable distinctions between product lines that relate to a better user experience, certainly, and also, yes, more expensive hardware. It's not the whole story of cost, but it's also not "hardly relevant to the end user."
Well, trying to fit that machine into that form factor was a mistake. Slot-based upgrades with macs were a joke - buggy to the point of being unusable. What about the slightly slower crystal on the IIsi? It served no purpose other than to create a slower machine.
I am a fan, but Apple is notorious for creating artificial product lines. Back in the day my family had a IIsi - a famously stunted, budget-line computer with a slower crystal than the IIci, PDS instead of nubus, and low-res display which is a pain to upgrade because of the said PDS. Now it would have cost apple all of a few cents of parts to make this on par with the IIci, but instead they deliberately kept it stunted.
But antitrust? No, why would it be?
Sounds like somebody has been watching "idiocracy" a wee bit too much.
A whole lot of geniuses have come out of the middle of nowhere... even places without, gasp, broadband.
I mean, have you ever been to Dundee? It makes Edinburgh look like New York City in comparison.
Geez...this is like suing the street corner where young kids hang out at, and get leered at, or possibly assaulted.
No, it's not really like "suing the street corner," it's more like the following: there is a corner where young kids hang out. The authorities know about this corner, but don't make any effort to police it. A child gets assaulted and there is public outrage, leading to a lawsuit against said authorities.
A key part of your post is your discussion of the "individual." It's one thing if the individuals in question are adults, but MySpace has turned a blind eye to verifying the ages of the children (yes, children) who use their site. MySpace could have not allowed minors on the site at all or required parental verification of ages. Allowing children on the website with no age verification no doubt increased the website's popularity, but it did come with a cost. Namely, taking responsibility for being aware of abuse of the system while not taking measures to police it.
As for the place of the parent, there does need to be a concerted effort to increase online media literacy among adults. Most parents probably wouldn't know how to find their child's MySpace profile.
I do agree with some of the general sentiments put forward so far. A multi-million dollar settlement is overkill, and online child abuse has been vastly over-reported (children DO generally respond appropriately to online predators and are no lured in). However, MySpace will need to change some of their policies if they continue to cater to the underage demographic.
This could be a whole new twist on DVD region codes.
"Sorry, your computer is not allowed to operate in the country you are currently in.... turning off..."
Everybody I've recommended a shuffle to says the same thing - "but I don't want to play my music randomly." There's a perception from the name of the player that all it does is play music on "shuffle"! So when people perceive it as being not random enough.... a little ironic, no? Maybe Apple should have just called it the "nugget" or "nibble."
Adams seems to start his piece with an assumption, namely that there are not "highbrow" games, and this has a connection with our "cultural credibility." To turn his question around, I'd posit, would he recognize a "highbrow" game if he were faced with one? He does admit "civilization" is going in the right direction, but seems to be deliberately obtuse about saying how far we've come. As James Paul Gee points out, video games are getting more complex, along with other forms of popular culture such as television programs. While I am hardly a Gee fan, I would argue complex and "highbrow" games are astoundingly popular, even if they don't look, sound, or smell like what Adams expects them to.
Needless to say mere numbers or attempts at quantifying what a "highbrow" game would look like by comparisons against limp-wristed, trite, cliche period dramas of MERCHANT IVORY (caps intended) speaks volumes of his clumsy jabs at understandings of high vs. low art. Speaking of which his rather arbitrary determination of what exactly constitutes "highbrow" entertainment reminds me of Adorno, who famously lauded classical music while tossing the popular ("jazz") into the rubbish bin, fingers holding nose tighly shut as to keep out the foul smell of the (gasp) common man/woman.
Adams is really about one step from coming out and saying, as Adorno does, that the vast majority can't appreciate truly great art. What he seems to push for is a lushly produced game that would cater to an elite. There is a contradiction here. I'm not convinced an "elite" game would be viable as he conceives it, or that an elite form would necessarily alter the public view of games. No longer do we have court artists hired by royalty, rather, games are supported by capitalism. Even gorgeous, massively produced cultural touchstones by definition have to sell well, either by larger numbers or an increased unit price, or be obsolete. The only source of "elite" support I can think of is as academic research into games. Strangely Adams dismisses the "serious games" movement as not viable, as it wouldn't fix the public view of games as childish.
Additionally, Adams misunderstands how games are put together. Game budgets go into development, and are not spent exclusively on equipment and costumes to gorgeous locations to film people wearing prancing about wearing dusted wigs. Game budgets are also positively diminutive compared to movie budgets. Finally, even if the budgets were there, a computer-based experience simply cannot, aesthetically speaking, compete with a movie. Perhaps Adams needs to get on the phone with David Mugar and discuss some elite-friendly specialty hardware, a la Omni. I'll be waiting with a snifter of brandy and butler ready.
Slashdot Mirror
As the saying goes, the only truly secure computer is one unplugged and placed in a closet. With true security and safety comes a serious downside - you are not a known quantity to anybody else online.
Practically every company in the world does this. A company that knows its market can design a product for each segment, targeting the poorest and richest customer alike.
Agreed.
Manufacturing cost is hardly relevant to the end user; what matters in any market is how much customers are willing to pay.
Well, I'd say both are important.
I'm sure the Macintosh IIsi was a bad machine, but "it didn't cost any less to manufacture!" isn't a valid argument.
I understand your points, and agree with them - that product range are created by companies, and manufacturing costs are not the whole story. But when companies create product ranges where perceived benefit doesn't match up with actual cost for high-involvement purchases, people feel, well, ripped off. The IIsi case and this thread demonstrate that. We can all buy components for only slightly more than Apple, so there's little opportunity to hide the cost. It's a risk companies take. Apple bet that the IIsi's form factor would sell it (and probably sunk a lot into R&D) but instead of being enamored with the small size (like the Air), people were cheesed off at how it was stunted. I'd also argue that with the case of computers, the cost of components does relate more directly to consumer decisions than with other products. A macbook pro compared to a macbook has, simply, higher-quality parts: chicklet keyboard for the macbook, machined, aluminum, responsive keyboard for the pro. 13" screen for the macbook, 15" for the pro. 60-gig for the macbook, larger for the pro. And so on. These are acceptable distinctions between product lines that relate to a better user experience, certainly, and also, yes, more expensive hardware. It's not the whole story of cost, but it's also not "hardly relevant to the end user."
Very funny, but not what I said.
Well, trying to fit that machine into that form factor was a mistake. Slot-based upgrades with macs were a joke - buggy to the point of being unusable. What about the slightly slower crystal on the IIsi? It served no purpose other than to create a slower machine.
I am a fan, but Apple is notorious for creating artificial product lines. Back in the day my family had a IIsi - a famously stunted, budget-line computer with a slower crystal than the IIci, PDS instead of nubus, and low-res display which is a pain to upgrade because of the said PDS. Now it would have cost apple all of a few cents of parts to make this on par with the IIci, but instead they deliberately kept it stunted. But antitrust? No, why would it be?
...unless you like eating wheat.
Next you'll be telling me superman can't really fly, either!
Sounds like somebody has been watching "idiocracy" a wee bit too much. A whole lot of geniuses have come out of the middle of nowhere... even places without, gasp, broadband. I mean, have you ever been to Dundee? It makes Edinburgh look like New York City in comparison.
Geez...this is like suing the street corner where young kids hang out at, and get leered at, or possibly assaulted.
No, it's not really like "suing the street corner," it's more like the following: there is a corner where young kids hang out. The authorities know about this corner, but don't make any effort to police it. A child gets assaulted and there is public outrage, leading to a lawsuit against said authorities.
A key part of your post is your discussion of the "individual." It's one thing if the individuals in question are adults, but MySpace has turned a blind eye to verifying the ages of the children (yes, children) who use their site. MySpace could have not allowed minors on the site at all or required parental verification of ages. Allowing children on the website with no age verification no doubt increased the website's popularity, but it did come with a cost. Namely, taking responsibility for being aware of abuse of the system while not taking measures to police it.
As for the place of the parent, there does need to be a concerted effort to increase online media literacy among adults. Most parents probably wouldn't know how to find their child's MySpace profile.
I do agree with some of the general sentiments put forward so far. A multi-million dollar settlement is overkill, and online child abuse has been vastly over-reported (children DO generally respond appropriately to online predators and are no lured in). However, MySpace will need to change some of their policies if they continue to cater to the underage demographic.
This could be a whole new twist on DVD region codes. "Sorry, your computer is not allowed to operate in the country you are currently in.... turning off..."
Everybody I've recommended a shuffle to says the same thing - "but I don't want to play my music randomly." There's a perception from the name of the player that all it does is play music on "shuffle"! So when people perceive it as being not random enough.... a little ironic, no? Maybe Apple should have just called it the "nugget" or "nibble."
Adams seems to start his piece with an assumption, namely that there are not "highbrow" games, and this has a connection with our "cultural credibility." To turn his question around, I'd posit, would he recognize a "highbrow" game if he were faced with one? He does admit "civilization" is going in the right direction, but seems to be deliberately obtuse about saying how far we've come. As James Paul Gee points out, video games are getting more complex, along with other forms of popular culture such as television programs. While I am hardly a Gee fan, I would argue complex and "highbrow" games are astoundingly popular, even if they don't look, sound, or smell like what Adams expects them to. Needless to say mere numbers or attempts at quantifying what a "highbrow" game would look like by comparisons against limp-wristed, trite, cliche period dramas of MERCHANT IVORY (caps intended) speaks volumes of his clumsy jabs at understandings of high vs. low art. Speaking of which his rather arbitrary determination of what exactly constitutes "highbrow" entertainment reminds me of Adorno, who famously lauded classical music while tossing the popular ("jazz") into the rubbish bin, fingers holding nose tighly shut as to keep out the foul smell of the (gasp) common man/woman. Adams is really about one step from coming out and saying, as Adorno does, that the vast majority can't appreciate truly great art. What he seems to push for is a lushly produced game that would cater to an elite. There is a contradiction here. I'm not convinced an "elite" game would be viable as he conceives it, or that an elite form would necessarily alter the public view of games. No longer do we have court artists hired by royalty, rather, games are supported by capitalism. Even gorgeous, massively produced cultural touchstones by definition have to sell well, either by larger numbers or an increased unit price, or be obsolete. The only source of "elite" support I can think of is as academic research into games. Strangely Adams dismisses the "serious games" movement as not viable, as it wouldn't fix the public view of games as childish. Additionally, Adams misunderstands how games are put together. Game budgets go into development, and are not spent exclusively on equipment and costumes to gorgeous locations to film people wearing prancing about wearing dusted wigs. Game budgets are also positively diminutive compared to movie budgets. Finally, even if the budgets were there, a computer-based experience simply cannot, aesthetically speaking, compete with a movie. Perhaps Adams needs to get on the phone with David Mugar and discuss some elite-friendly specialty hardware, a la Omni. I'll be waiting with a snifter of brandy and butler ready.