What Are You Doing Right Now? (664 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:"Henry Flory"
two of the (wieniawski and prokofiev) are me
i'm enjoying some more crêpes now
two of the (wieniawski and prokofiev) are me
i'm enjoying some more crêpes now
Fortunately I don't think there are any recordings of my feeble play anywhere.
Alright, I'll give you a better answer.
The biggest reason I don't like Apple is that they're trying to be Microsoft. Same deal, with nicer packaging. But when you look at what they're actually doing you realize that if you buy stuff on itunes you can only put it on an ipod or iphone. What if you have a different type of portable player? Well, tough. What if you want to use an ipod with different software than itunes? Well, tough. So you get the iphone and it's a pretty capable piece of hardware. Say you want to write code for it. First you have to pay Apple 100 bucks to be a "certified developer" and then you have to sign an NDA which means you can't even talk to other developers about what you're doing (they canceled this crap recently as a result of uproar in the community). If you're willing to play by those rules you can publish your app in the app store, but it can't compete with an existing Apple app or they immediately reject it.
In Norway where we have things like consumer rights the itunes store is banned because they deliberately lock down the purchases to Apple-only players.
These are not isolated incidents, it's a pattern. Conquer and then control. Control everything they can do with their hardware, even though it's supposed to be theirs. Google's dictum is "don't be evil", who do you think that is in response to? Microsoft, of course. And Apple is marketing itself as the "hip choice, for the discerning consumer", but under the hood their tactics are exactly the same. The only difference is that Microsoft has most of the market while Apple is the underdog. When Microsoft sells you a portable player (the Zune, you may not have heard of it, it bombed badly) that limits how you can play your music and how you can transfer it, we don't say anything. Or when you can't buy a Dell or a Toshiba without paying for Windows. It's Microsoft, we know what they're like. Apple has the same strategy, though. That's why when Google (to date still not evil, I can only hope it continues) launches Android that is an open platform where you can do anything you want, it's a huge breath of fresh air. Not for the way the phone looks or works, but for the potential it has to empower thousands of people to do creative stuff on it that will allow the owners of these phones to do useful things with them without being locked into Apple's bs.
Anticompetitive Practices 101, and Microsoft frickin wrote the book on it.
And this is what the Free Software and Creative Commons/Free Culture is in response to. Microsoft/Apple/BigCorporate is dictatorship, free software is anarchy.
For what it's worth, Dell has long been known to sell junk. In recent history I've had an HP, a Dell and a Toshiba. The HP was great, the Dell started breaking up after 9 months, the Toshiba is fantastic. But there are bad apples everywhere, so you never know.
This is a really odd statement. I don't think you actually believe this. The more popular something is, the more it will be scrutinized because the more people it affects. So of course it's going be disliked by many. Michael Jackson is popular, is he disliked?
The biggest reason I don't like Apple is that they're trying to be Microsoft. Same deal, with nicer packaging. But when you look at what they're actually doing you realize that if you buy stuff on itunes you can only put it on an ipod or iphone. What if you have a different type of portable player? Well, tough. What if you want to use an ipod with different software than itunes? Well, tough. So you get the iphone and it's a pretty capable piece of hardware. Say you want to write code for it. First you have to pay Apple 100 bucks to be a "certified developer" and then you have to sign an NDA which means you can't even talk to other developers about what you're doing (they canceled this crap recently as a result of uproar in the community). If you're willing to play by those rules you can publish your app in the app store, but it can't compete with an existing Apple app or they immediately reject it.
In Norway where we have things like consumer rights the itunes store is banned because they deliberately lock down the purchases to Apple-only players.
These are not isolated incidents, it's a pattern. Conquer and then control. Control everything they can do with their hardware, even though it's supposed to be theirs. Google's dictum is "don't be evil", who do you think that is in response to? Microsoft, of course. And Apple is marketing itself as the "hip choice, for the discerning consumer", but under the hood their tactics are exactly the same. The only difference is that Microsoft has most of the market while Apple is the underdog. When Microsoft sells you a portable player (the Zune, you may not have heard of it, it bombed badly) that limits how you can play your music and how you can transfer it, we don't say anything. Or when you can't buy a Dell or a Toshiba without paying for Windows. It's Microsoft, we know what they're like. Apple has the same strategy, though. That's why when Google (to date still not evil, I can only hope it continues) launches Android that is an open platform where you can do anything you want, it's a huge breath of fresh air. Not for the way the phone looks or works, but for the potential it has to empower thousands of people to do creative stuff on it that will allow the owners of these phones to do useful things with them without being locked into Apple's bs.
Anticompetitive Practices 101, and Microsoft frickin wrote the book on it.
And this is what the Free Software and Creative Commons/Free Culture is in response to. Microsoft/Apple/BigCorporate is dictatorship, free software is anarchy.
In addition to the Macs, I've personally had two PCs. An Toshiba and a Dell. They were both crap, though the Toshiba was a bit less crap than the Dell.
You have to realize that up until the last 5 years Mac wasn't a major product. It's marketing success is recent. At least in the US. Sure it was well known in some circles, but in the late 90s and early 2000's it was all about "Dude you're getting a Dell!
" and before that it was the Gateway fad.
You have to realize that up until the last 5 years Mac wasn't a major product. It's marketing success is recent. At least in the US. Sure it was well known in some circles, but in the late 90s and early 2000's it was all about "Dude you're getting a Dell!
" and before that it was the Gateway fad.
This is a really odd statement. I don't think you actually believe this. The more popular something is, the more it will be scrutinized because the more people it affects. So of course it's going be disliked by many. Michael Jackson is popular, is he disliked?
