Justice is too vague a word - so let's skip over that.
People have to "loose" to keep the economy going? You are confusing a value from an economic system for reality. People don't have to lose - people lose because of choices us consumers make. There does not have to be a victim here - you make it sound like people have to victims because there are crimes. Crimes exist because of choices, not because they have to.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Pun intended. Do you pay for running iTunes? Is it inextricably linked to an OS? Has iTunes used its dominance in one market to bully others in other markets?
iPods are not as good as other MP3 players - good products dont always come out on top. The marketplace has its flaws.
Why should the government regulate? What have they done wrong? And no, they dont have an unlimited right to do what they want with their technology. Just like its against the law for me to come over to your place and bop you in the head :), it should be against the law when a corporation uses their technology in a similar vein.
You coming to my home and bopping me in the head is far different than me using something I created in a way that I want. For example if I made a piece of art it is my right to destroy it, or change it or bury it in the backyard. The government shouldn't be able to come in and decide what I do with the things I create. And some business do have to fail for the world to keep on turning its cause and effect, its how the world works, sorry you don't see it that way. And I'm not touching the crimes thing with a 10 foot pole.
Didn't NBC just walk away from iTunes? Hmmm.......If your statement is true, that should not have happened. Yes, iTunes is a big player in the game. Apple, as a corporation, wants to have the power to bully companies around. The problem is - the companies Apple wants to bully around are bigger than it. I don't want to punish Apple for being successful - they are not doing anything wrong (well for the most part anyway - the thing with AT&T is fishy to me)
I dont want the government to come into to my home to tell me what to do with I make, but even this has limits - I can't go around inviting people (all legal) to my home and then shooting them with a gun I made. The gov't can come in and punish me. But this is nothing like the MS situation - MS wants to be in everyone's home, destroying anything and pervading everything - appliances, phones, etc., to do whatever it wants - i.e. try to kill Java because it was seen as a threat to its dominance. (As an aside, can someone confirm this for me, my memory is foggy on this subject: MS was afraid of Java since it would work on any OS. If Java became the backbone of an OS, and not the OS itself, MS would be in big trouble - i.e. go bankrupt). OS is more like a weapon than a piece of art.
The reason the crime analogy works so well is because anti-trust, insider trading, etc., are all corporate versions of criminal activities. We don't need losers in the economy, just like we don't need victims. If loser loses because someone cheats, the winner should be punished.
Mirage, you can't have it both ways. If Microsoft is evil for wanting to push its operating system, then Apple is evil for wanting to push its music program and wanting to kill the PC. If Apple had a better business model in the 80's, we might be having a very different conversation right now.
Didn't many companies walk away from Microsoft when they chose an OS for their servers? I seem to recall Linux having an actual market in that field.
First, there is a difference between wanting to kill someone and actually killing something. The former everyone feels 10 time a day and isnt a crime. The latter only a few do and is a crime.
Second, the way something is accomplished is important. By way of analogy, my job is to pick apples, and I am diligent, hardworking, etc, and I get about 80% of the apples. Because of my hard work, others cannot get any apples, and they go broke. Of course, I want to be the best and I intend to succeed, which by implication I intend others to fail, considering there is a limited supply. However, I didn't go about this by crippling my competitors or making agreements with local gasoline stations to hurt my competitors (who does this sound like, intel maybe?)
MS is "evil" because it had a bad intent AND a committed bad act - legally, mens rea and actus reus. A crime requires both elements.
Again, thank you for your comment, as it forces me to sharpen my thoughts. At least your comments are more substantive than Eric's ;)
While its tablet world topping pixel density, Tegra 2 silicon, and fresh to death OS certainly sound awesome, we had to get our grubby mitts on one to see if it's as good as its spec sheet would have us believe.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Eric - stop spewing the capitalist rhetoric.
Justice is too vague a word - so let's skip over that.
People have to "loose" to keep the economy going? You are confusing a value from an economic system for reality. People don't have to lose - people lose because of choices us consumers make. There does not have to be a victim here - you make it sound like people have to victims because there are crimes. Crimes exist because of choices, not because they have to.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Pun intended. Do you pay for running iTunes? Is it inextricably linked to an OS? Has iTunes used its dominance in one market to bully others in other markets?
iPods are not as good as other MP3 players - good products dont always come out on top. The marketplace has its flaws.
Why should the government regulate? What have they done wrong? And no, they dont have an unlimited right to do what they want with their technology. Just like its against the law for me to come over to your place and bop you in the head :), it should be against the law when a corporation uses their technology in a similar vein.
Yes apple does bully content companies because they are the big boys in the game. Thats just how the game is played.
You coming to my home and bopping me in the head is far different than me using something I created in a way that I want. For example if I made a piece of art it is my right to destroy it, or change it or bury it in the backyard. The government shouldn't be able to come in and decide what I do with the things I create. And some business do have to fail for the world to keep on turning its cause and effect, its how the world works, sorry you don't see it that way. And I'm not touching the crimes thing with a 10 foot pole.
Wow - Let's start simple
Didn't NBC just walk away from iTunes? Hmmm.......If your statement is true, that should not have happened. Yes, iTunes is a big player in the game. Apple, as a corporation, wants to have the power to bully companies around. The problem is - the companies Apple wants to bully around are bigger than it. I don't want to punish Apple for being successful - they are not doing anything wrong (well for the most part anyway - the thing with AT&T is fishy to me)
I dont want the government to come into to my home to tell me what to do with I make, but even this has limits - I can't go around inviting people (all legal) to my home and then shooting them with a gun I made. The gov't can come in and punish me. But this is nothing like the MS situation - MS wants to be in everyone's home, destroying anything and pervading everything - appliances, phones, etc., to do whatever it wants - i.e. try to kill Java because it was seen as a threat to its dominance. (As an aside, can someone confirm this for me, my memory is foggy on this subject: MS was afraid of Java since it would work on any OS. If Java became the backbone of an OS, and not the OS itself, MS would be in big trouble - i.e. go bankrupt). OS is more like a weapon than a piece of art.
The reason the crime analogy works so well is because anti-trust, insider trading, etc., are all corporate versions of criminal activities. We don't need losers in the economy, just like we don't need victims. If loser loses because someone cheats, the winner should be punished.
Mirage, you can't have it both ways. If Microsoft is evil for wanting to push its operating system, then Apple is evil for wanting to push its music program and wanting to kill the PC. If Apple had a better business model in the 80's, we might be having a very different conversation right now.
Didn't many companies walk away from Microsoft when they chose an OS for their servers? I seem to recall Linux having an actual market in that field.
Again, I am not clear.
First, there is a difference between wanting to kill someone and actually killing something. The former everyone feels 10 time a day and isnt a crime. The latter only a few do and is a crime.
Second, the way something is accomplished is important. By way of analogy, my job is to pick apples, and I am diligent, hardworking, etc, and I get about 80% of the apples. Because of my hard work, others cannot get any apples, and they go broke. Of course, I want to be the best and I intend to succeed, which by implication I intend others to fail, considering there is a limited supply. However, I didn't go about this by crippling my competitors or making agreements with local gasoline stations to hurt my competitors (who does this sound like, intel maybe?)
MS is "evil" because it had a bad intent AND a committed bad act - legally, mens rea and actus reus. A crime requires both elements.
Again, thank you for your comment, as it forces me to sharpen my thoughts. At least your comments are more substantive than Eric's ;)