Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - The Google Voice battle: What is Apple afraid of?

   (Aug 3, 2009 - 6:53 PM)

   Apple is doing what it has always done - paternalistically deciding what's best for Apple Acolytes. Like a not so benevolent, but very relaxed, cool and laid back, deity, it tells its users what it may and may not do.
   
   That's fine for Apple. I can exercise my rights and not play in their playground. But they aren't alone - as the article pointed out - in this merry-go-round of 'not in my apps store'-ness. AT&T is STRUGGLING under the load brought on by the popularity of the iPhone. Their 3G networks are maxed and the stories of poor 3G performance on the iPhone are legion.
   
   What the GoogleVoice app would do is add to that mess - a lot. Given that the majority of AT&T SmartPhone users have iPhones, their network can't handle an increased load. So, what is being investigated isn't that Apple banned GoogleVoice from the apps store. It's WHY. AT&T can't tell Apple to not support an app because AT&T can't handle the load and net neutrality says that if an app is available in one place, it must be available everywhere. This is less about Apple than about AT&T and Apple's partnership.

2. Comment - Microsoft: If Vista buyers knew so much, why would they sue?

   (Mar 16, 2009 - 8:05 PM)

   So, let me see if I got this reasoning right: Microsoft says that some did the research into what each Vista OS did what before buying their systems and some didn't so therefore have no basis for the lawsuit becoming a class-action because they each suffered different harm? Is that it?
   
   Well, that's bull. Microsoft marketed their computers as 'Vista Capable', and the only Vista that was capable was Home Basic on those machines - all without the eye candy - and even THEN, not all that capable.
   
   "Vista Capable" means it will run Vista. Period. Yes, some folks went and looked up what it meant, but that doesn't change the fact almost no one else will look at "Vista Capable" and think, "Oh, will it run Vista Ultimate?" They can plainly see it SAYS Vista Capable. So it logically follows that it should run Vista, whether Basic or Ultimate. Most people are not computer geeks. They don't understand the distinction between "Capable" and "Ready". Most are unaware that there is any major difference at all. And although I'm sure Microsoft didn't seek to deliberately deceive people, the fact remains they took an ambiguous term and ran with it, deceiving thousands.
   
   It could have said, "Vista Home Basic Capable", which would have been more true and much clearer to the average computer user - but would NOT have generated as many sales as "Vista Capable" did. Whether the people who got it suffered equal harm or not is moot. The label was deceiving. It's not the damage the individuals in the suit received that is at question. It's whether Microsoft deceived (whether deliberately or not) people in general through their "Vista Capable" program. The fact there WAS confusion at ALL indicates that the term was OBVIOUSLY unclear. It was up to Microsoft to clear up that ambiguity - and they did NOT. All they did was perpetuate the ambiguity. By those actions alone, Microsoft was "deliberately deceptive".
   
   It's not about injury. It's about deception. Microsoft was deceptive. Based on their actions, the deception was calculated and deliberate because they profited by promoting a program that, for those who bothered investigating before their purchase produced confusion and ambiguity in the minds of the above average customer. For the average customer, they would have seen Vista Capable and gone with it, thinking that computer could run any Vista version.
   
   As an IT services provider to the general public for over ten years, I've seen and dealt with the problem from both sides. None of my client's Vista experiences have been good, regardless of the 'readiness or capability' of their machines. I never recommended Vista of any version to them but not being in control of their decisions, only had to deal with the mess they created. And this "Capable" program eventually produced a LOT of Mac owners among my clients.
   
   Were people harmed in a very general, class-action sort of way? You bet!

3. Comment - Angry YouTube users boycott, Viacom seems to respond

   (Jul 8, 2008 - 11:07 PM)

   Video clips and even whole shows uploaded and watched by YouTube fans would only PROMOTE Viacom's interests by generating the kind of buzz and interest viewing a show normally generates. Yes, there is a certain loss of commercial ad revenue, but if you are bringing in more viewers to new shows by allowing them to see old ones, I don't see that it's a bad thing.
   
   What I see here is an entertainment company who's not interested in entertaining anyone ever again.

4. Comment - Defendant in RIAA suit files amended complaint

   (Mar 14, 2008 - 3:36 PM)

   If the gal's IP address was spoofed by someone else, that would account for the RIAA saying it was another computer - but that doesn't mean it was hers. Someone has to reveal how the RIAA does its investigations. If it's illegal, fry 'em and invalidate every past judgment in their favor. I'd also like to find out who's responsible for using P2P's to spread viruses that eat media files. Three guesses there.