DISQUS

While I'm certainly not a believer in central planning from governments, I'm not sure this example proves your point. Apple spends far less money than Microsoft in its development of Mac OS X, but it produces an OS that is ahead of MS in many, many ways. You could say that Apple is building on the base of BSD and Mach, but so is Ubuntu, so the point would be moot in the comparison. Apple is very, very focused on building products which satisfy one "customer" at the top -- Steve Jobs.

Yes, modern operating systems are complex, but they CAN be built well in a top-down fashion. In fact, I'd say that the single, unified vision for what the end result should be is one of the things that makes Mac OS X an excellent operating system.

MS's problems in developing Longhorn/Vista seem to have more to do with a culture that has become choked on success. Its developers tried to please too many people (internally and externally), and nobody seems to have been able to say, "No, THIS is how we're going to do it." The only reason they seem to finally be getting it out the door is that the final reorg put the power into the hands of someone who COULD make those calls.

I would argue that the iPod's conservative feature set is part of what makes it successful, because that helps make the device idiot-proof to use. It's hard for many people in the geek culture to understand that many, many "normal people" want simplicity, not more features. Sometimes, it's "genuine innovation" to remove features and make something easier to use.

This isn't the main point of this discussion, but I'd argue quite strongly that the GPL doesn't give anyone "freedom," but rather limits people's freedom to do as they please with the Linux code. The BSD license seems to be much more truly free. With the GPL, you are forced to make your changes available to the public as source. With BSD, you can do whatever the heck you want with the code. You can include it in your own product without limitations on disclosing the source and without limitations on the license you have to use for YOUR code. The GPL isn't really about freedom. It's about forcing the users of GPL-licensed software to adhere to the views of the Free Software Foundation. The BSD license pretty much just says, "Here's the code. Do with it what you want, without restrictions." That seems MUCH more "free" to me.

I have seen the web-based video preview of Songbird, and I can't figure out why Apple should be concerned. Here's why:

-- Songbird is competing with iTunes, not the iTunes Store. iTunes is free, so there's no cost savings that come from using it.

-- Songbird looks like something put together by a committee. It seems to have too many features jammed in (as opposed to being simple). Yes, I know that both it and iTunes are based on browser code, but you unnecessarily complicate things for non-geeks when you start browsing web pages inside your media player. (Hint: There are still a LOT of people who don't understand the difference between a browser and a search engine or a web site. I know people who ask me whether they should use Safari or Yahoo for a particular task.)

-- Third, anyone who has seen both Songbird and iTunes realizes immediately that the Songbird UI feels like a ripoff of iTunes. There's nothing to give a user ANY quick reason for believing that there's an advantage to Songbird.

-- Fourth, it's hard to deliver a consistent user experience when you allow (and encourage) the kind of garish color combinations that Songbird encourages. (The demo I saw raved that you could change the colors just like MySpace, which should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about design.)

Overall, there appears to be no compelling reason for a normal (non-geek) person to use Songbird or even try it. Normally, when you have a new product, you have to be able to quickly tell someone why he would want to try it: it's cheaper or offers an easy-to-understand new feature, etc. Songbird merely appears to be a free ripoff of another product that's already free. Outside of the geek market, I don't see this going anywhere.

Tim, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I don't have a beef with your post and I didn't think you were endorsing the conspiracy theory. I'm just appalled at Rolling Stone's reporting.

David

I don't like Diebold's machines or the company's conduct in some matters surrounding their use, but it's completely irresponsible to invent a conspiracy to steal an election -- when there isn't any proof that it happened (or even specific reason for thinking so). I was a newspaper reporter long enough to realize that there are plenty of possible ways for officials to steal elections, but I didn't write a story after each election laying out a scenario by which it MIGHT have happened.

If somebody has proof that election tampering went on, let's see it. Until then, it is much more responsible and reasonable to assume that there was some form of bureaucratic incompetence going on with either the company or election officials when the "0808 patch" was used. On the larger point, of course, it shows how desperately we need a paper trail, because conspiracy theorists are going to become more and more numerous if we keep heading down the road we're on.

As much as I dislike the current machines, though, I loathe irresponsible journalism just as much. Rolling Stone could have done a much better public service by doing a non-partisan report about why the machines are problematic. Inventing the story (or amplifying the one already spread by lefty nutjobs) just makes it easier for the righty nutjobs to think the machines are a great idea.

David

You're right, Adam. I've NEVER seen an episode of "South Park," but I found a copy to download just because the Scientologist weirdos were going batty about it. Here's a fairly high-resolution version in AVI format:

http://tinyurl.com/7pehu

While I agree with much of what you're saying, what is so wrong with taking a phone call in a place such as a restaurant IF you're not talking any louder than you would be to someone at the same table? I can't figure out the anger about that sort of situation. Yes, it's rude to interrupt people you're at the table with (in some case) to take a call. Yes, it's rude to talk louder than you otherwise would. But if you're alone and take a call, why is it rude to talk to someone on the phone in the same way you might talk to someone sitting at the table with you? I don't get that.

David

"TV journalism" is an oxymoron. It's even worse on the local level. My ex-wife used to be a news producer for an ABC station in a top 40 market. I was appalled at how ignorant the reporters and producers tended to be, and I was amazed at what passed for news (and the news that wasn't considered worthy because there were no good visuals). As long as the patter was peppy and the faces were pretty, people tuned in -- and that was all that mattered.

I'm certainly not an anarchist when it comes to IP, at least in part because I create artistic content for a living. But the balance between protecting the rights of creators and the rights of purchasers have swung dangerously in favor of the creators. A limited monopoly on new creations is supposed to give creators a reason to keep making new content, not to give them a perpetual license to own everything.

Another issue is that current law (such as the DMCA) totally disregards technological realities. I'm 45, but maybe I'm more technically oriented than most people my age or older. Maybe younger people (and some of us who are older) understand that laws are not ever going to stop the technical ability to copy digital files. If the data is there, someone can break into it, assuming that the "lock" is such that consumer-level devices can get into it in the first place.

The more people realize what the new IP laws are going to prevent them from doing (such as time shifting their TV viewing as they've done with VCRs when they try it with something like a broacast flag), they're not going to put up with it. Laws such as this destroy any respect for laws, because they're not worth respecting and they're unenforcable.

IP law in the digital age MUST change, even if older people (or less technically savvy people) don't "get it" quite yet.

I agree wholeheartedly. I read the Wired column earlier today and thought it was one of the most absurd things I'd ever read. To be honest, I thought it sounded like something Ayn Rand might have written for one of the looter antagonists in Atlas Shrugged to have said. :-)