Re: What, exactly, is Apple's iPod business model?

On Sep 3, 2:04 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <13dlhgvnek8k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 9/1/07 9:15 PM,spinoza1111wrote:

Yes. What I was trying to express, hyperbolically, was that the set of
watchable films has very small cardinality [...]

This is because film is a social art and usually arrives at lowest
common denominator.

I've always been startled by how the self-appointed representatives of
the common man have so much contempt for the people they claim to be
acting in the interests of.

This never startles me, I'm afraid, Jeff, because like Mr Spinoza they
are all fascists.

"All" fascists? Never said that. I was talking about fascism, not
fascists. But hey, if the shoe fits...

Significant numbers of films use Fascism to excite the dull
sensitivies of the audience: cf. the Godfather, and see "Fascinating
Fascism" by Susan Sontag.

[Yup. Your not having read anything or been anywhere makes you less
qualified to speak.

And you know how much dorayme has read or travelled? And just because
we don't read what you read makes us less qualified to speak?

More shooting from the hip from Mr S. He also assumed I hadn't travelled
either, and shot his mouth off in much the same way.

Perhaps you traveled like Jacques in As You Like It, and learned
nothing?

What keeps me reading your posts is your ability to reach ever new
heights of arrogance and self-importance.

It's all about him, isn't it. He doesn't debate or discuss - he

You clowns have made this thread into a Celebration of Spinoza1111,
because you've almost exclusively focused on me. I'm afraid I've
encouraged it because like you I find Me a fascinating topic, and a
helluva guy. However, I WANTED to see an honest discussion from the
trenches of how hardware and software is developed to build in planned
obsolescence.

In chapter 9 of my book (Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler) I
show how many "hard" problems would disappear if only programmers knew
compiler development and could thereby move logic into data in such a
way that extensible, changeable and above all reliable systems could
be developed without planned obsolescence.

I can do this because now that my kids are grown, I no longer have to
fight for "jobs" in corporations. I can teach, I can do aid work, I
can ask you want fries with that (in Hong Kong English, "stay here or
take away"), I can dance and I can paint. Oate Boy, what can YOU do?

However, the game amongst the "consulting" (ha!) firms that fight for
scraps of development work in developing embedded systems including
the iPod is a race to the bottom, promising the client that they will
do exactly what is "wanted" (as if something like desire has
grammatically anything to do with industry) and no more. In some cases
I find that the subcontracting process can easily hide not only the
abuse of technical people but also the theft of intellectual property.

If the menu button on my iPod fails, it is a software problem as well
as an hardware problem. If I cannot run with my iPod (listening to the
Ninth symphony on a long run will tear your heart out) my expectations
are not met.

These problems are confirmed by a headline in today's Yahoo about a
"revamped" iPod.

Apple has screwed the pooch after commissioning a book that claims
that the iPod is the most wonderful thing since Jesus.

Again.

The iPod joins the Newton as another Grand Failure.

declaims. He harangues the masses and then treats them with contempt.

No, I treat dorayme and Oate Boy with contempt. I have treated old
Jeff G with the respect he has earned.

This is the case whether the listeners are "workers" or the audience at
the Oxford Union Debating Society.

Doubtless anyone unfortunate enough to have him as a teacher would
suffer in a similar fashion. No attempt to discern the abilities of the
audience and tune the discourse to that.

Well, there is falsity and truth in that. The falsity is that I am
very empathetic and sensitive as a teacher. The truth is that a
"teacher" is almost by definition somebunny who knows more than you
and is gonna talk above your head so that you strain to rise and
thereby rise above the level of the ape.

It would be an easy job to be an American style "teacher" in some sort
of New Age skewl who would never tell her students what is real and
what is not, and who merely gave them "learning materials" including
cool toys and let them "learn by themselves". I mean...nice work if
you can get it, you could pop outside for a smoke.

I was looking for people to talk honestly about how their jobs as
technologists destroys their spirit by forcing them to build in
planned obsolescence, but so many here have signed "nondisclosure"
agreements that they're afraid to talk about their jobs and would
rather tear into a "mark" like little mean girls.


I once bottle-fed a lamb on a farm in Central California. The lamb was
aware of the bottle as a source of something it wanted, but it had no
awareness of me as an entity to interact with.

If you act like a cartoon character, and don't give of yourself, what
do you expect?


Mr Spinoza reminds me of that lamb.


.