Oh please. Apple's own engineers warned Jobs of the issue right from the earliest design meetings, but were overruled. When users -shock- began complaining soon after launch, Jobs personally dismissed the "non-issue", telling them to "avoid holding it in that way."

Even when Apple *finally* accepted there was a problem at the 16 July press conference (only after a damning confirmation of the issue from Consumer Reports), there was no "mea cupla". They claimed the problem was common to all internal antenna phones, something which competitors and reviewers were quick to dispute, but they would begrudgingly issue free cases as a band-aid fix.

It never ceases to amaze me the infinite reserve of benefit-of-doubt that Apple commands from its fans! :]

"To the best of my knowledge Apple doesn't exploit, extort, or engage in dishonest business practices."

To the best of my knowedge, no Applezoid has ever accepted that Apple is a self preserving, spin marketing megacorp like any other. Are you seriously suggesting you are unaware of the iPhone 4 antenna debacle and subsequent denial by Apple?

Yes, I'd be inclined to agree that MS have demonstrated more underhand tendencies over the years than Apple. But Apple today very much practices the same self-preserving restrictive nonsense that got MS its reputation in the first place.

From the interview: "Microsoft’s philosophy is to get it out there and fix it later. Steve would never do that. He doesn’t get anything out there until it is perfected."

Riiiiight. {cough faulty IP4 antenna design, cracking screens}

< 50% my arse. This is headline grabbing from a stats company that fails to represent the corporate user market, IE's home turf.

RTFA: "Another Web measurement company, Net Applications, last week said its research shows Windows IE had a 59.7% share during September, though it did say IE's share is declining."

Same here - all searches today on Google.co.uk for me are using the new "real-time" search - results update as you type. Slightly unnerving for users to see their UI change completely where they're not expecting it? Useful though.

We have to put up with worse crap than this in the UK: our cheapest operator, Ryanair, charges extra for a bunch of things that are certainly *not* optional extras .. like checking in .. and PAYING!

IIRC: £10 online checkin fee per passenger. £5 each way per passenger "payment fee" (unless use a specific obscure card type). £15-£20 each way per passenger for a measly 15kg of checked baggage. You think *you've* got problems! :-O

The summary states that cost isn't the primary factor in choosing commercial vs FOSS. Granted, but I wonder what role the (often tolerated) ability to pirate commercial software plays in this?

If there was genuinely no option but to stump up ~$1,700 each time one wishes to upgrade to the latest Adobe Creative Suite (Dreamweaver, Flash, Photoshop etc), this would discourage home users and push them toward FOSS alternatives. Same for MS Office vs Open Office, etc.

Students are a prime example - what percentage of students do you realistically think pay for their software (particularly those requiring numerous high cost tools, such as programming students)? The tools that students become familiar with they will then become advocates for when they start working.

It's no secret that Microsoft tolerated a rife pirating of MS DOS in order to strengthen their install base - a tactic which has reaped dividends. I wonder if this tolerance continues today for major software titles that rely on ubiquity to ensure their popularity, such as MS Office?

From April, MS will no longer sell you a copy of XP, that's the problem.

See my submission on this and the leaked Windows 7 price hike ($45-$55 for the Starter Edition, up to $40 more expensive than the XP licence for netbook machines!):

http://slashdot.org/submission/1021213/Microsoft---Windows-7-Pricing-Malfunction

Agree in principle that the Recording Industry (Saleable Copyright model) is not working, but the "pay for creative work up-front" seems to have major drawbacks - principly that you have no idea if a creative person is any good until they've delivered the goods, creating chicken and egg.

I think you're missing a trick though: live performances.

I've read up on the subject as a former MP3.com artist myself, from talking to upcoming bands like Silverman and from the widespread public writings of established artists. All say that recording artists rarely make any money from sales though their record company; in fact they normally end up heavily in debt (the famous record label "tab").

Let me say that again: most artists do not profit from music sales. Only the record labels (and industry quangos like the RIAA) profit from music sales. Instead, most current artists make their money from live gigs, merchandise, appearance fees, etc - the good old fashioned "goods/services for cash" model.

As soon as you appreciate this, you realise you can ditch the record label altogether, "open source" your music (allow to be freely distributed on a non-profit basis, with distribution channels allowed to charge a small fee to cover their costs if they wish) and make money from gigs, etc, instead as your popularity grows.

This is not a new idea: numerous bug names in music are advocating the idea. Here's a quote from an excellent 2007 Wired feature by former label boss David Byrne:

"What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists."

"The fact that Radiohead debuted its latest album online and Madonna defected from Warner Bros. to Live Nation, a concert promoter, is held to signal the end of the music business as we know it. Actually, these are just two examples of how musicians are increasingly able to work outside of the traditional label relationship. There is no one single way of doing business these days. There are, in fact, six viable models by my count. That variety is good for artists; it gives them more ways to get paid and make a living. And it's good for audiences, too, who will have more - and more interesting - music to listen to. Let's step back and get some perspective."

Wise words. Full article (well worth a read):

    http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne

If that's not enough for you, plenty of similar reading at:

    http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/record-label.htm/printable
    http://www.sourban.net/The-Future-Of-Music-How-Real-Artists-Will-Save-Music-From-The-Music-Industry
    http://www.magnatune.com/info/musicians
    http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_yorke
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=music+artists+make+money+live+performances+record+label

Cheers, Ben

Ian Tomlinson was pushed to the ground by a police officer after strolling into the scene of the biggest violent protest in recent London history. He died of a pre-existing heart condition soon after, likely caused by the stress of the incident - this was tragic, and the officer involved should feel guilt at his actions.

However, where the hell do you get that he was "beaten"?! It helps no one to muddy the facts.

I was going to moan about the description of De Menezes death as "murder" based on my understanding of the circumstances (terror suspect running from police on day of bombing), but I've just read Wikipedia's coverage of the evidence. Bloody hell, that really was a scary cock-up, even if it's difficult to hold one individual culpable.

Whether or not that is true, the Slashmins clearly believe IE users to be unimportant (you know, the users of the world's most popular browser), as post formatting is messed up in IE7.

Half the replies in this thread appear blank in IE7 on XP (e.g., whatever Hurricane78 was replying to with "Last time I checked, they were not your b*tch, ya know?"). This reply textarea I'm using now is shifted to the right on 1024x768, meaning I have to scroll right to see it.

I was away from Slashdot for a few months recently (work overload!) and have come back to mess of broken formatting. WTF happened?!

As others have pointed out, many of us either have no choice about using IE (e.g., corporate boxes, or web design professionals where it makes sense to us the same browser as the majority of your clients), or even *shock* choose it as browser of choice.

Grrrr - focus on the basics before twiddling the AJAX nobs!