In order for AT&T to offer that service to Nook owners the market has to be large enough to be worth their time. They also have to consider such issues as to whether they already have a product that they have an investment in that currently meets all or most of that market, whether the new product would bring new customers or just cannibalize existing customers, and whether their business partners are interested in pursuing such products.
The whole process is complicated and the fact that one or more customers exist for a given product is not in and of itself justification to sell a product.
The Nook is an eBook reader and that is all is aspires to be. That is it's business model. There is room in this world for specialized devices (they don't ALL have to all be general purpose) and I certainly think companies should have the option of creating special business arrangements (such as a constant cellular connection supported by book purchases) to support those devices.
Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.
Some choice quotes:
"Most devices considered smartphones today use an identifiable operating system"
"One common feature to the majority of the smartphones is a contact list able to store as many contacts as the available memory permits, in contrast to regular phones that has a limit to the maximum number of contacts that can be stored."
It hurts arguments to complain that the 'other side' is cherry picking definitions to make their point, and then carefully cherry pick your own definition to make your point.
I think the best and most meaningful definition listed in the wikipedia article is this one:
" For some, a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers."
But that is my opinion.
I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do? Really! Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing. Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?
I guess I should point out that since the reference poster said most his statement could still be accurate even if you are an exception.
Linux is good for technical people who enjoy chatting with the shell, while Windows users are lazy people who want to minimize the work on the computer to spend their time on other stuff.
Even though I am someone who hates Windows I have to challenge this. You are saying that if Windows users want to do things other than work on their computer, then they are lazy? I supposed someone who wants to work on research curing cancer instead of spending more time getting their computer to work is lazy.
Damn, I hate lazy people.
3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.y.
Wow!! And that would make you a real prick. I am sure all those lousy users deserve that kind of treatment...
There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.
I think this is a critical point. The fact that the kernel is standardized and (mostly) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together. Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard.
You've hit the nail right on the head. 95% of users out there are not going to RTFM, will not open the command prompt, and will not edit a config file. Not because they're stupid, or lazy - but because it's not their job.
I wish I had mod points. The contempt for users I see among a large number (not all) Linux developers (users) is amazing. As is the fact that those same denigrated "users" could use the same justification for contempt of those Linux developer for those areas in which the user is more knowledgeable than the developer.
I am a physician but I never feel contempt for the stupidity of my patients or call them morons for not being as expert in medicine as am I. And I hope my mechanic does not consider me a moron for the fact that he could certainly limp a complex car along that would be beyond my interest or ability to keep going.
As soon as a few Linux developers (not all) learn that they are incompetent in far greater number of disciplines than those in which they are expert the world of FOSS will be a better, or a least more civil, community.
My impression of most Apple users is that they want not to use Microsoft products and do hide inside an elitist little club where there is no need for most of them to be concerned about technical issues. That's fine if that is what they want but those same people should not try to argue with people who do know what they are talking about when it comes to OSes - at least, in my case, when it comes to UNIX, Linux or Windows.
Most Apple people I know are very knowledgeable about other operating systems and make informed choices to use Macs. What does drive us nuts are those who criticize our choices but also freely admit...
I don't use Apple.
I know nothing about OSX.
It is not that the developers are walking away from 30-50 million Linux users, it is that they look at their limited development dollars and ask, 'It is more profitable to use our development talent to create games for those 30 to 50 million Linux users, or for 10 to 100x as many Windows users?'
This logic does not require any considerations of licenses and is at least partially divorced from cross-platform development issues.
"Which is better Apache/BSD or GPL?"
someone answers: "I think BSD is better because $REASON and so I use it instead of GPL which I don't like because of $OTHER_REASON."
next person responds: "How dare you complain about the GPL. That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution."
The problem is is the first poster did exactly that. They said said 'I don't use the GPL because I don't like the conditions and therefore I choose or write another solution', which is exactly on topic with the main question of 'Which is better and why'?
Why do I constantly read somebody saying "I don't like the conditions of the GPL and therefore choose not to use it" followed immediately by some comment "If you don't like the GPL then don't use it."
Isn't that what they just said?
Ah, but if language could change once it can change again, and once the number of people who think "piracy" is a silly term for copyright infringement crosses some magic threshold, it will lose that meaning.
Don't hold your breath.