It's like everyone clammoring to bail out GM and save a bunch of low skill jobs that are going nowhere but overseas in the future anyway. It's a losing battle with the wrong objective.
Those greedy thousandaire GM auto workers are ruining this country. Millionaire bankers who created the great recession by purchasing bad mortgages and repackaging them with other bad mortgages via a formula not even the CEO's of their companies could comprehend, not a problem
... their mentally deficient counterparts at AIG who made millions selling insurance against those horrific bets ... not a problem ... those greedy thousandaire retirees from those evil socialist union loving auto companies ... clearly the problem here. Something must be done about these greedy thousandaires .... they are ruining this great country!!!!
Address shortages are a very, very, very tiny, miniscule fraction of IPv6. If IPv6 was about address shortages, the IPng working group would have adopted TUBA.
You seem unwilling to even recognize any of the other features of IPv6:
- Built-in security Built-in device mobility
- Built-in network mobility
- Built-in multimedia support
- Extensible headers for dynamic protocol upgrades
- Reduced latency
- Improved router reliability (partly due to simpler routing protocols)
- Native multicasting
- Native anycasting
- Superior QoS support
Don't even think of coming back with "but nobody uses these" - nobody was driving until the car was adopted either. Things have a habit of not being used when they're not available. When they are available, they are used. It's as simple as that.
You've made some very important points however I would submit to you that when you look at the advancement of technology, specifically that which has widespread adoption, one clear pattern emerges. Better rarely beats more convenient. VHS versus Betamax, Laser Disc versus VHS, low quality MP3's versus CD's in the early days of Napster and the list goes on and on. IPv6 is superior in every way shape and form yet moving to IPv6 is a giant pain compared to keeping and in some way expanding on IPv4 and NAT in some fashion. Moving from IPv4 and NAT to IPv6 is a giant undertaking while continuing with IPv4 and NAT plus piecemeal advancement in technology as need arises is much easier. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention. I'm not saying it's the best path and I'm not saying widespread IPv6 won't be the eventual outcome, I'm simply saying due to the widespread adoption of IPv4 and NAT and the inconvenience of moving to IPv6 the trend will be to stick with IPv4 and NAT for as long as it's humanely possible and just when we get to the point when we think it's no longer possible there's a very good chance somebody somewhere will figure out a way to prolong it and as long as that road is easier and more convenient than moving to IPv6 then that's the road where history teaches us we'll eventually end up walking down
I think it's great. I will have my iPhone as a mobile device, the normal big and classy iPad for coffee shops and to impress girls, and the medium size iPhone/iPad variant for things while iPhone isn't enough, but when iPad is too big. I can already think hundreds of different situations where it will fit perfectly.
I remember the same softballs being tossed at the iPod and again at the iPhone when they were released. There were just overpriced, overhyped pieces of hardware that would only appeal to Apple fanboys. Only people who got caught in the Jobs reality distortion field would ever be interested in buying them.
How did that work out for you? I heard the same arguments against the iPad as well. They are still selling like hot cakes meanwhile the predictions of it's demise are looking just as laughable as that of the iPod and iPhone.
You may be too stupid to get the appeal of a smaller, less expensive iPad because it doesn't smell like Richard Stallman and run Linux. The rest of us, however, who are intrigued about the device but put off by it's price point just might be willing to try a smaller version of it at a less expensive price point to see if we like the concept before committing a larger sum to buy the bigger model. You know, just like the Mac Mini, low end iPods and the entry level $99 dollar iPhone.
1997 called. They want their functionality over ease of use mentality back. What is so hard to grasp about the concept that consumers want convenience first, functionality second? Time and time again in the tech industry we've seen superior technology beaten by convenience.
That's great that your $150.00 tablet can run 7 Linux distros and just about every piece of open source software that has ever been written. The $400.00 tablet from Apple that doesn't require a CS degree to run out of the box will outsell it 100 to 1.
Yeah, it's interesting isn't it. I think it's because it's become clear that the kind of big-ticket software that Microsoft has built itself on just isn't where the real money's going to be in a few years. It's reached a peak complexity-wise, features-wise, and usefulness-wise. Instead, collaborative service software (i.e. Google) will be the way a lot of businesses go, and consumers will go with small, cheap, and cheerful (i.e. the Apple App Store), and social network type stuff (Facebook and its successors). Portability is where it's at, and Microsoft has missed so many beats it can't catch up, especially because it means essentially cannibalising they big-ticket software business.
I think you're spot on in your analysis of where the consumer market is heading but when it comes to the business side of things office life is still dominated by standard desktop / laptop computing using big ticket software for most workers. I don't come across many businesses in my line of work where users don't have a desktop or laptop running Windows and Office in addition to one or more big ticket industry specific software applications with the one large noticable exception being the health-care industry where more and more providers are moving to tablets, which for doctors and nurses who aren't stationary makes perfect sense.
The idea that competition between Microsoft and Google in both the OS and search engine markets will end up hurting consumers in the end is completely and utterly laughable. It's the exact opposite of how the real world works. In the real world, when there is no competition, there is no incentive for a company to improve things for the consumer and that is what will hurt the consumer in the end. If the consumer wants what the company has got there aren't any real alternatives.
Now along comes another company who wants to compete with them and suddenly there is an incentive to either improve the quality of the product, lower the price of the product, or both. If one company doesn't, and both companies are genuinely battling for market share, then the other company eventually will and that forces a cycle of response and counter response that is ultimately very good for the consumer.