A company I worked for had similar similar browser-share for their major web applications, and it really had little to do with Opera and Safari being niche outcast browsers. It had a lot more to do with the site being so broken as to be unusable in Opera and Safari. People would go one or two pages in, realize there was a problem, and either switch to a different browser, or as the growing fear was, switch to a different company.

It stems from the complaint above that many large corporate IT departments don't want to switch from IE6. Well, guess what the in-house web developers code for first? IE6. Then they try to tweak the design to work passably in other browsers when they should be working the other way: create a standards-based layout, then tweak for the peccadillos of other browsers.

It can be said that Apples are among the smoothest running out of the box, but does that really mean there's no crap? This line of reasoning begs the definition of "crapware," and the #1 response would be "stuff you don't need on your computer." It doesn't have to slow it down, it doesn't have to have an enormous memory footprint when it's running or a huge disk footprint when it isn't, it just has to be stuff you don't need. And depending who you are, that can be quite a lot.

Have you ever used iWeb? iDVD? Some would consider the whole iLife to be crapware because they plan to get higher-end, more professional applications through which to vent their creativity. And if they're thinking about office use, they're likely to go the route of Microsoft Office / OpenOffice, so bang goes Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. Do you ever plan to serve web pages up from your laptop? (Well, I do, but then again, look where I'm posting.) You probably don't need that install of Apache or PHP. Not planning on doing any software development? Yes, XCode is an optional install and not part of the standard kit, but you've still got perl, ruby, python, pico, vi, emacs, and more shells, libraries, and frameworks than you'll ever need nestled down in /usr/local. Have a digital music library already? Then you might also have a preferred player, and probably won't want iTunes to re-rip it into that silly AAC format. A lot of people despise Quicktime on general principle. And a lot of people still eschew Safari for Firefox despite its HTML5 support.

It all depends on your definition of "crapware." It's all assembled and designed by the mother company, so it's integrated so perfectly that you're never bothered by it if you never use it, but if you dig, you'll find something that'll fit the description.

MBGMorden: They speak of "compromising" these robots as if user programmable devices are inherently bad. I don't want to see devices locked down into black box "no touch" state because of some fear mongering.

I half agree with you; user-programmable devices are very useful, and easily tailored to efficiently perform specific tasks.

The crux of the argument, though, is "which user is giving the instructions?" Long ago on /. I made a comment differentiating security vs. transparency in government. This is much the same thing.

On the one hand, you (and a lot of people) want the device to be as programmable, flexible, and useful as possible. That means it must be able to do a lot of things. On the other hand, people might want to use such devices for nefarious, invasive purposes like spying, theft, vandalism, etc.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but remember:

1. You cannot have 100% security in anything, meaning someone might sooner or later break into your progbot and do horrible things, and
2. Until you have an establishment of security, any flexibility and programmability your progbot may have is a double-edged sword and may be used against you. Consequently...
3. The ultimate risk which a progbot poses to its owner is a factor of both its utility and the ease of intrusion. Given that security isn't guaranteed, utility has to be given some limits or other protections must be maintained (backups, lockdowns, etc.). Adjust your cost-benefit analyses accordingly.

If apple had have done the same thing it would be marketing genius ..

No, if Apple had done this, it would still have sucked. It would take more than "genius" to make this pitch work, it would take "omnipotence." In fact, if the marketers at Apple really are geniuses, I would expect them never ever to try a campaign as hokey as this.

If anything, Apple sells only the style and solidity of the hardware and the utility of the software, and downplays the operating system because it exists only as a facilitator to the other things you want to do with the computer. It really is a case where you want to sell the sizzle instead of the steak, because the steak is boring.

pintpusher: Will Telkom play fair? Or will they throw resources at the problem to ensure they win?

Interesting choice of words there... considering that "resources" which could help them win would include two shells full of birdshot...

Really now, it's not like the iPhone is a closed black-box environment, for which no outsider can create software.

However, in these modern times with object-oriented multithreaded programming, BASIC is kind of a throwback, don't you think? It may have been nice as the "gateway drug" of programming languages, but these days it's barely a first step.

I'm not necessarily trying to defend Apple here; their decision to decline any app with programmability is still a curious, regrettable, and philosophically indefensible one. (Do symbolic environments count, like you'd find on a programmable calculator? What if that environment allowed the display of English text? What if the environment had English equivalents for some symbols?) But it is possible for people to buck the trend.

Have you noticed how many employers don't simply want, but insist that new hires be good at multitasking? That the successful employee will be not only able to manage several projects at the same time, but will jump from one to another like a coked-up spider monkey on command?

Now, I admit fully to being resolutely anti-corporate, so it's only natural for me to look at this suspiciously. But I have to imagine that a whole lot of other people will see this as a disorder not just of the worker but of management, accepting sight unseen that multitasking, getting bits and pieces done on a whole lot of different projects in short order, is somehow more "efficient" (Hello? Changeover time?) than doing one thing to a good stopping point and then moving to another project when you're damn good and ready. It's especially a management problem if the management insists on mandating the changeovers, forcing employees to change gears without the clutch engaged.

I can easily believe this sort of affliction can be inflicted. So I say let's study the possibility that ADD can be a workplace injury, to be covered by health insurance, and see how long this trend lasts.

At the time, analysts pooh-poohed the idea of Apple's retail stores originally, too. The retail space was glutted with computers, Apple already had a relationship with CompUSA which was best described as "passive-aggressive," and Gateway's retail concept was defecating the bed. Opening a retail store was the silliest thing they could have done, except it worked for them. They weren't just marketing hardware and software, what they were doing was cashing in on the brand's exclusivity, by creating a boutique space where people could interact with the hardware and ask questions about it.

The problem with Microsoft's concept is that they don't have the same culture to sell. Apple has a niche (albeit a very deep niche) market which supports the notion of exclusiveness (which anyone can conveniently buy into). Microsoft doesn't have that kind of exclusiveness (unless you're talking about excluding people who are using previous versions of their OS on older hardware). What Microsoft will instead find they're selling is ubiquity, and not even a nice sort of ubiquity either. It's more of a fetid, horrid inevitability, not so much like death as spending the holiday with in-laws.

Delusion_: freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting. It's parody. The difference is crucial.

Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.

Seconded. In fact, I remember another case where the court—wrongly—grabbed a domain name simply because of its resemblance to another site: etoy.com vs. etoys.com. etoy came first, but somehow eToys managed to suck up to a judge and lay claim to etoy.com, however temporarily. It may have had something to do with the fact that eToys thought it had a trademark for a vibrant, useful commerce site while that Johnny-come-earlier was pushing that wishy-washy pinko art.

This is the sort of thing the judiciary has to consider carefully when looking at a case where domain names rub a little too close together. And with the press continuing for domain names, the situation will only get worse.

jeffasselin: The google guys are intelligent and pay a lot of attentions to details

True enough, but it's also possible to pay too much attention to details. There's always the chance of a misstep somewhere, but I think Google's most at risk if they pay attention to the wrong detail, or waiting for a large volume of data to make "the perfect choice" where the best course of action would be simply to make a different choice.

That said, it is still kind of hard to accept Microsoft as a credible threat, except that this is version 2 of their search engine. They might have some details right this time.

Adult film producer: I believe in free market capitalism ... Independent mechanics are usually a bunch of creepy fucks to begin with

geekboy642: Way to miss the point, pornologist. In a free market,

Is this an appropriately dramatic moment for a WHOOOOSH!! ?