MacOpz Rules of Conduct
Re: I know you're smoking something . . .
Posted By: Lord Crosis (22.214.171.124)
Date: Tuesday, 11 September 2007, at 11:22 a.m.
In Response To: Re: I know you're smoking something . . . (J242)
: No, not at all but an excellent example of an even larger company pulling the
: same (if not worse) BS and the public accepting it with little to no
Why does that make them relevant to "Actually large companies would give almost anything to be able to hear and glean insight from what the public says. Most large companies hire people and/or companies to research what their customers (or potential customers) have to say." Microsoft is a bad example to refute that because they've never been very responsive to the marketplace, they use every underhanded technique they can to move into and dominate a market space, and then they do what they want and people shut up and take it due to lack of choice. Granted this strategy has only ever been successful in the OS and Office markets, but those are also the only markets that Microsoft has ever been profitable in.
: When did I cuss him out in this thread? I have used slurs and I have used
: them additionally as examples but I have not been saying F you or go suck
: a D or whatnot in this thread to him as I'm trying to maintain a more
: respectful level of posting behavior. Plain and simple.
It's not so much about the words, it's about the tone and the approach.
: However, you are still dodging the purpose behind the point. When does simple discussion
: turn into berating nonsense at the expense of the point itself? This bozo
: going off about "F Steve!" and suggesting I'm a drug addled homo
: have nothing to do with the point and frankly I'm more than insulted at
: the fact you are arguing this specific point with me. Do you honestly
: believe that the actions you have berated me oh so often for in the past
: are perfectly acceptable when it comes to someone else if they happen to
: see things closer to your point of view than the person who disagrees with
: them? That would be utter hypocrisy and I'm not claiming that's the case,
: I'm asking for clarification before I form an opinion on the matter.
First: Saying "Fuck Steve" is like saying "Fuck Bush", which is entirely different than saying "Fuck you Jessep."
Second: I don't think any of the things Intellect Inside has said were "at the expense of the point."
Finally, with regard to, "Do you honestly believe that the actions you have berated me oh so often for in the past..." I think you're mistaking berating with giving a friend advice to improve his ability to participate in conversations like this (which he isn't always that good at). I don't give a shit about Intellect Inside, he can figure out what works for him on his own.
: You do realize that I can simply reload a current page and EVERY hit counts
: as a new viewing right? I tell you what, I'll give you and example of this
: post itself... Just check the view count.
Yes, but it's ridiculous to suppose that someone is doing that to each and every post periodically enough that it happens gradually over time. Second, I have access to the MacOpz weblogs. I know what's going on here, I was just using information that you can see.
: Well, you might think so but that's the new trend, it's called viral
: marketing and it works.
Ummm... I know what viral marketing is. You said "Viral content with no mention of the product and outrageous claims" and I said "Well, with no mention of the product, it would be hard to tie any claim to a product, wouldn't it...?" Apple's claims were definitely explicitly tied to a product.
: Hardly, they didn't define that the product could accomplish what you ASSUMED
: it could off of reading the specs. "With support for" is a very
: useful term that almost completely clears them in this case.
Not in a court of law. In a court of law the definition (which again, would be taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive source) that's relevant to this discussion is:
e. Computing. Of a computer, operating system, etc.: to allow the use or operation of (a program, language, device, etc.) with it.
So using the definition that would be used in a court of law, Apple said that the MBP display "allows the use or operation of millions of colors." And that's just not true.
: As for them losing the case, we'll see. You may be absolutely right (and I hope you
: are), but I think you're going to be wrong unfortunately.
Oh, I didn't say that I thought they would lose the case... I said that if their best argument was that by saying that "Support for millions of colors" didn't actually mean the device was capable of producing millions of colors, they would lose the case. I'm sure they will have a much better defense, as I'm sure their lawyers are worth their salt.
: Exactly which is why I don't think it will win. Apple didn't specify that the
: display "produced" millions of colors, it stated the design
: specs as having "support for", not that it delivered such
: results. Again, unfortunately, I think Apple's legal team will win on this
Again, if that's the best the can do (which I'm sure it is not) then they don't stand a chance.
Messages In This Thread
MacOpz Forum is maintained by MacOpz Administrators with WebBBS 5.12.