Comments on: Jason Calcacanis: The Case for Seizing Apple’s Technology

By: eddieclay

eddieclay — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:38:01 +0000

Oops my bad, reading Orville’s autobiography, that first secret flight was indeed Dec 17 1903, the famous picture was from a camera he actually set up himself. Also the hundreds of flights prior were manless. Still, they the own the throne (or the “thrown” word corrector likes to say).

By: eddieclay

eddieclay — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:57:31 +0000

@lowededwookie
I didn’t mean to disrespect your local hero, by all accounts he was a great man. Along with Pearse there were about 9 other possible first time flyers as well. Google “Percy Pilcher” if you want. However, the funny thing about this is how it relates to the gist of this thread. The Wrights were very entrepreneur oriented, they were in this for the money, they were bloody capitalists. They were extremely protective of what they were doing, and made their first public flight in 1903, but had been flying years prior (hundreds in 1901). Who actually flew first is a legitimate controversy, like the invnetion of the telephone, but even Pearse did not claim this thrown as you say. The point is however, the airplane as simply an invention means very little unless someone brings it to the market. To keep from going on too much of a tangent, let’s relate this to the GUI, a lot of researchers and scientists can claim they invented it, Apple brought it to the masses.

By: lowededwookie

lowededwookie — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:11:15 +0000

@SteveS

I disagree. Why is there so much patent disputes that locks the development of technology?

Sure trying to protect your ideas seems like a good thing but the reality is that when disputing patents you in fact halt the progress of technology.

If a communistic approach to technology was in place then technology can progress because ideas and processes are open to the masses to do with as they will.

The capitalist approach locks everything up in litigation to thwart those using said ideas and processes and try and milk money from them thus effectively killing off new technologies.

Tell me which idea actually does the world more good? There is tonnes of anecdotal evidence to see how much effort the oil companies have put in killing off technologies that would see the world removing any reliance on oil. Because of this we are relying on trying to get the best out of 200 year old technology. If there was no money to be made in oil do you think that that would still be the case?

By: lowededwookie

lowededwookie — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:04:08 +0000

@eddieclay

If you want to check out who flew first do a Google search for Richard Pearse.

He flew 9 months before the Wright Brothers and flew twice as far. However he humbly conceded the title to the Wright brothers on account of the fact he deemed his crashing into a boxthorn hedge a failed flight despite the fact he clearly flew.

You may want to actually do SOME research before mouthing off like the ill-informed idiot that you come across as being.

By: even

even — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:35:24 +0000

@afindlay

You don’t have to read it, just get the audiobook. It’s a free download, search for “market for liberty audiobook”.

@Dan

So, transposing your argument to computers, you assert that just because a cool net-enabled tablet has probably never existed on the planet before, it is a cue that Apple will never succeed in making one?

Dan, your assumptions are the result of your 30 years of being subjected to non-stop statist propaganda. You know better than to believe what everyone says about technology: with a 10th of those reasoning skills you can work your way out of these assumptions, if you are careful to start your re-examination at the very beginning, from basic facts. Ayn Rand was right about that, even if she was wrong about a few other things like the necessity of being governed. The depressing “reality” that’s been dumped on you can be shaken off, it’s a beautiful world beyond the bricks that are boxing you in.

By: eddieclay

eddieclay — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:24:33 +0000

Yes, I agree, mixing the name of Greenspan with Friedman and Rand’s does prove “Stupidity knows no shame I guess.”

By: SteveS

SteveS — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:30:58 +0000

@Worker201
Your comment which suggests there is no reason why Microsoft, Motorola, Verizon, etc. couldn’t make a product that competes better than Apple is a bit naive. You make it sound as if it is a conscious decision to put out inferior products. To that, I suggest to you that very few companies are capable of innovation. Those that are capable typically have that capability in either hardware or software, but not both. Motorola is capable of designing cool hardware (like the razor), but is incapable of developing innovative software. Microsoft is not capable of developing anything that is not extremely derivative of existing work. Verizon is a network and does networking well, but that doesn’t mean they are capable of developing an operating system much less the hardware to run on it. Similarly, the success of the iPod wasn’t due to any one specific thing. It was a combination of great hardware and great software (iTunes, etc.) which put (and continues to put) Apple in a league of their own.

@lowededwookie,
While I agree that politics should be kept out of technical discussions, your comment which states that capitalism does nothing for innovation is just bizarre. Capitalism promotes competition which in turn promotes innovation. If you wish to debate this, then I challenge you to compare and contrast the innovations coming from Communist countries as compared to Capitalist countries. The results will speak for themselves.

By: afindlay

afindlay — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:45:46 +0000

Putting aside the argument about whether or not capitalism does now or ever has truly existed (I’m afraid I don’t have time to read Market For Liberty at the moment, perhaps a summing up of the pertinent arguments may be in order even?), I came across an interesting set of statistics the other day in the Guardian on the differences between the British (socialised) and American (free market, or as near as) healthcare systems. I can’t find a link, and I’m rounding my figures slightly here, but the gist was that healthcare in America costs twice as much as it does in the UK as a percentage of GDP (just over 16% as oppose to just over 8%), but average life expectancy is slightly higher in the UK (77 years as opposed to 78, although quite what effect the US gun laws have on that figure is a debate for another time), and here in the UK we have a significantly lower infant mortality rate (6 deaths per 1000 births instead of 9).

The suggestion that private enterprise is inherently more efficient than state control would appear to be somewhat undermined by these figures.

By: stefn

stefn — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:34:48 +0000

@even
See you on the post office wall … with all the other delusionists.

By: even

even — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:12:31 +0000

@afindlay @lowededwookie

Capitalism does not exist anywhere on the planet now, and probably never has. What you call capitalism is not the real thing. Put aside what you think you know and read Market for Liberty.

@eddieclay

Friedman is mostly right, except “Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.” It is, if you carry the idea of individual property to its logical conclusions. Again, read Market for Liberty.

@stefn

Your mind is paralyzed, by fear alone. But really, you have nothing to fear, because, what have you got to lose? Do something nice for yourself today, enjoy yourself!

[ When you say "Capitalism does not exist anywhere on the planet now, and probably never has" you sound a lot like idealists who say "Communism does not exist anywhere on the planet now, and probably never has." That's a cue that the fantasy you hope will work actually does not, so in the real world things are modified to the point where it is no longer a fantasy and simply an imperfect reality. You must be under 30. Wait, reality will dump on you like a load of brinks shortly. Faster, if you give up reading Ann Rand. - Dan]