What is Digg?129 Comments
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42"The secret ingediant is...love? OK, who's been screwing with this machine?!"
- FreakyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28The NeXTSTEP-style application packages were a great idea, IMO. Using them, you completely eliminate the need for start-menu like piles of "shortcuts" or the like. Also, they make both installing and removing applications as simple as moving or deleting the application package. It's a shame other OS don't have systems like this. (Save for, of course, GNUstep, which remains my desktop environment of choice for my non-Mac OS systems.)
- mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32"if Apple gave up entirely ten years ago, most of us would probably be using Windows."
Most of us are. - amasiancrasian, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29It's not so much that Apple comes up with "fresh" ideas, but it is their willingness to bring good ideas together. While many of the technologies Apple introduces has been around for years, they are one of the few vendors who are willing to bring them together in a product.
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32I know! I know!
They bundle oodles of software while destroying independent software vendors without getting sued!
They also have the bravado of moving forward while sacrificing backward compatibility.
They also market themselves as the masters of cool while criticizing their opposition on obsolete issues without exalting their own virtues.
/ Mod me down if I am incorrect and then explain why.
// Yes, I know that they make kick ass computers. - pjlive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17If you have read the article, it basically comes down to this:
"It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them." -- Steve Jobs in BusinessWeek, May 25 1998 - mlkmnz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16No, its Professor Frink on the Simpsons. Close though.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19A beautiful GUI never hurt anyone
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Apple's secret is minimalism. As do their competitors, they provide products with oodles of functionality, but most of it unnecessary. However, where Apple excels is in hiding away those unnecessary functions. What you see is what you'll most likely need. But what's hidden isn't hard to find. It won't get in your way, but it's right there if you need it. The iPod, for instance. Most people only want to play music and maybe watch some videos on it. If that's all you want to do, it's a cinch. Of course, you can manage contacts, calendars, clocks, play games, keep notes, use it as an alarm, etc. But those options don't clutter or detract from the main purpose: music. But if you do want to do them, they're tucked away in easy-to-find locations.
- webonics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I think Apple's secret ingredient is "Execution". Its great to have fearlessness, vision, talent, etc. But those alone don't make a company successful.
Example...EuroDisney had fearlessness, vision, and talent. Yet they failed to execute a plan that leveraged those attributes to successful business in a European culture.
Carly Fiorina had great vision when she made the acquisition of Compaq for HP. But she failed at execution. Now, Mark Hurd is executing her vision very successfully, making HP the new darling of Wall Street again.
Ultimately, Wall Street and the consumer will judge a company on its execution. - jcdickerson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Apple's secet sauce? HARDWARE CONTROL. They control 100% of the boxes that ship with OS X. Microsoft has to deal with hundreds of vendors and the end user experience is largely dependant on the hardware they buy. MS has had to devote limited resources (yes they have billions in cash, but thier cash is NOT a resource) to ensuring compatibility, and thus the other major concern (SECURITY) was put in second place a long time ago. Not an apologist, just wanted to add some context. Apple has a rock-solid kernel to work from and has had NONE of the compatibility concerns that MS has had, so they can focus on other factors - just keep that in mind.
- DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I just love the kool-aid references... for all you kool-aiders:
Here's a thought - maybe people buy Apples stuff because for them it's a superior solution?
The Mac wasn't my first computer I ever purchased, but it's been the one I have purchased the last two times, and will be my next purchase as well. It just works. I plug it in, turn it on and I'm instantly productive. Drag an application to install, trash it to un-install. No viruses or malware - and if/when any that are truly effective show up, then I will deal with them - not like I don't have enough experience in doing so from using Windows :p In the meantime I'll be "smug" for pointing it out - but it's still not something I have to worry about :p
The iPod wasn't the first hard drive based music player I purchased, but it has been for my last two purchases. Why? It has the features I want such as extreme small size and great computer integration. Ogg and an FM tuner? Who cares? I just want to carry music around in an extremely portable package and not have to worry about organizing my MP3's by filename and folder (please! - this is 2006!). iTunes and the iPod do that better than anyone else. Microsoft finally "see's" it, we'll have to see if they actually get it with the Zune. And even if they do, at best they are a "me too" :/
Apple delivers what I want - and what a whole bunch of people want: A utility based approach to computing and electronics. No tinkering required. It's no surprise that Apple doesn't appeal to the tinkerer geek crowd - your not their target market.
And for that I'm glad...
So here's to hoping that Apple keeps pissing off the "elite geek" crowd on sites like Digg - it means they are doing their job (and ironically, that's the thesis of the article, which is always a good thing to read before commenting on) - Kajico, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think that's a problem with the individual user and not with all of the Apple userbase. I mean if all Mac users were just donder heads interested in pretty colors, there wouldn't be any independant developers for OS X, and there are definatley a lot of 3rd party developers.
I have to always come up with reasons why I switched from Windows to Mac, but the last thing I ever mention is the user interface.
In my opinion it's all about workflow, organization, application focus, and versatility.
However if the person's only argument is simply the interface, and how "pretty" it is. Well then that's a personal choice, and if they are soley happier with a pretty interface than that's completley up to them, however I don't think it is the sole division of Apple to make the interface super pretty, because in all honesty I thought OS 9 and older looked like crap.
and I know lots of people who are form over function and still use Windows, I mean just go look at Windows Blinds and tell me how many pretty user interfaces on there actually carry a higher function than looking pretty? - psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@mlkmnz: You know, I have never thought about it but now that you mention it, I don't know a single thing about OS X other than how it looks. I have been using windows since I began using computer and more or less I know how it does things and know what I like and don't. However, with OS X, I don't know of a single feature or how it differs from windows. Why? Because whenever someone talks about OS X is just how beautiful it is and how cool it is but no one ever really elaborates. Very interesting. Anyone know of a site that compares OS X and windows in terms other then how cooler OS X is?
- SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And the secret ingredient is? I dunno - it just works - that's what I like.
- bass0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Anand Shimpi of Anandtech wrote an article in October 2004 after testing a Mac for one month (until then, he was a Windows user). Good read.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2326 - ejp1082, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is pretty insightful.
Loook at the different positions of the two companies; MS at 90% and Apple at 3%.
Apple's products have to convince users to switch. For Apple, there's no "good enough"; they have to prove themselves to be "better" at every step of the way to entice users to switch. It's worth sacrificing the existing installed base if a given move will make up for it in users that switch (and as you point out, most of that installed base bitches but goes along anyway).
For Microsoft, there's nowhere to go but down in marketshare; they have to play it safe at every step; a major change (like sacrificing backwards compatibility) isn't going to win them any more users (there aren't any to win), but it could piss off enough who will then look for alternatives rather than upgrade. For Microsoft, "good enough" is the only strategy that makes sense. - psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13This reminds me, Digg needs a new "Bury" category: fanboy.
- gypsyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17This article is toward the more absurd end of the fanboy spectrum.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5a nice valid comment, no doubt it will get buried.
i think the point that MS have had to concerntrate entirely on compatability is a good one and something i've never considered (freebsd user here) for their woeful state.
apple completely control their hardware and never worry about backwards compatability, yet when MS drop win98 after 7 years of support, everyone cries foul?
an di don't think money is the limited resource at MS, it's most likely finding talented people. - Kajico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lakawak
That's because many writers for The Simpsons also wrote for Futurama and American Dad - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I don't know what groups you guys hang out in but that isn't the case with what I hear. Mac OS X has a ton of FEATURES that go beyond just looks. I think what some people want to believe is that Mac OS X is nothing more then a pretty Windows so they can justify not buying one or trying it out for themselves. While I don't blame them for be skeptical because of the price (I definitely was), that doesn't mean its featureless and the information is out there if you ask someone who actually knows computers. The problem is you probably ask your friend who is a music producer and obviously he/she is the last person to ask. So here are some of the features just to name some for the heck of it.
Dashboard - Widgets that Vista copied, which Apple copied from other sources like Yahoo
Spotlight - An indexed desktop search that Google sort of copied but this concept has been around for years just never as well integrated into GUIs and the OS.
Dock - A much more convenient way to manage application icons and shortcuts then toolbars (in my opinion)
Expose - An easy way to move around between windows on your desktop without having to minimize anything
Those are just some of the main DESKTOP features. It has all the obvious stuff that you see in Linux and Windows. I think the main thing is the little stuff that's added here and there. The default software from iLife is well integrated with the rest of the system. I also think the little things count like the file-system. I don't have to defrag because HFS+ does a good job of properly laying out and indexing file handles to limit the fragmentation. When large files come into play it automagically cleans up the mess created if there isn't a sufficient place to store it as contiguous. The thing to remember is that this is Unix and you can notice that sometimes. The permission system is Unix and I find it incredibly easy versus Windows permissions which are overly complicated in my mind (or lacking if you don't enabled advanced).
The thing to remember is that while OS X is better at the stuff I mentioned IMO, however there are features in Windows that OS X still lacks. For instance there isn't a good built in remote desktop app like in XP Pro and that drives me crazy. The backup software has to be paid for by getting .MAC ( a complete joke IMO). Windows uninstalls are done a lot better because while OS X apps are managed into self-contained packages, they still save settings and preferences in preference folders elsewhere on the OS. There is no elegant way to remove these but some 3rd Party software attempts to fill the void just like Windows 3rd Party software that tries to create Docks and other stuff to fill voids.
Hopefully that helps explain something, there's no way in a comment on digg I could go into the detail I would like but ultimately both OSes are feature packed regardless of how pretty they look. - Samuarl, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13"They also market themselves as the masters of cool while criticizing their opposition..."
To me this adverting startegy is slightly childish, they need to always put down other products to make theirs seem better (with the exclusion of the iPod.) Instead of saying "We have beautiful design" they say things like "We have beautiful design... unlike windows." - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>The kool-aid referance was to the funny 'cult-like' following that mac users have become.
Become? Any popular item can have a following. Ever get in the middle of a Ford/Chevy/Dodge pissing match? - redxii, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10They get companies like Intel to make specialized hardware, OS X programmed to look for only this specific hardware. Repackage BSD and call it OS X, include it in the price.
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Using Unix in a consumer OS was ludicrous? What is this guy smoking??? If Windows has taught us anything, it is that average consumers ---could give a ***** less!!-- what the underlying software is. They just want something that looks decent, behaves how they expect it (more or less), and has common functionality.
Seriously. - zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Same reason many people use Linux. And if Windows weren't the most popular OS, I'm sure some people would use that to be different as well. Of course a certain percentage do it to be differnet. But that still leaves a large percentage who genuinely prefer them. And that same argument doesn't extend to other products such as the iPod. Anyone who thinks they're being different buying an iPod is an idiot.
The fact stands that whether you think their products are low-quality or they're arrogant, or whatever, they're still doing something right, or they wouldn't be selling products. - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So, how many hours have you actually spent using Mac OS X?
vs. commenting on it.... - robin1989, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7http://www.duggmirror.com/apple/Apple_s_Secret_Ingredient/
- TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think everyone is missing a key feature...Unix
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"A 3 or 4% market share truly destroys the ISVs.."
If you make Mac software then Mac bundles a free alternative then yes. - TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Apple doesn't appeal to the tinkerer geek crowd - your not their target market."
Id have to disagree with you on that. I think alot of geeks can appreciate the more simple side of the GUI or choose to get dirty in the powerful underlying architecture of Unix - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Gofel
Yes, i modded you UP. And here's why:
I like discussions where there is disagreement. If there are no contrasting points of view then discussion threads make no sense. I hate Digg's users tendency to mod down based on popularity. You, on the other hand, modded me down for good solid reasons and took the time to elaborate on them. I truly respect that, and hope that it does happen more often on Digg. :-) - SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If you say so. With no memory up grade, and the 7 year old processor.
I love Mac fan boys. They lie to make a point. I have seen the new Mac os on an old Imac. It runs like crap."
Erm... that's not a lie. I use a large cross section of Macs, the NEWEST of which is 3 years old, the oldest of which is 9 years old (and requires XPostFacto to run OS X but it's not a big issue). All run OS X well, with a few upgrades (nothing more than most people drop in a PC after a few years - RAM ,Video card, bigger hard drive, faster CPU) and a whiff of patience.
Now I *am* looking at buying a Core Duo mini at some point in the next 6 months, but it's not becuase I have been forced by Apple to get a new Mac, it's because I am actively interested in OS X Intel and it's potential to furher reduce my reliance on Windows. - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The same is true for the x86 transition - Apple's engineers have gone to great lengths to ensure that creating universal binaries is as easy as possible."
Actually, that's another feature that goes back to NeXTSTEP (which ran on 68k, x86, SPARC, PA-RISC, and there had been a port to PPC started shortly before NeXT's hardware division shut).
"Repackage BSD and call it OS X, include it in the price."
XNU is a hybrid of Mach, with some of the older parts replaced with BSD code, and a BSD userland. - hobbla, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Apple's secret ingredient: Shininess
- ErneX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't agree with what you say, before I bought a Powerbook I was a faithful Windows and sometimes linux user, since Apple made the move to OS X and I had the chance to toy around with some friends Macs, then I realized that at least for me, is a superior environment. In my case, as a web developer it gives me plenty of flexibility regarding what I do, the ability to have an Apache webserver and PHP with the default installation is a plus, and the ability to do command line and have the usual *nix commad line tools and access to a lot of open source projects either for easy install or compile is a major plus, I also don't have to deal with running spyware detection software or antivirus applications.
When you spent some days using OS X you start seeing what an incredible experience it is compared to the other offerings, and for that, no marketing strategy caused my jump, it was just my own experience and the advice of fellow Mac owners.
My first OS was PC-DOS 3.30 on an IBM PS/2 Model 50, I give it up to Apple for having the balls to get rid of the rotten potato that OS 9 was and start from scratch, that was the turning point in recent Apple history. Windows 95 was superior to OS 9 in so many ways is not even funny, but ever since OS X, the history is a lot different. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3d2nd: Yeah, the mini sucks for development. That's exactly my point. It's slow and only does single-head, yet I still prefer that limited environment to my dual-head dual-processor Opteron running Linux, which I also like a lot.
That's why I'm going to buy a new Intel-based Apple notebook that does dual-head with the money I earned using my Mac mini this summer. - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>All fanboys need to rest in piss. Its real anoying on digg with fanboys.
Anti-Apple fanboys included?
>This news is community drvien but biased.
Well there's a ***** brilliant observation! Of course it's biased, captain obvious! People naturally post about things that interested them. Things that they are *biased* towards.
Gee, what a shocker
There's a really simple solution for you, go into your preferences and uncheck the Apple section. Then you won't be troubled with stories from people biased towards an interest in news items related to Apple.
Or is it just more fun to whine incessantly? Want some cheese to go with it? Then again, there's enough cheese in this post already :p
>The only reason Apple is around today is because Bill Gates gave them money
Really? MS giving them 150 million when Apple had a couple of Billion (with a capital B) in the bank? Yup, MS swooped in and saved Apple
>and the first OS apple announced was made by MS.
ProDOS was made by MS? Are you smoking crack or just talking out your ass. Wait, don't answer that - no need to be redundant...
>And MS and Apple both stole the mouse idea.
Uh, no-one stole the mouse idea - it was out there. And if you are obliquely referring to Apple's visit to Xerox (1) they had the mouse and a GUI interface before the visit to Xerox and (2) they *paid* for the visit and the privilege to use any idea's they saw (hence the paying part).
A quick trip to Google will confirm the above, but it's more fun to spread baseless BS as fact, eh?
>Creative made the IPOD, not apple, apple made the software.
Huh? Apple contracted with Portal Player, a startup that had NOTHING to do with Creative for the chipset and base operating system for the original iPod. Apple designed the hardware and iPod software around that chipset, and the Portal Player OS.
Apple originally approached Creative, and Creative blew them off. Thank god, I've never been impressed with Creative hardware or software.
Now I know you are an uninformed troll on Digg talking out your ass....
>Anyways, you call buying ideas creative?
I think Apple's ratio of original idea's to bought idea's is much better than anyone else in the industry. And more important than just having ideas is executing on them. MS will find out with the Zune just what that means...
>Fanboyism is bad for this community.
So is anti-fanboyism :p
All you have to do is uncheck the Apple category in your prefs. It really is that simple.
Damn insecure non-Apple users.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, tim. This is Digg. When Apple sues, it is only because they HAVE to or else they will lose their protection to seu later. But when othre companies do it, it is frivilous.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Features you want? I just need to name one: Cocoa.
There are some pretty addicting Mac apps as well. I am completely hooked on LaunchBar and TextMate.
If you're contrasting Mac OS X with Windows then being a *nix is a huge plus. scp, ssh, screen, etc. all native, readily available at a usable shell that comes with the OS. cmd.exe, LOL.
Keyboard shortcuts. They exist for almost everything, are intuitive, and the Apple/Command key placement (where Alt is) is much better than using Control, in it's default location or where CapsLock is.
Mac OS X is like crack, I'm completely hooked. For development I use my PPC Mac mini more than my 2x Opteron rig running Linux because Mac OS X is such a productive environment to work in.
Second to Mac OS X is fluxbox or Xfce on Linux. Unfortunately a great window manager just doesn't compete with full OS integration from top to bottom in a desktop machine. Now my servers, those are uncontested Linux territory. - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Somehow I get the feeling that market share wouldn't matter to Steve. It's Steve's way or the highway.
For the most part, that has been very good. Apple needed to start from scratch with their OS. The original Mac OS was designed in a different time. Single user, non-internet with security and multi-tasking not considered at all due to original design constraints.
There was no way to bring that architecture forward and make it work long term. So, they started with a "clean break" in Mac OS X. The fact that they had this other OS that was already ported to the PowerPC and Intel chips was a nice bonus :) They set up the Carbon API's and told their developers what functions they needed to eliminate to ease porting. They gave their developers years of warning, but relentlessly marched forward, even when key developers like Adobe lagged behind. No going back, forward only!
Contrast that to MS. Rather than sticking with a relatively clean architecture that was NT, starting in NT 4 they moved lots of stuff from userland into the Kernel for performance and compatibility reasons. And they are now paying the price for it. I hope they are successful in reigning in many of the security issues with Vista, since I am tired of cleaning up 0wn3d boxes (doesn't matter if it's from an OS vulnerability or stupid user, the box is still compromised).
And I still can't believe anyone ever thought the registry was a good idea. "Ahh - let's put all of the critical system configuration information in sets of binary databases that are easily corruptible and have few tools to diagnose, repair and selectively recover". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"This all in contrast to say, Creative Labs' CEO whose only mode of business operation is to sue anyone and everyone"
i'm sorry but are you trying to suggest apple ISN'T a litigous company? because they certainly do have an army of legal eagles they frequently point at anyone who displeases them. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Repackage BSD and call it OS X, include it in the price."
The BSD kernel was changed to run on a micro-kernel. I'd say that's more than repackaging, but whatever. The BSD license specifically allows people to use the code for whatever they want, which is what's great about the BSD/MIT licenses. If anyone who works on BSD has a problem with what Apple did they should stick to GPL'd projects. - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How does Apple force you to upgrade every three years???
My Graphite iMac that is over 7 years old runs the latest version of OS X with no problem.
My powerbook that is over three years old runs the latest version of OS X with no problem.
By in large, my Mac's last over 6 years without more than a memory or hard drive upgrade. Far longer than any PC's I have ever owned.
And even tho PC's are upgradeable, other than geeks (extreme minority of machines sold) who actually upgrades them? This is the most overrated "plus" for PC's on the face of the planet. PC's (mac or windows) are so cheap you are crazy to not just upgrade the whole box. None of my friends or acquaintances have ever cracked their case to add or change a card. Maybe to add some RAM or swap a hard drive (and they usually ask me to do it for them), but that's it. Out of thousands of PC's at work only a handful ever have any kind of expansion card added to them. And we sure as hell don't upgrade CPU's or video - way more cost effective to change out the entire box.
Think of all that desk or floor space wasted for under-utilized mini-towers. The rat's nest of cables... I love all-in-one computers like the original Mac or the iMac, they are prefect for the vast majority of users out there and are simplicity in itself.
And really, if you are upgrading the CPU, 9 times out of 10 there is either a new memory architecture or video to also upgrade to to get the best out of your CPU. It's the whole package that matters, not just one or two individual components. Plug a faster CPU into the same old slow motherboard or couple it with that crappy video card and what did you really gain? Upgrade more than two components at once and you might as well get a new box with a new overall warranty...
When the average price of computers was $2500 or more, the whole upgrade at a time argument was valid. Fortunately that was about 8 years ago :p - eatrains, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ psychotron
http://www.xvsxp.com/ - fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, it's cough syrup
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Yes, i modded you down. And here's why:
##They bundle oodles of software while destroying independent software vendors without getting sued!
Most of the indie developers writing software for Mac OS X can afford to be full time indie developers because Apple provides them a boatload of stuff for free - developer tools, frameworks, APIs, etc. Thus, those developers can make incredibly cool, captivating apps because they can concentrate on the novelty features instead of the mundane tasks.
Besides, Apple have proven time and again that, if they want to bundle a certain type of app with Mac OS X and there is someone who had developed such an app and it fits Apple's goals, design requirements (and I'm talking primarily about software design here, not UI design) and quality standards, they are more than willing to either hire the developers or buy the code.
##They also have the bravado of moving forward while sacrificing backward compatibility.
Apple continue to support a reasonable amount of legacy stuff for a reasonable amount of time - with the transition to OS X, an operating system radically different form it's predecessor, Apple have provided a "legacy" development framework - Carbon, which made the porting of old apps if not easy at the very least easier than it would have been if it was a direct jump to Cocoa. In any case, they didn't leave their pre-OS X developers totally in the cold, saying "hey, this is a new OS, it's Unix, it's NeXTStep - adapt to our new ways of doing stuff or die". The same is true for the x86 transition - Apple's engineers have gone to great lengths to ensure that creating universal binaries is as easy as possible.
Form consumer perspective both transitions are also as seamless as possible - Apple have created "black box" compatibility layers - Classic mode and Rosetta respectively. Of course these are not perfect backwards compatibility solutions, but are the best and cleanest possible.
I realize that backwards compatibility is important, but if you don't want to stay stuck in 1984 you have to draw the line somewhere.
##They also market themselves as the masters of cool while criticizing their opposition on obsolete issues without exalting their own virtues.
Apple are not blindly criticizing their "opposition", they are making a comparison between *themselves* and their *biggest competitor* (and market leader by a huge margin), pointing out that they are significantly better in the areas where the competition falls short. This is a very sound marketing decision when you are technically better but are the underdog. Just remember Pepsi commercials form the 80s. And, anyway, I don't understand why people are getting so riled up about a couple of commercials. - Loudernet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3its just a box.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is