Slashdot Mirror

Personally, I don't think Steve Jobs is very interested in conquering the enterprise desktop these days, he's got his eyes fixed on potentially a much bigger pie - becoming the digital media hub of people's homes.

For years, Steve Jobs has mentioned this "digital media hub" and how it would be the next market place. In this interview he discusses it. With Apple, it appears they have bet their long term strategy around it.

Like the development of OS X, Apple is taking small steps towards that goal. For argument's sake, Vista and OS X Leopard are comparable. Both Apple and MS took 5 years to get to the same point. Apple decided to release 5 versions taking small steps towards Leopard. MS opted to make one large (and delayed) release.

Seriously, why would a bunch of "creation science" types who get their opinions about the environment from Exxon-Mobil junk "scientists" (aka PR flacks) have anything to say that would be interest at a technology/science site? We're not likely to have any interest in content-free "balance" on technology and science subjects from people who know zip about either.

If you want to find a place full of Republicans who think they're clued about technology and might have opinions of interest to slashdotters, try Always-On Network, the VC / entrepreneur / wannabe blog.

Non-embryonic stem-cell research is already miles ahead in providing cures

Embryonic lines consistently develop mutations that make them unusable.

Non-embryonic lines are progressing towards embryonic flexibility.

All of this pales, however, in view of the green dollar signs that float in front of researcher's eyes. Somehow, money seems to make morally outrageous actions seem legit. I have no problem turning off the flow of cash to research that amounts to cannibalism.

has learned anything from Internet bubbles is invited to watch the herd at the VC blog and get cured of that delusion.

did anybody even try to find the page instead of complaining about it?

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P9 712_0_4_0_C

i googled "Bob Metcalfe" clunkers, that link was the second option after slashdot.

and i'm curious to know where he gets the idea that a secure, advanced operating system can be built in the next few years. these 25-year-old clunkers still have a lot of work to do.

Not only was this story submitted and accepted without a useful link, but this interview happened back in July.

It's all in the math. MS profits are around $2B/quarter on $9.xB in revenue (reference). That's $8B in profit on top of a war chest of what is it now - $50B? So instead of $8B/year in profits, it's $7.8B. Although, profits are up year over year despite sluggish sales growth, so assume a moderate $.5B profit rise next year, which basically wipes out this fine.

Add to that the fact that MS will either appeal/have overturned/comply and wipe out the fine anyway... Pooooooor Microsoft.

Swisher: Then what about an iPod phone, which I desperately want?

Jobs: It's a hard problem.

Mossberg: All right, but wait a minute. I know it's a hard problem, but there are people who say that you have a little work going on at Apple in designing a phone.

Jobs: We're doing everything, if you read those things.

Mossberg: I know. Nuclear submarines.

Swisher: But the phone. What's the problem?

Jobs: The problem with the phone is that, as you know, Apple's greatest successes have not been in the Fortune 500. And part of that is because we're not very good at going through orifices to get to the end users.

Oh, okay. And what makes you think I got it from the web? I really can't believe I'm continuing to dignify this. Your principle really does mean that if ANYONE ELSE has ever quoted the same passage, you have to also quote them. You and I both know that's wrong, so you can spare me the lecture. I bolded the passage, not because someone else happened to do it a few years ago in an obscure little internet article, but because that is the part I wanted to emphasize! And guess what? I sorta kinda mentioned that I added the bold.

You know what my favorite intro to a book is? It's the one in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. It goes "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." (p. 1, bold added) as quoted in

http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/cities.html

http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/itwasthebest.html

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29595.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/charles dic101118.html

http://www.epinions.com/content_3173621892

http://www.courierpostonline.com/columnists/cxan06 1104a.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/it-was-the-best-of-ti mes-it-was-the-worst-of-times

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=75 62_0_10_0_C

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it_was_the_best _of_times-it_was_the_worst_of/147366.html

According to you and only you, I have to quote all those webpages whenever I want to quote the first like of that book. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. Oh, and I better cross my fingers and hope no one has bolded any part of that sentence.

Well, good work. You got me to dignify another person who really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

> What is this "digital hub that Apple has been talking about for years"? Care to give
> reference?

Among others:

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P5 088_0_4_0_C
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2002/11/heid /

There are quite a few times where Apple mentioned this.

> Care to elaborate? Or are you just a knee-jerk Apple guy?

Haha! Just because I put the word Apple I'm an Apple guy?

Google has a relationship with Current TV (Al Gore's TV company), and a spot called "Google Current" that airs on a regular basis.

This could be a more formal solidification of the relationship, or hiring for someone to manage the relationship, or I guess it could be something altogether new. Certainly Current TV isn't 100% full of non-repeating content, so there is some room for Google to take more of their broadcast time.

See:

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=96 20_0_4_0_C for one example. Or, do a Google search for "Google Current TV" Just don't look for details on Eric Schmidt at the same time ;-)

People are much more attuned to visual quality than audio quality. This is the most amazing thing that happened in the music industry to me: We had the cassettes and then the CD, which raised the quality supposedly, right? The next format after the CD should have been a higher-quality format just like we got television going to high-def, but it wasn't. SAP and DVD audio have totally failed.

What was the successor to the CD format? MP3, a lower-quality format, but one that provided a convenience of being able to transmit music over the Internet that no other format had. So convenience won out and people settled for lower quality. The first time I've ever seen that in my life.

But that's not going to be the case with video. No one is going to go back to VHS quality just because they can download it faster over the Internet. It ain't going to happen. The download of DVD-quality movies takes hours over most people's broadband connections, and we're going to high-def in 2007, let's say. That's going to add bandwidth and get even slower as we go to high-def. To download a high-def movie is going to take you half a day if the bandwidth increases. Is that instant gratification like a song that takes just a minute to download? No.

Therefore, the threat to Hollywood--of which we're a small member at Pixar--is very different than the threat to the music industry. Actually, the biggest threat to Hollywood isn't the Internet; the biggest threat to Hollywood is DVD burners.

In case you haven't heard, Microsoft (MSFT) has been deeply unprofitable since 1996, when it began to rely on holes in the GAAP accounting standards that allowed it to report historic profits in its NASDAQ filings. Large fund managers bought into it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, making MS at its peak ($700B) which for comparison made it the largest component of the S&P 500, the equivalent of the 16th largest country or ~1.5% of the GDP of Earth. Though billed (no pun intended) as a success story, when the bubble burst investors lost billions.

Who cares? The biggest funds involved were pension funds of large social programs across the US, e.g. the California Teachers Union, who automatically invest in S&P components at rates proportional to the components' value. MS paid for its bottom line with those peoples' money, so much so that pensioners are majority owners of MS today. Too bad for them that the bottom fell out of MS stock and their savings are worthless. But it did help create two of the richest personal accounts on Earth.

You could argue that this was all legal and that they won the king of the hill prize. Perhaps. But is it ethical to block GAAP reforms via corporate shills in Congress (e.g. Joe Lieberman) so your huge losses won't be exposed? Enron execs are being hung out to dry for being only slightly on the other side of that thin line in the sand. No, it's likely MS knew what it was up to. As Bill Parish, who broke the story, tells:

"Microsoft's perspective is best reflected by Bob Herbold, Chief Operating Officer, to whom the CFO reports. Bob very sincerely [explained the situation to Gates], "Bill, everyone is doing it.""

Basically this means Blizzard and Sony would lose horribly if someone from these sites found out about a "spy" and they'd take a hit in the pocketbook that would make Bill Gates turn white.

I just recently wrote a piece for AlwaysOn with a similar view, from the perspective of the inventor.

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=57 63_0_5_0_C

Hedge This! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=58 75_0_4_0_C/

Bye Bye 80/20! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=59 89_0_4_0_C/

Hedge This! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=58 75_0_4_0_C/

Bye Bye 80/20! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=59 89_0_4_0_C/

Hedge This! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=58 75_0_4_0_C/

Bye Bye 80/20! http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=59 89_0_4_0_C/

Different excerpts were released here and here.

Different excerpts were released here and here.

Especially considering how just a few days ago Steve Jobs was saying in an interview here. [alwayson-network.com] how they were trying to not be blatant about trumpeting this advantage to avoid becoming a target for viruses and other security breaches.

Although, if Steve Jobs points that out in an interview, then how low-profile can it really be?

In Mac OS X's history--four and a half years--we've had 43 security updates fixing security issues, but only 2% of them were critical. In Windows XP, which has been around for less time, they've had 77 security updates but 66% of them were critical in terms of the industry's nomenclature.

This guy totally agrees with you, except for the WiMAX part - he thinks that even WiMAX will commoditize the industry and not allow for startup companies.

8% of Linux developers think SCO's case has merit

The article is Here. This is plagerism in the highest sense and the biggest sham of a post I have ever seen. If you're going to advertise for some sketchy digital picture frame company at least have the decency to make up a new pitch.

Sometime you don't need money to make money, just the will to rummage in the trash.

There's always the story of Wallflower, a company that makes digital picture frames. They got their start by buying ancient laptops (considered scrap) and re-shaping them.

Sometimes, you can start a business with nothing but a little cleverness, and an order from the scrapyard.

... the article with links...

New Startup Secret: Dumpster Diving - Rafe Needleman

Last week I covered Roku, the high-end digital media player for HDTV buyers with money to burn. Roku was founded and financed by Anthony Wood, who made out well when he sold ReplayTV to SonicBlue. He's a rich guy selling gizmos to other rich guys, but not all startups have Anthony's resources. Here is a success story from one resource-challenged startup. Wallflower, which is also in the digital photograph display business, managed to get itself off the ground with a strategy I've seen only once before: dumpster diving.

The company makes (expensive) digital picture frames that compete with Ceiva, Digiframe, and Pacific Digital. Nothing special there. But Wallflower's startup plan was based around building its high-end products with pieces from recycled computers. To get started, Wallflower founders Mitch Kahn and Gordon Clyne bought 150 old but unused laptops from liquidators and via eBay, for $25 to $150 each. They were obsolete as workstations (most had 133MHz CPUs and smallish hard drives) but had the right pieces to make nice picture framesmost importantly, working 12" LCD panels.

Mitch and Gordon's small team disassembled the machines, mounted the displays in handmade wood frames with the motherboard and hard disk, and added Wi-Fi and their own Linux-based software. Basically, the Wallflower displays are Web servers that appear on a Windows desktop as disk drivesyou put one on your network and you can just drag pictures onto it, and call up its internal home page to manage its settings. Now you have a nice big electronic photo frame to show your digital pictures, and changing the display is as easy as typing a URL into your home computer.

Frankly I can't see spending $500 for one of these thingsbut what do I know? Shortly after Forbes ran an article about the product, Wallflower sold out of its inventory of Frankensteined picture frames. Left with nice cashflow from its rising order volume, and needing more certainty in its supply chain than Weird Stuff Warehouse could provide, Wallflower recently gave up on the whole recycled kick and started buying components from manufacturers, the way most computer companies do.

With the new manufacturing strategy, the company is able to offer more features and bigger screens, but it had to raise its prices since these components are more expensive. Although I imagine they save a fortune in assembly costs, since they no longer have to dismantle laptops to get their parts.

There is a thriving economy in the leftover computer business. Another company in this space, RetroBox, makes money coming and going. First of all, they take in used computers from businesses that no longer need of them, and carefully scrub the hard disks clean of datacompanies are so worried that old machines will get out into the world with sensitive data on them that they'll pay nicely for this service. Then, of course, RetroBox is free to re-sell the scrubbed hardware to new users or to re-builders like Wallflower.

But back to Wallflower. I love this story, since it combines the identification of an unusual but growing market space (digital picture frames) with the extremely clever, low-cost startup strategy of making its first products from unloved, unsold, obsolete technology. The founders knew full well that strategy wouldn't scale if they became successful, and they were able to switch to more ordinary production methods when they did, about one-and-a-half years ahead of plan.

As I said earlier, this manufacturing model isn't completely new: In 2000, startup Scout Electromedia released the Modo, a pager-like

You thought you made nothing check this out: http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=15 68_0_7_0_C Preschool Teacher ($21,907) no wonder why education in the US blows

Some reasons why Microsoft owes many of us money.

In case you haven't heard, Microsoft (MSFT) has been deeply unprofitable since 1996, when it began to rely on holes in the GAAP accounting standards that allowed it to report historic profits in its NASDAQ filings up until this very day, so making it look like the hottest business since ACME, Inc.. Large fund managers bought into it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, making MS at its peak ($700B) which for comparison made it the largest component of the S&P 500, the equivalent of the 16th largest country or ~1.5% of the GDP of Earth. Heh, and we thought it was Windows.

Who cares? The biggest funds involved were retirement funds of large social programs across the US, who automatically invest in S&P components at rates proportional to the components' value. MS paid for its bottom line with those peoples' money, so much so that pentioners are majority owners of MS today. Too bad for them that the bottom fell out of MS stock and their savings are worthless. But it did help create two of the richest personal accounts on Earth.

You could argue that this was all legal and that they won the king of the hill prize. Perhaps. But is it ethical to block GAAP reforms via corporate shills in Congress (e.g. Joe Lieberman) so your huge losses won't be exposed? Enron execs are being hung out to dry for being only slightly on the other side of that thin line in the sand. No, it's likely MS knew what it was up to. As Bill Parish, who broke the story, tells:

"Microsoft's perspective is best reflected by Bob Herbold, Chief Operating Officer, to whom the CFO reports. Bob very sincerely replied, "Bill, everyone is doing it.""

IBM wants Novell back in the Linux business and that's why IBM is providing the backing for the deal. This is also tied in with the fact that Novell retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements sold to SCO for UNIX (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). IBM is interested in crushing SCO and Novell needs a distro to further it's investment in the Ximian desktop. It's a symbiotic relationship that will cause the fall of Darl McBride :-) This would be a really good time to get rid of any SCO paper before Scott Tissue takes it over...

They will get something in return... http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=68 6_0_1_0_C

From a comment on Groklaw today...

An interesting comment by Mark Radcliffe in an article here: In a very unusual provision, Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.

bernard Lunn [Concordia Consulting LLC] | POSTED: 09.18.03 @05:26

In case you still have any illusions about writing a business plan and getting a few million dollars of venture capital, here is the wake up call. It won?t happen. Period.

OK, maybe you think, ?I can get angel money to build the prototype and then get some money to get it to market.? Sorry, that used to be true but the goal post just got moved again.

Bottom line article summary: unless you are in a position where you can make a business case to tards whose home VCRs blink 12:00 that you need at least $10M and that you'll be able to turn that into a $1000M net cap, don't bother looking for US VC funding.

Given this, what's the interest for slashdot readers? There's no reason for anyone who actually makes technology to care what USA VCs are doing.

this has been thought about a lot... and attempted... but palm just won't sell! XD

Sony's Idei -Part 1

The NZ90 is a BEAST! Too fat...but i guess it's supposed to fill the gap it leaves in your wallet :)

NX80 looks cool... getting good for it's size.

In SCO & Unix: a comedy of errors there is a valid point about Linux being in risk for lack of clear copyrights management.

This is an risk that the FSF has reckoned with from immemorial times by their copyright assignment policy. Linus shortsightedness disguised as pragmatism unfortunately prevented him from following it. Hopefully SCO claims will prove unfounded, but had the GNU project been more expedient with the Hurd or Linus been more careful, we wouldn't be running into such risks and FUD now.

How about some of the links from 2 articles up which show some copyright defeats.

From the Comedy of Errors site, a poll: "Do you believe SCO has a legitimate case against Linux? Yes or No". And the results folks? 4% yes, 96% no. Time to start selling short on SCO stock.

Tony Perkins, the editor-in-chief of Red Herring, or I guess, it's former editor-in-chief now, posted his position and thoughts on AlwaysOn.