Slashdot Mirror

IDC says Dell (34.3 percent), HP (18.6 percent), Gateway (6.0 percent) and Apple (4.4 percent)

Gartner says Dell (32 percent), HP (18.9 percent), Gateway (6.2 percent) and Apple (4.6 percent)

I'm pretty sure Thurott was one of the first sites after Ars to give the Macbook two thumbs up.

Thurrott: Look at Apple's MacBook and 'you might just find your perfect notebook'

More here.

He's also openly bashed Vista time and time again -- at least give the guy some credit for calling out his bread and butter on its flaws. When was the last time you publicly insulted your employer? Yeah, I didn't think so..

Yeah. I think they need to get some new editors to breathe life into Slashdot.

One of my favorite sites, MDNews seems to be on top of the ball on their subject matter. Slashdot needs that. Some editors that handle a certain topics only......and are good at it.

That might be, but the ombudsmen of the two EU countries Sweden and Denmark are following it up (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments /9832/), and they are very interested in what is going on with this in Norway. (Sorry, only have links about the last in danish)

I certainly hope that Apple doesn't buy nintendo (even if they could )

Yeah, there's a real question. Apple's apparently worth around 72 billion, Nintendo I had a bit harder time finding a figure (and wildly disparate "guesses" online - from 6 to 30 billion). I use the data in this article to guesstimate around 14 billion. Notable from that article is that as of a year ago Nintendo was the opposite of courting takeover. Suffice to say, Apple could probably afford it. It would not be a trivial expenditure. Nintendo would likely resist it. Whether Apple could actually manage a hostile takeover is questionable. It sounds like blue sky bunkum to me. (But guaranteed to generate just this sort of chatter, hmm...)

On the flip side, you have idiots like Kantor saying just the opposite. Who knows? I think Microsoft should just come out with a Windows for Games and get it over with.....let people run OS X for real apps, and Windows for games.

IDC puts Apple's US market share around 4%, still too insignificant for these movie companies to consider to be of any significance.

"Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, 'If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else.'"

Apple's site might say that but it's not the reality of the situation. I tried 1080p last night with the HD downloads they offer and it works just fine (on a Core Duo Mac mini with 2GB of RAM). Also read this account for more confirmation, and a number of other posts elsewhere.

It's clear what's going on here. Billions of dollars must be protected. The sheep must be kept on Windows. Excellent explanation here: Spate of recent Mac security stories signal that Microsoft, others getting nervous

The suit follows a breakdown in protracted negotiations for issuance of a license of Burst's patents to cover Apple's iPod and iTunes products. Burst anticipates responding to the complaint and filing a counterclaim for patent infringement shortly. Burst remains committed to the enforcement of its intellectual property and looks forward to successfully resolving this litigation through a license covering Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store.

Notice how the first sentence talks of a breakdown in discussions for Apple's iPod and iTunes products. And the last sentence mentions that Burst was looking for licenses for Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store.

That implies that Apple agreed that QuickTime was infringing, and that the disagreement is over iPod, iTunes and the music store. I've seen reports that Apple is balking at a per-unit license fee for "each song/video/movie that Apple streams."

MacDailyNews has the new Intel logo and link to all the rest of the Intel logos

Oh I get it, When I submitted this news story two hours ago, I simply linked to the Official Press Release. I didn't realize that I needed to link to ARS to satiate the whims of the dup-approving /. editors.

There is also a Quicktime video of the announcement (appropriate I believe).

I recognize that Microsoft is a business -- so I don't really fault them for it.

No, you can't really fault Microsoft for following successful businesses, the fault is purely down to Microsoft basing everything around its failing business model.

Microsoft allowed itself to slip into a position where it sat back and raked in the profits; then, when competition came along, and people were reluctant to upgrade for a few meagre benefits and some eye-candy, it had to get up quickly and work double-hard. Also, due to Windows not being designed with security in mind (Microsoft's words, not mine), Microsoft has had to waste more precious time trying to make Windows more secure, something that Paul Thurrott still sees as being far behind Linux/Unix.

Furthermore, I find fault with Microsoft performing its bundling act in order to ensure its success.

Microsoft is in control of Windows, and can integrate MSN search, and any other Web services, directly into Windows.

Microsoft can bundle its own anti-virus and spyware checking into Windows.

Microsoft can bundle its own accounting software with Microsoft office.

This gives people more of an incentive to upgrade Windows and Office, Microsoft's cash-cows, and harms the other businesses offering this software.

If anybody is successful in any technology market, watch out, Microsoft may come along and siphon off your income!

People in the "Mac" world don't like him because he wrote articles that first dropped the rumors of "OSX on Intel" and other things Mac users didn't want to hear and called him crazy over. He has been blunt about Apple, but is STILL a Apple and OSX 'proponent', very much so...

This is nonsense. Clearly, you are not a native English speaker; if it weren't clear previously, this post has confirmed it. You clearly have poor English comprehension skills, and it shows.

John Dvorak is a pundit. His job is to make predictions. Just because he got one or two of his crazy predictions right doesn't mean anything; most of his predictions were ridiculous because they didn't even seem plausible, but statistically, he was bound to get one or two predictions right. The "prediction" that OS X was moving to Intel is hardly something I'd give Dvorak credit for -- especially when you consider that it was a well known fact among technically-versed Mac users that Apple had been maintaining an x86 port of their next generation OS since the Rhapsody days (i.e., before it was named Mac OS X and marketed as such).

People weren't slamming Dvorak's "predictions" because they "didn't want to hear" them; they slammed his predictions because most of them were laughable, and there were usually many reasons -- reasons of logic, reasons of practicality, technical reasons, etc. -- why most of Dvorak's predictions would never come to pass. For the vast majority of Dvorak's predictions, there still are good reasons to disbelieve them.

Want me to post the links you won't, cause even in the articles where he challenges Apple, he usually gives them more credit than they deserve?

Don't worry, I'll be providing about a dozen links and quotes just to prove what a dolt you are. Not that this would matter, since you won't interpret the articles the same way a (sane) native English speaker would.

Besides, since when does giving Apple more credit than they deserve equate to writing a puff piece about Apple? You can still savagely and unfairly criticize Apple and write a scathingly negative article about Apple or the Mac, and still give Apple more credit than it deserves in the same article. It's happened before, and this is a common tactic that poison-pen authors use to defend themselves against accusations of bias. "Well, if I'm so anti-Apple, how come I said some nice things about Apple in this recent article?" Yet when you read the article the author references, it's stingingly anti-Apple with only one or two positive comments thrown in to give the appearance of balance.

So, let's get busy with some links to John Dvorak articles where he clearly shows anti-Apple or anti-Mac bias. (Apologies since some of these links have been posted elsewhere.)

Grim Macintosh Market Share Forebodes Crisis (published in December, 2004)

Media Bias and Technology Reporting (published October, 2005) This was also referenced in a MacDailyNews article. Dvorak laughably claims that the media is biased against Microsoft and in favor of Apple. If that's so, why the never-ending stream of "Apple is dying" articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere up to and even for a year or so after Steve Jobs returned to Apple? Or is Dvorak claiming that the press suddenly warmed up to Apple in the last few years because it's fashionable? It seems to me that the press is, by and large, a fa

You are correct about server marketshare, and I'm sorry for that.

You are correct about server marketshare, and I'm sorry for that.

I knew you were thinking of Adobe products.

The answer is to call them up, and if you have a valid licence they will let you transfer it to a Mac version free of charge.

Now it is true that you cannot maintain that licence for the Windows version, in theory you are supposed to stop using it. I don't know if the product activation would disable it or what.

Here in fact is a webpage on crossgrading and phone numbers to call - for Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft.

I'm not sure why you maintained this myth even though I had given you the term "crossgrade" that would have brought up the right result in Google as I just did to get that link.

First, Apple was sued by Eminem for an ad that used one of his songs without permission. Then in May of this year, they settled for an undisclosed sum. Now, Apple's latest Eminem ad has been found to be strikingly similar to an ad that Lugz did for its shoes, resulting in a cease-and-desist order on Friday.

MacDailyNews: The next big thing? Apple's iTunes 4.9 supports Video Podcasts (with example) - July 29, 2005
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comme nts/6420/

Perhaps your google-foo is insufficient or you just have blinders on.

This is not a troll, just pointing out your errors.

So which is it.

I see the first link you have claims 4.7% market share. That seems about right (possibly even a little high)

Form the article.
"Apple's shipments grew 37 per cent year-on-year quarter, against a worldwide industry growth of 16.6 per cent,"

So overall growth was 16.6 percent but apple grew 37% year to year.

Lets do the numbers and say 1000 computers total (just for ease of math)

With apple at a 4.7% market share that gives then 47 of those computers.

After the 16.6% growth that gives us 1166 computer. Apple had 37% percent growth. So that would be an additional (.37 * 47) 17 computers. So now apple has 64 out of 1166 computer or ..... 5.4% market share . UP LESS THEN A PERCENT WITH 33% GROWTH. (but the 33% does sound impressive)

The second link makes no sense but just to point out . It does only claim a 26% growth on shipping computers(Yes, both articles talk about the same year)

I think your best bet here is to try and convince other people I am a troll or to say you were trolling me to save face.

Actually, Microsoft put out a pre-emptive press release trying desperately to remind everyone that they had WMA phones out on the market already. Except that nobody noticed or cared. :) My favorite part is where Microsoft accuses iTunes and related technologies as being "proprietary."

More here: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 6802/

This may be more of a testament to the fact that the average /. user doesn't really need AV software. If you don't use Outlook, use Firefox instead of IE, and don't download and install fairly stupid things, you can avoid most chances of getting infected.

Of course, I don't know — maybe these are great products. I don't use any AV software personally, since there are zero viruses for OS X.

[BvL]

MacDailyNews also has some coverage, plus a link to a news video.

Info http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 6592/

Video http://nbc12.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WWBT/P age/VideoPopup&c=Page&cid=1059969235826&image=medi a.mgnetwork.com!wwbt!images!hdr_video.jpg&oasDN=ww bt.com&siteid=WWBT&videoid=1031784465717

Slideshow http://macdailynews.com/index.php?URL=http://media .gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/special/ibook/index.htm

Info http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 6592/

Video http://nbc12.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WWBT/P age/VideoPopup&c=Page&cid=1059969235826&image=medi a.mgnetwork.com!wwbt!images!hdr_video.jpg&oasDN=ww bt.com&siteid=WWBT&videoid=1031784465717

Slideshow http://macdailynews.com/index.php?URL=http://media .gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/special/ibook/index.htm

In my day, after walking uphill to school, we used macs exclusively- they used to be the education machine, remember?

Yeap, back in the mid to late '80s Apple offered a %50 educational discount. Now it's about %10. Recently though I've come across news articles about how school X or school district Y has made a deal with Apple to issue a Mac laptop to all the students. Here's one: Texas students to receive 400 iBooks when school starts .

You must mean these ones.

FTFA: [A new, low-power 970FX consumes between 13W and 16W at frequencies of 1.2GHz, 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz. That's more than the 10W that the Freescale MPC7448 found in today's 1.5Ghz PowerBooks consumes, but around half the maximum power consumption of Intel's Pentium M, which powers today's Centrino laptops. IBM is also unveiled the dual-core 970MP codenamed 'Antares', at clock frequencies of 1.4GHz to 2.5GHz. Each core has 1MB of L cache, and one core can be turned off to save power.]

But surely, Apple should have been in the loop with IBM, knowing these puppies were to be announced. Or is it perhaps IBM trying deperately to keep Apple tied down to the G5's?

The head CEO of Sony when he was invited by Steve Jobs to speak at his keynote made a joke that Apple makes the best software and he hopes they stay on PPC chips.
Since the announcement almost every tech news site has published stories that reveal the fears of what might happen when OS X hits the PC market. The numbers don't lie and the barriers that have been preventing a mass convergence have been somewhat lowered. But it's been the quality of the software that's kept users of the Macintosh committed and others flocking to see for themselves. You better believe there is going to be a new war for the top stop when Apple debuts it OS for x86(?) ?) According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs. http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 5933/

This whole dance has been strange. There is still this thread dangling from Steve Jobs telling Fortune Magazine that PC vendors want Mac OS X, which led to speculation that PC makers might ship PowerPC systems.

What was the point of dropping that hint, at that time, in that way, if Apple really doesn't plan to license Mac OS X to other PC vendors?

mac users aren't all that big into numbers

Go look at the link on macdailynews and read some of the comments.

Back to the user base figures.. what we now need are headlines -or advertising- along the lines of: "ONE IN TEN COMPUTER USERS ARE FREE OF VIRUS AND SPYWARE PROBLEMS - WHY? THEY CHOSE APPLE MAC"

wooooohoooooo! :D Them's numbers I likee! 16%. Wonder if Steve will slip that into his keynote.

OK, so 16% of computer users use Macs... I like the {image} of 1 in 6 people using Macs though! 16% of people using macs is 1 in 6......

*applause.... Wow.. great stuff.. these numbers are so hard to find.. what really counts is installed base, an the 16% number is just incredible! Wow.. amazing..

"Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts"

One of them is AT&T Natural Voices coming soon for Apple Mac OS X According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.

Hmm, the summary of the article seems to include more facts than the article itself. The summary makes a big point of how TFA's 16% number if found from the virus infection percentage. TFA doesn't say that's where the 16% comes from at all. All the article body says is "In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs." The headline says that 16% of users aren't infected because they use Macs, but it doesn't explain that or justify it. Besides, even if the summary was correct, then this would seem a very poor way to guess at install base. The browser's "user agent" header sent to a general interest site like Google would seem a far better way. Admittedly that would be skewed by Mac users using being "forced" to access Google from Windows in a work environment, but still. That seems like it would have to be more accurate than the approach hinted at in the summary. In searching for google stats on this I found on the Mac Daily News site a discussion which included this very topic when the issue of install base was previously discussed there./p

One of them is AT&T Natural Voices coming soon for Apple Mac OS X

"When you consider the dynamic growth of Apple products and the high quality of user interface that Apple users expect, it seemed very compelling to make this great technology available to the Apple development community as well."

[...] According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.

Hmm, the summary of the article seems to include more facts than the article itself. The summary makes a big point of how TFA's 16% number if found from the virus infection percentage. TFA doesn't say that's where the 16% comes from at all. All the article body says is "In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs." The headline says that 16% of users aren't infected because they use Macs, but it doesn't explain that or justify it. Besides, even if the summary was correct, then this would seem a very poor way to guess at install base. The browser's "user agent" header sent to a general interest site like Google would seem a far better way. Admittedly that would be skewed by Mac users using being "forced" to access Google from Windows in a work environment, but still. That seems like it would have to be more accurate than the approach hinted at in the summary. In searching for google stats on this I found on the Mac Daily News site a discussion which included this very topic when the issue of install base was previously discussed there.

yea but take a look at this entry.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ 5757/

with enough of these showing MSFT crimes, It ought to be fun to watch.

I wonder if some one can show DOS being taken or OS/2 warp

Actually they have more in common than that. Xbox 360 software currently runs on Power Mac G5s.

Clear your screen
The price alone is priceless
Smoooth
Jobs joins IKEA
Into the Woods

Apple's iPod advertising and marketing gurus run for cover.

Does this mark the end of Apple's poster child's popularity?

If you can prove $0.35 number then you should really call a securities attorney or the SEC, because that means that Apple has been lying to their shareholders, --snip, blah, blah, blah--

Don't believe me, believe the mac news sites

Oh wait. It hasn't happened because you're wrong. That's a much simpler explanation.

If you were as smart as you are smug, you wouldn't be so easily duped by El Senor Jobs.

Too many people are irresponsible about it, and it ruins it for the rest of us. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the government or big business for their own indiscretions. That fact is you simply can't have rights if you refuse to take the responsibility to not abuse them.

Yes... but when big business infringes on my rights, it is my DUTY to stand up and complain. When the government refuses to recognize or protect my rights, it is my DUTY to hold that government accountable and replace it with one that will respect those rights.

I think you're getting rights confused with priveledges. Certain rights are guaranteed to you by law and by precedent, unless you do something to forfeit those rights. If you are a US citizen, you are guaranteed the right to vote once you reach the age of 18, unless you forfeit that right by committing a felony. Listening to music isn't a right, in the sense that voting is a right...it is a privelege. I am granted that priveledge when I purchase a tape, or a CD, or a download from ITMS. However, making a backup copy of a copyrighted material I have legally purchased is a right, in almost exactly the same way that voting is a right. The RIAA is trying to downgrade that right into a priveledge, and it is your DUTY just as much as it is mine to make sure that they fail in that effort, no matter what their justification might be.

There are lots of other ways to support music, buying indy music, attending live shows, donating money. Notice that none of those options involve not compensating artists whose livelihoods depend on music.

OK, fine. But at the same time you should notice the phenomenal success of Apple's iTunes store, which has just passed the 100 million songs mark. The options you offer don't solve the same problem that free music downloads address: going to a concert just doesn't scratch the same itch as hitting "play" on your stereo remote. Apple has solved that problem in an acceptable way, and has reaped the benefits.

At the risk of rehashing countless old slashdot threads, the RIAA's business model is doomed. People have learned that blank CD's cost almost nothing, and that it's easy to make a mix of good songs instead of paying grossly inflated prices for a retail-packaged CD... and the MUSIC SOUNDS THE SAME either way. During the years between Napster's shutdown and the ITMS startup, people said again and again that what we really want is a way to make a small payment to download the one song we wanted. Apple gave it to us, and LO! the market has rewarded them.

So far, the RIAA and the major labels have failed to give the people what they want, and the market is punishing them. Instead of recognizing that there is a legitimate market, albeit a market with much thinner margins than they are used to, and then acting to serve that market, the RIAA is acting to put their current market in shackles to keep their customers from running to buy what they really want.

So the answer to your question seems pretty clear to me, at least according to the stated intent of the iTMS management.

-HJ

*snerk* Yeah, Apple sure has suffered lately under their boneheaded, non-visionary leadership.

Hell, if they get any worse, their competitors are going to have to start going out of business just to keep from humiliating Apple...

Every once in a while I feel a twinge of guilt over using an OS (Mac OS X) that, while based on an open-source foundation, isn't truly free the way Linux is. I believe strongly in the F/OSS model and would love to see it take over the software world, so shouldn't I be doing my part?

Well, we're in a Microsoft hegemony right now. Basically, adopting any non-MS OS is going to help the open source movement, since one is helping to destroy a monoculture mentality (amongst friends, coworkers, students, whatever -- it helps). Even something as small as suggesting an individual use Mozilla over IE, helps. More OS diversity means a greater need for adoption of open standards, something all of us benefit from.

There's also the question of "If given the chance to monopolize an industry, would Apple perform just as horribly?" That's a legitimate question, and I think Jobs answered it in this article.

If this becomes more and more popular and radio stations play less and less commercial music, these "professional musicians" will end up even more broke than they already are. Radio play is the bulk of the artists paychecks.

I think we should be more concerned with bringing up the audiovideo quality of videoconferencing.

Well, that's all well and good, but even though there's one-to-one Internet video conferencing technology good enough that TechWeb thought it was a satellite feed when they saw it last week, it still needs extensions to support one-to-many, many-to-one and many-to-many conferencing.

And even then you'd still have the onerous task of convincing everyone to use iChat AV. After all, it's an Apple product, and everyone knows that Windows users aren't going to want to use an Apple product!

..So while the absence of non-Apple support for the AAC format may be a pain initially, odds are other MP3 players and player software will start to recognize such files.'If it gets any kind of traction, we'll support it,' says MusicMatch CEO Dennis Mudd.

If the new AlBook 15 doesn't have at least FX 5200 video, I'll probably buy a marked-down TiBook instead.

In typical Slashdot fashion, this is old news. Everyone had the link before the PowerPage... For instance:

MacMinute
MacNN
MacDailyNews

And every other half-baked Mac site. Good article though.