Slashdot Mirror

Are XHTML and CSS really forward progress? If our industry has been working on these standards for 4 years, if we are all running browsers that have been updated within the past couple of weeks (to fix security bugs), and yet we still can't get good simple page layouts without much hackery, are we sure we're heading down the right path?

E.g., I just happened to be reading this site:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/F68E528C-DC 9A-4B12-A064-143924EBD3F1.html

and am very annoyed that despite the fact that it uses the latest and greatest standard (XHTML, CSS), parts displays ugly in my Firefox 1.5 (text runs over graphics) and printing it causes Firefox to print a single page, truncating most of the article for some reason. And IE6 chops the last several characters in each column.

That's progress?! CSS is too complicated and subtle to be a good standard.

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

Microsoft uses DirectX to tie game development to Windows and the Xbox. That presents a significant weakness for an Apple assault into serious PC gaming, on the level of Microsoft trying to displace the iPod with the Zune. Microsoft can spend billions for years and may still end up no better luck than five years of Janus/PlaysForSure.

Apple's best bet may be to target competition with the Wii - leave Sony and Microsoft to fight over $500-700 game consoles (they are both the same price with HD optical media playback), and join Nintendo in trying to sell $200-300 simpler games to a wider audience.

The Wii targets physical gameplay and retro sales of earlier games. Apple already has the gameplan down for selling music, TV, and movies, in addition to free podcasting, and recently, online game sales for the iPod. The iTV is an iPod cousin that uses an HDMI TV instead of a 2.5" screen, plays the same content, works from the same iTunes media libarary. It also is tied into iPhoto and home movies with iMovie.

Future consoles aren't going to be 2006, they're going to be a lot broader. Apple has a lot of elements in place to deliver, and its own retail stores to hawk them.

Why Apple Will Change TV

You can put 22" rims onto a Pinto or Corvair but that won't make anybody want one. Similarly, you can hire all the PhDs you want, but if you can't produce products that are secure, stable, or even responsive, then it just doesn't matter. I came into work today to see signs posted saying "MS patches are being deployed. Your PC may ask to reboot itself."

Additionally, you need smart people throughout the company. Xerox PARC had a lot of brains and made world-changing products decades ago but it didn't do them much good since no one knew what to do with them.

R and D are good, of course, but anyone interested in these types of things should read this about Apple in the 1990s.

"These projects snowballed into horrific disasters that were so complex they could never be completed, but which also contributed highly touted features that were tightly woven into Apple's increasingly widening strategies. That made them impossible to deliver but difficult to kill."

From RoughlyDrafted:

I got some criticism for writing in How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works that I thought Apple's new iTV was going to incorporate 802.11n, the new and much faster industry standard for wireless networking. Some readers thought that n isn't going to be ready in the timeframe Apple announced for iTV's arrival, while others said 802.11g is plenty fast enough to stream video already.

N: Ready and Willing

Wireless n is most certainly is going to be ready however. Even if the IEEE doesn't get around to filing their papers on the standard, Apple has compelling reasons to deliver n for the iTV, as well as pre-n competition. Belkin, D-link, Linksys, Netgear and others have shipped pre-n gear since 2004, so the technology isn't just some far off, futuristic and undeliverable crazy talk.

Remember too that Apple introduced Airport Extreme in January of 2003, prior to the official ratification of its underlying 802.11g, which didn't happen until six months later in July. Since final approval of 802.11n is due in July 2007, it won't be a stretch at all for Apple to deliver n in the first quarter of next year. The real problem for existing vendors is that the various pre-n non-standard implementations aren't compatible with each other, and that that there hasn't yet been a killer app for n.

iTV: the Killer App for Wireless N
How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works

From RoughlyDrafted:

I got some criticism for writing in How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works that I thought Apple's new iTV was going to incorporate 802.11n, the new and much faster industry standard for wireless networking. Some readers thought that n isn't going to be ready in the timeframe Apple announced for iTV's arrival, while others said 802.11g is plenty fast enough to stream video already.

N: Ready and Willing

Wireless n is most certainly is going to be ready however. Even if the IEEE doesn't get around to filing their papers on the standard, Apple has compelling reasons to deliver n for the iTV, as well as pre-n competition. Belkin, D-link, Linksys, Netgear and others have shipped pre-n gear since 2004, so the technology isn't just some far off, futuristic and undeliverable crazy talk.

Remember too that Apple introduced Airport Extreme in January of 2003, prior to the official ratification of its underlying 802.11g, which didn't happen until six months later in July. Since final approval of 802.11n is due in July 2007, it won't be a stretch at all for Apple to deliver n in the first quarter of next year. The real problem for existing vendors is that the various pre-n non-standard implementations aren't compatible with each other, and that that there hasn't yet been a killer app for n.

iTV: the Killer App for Wireless N
How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works

From RoughlyDrafted:

I got some criticism for writing in How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works that I thought Apple's new iTV was going to incorporate 802.11n, the new and much faster industry standard for wireless networking. Some readers thought that n isn't going to be ready in the timeframe Apple announced for iTV's arrival, while others said 802.11g is plenty fast enough to stream video already.

N: Ready and Willing

Wireless n is most certainly is going to be ready however. Even if the IEEE doesn't get around to filing their papers on the standard, Apple has compelling reasons to deliver n for the iTV, as well as pre-n competition. Belkin, D-link, Linksys, Netgear and others have shipped pre-n gear since 2004, so the technology isn't just some far off, futuristic and undeliverable crazy talk.

Remember too that Apple introduced Airport Extreme in January of 2003, prior to the official ratification of its underlying 802.11g, which didn't happen until six months later in July. Since final approval of 802.11n is due in July 2007, it won't be a stretch at all for Apple to deliver n in the first quarter of next year. The real problem for existing vendors is that the various pre-n non-standard implementations aren't compatible with each other, and that that there hasn't yet been a killer app for n.

iTV: the Killer App for Wireless N
How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works

Right - there are incredible contributions made by academia. There is also a huge amount of research and development directly financed by the US government, which is also not profit based. In the projects I was involved in at an academic environment (San Francisco General Hospital is primarily staffed by the University of California, San Francisco), about half were government funded; another half were funded by indepenant groups, including pharmaceutical companies.

Where does academia get its money? Outside of the government money invested in the general health of the population, it comes from corporate interests who sponsor technology research for future potential of profits.

Without a profit incentive, leading research wouldn't be considered. The government can't afford to finance ideas that aren't likely to result in immediate cures. Government research is very conservative in its approach, while the "big drug companies" are prepared to risk more in order to deliver the potential for profits.

Things are messed up in a lot of areas, but without drug patents, drug companies wouldn't, for example, invest money to develop solutions for problems that only affect a small minority of the population.

We already have drugs today that have gone generic, and since they lack any profit potential, are left unresearched. These drugs have other applications, some of which are known, but since the FDA requires extensive and very expensive clinical trials to prove the effacacy and safely of any drug, nobody is doing anything about it.

Without FDA rules, anyone could release potentially devistating drugs without any accounting for their liablility.

That's how software works today: it's wholly unregulated, so anyone can release anything and claim it works, even if it doesn't. Imagine if your dad's heart medication worked as well as Windows, or required as much expertise to take as Linux, or if you needed to buy a new version every two years like Mac OS X!

The only open-source style development creating drugs today are the people breeding new strains of marijuana. Illegal drugs have their own profit motive.

After my bike wrecks, I was taking Flexeril, a muscle relaxant that knocked me out and kept me from working while I recovered. Then I discovered a new drug called Skelaxin, which not only worked, but didn't disrupt my life. It cost something like $80/bottle, so without insurance, I would have been laying around in a flexeril coma instead of rapidly recovering and being able to do things.

So I'm a bit of a fan of expensive drug research willing to do the work to find a $4 pill to sell at a profit. Soviet-style state sponsored health research wouldn't likely see that as a priority.

--

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf

Right - there are incredible contributions made by academia. There is also a huge amount of research and development directly financed by the US government, which is also not profit based. In the projects I was involved in at an academic environment (San Francisco General Hospital is primarily staffed by the University of California, San Francisco), about half were government funded; another half were funded by indepenant groups, including pharmaceutical companies.

Where does academia get its money? Outside of the government money invested in the general health of the population, it comes from corporate interests who sponsor technology research for future potential of profits.

Without a profit incentive, leading research wouldn't be considered. The government can't afford to finance ideas that aren't likely to result in immediate cures. Government research is very conservative in its approach, while the "big drug companies" are prepared to risk more in order to deliver the potential for profits.

Things are messed up in a lot of areas, but without drug patents, drug companies wouldn't, for example, invest money to develop solutions for problems that only affect a small minority of the population.

We already have drugs today that have gone generic, and since they lack any profit potential, are left unresearched. These drugs have other applications, some of which are known, but since the FDA requires extensive and very expensive clinical trials to prove the effacacy and safely of any drug, nobody is doing anything about it.

Without FDA rules, anyone could release potentially devistating drugs without any accounting for their liablility.

That's how software works today: it's wholly unregulated, so anyone can release anything and claim it works, even if it doesn't. Imagine if your dad's heart medication worked as well as Windows, or required as much expertise to take as Linux, or if you needed to buy a new version every two years like Mac OS X!

The only open-source style development creating drugs today are the people breeding new strains of marijuana. Illegal drugs have their own profit motive.

After my bike wrecks, I was taking Flexeril, a muscle relaxant that knocked me out and kept me from working while I recovered. Then I discovered a new drug called Skelaxin, which not only worked, but didn't disrupt my life. It cost something like $80/bottle, so without insurance, I would have been laying around in a flexeril coma instead of rapidly recovering and being able to do things.

So I'm a bit of a fan of expensive drug research willing to do the work to find a $4 pill to sell at a profit. Soviet-style state sponsored health research wouldn't likely see that as a priority.

--

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf

Lackawack, your links don't support the claims you make.

Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X presents an accurate and fair history of the deliverables of Apple and Microsoft from 2001-2006. The only thing you didn't like about it was that it refuted the wild claim by Paul Thurrott that Mac OS X "costs users something like $750." I presented that not only does Microsoft charge more for retail copies and upgrades of Windows, but that Apple has released five times as many major updates and over fifteen times as many minor updates to Mac OS X since 2000.

I also presented why Windows costs users five times as much to keep up to date, by figuring in the costs professional users spend on security and adware problems, and detailed what those figures were for readers to consider. That raised complaints from a few Digg users, so I presented a followup article defending the claims using sources that included Consumer Reports and data from Garner Group. I also published letters and comments from readers with views from both sides.

The less rabid ones told me I had undershot the real cost of Windows, while the typical Windows enthusiast noise was pretty much unreadable gibberish.

So no, you are wrong, and a liar. That's why you have to post as an anonymous coward. That's also why I don't read your hate mail anymore, because you have nothing interesting to say apart from how you are going to "ruin my career." I don't write as a profession, I do it for fun and to provide an alternative view on some of the worst FUD out there.

I don't really know where you were going with the article Why Apple Bounced Back, because there is simply nothing to attack, apart from artwork portraying Steve Jobs as FroZone.

Lackawack, your links don't support the claims you make.

Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X presents an accurate and fair history of the deliverables of Apple and Microsoft from 2001-2006. The only thing you didn't like about it was that it refuted the wild claim by Paul Thurrott that Mac OS X "costs users something like $750." I presented that not only does Microsoft charge more for retail copies and upgrades of Windows, but that Apple has released five times as many major updates and over fifteen times as many minor updates to Mac OS X since 2000.

I also presented why Windows costs users five times as much to keep up to date, by figuring in the costs professional users spend on security and adware problems, and detailed what those figures were for readers to consider. That raised complaints from a few Digg users, so I presented a followup article defending the claims using sources that included Consumer Reports and data from Garner Group. I also published letters and comments from readers with views from both sides.

The less rabid ones told me I had undershot the real cost of Windows, while the typical Windows enthusiast noise was pretty much unreadable gibberish.

So no, you are wrong, and a liar. That's why you have to post as an anonymous coward. That's also why I don't read your hate mail anymore, because you have nothing interesting to say apart from how you are going to "ruin my career." I don't write as a profession, I do it for fun and to provide an alternative view on some of the worst FUD out there.

I don't really know where you were going with the article Why Apple Bounced Back, because there is simply nothing to attack, apart from artwork portraying Steve Jobs as FroZone.

Lackawack, your links don't support the claims you make.

Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X presents an accurate and fair history of the deliverables of Apple and Microsoft from 2001-2006. The only thing you didn't like about it was that it refuted the wild claim by Paul Thurrott that Mac OS X "costs users something like $750." I presented that not only does Microsoft charge more for retail copies and upgrades of Windows, but that Apple has released five times as many major updates and over fifteen times as many minor updates to Mac OS X since 2000.

I also presented why Windows costs users five times as much to keep up to date, by figuring in the costs professional users spend on security and adware problems, and detailed what those figures were for readers to consider. That raised complaints from a few Digg users, so I presented a followup article defending the claims using sources that included Consumer Reports and data from Garner Group. I also published letters and comments from readers with views from both sides.

The less rabid ones told me I had undershot the real cost of Windows, while the typical Windows enthusiast noise was pretty much unreadable gibberish.

So no, you are wrong, and a liar. That's why you have to post as an anonymous coward. That's also why I don't read your hate mail anymore, because you have nothing interesting to say apart from how you are going to "ruin my career." I don't write as a profession, I do it for fun and to provide an alternative view on some of the worst FUD out there.

I don't really know where you were going with the article Why Apple Bounced Back, because there is simply nothing to attack, apart from artwork portraying Steve Jobs as FroZone.

Nothing screams legitimacy like some random googlepages screed in all caps.

You should have pointed to your Digg posting, similarly burried, which ranted about my "GAMING DIGG!!!! PROOF!!!" or the handful of snotty comments you post on digg because I criticized Microsoft's business strategies and marketing of the Zune.

Perhaps you need to find something more useful to do with your life than anonymously hang on my coattails, Lackawack2. You're not that fun to hang out with and you have nothing interesting to say.

That's a better definition for "spam" than some RDM articles you find threatening to your world view or the companies you idolize.

Nobody forces you to agree, so why do you try so hard to censor ideas you don't like? Do you hate freedom?

Apple had $2 billion in the bank and was worth many billions of dollars when Microsoft paid for $150 million in stock.

$2,000,000,000 vs $150,000,000.

Apple didn't need Microsoft's money, which it exchanged for stock worth more than Microsoft paid, but rather a vote of confidence in the market, and a public committment that Microsoft wouldn't continually use the threat of dropping Office for Mac as a constant weapon against Apple. That threat no longer exists.

Microsoft sold its Apple stock at a profit, but not nearly the profit it would have made had it held it until now.

So no, Microsoft doesn't own any significant part of Apple, it just makes a lot of money developing Mac software.

--
The Secrets of Pink, Taligent and Copland

Apple had $2 billion in the bank and was worth many billions of dollars when Microsoft paid for $150 million in stock.

$2,000,000,000 vs $150,000,000.

Apple didn't need Microsoft's money, which it exchanged for stock worth more than Microsoft paid, but rather a vote of confidence in the market, and a public committment that Microsoft wouldn't continually use the threat of dropping Office for Mac as a constant weapon against Apple. That threat no longer exists.

Microsoft sold its Apple stock at a profit, but not nearly the profit it would have made had it held it until now.

So no, Microsoft doesn't own any significant part of Apple, it just makes a lot of money developing Mac software.

--
The Secrets of Pink, Taligent and Copland

I am sure there are lots of examples we'll never hear about, but can you provide any known examples of this?

Obviously Apple has to protect its trademarks and copyright, and uses patents to protect its inventions, just like every other company, but when I tried to find recent examples of Apple killing viable products with nonsense patents (which was the premise of the press release issued about the Billion Dollar Patent), I couldn't find any.

Clearly, Apple could have used iPod patents to attack Creative first and finish off the Zen proactively, but the point I made was that doing so isn't in the interests of companies that are able to sell. It's companies who have been broadsided or become irrelevant who sue over patents offensively. That's why I included the example of Apple's look and feel lawsuit, and remarked about how Apple could have benefitted from their position rather than squandering it with drawn out litigation.

I think that experience clarified reality for Apple and other companies who watched and learned. Patent suit are generally used by have-nots. I also brought up Linux because it faces credible threats from Microsoft, who'd prefer Linux not exist. As Linux gains ground, Microsoft will be in a have-not position and will likely pull out its patents in order to disrupt things. Without patents of its own, Linux defenders would be screwed.

--

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

I am sure there are lots of examples we'll never hear about, but can you provide any known examples of this?

Obviously Apple has to protect its trademarks and copyright, and uses patents to protect its inventions, just like every other company, but when I tried to find recent examples of Apple killing viable products with nonsense patents (which was the premise of the press release issued about the Billion Dollar Patent), I couldn't find any.

Clearly, Apple could have used iPod patents to attack Creative first and finish off the Zen proactively, but the point I made was that doing so isn't in the interests of companies that are able to sell. It's companies who have been broadsided or become irrelevant who sue over patents offensively. That's why I included the example of Apple's look and feel lawsuit, and remarked about how Apple could have benefitted from their position rather than squandering it with drawn out litigation.

I think that experience clarified reality for Apple and other companies who watched and learned. Patent suit are generally used by have-nots. I also brought up Linux because it faces credible threats from Microsoft, who'd prefer Linux not exist. As Linux gains ground, Microsoft will be in a have-not position and will likely pull out its patents in order to disrupt things. Without patents of its own, Linux defenders would be screwed.

--

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

Dell's prices are often absurdly low in specific areas. It's called a loss leader. If you have a business relationship will Dell, they will commonly offer you free laser printers just to get your company to standardize on buying other stuff from them, including, of course, toner carts.

So you're picking out a Dell loss leader, particularly in an area of highly visible, extreme price sensationalism, in exchange for comparing real PC prices.

In reality, Dell PC systems are very similar to Apple's pricing, because both use the same components. Dell, like most PC makers, often also targets the low end with older technology in its cheapest machines, something Apple doesn't do (because it would canabalize the finite sales of the Mac market). So Dell offers a wider range, something that is an advantage for a lot of its customers. That doesn't make their mainstream and higher end PC's cost less however. In fact, on the high end, the Apple Mac Pro currently costs signficantly less.

Apple sells its high end 30" displays as a profitable product accessory, while Dell chooses to sell its big displays at razor thin margins. Good for them! Both PC and Mac users can buy Dell's displays, which are not only pretty much technically identical, but often also offer analog circuits so they can be used like a TV as well. The only major difference is that Dell's published display tech specs are wildly optimistic, while Apple's are just plain accurate.

That has nothing to do with the price difference between Macs and PCs, and repeating The Myth of Apple's Expensive Macintoshes doesn't make it a truth.

Of course, the price of hardware is pretty much negligable in IT compared to the costs of support and software.

Dell's prices are often absurdly low in specific areas. It's called a loss leader. If you have a business relationship will Dell, they will commonly offer you free laser printers just to get your company to standardize on buying other stuff from them, including, of course, toner carts.

So you're picking out a Dell loss leader, particularly in an area of highly visible, extreme price sensationalism, in exchange for comparing real PC prices.

In reality, Dell PC systems are very similar to Apple's pricing, because both use the same components. Dell, like most PC makers, often also targets the low end with older technology in its cheapest machines, something Apple doesn't do (because it would canabalize the finite sales of the Mac market). So Dell offers a wider range, something that is an advantage for a lot of its customers. That doesn't make their mainstream and higher end PC's cost less however. In fact, on the high end, the Apple Mac Pro currently costs signficantly less.

Apple sells its high end 30" displays as a profitable product accessory, while Dell chooses to sell its big displays at razor thin margins. Good for them! Both PC and Mac users can buy Dell's displays, which are not only pretty much technically identical, but often also offer analog circuits so they can be used like a TV as well. The only major difference is that Dell's published display tech specs are wildly optimistic, while Apple's are just plain accurate.

That has nothing to do with the price difference between Macs and PCs, and repeating The Myth of Apple's Expensive Macintoshes doesn't make it a truth.

Of course, the price of hardware is pretty much negligable in IT compared to the costs of support and software.

Hi - Thanks for the A. I described patent law and Apple's disasterous pit of litigation in 1988-1994 to answer the claim that Apple will, as the patent attorney says, convert from a hardware company to a patent lawsuit machine.

The www.roughlydrafteded.com site is censored by Digg, not because stories are ranked poorly, but because the system automatically bars URL submissions from sites that have had a given number of submitted articles buried.

The anonymous poster of your link (ba01162.googlepages) is "Lackawack," a Digg user who announced he would set up a "vigalante army" of fake accounts on Digg and take down any articles that had been submitted from RoughlyDrafted. That was in response to unflattering reviews and general taunting of the Zune.

That resulted in Lackawack getting his user banned on Digg, but he immediately resurfaced as lackawack2 and started buring old articles that had been on the front page. He also attacked everyone digging any RDM articles. He started keeping a McCarthy list of "suspicious Digg users" who digg RDM articles, which is the page you advertise in your post.

Of course, if any of those users were fake, lackawack2 could have just submitted them to Digg and the site would ban them. Since he couldn't do that, he just raised a FUD screen of "sounds suspicious!!!" and kept working to bury old stories until enough articles on Digg had been sequentially banned so that Digg blocked further submissions.

That mechanism is designed to prevent domains from dumping a bunch of junk into Digg, but it is entirely worthless, as plenty of spam anonyblog domains caputure Digg's front page. All the "top 10 lists of stuff you already know" that link to anonymous googlepages full of Adsense, or domains all run by the same group of pay for say astroturfers (some of which have been outted on RDM) happily consume much of Digg's bandwidth.

The thing is, if you need to repress someone else's speech with your own noise, you're probably lying. I try to contribute original, worthwhile writing on subjects to balance the sensationalist and often poorly thought out press release regurgiations that are much easier and profitable to do. If you don't like my stuff, you can ignore it, but presenting a liar's troll campaign as a credable attack is just lame.

The vast majority of comments on RDM articles on Digg were very positive. It is only the miniority of anonymous trolls there who want to censor opinions that fail to hail everythign from Microsoft with effusive kowtowing. Digg just has systems in place that allows that type of abuse. That's making it increasingly less interesting to use Digg.

NewsFactor looks interesting.

Digg users just think he stories are very biased pro-Apple

, and also are annoyed because he has dozens of digging sockpuppets.

Are there any titles that make use of the potential for using the DS as an input/controller for the Wii yet (or any planned)? I've seen Nintendo chat up the potential, but haven't seen any actual examples of titles that use the DS as a microphone/drawing tablet/distributed console accessory yet.

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles

Are there any titles that make use of the potential for using the DS as an input/controller for the Wii yet (or any planned)? I've seen Nintendo chat up the potential, but haven't seen any actual examples of titles that use the DS as a microphone/drawing tablet/distributed console accessory yet.

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles

Remember that in "HD vs not HD," resolution isn't the only factor in video quality.

Anyone can release a good DVD or a really bad DVD of the same content. It's not a difference of resolution, but in compression and other factors. Cable and satellite feeds that are Standard Def are commonly compressed to the point of being blocky, just so they can force as many channels as possible through the pipe. They might be the same nominal resolution as DVD, but that doesn't mean they deliver the same (or the potential) video quality of that resolution.

HD obviously has higher potential quality, but a poorly mastered Blu-ray could easily be no better than DVD; consider the source quality and the technical expertise dedicated to it (shovelware) as potential factors.

Since broadcast is heavily compressed, the low-end of Standard Def programming can approach VHS quality. Since those same opperators want to sell HD, they can make the difference look far more dramatically different by providing decent HD and poor SD feeds. Conversely, until there is a huge demand for BR or HD-DVD, they won't necessarily offer some huge leap in quality over DVD, particularly since the majority of TV watchers don't have high end HD capacity anyway.

The market also has a reputation for settling on "good enough." Standards fixated on overshooting good enough have a long history of going nowhere.

BetaMax was technically and mechanically superior in certain ways to VHS.
LaserDisc was clearly and obviously superior to VHS.
CD offered outstandingly superior sound over cassette tape, but didn't catch on for many years (82-89)
SACD, DVD audio, and DAT offered various advantages that were overwhelmed by excessive DRM and a general disinterest in the high end.

The Danger of DRM
5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles
iPod vs Zune: A Buyer's Guide

Remember that in "HD vs not HD," resolution isn't the only factor in video quality.

Anyone can release a good DVD or a really bad DVD of the same content. It's not a difference of resolution, but in compression and other factors. Cable and satellite feeds that are Standard Def are commonly compressed to the point of being blocky, just so they can force as many channels as possible through the pipe. They might be the same nominal resolution as DVD, but that doesn't mean they deliver the same (or the potential) video quality of that resolution.

HD obviously has higher potential quality, but a poorly mastered Blu-ray could easily be no better than DVD; consider the source quality and the technical expertise dedicated to it (shovelware) as potential factors.

Since broadcast is heavily compressed, the low-end of Standard Def programming can approach VHS quality. Since those same opperators want to sell HD, they can make the difference look far more dramatically different by providing decent HD and poor SD feeds. Conversely, until there is a huge demand for BR or HD-DVD, they won't necessarily offer some huge leap in quality over DVD, particularly since the majority of TV watchers don't have high end HD capacity anyway.

The market also has a reputation for settling on "good enough." Standards fixated on overshooting good enough have a long history of going nowhere.

BetaMax was technically and mechanically superior in certain ways to VHS.
LaserDisc was clearly and obviously superior to VHS.
CD offered outstandingly superior sound over cassette tape, but didn't catch on for many years (82-89)
SACD, DVD audio, and DAT offered various advantages that were overwhelmed by excessive DRM and a general disinterest in the high end.

The Danger of DRM
5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles
iPod vs Zune: A Buyer's Guide

Remember that in "HD vs not HD," resolution isn't the only factor in video quality.

Anyone can release a good DVD or a really bad DVD of the same content. It's not a difference of resolution, but in compression and other factors. Cable and satellite feeds that are Standard Def are commonly compressed to the point of being blocky, just so they can force as many channels as possible through the pipe. They might be the same nominal resolution as DVD, but that doesn't mean they deliver the same (or the potential) video quality of that resolution.

HD obviously has higher potential quality, but a poorly mastered Blu-ray could easily be no better than DVD; consider the source quality and the technical expertise dedicated to it (shovelware) as potential factors.

Since broadcast is heavily compressed, the low-end of Standard Def programming can approach VHS quality. Since those same opperators want to sell HD, they can make the difference look far more dramatically different by providing decent HD and poor SD feeds. Conversely, until there is a huge demand for BR or HD-DVD, they won't necessarily offer some huge leap in quality over DVD, particularly since the majority of TV watchers don't have high end HD capacity anyway.

The market also has a reputation for settling on "good enough." Standards fixated on overshooting good enough have a long history of going nowhere.

BetaMax was technically and mechanically superior in certain ways to VHS.
LaserDisc was clearly and obviously superior to VHS.
CD offered outstandingly superior sound over cassette tape, but didn't catch on for many years (82-89)
SACD, DVD audio, and DAT offered various advantages that were overwhelmed by excessive DRM and a general disinterest in the high end.

The Danger of DRM
5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles
iPod vs Zune: A Buyer's Guide

I find it hard to believe that Nike+Apple didn't pay for this research.

Shoe tracking surveillance is a serious threat to runners everywhere. The spooks will know how many times your shoes hit the ground without actaully having to run around behind you counting. Clearly, this is an attempt by Apple and Nike to track perhaps thousands of individuals who are a) athletes b) unaware that Nike+ is a wireless system and c) concerned that other people will have access to the information they upload to the web.

What's next from Apple, a way to publically advertise personal details through web pages (say, iWeb)? How many people will unwittingly publish their social security number, mother's maden name, and perhaps their secret affinity for a specific type of cheese, creating clear and obvious vulnerabilities from the phishing scammers and spooks out to poison them. THE WEB IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PEOPLE!!!

Don't say you haven't been warned. When the machines rise, the first to go will be hot chicks wearing tight Nike clothes and cheese eaters. Oh the humanity.

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Bill Gates for President? No Thanks.

I find it hard to believe that Nike+Apple didn't pay for this research.

Shoe tracking surveillance is a serious threat to runners everywhere. The spooks will know how many times your shoes hit the ground without actaully having to run around behind you counting. Clearly, this is an attempt by Apple and Nike to track perhaps thousands of individuals who are a) athletes b) unaware that Nike+ is a wireless system and c) concerned that other people will have access to the information they upload to the web.

What's next from Apple, a way to publically advertise personal details through web pages (say, iWeb)? How many people will unwittingly publish their social security number, mother's maden name, and perhaps their secret affinity for a specific type of cheese, creating clear and obvious vulnerabilities from the phishing scammers and spooks out to poison them. THE WEB IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PEOPLE!!!

Don't say you haven't been warned. When the machines rise, the first to go will be hot chicks wearing tight Nike clothes and cheese eaters. Oh the humanity.

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Bill Gates for President? No Thanks.

Bill Gates for President? No Thanks.

"Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams recently blogged that America needs an atheist and rational thinker for president, and he's picked Bill Gates. The idea has become a popular subject in technical circles, which are commonly irreligious and tend to be more socially liberal. But as they say: be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

[...]

"not only is Gates an unproven leader, anti-consumer rights, anti-open software, and anti-competition, but he's also swept up in dirty politics already, a right-wing leaning pal of the existing establishment and a client to the ultra conservative religious right wing machine that his supposed atheism is intended to counter."

If they did that, the public would know what a Zune is.

By continuing to advertise the iPod, its customers will be thinking about iPods instead of something from Microsoft.

Remember that your mom probably doesn't even know what a Zune is.

The Secret Failures of Microsoft
The big corporations partering with Microsoft suggest that the company knows what it's doing, but real the secret is that Microsoft hasn't ever earned significant profits in the consumer hardware business. Here's why DRM is the least of the Zune's worries!

Well that was obviously Microsoft's plan: promise the Zune profits it doesn't yet have to Universal to in order to create a tax on all players, a tax that would be most expensive for the only company selling them: Apple. Microsoft can't compete on a level playing field.

Of course, today the playing field isn't tilting toward Microsoft; it has only manged to sell enough Zunes to eat into PlaysForSure players in week 1; it has since dropped off the charts.

Anyone who thinks Universal can pull its content out of the iTMS and be the victor is smoking crack. The iTunes Store isn't selling everyone their music; its only selling to a small segment regularly. Everyone else is buying CDs or using the iPod to listen to their own music. The iPod has no lock with iTunes Music, you can fill it any way you like.

The labels somehow think that consumers should repurchase their entire music library in electronic form, and when PlaysForSure stores and the iTunes Store didn't, they were puzzled. What is happening is that a small minority of people are paying for music in the iTunes Store, far more than are using any other online system (apart from piracy of course).

If Universal pulls out of the only system that works, it will be left to watch its sales slow down right when online sales through iTunes are the only growing market left for commercial music.

Apple can't afford to be too arrogant, but neither can Universal. Right now, Apple is handing Universal the vast majority of the profits it collects from iTunes sales. If Universal poisons the deal, they're only screwing themselves. The iPod and iTunes aren't going away, and the Zune isn't going to funnel any money to Universal at all.

In the big picture, Universal is desperate for sales, and iTunes is the only system offering something that works. Apple is building that into a movie business, too.

How Original Content Will Change Entertainment

Steve Jobs has connections in music, movies, and TV - how long before Apple begins commissioning original programming? Here's a look at the music, movie and TV business, and why Apple's involvement in each is far larger than the mainstream media seems to understand.

Apple was never described as having more market share that they do. Instead, the article in question Market Share Myth: Nailed! pointed out that:

• Apple holds a 23% second place share of the US education market
• Apple has a 15.2% leading share of the European education market
• Apple's share of the US retail PC market is around 6.6%
• Apple's share of the entire US PC market is at 4.6%

The article also pointed out that Apple's percentage hides the fact that the company makes the whole widget, while Dell and HP have to share their profits with Microsoft.

It's the Microsoft enthusiasts who like to assign the company 98% of the global market, and at the same time give HP and Dell ~30%.

Is there 130% to hand out, Haydur Agha?

For somebody running a website with the banner: "Steve Jobs' a greedy bastard. Bill Gates is the man!" You sure are full of facts, they're just all bullshit and lies. So does Microsoft pay you to astroturf, or are you just sucking up to the machine for free?

Today, Microsoft is similarly loaded, and Windows is under fundamental attack from POSIX, both with Mac OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. Microsoft similarly has been doodling around inneffectually with a series of failures: Xbox barely outsold the GameCube, the Xbox 360 couldn't even outsell the 5 year old PlayStation 2 this last year (6 million vs 11 million). Everything else, from MSN TV to WinCE PDAs (dead market with no growth) and smartphones (Microsoft has 5% of that market with no hope of gaining against Symbian and Linux) to Tablet PCs and Oragami can't be sold at any price.

Microsoft is on deathwatch, and you're complaining that Apple is making record profits on the iPod, a product Microsoft's PlaysForSure couldn't touch in the last five years? Apple sold 60 million iPods, and that's bad? It's all a marketing ruse? Why can't Microsoft spin marketing? Why can't they deliver a consumer electronics product anyone wants? The Zune is a huge joke. $36 Billion should buy something, right?

Is Microsoft paying you to shill, or are you supporting a failed dinosaur--working to poke the world in the eye--on your on time, just for fun?

Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Apple and Microsoft in Platform Crisis: The Tentacles of Legacy

Today, Microsoft is similarly loaded, and Windows is under fundamental attack from POSIX, both with Mac OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. Microsoft similarly has been doodling around inneffectually with a series of failures: Xbox barely outsold the GameCube, the Xbox 360 couldn't even outsell the 5 year old PlayStation 2 this last year (6 million vs 11 million). Everything else, from MSN TV to WinCE PDAs (dead market with no growth) and smartphones (Microsoft has 5% of that market with no hope of gaining against Symbian and Linux) to Tablet PCs and Oragami can't be sold at any price.

Microsoft is on deathwatch, and you're complaining that Apple is making record profits on the iPod, a product Microsoft's PlaysForSure couldn't touch in the last five years? Apple sold 60 million iPods, and that's bad? It's all a marketing ruse? Why can't Microsoft spin marketing? Why can't they deliver a consumer electronics product anyone wants? The Zune is a huge joke. $36 Billion should buy something, right?

Is Microsoft paying you to shill, or are you supporting a failed dinosaur--working to poke the world in the eye--on your on time, just for fun?

Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Apple and Microsoft in Platform Crisis: The Tentacles of Legacy

Today, Microsoft is similarly loaded, and Windows is under fundamental attack from POSIX, both with Mac OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. Microsoft similarly has been doodling around inneffectually with a series of failures: Xbox barely outsold the GameCube, the Xbox 360 couldn't even outsell the 5 year old PlayStation 2 this last year (6 million vs 11 million). Everything else, from MSN TV to WinCE PDAs (dead market with no growth) and smartphones (Microsoft has 5% of that market with no hope of gaining against Symbian and Linux) to Tablet PCs and Oragami can't be sold at any price.

Microsoft is on deathwatch, and you're complaining that Apple is making record profits on the iPod, a product Microsoft's PlaysForSure couldn't touch in the last five years? Apple sold 60 million iPods, and that's bad? It's all a marketing ruse? Why can't Microsoft spin marketing? Why can't they deliver a consumer electronics product anyone wants? The Zune is a huge joke. $36 Billion should buy something, right?

Is Microsoft paying you to shill, or are you supporting a failed dinosaur--working to poke the world in the eye--on your on time, just for fun?

Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Apple and Microsoft in Platform Crisis: The Tentacles of Legacy

Today, Microsoft is similarly loaded, and Windows is under fundamental attack from POSIX, both with Mac OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. Microsoft similarly has been doodling around inneffectually with a series of failures: Xbox barely outsold the GameCube, the Xbox 360 couldn't even outsell the 5 year old PlayStation 2 this last year (6 million vs 11 million). Everything else, from MSN TV to WinCE PDAs (dead market with no growth) and smartphones (Microsoft has 5% of that market with no hope of gaining against Symbian and Linux) to Tablet PCs and Oragami can't be sold at any price.

Microsoft is on deathwatch, and you're complaining that Apple is making record profits on the iPod, a product Microsoft's PlaysForSure couldn't touch in the last five years? Apple sold 60 million iPods, and that's bad? It's all a marketing ruse? Why can't Microsoft spin marketing? Why can't they deliver a consumer electronics product anyone wants? The Zune is a huge joke. $36 Billion should buy something, right?

Is Microsoft paying you to shill, or are you supporting a failed dinosaur--working to poke the world in the eye--on your on time, just for fun?

Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Apple and Microsoft in Platform Crisis: The Tentacles of Legacy

"In an almost spooky series of events, Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple:

• In the mid 90s, Microsoft rapidly built upon its past success with MS-DOS to establish Windows as a vast empire ...just as Apple used the success of the Apple II as a stepping stone to launch the Mac in the mid 80s.
• From 1995 to 2001, Microsoft rapidly delivered advancements to its desktop Windows product ...just as Apple rapidly advanced the Mac System Software from 1985-1991.
• In 2001, Microsoft began announcing technologies that would be released as part of Longhorn and later Blackcomb ...just as Apple described new technologies intended for Copland and Gershwin a decade prior.
• From 2002-2006, Microsoft dropped features, changed plans, and started over several times in protracted efforts to ship Longhorn ...just as Apple had fumbled around with Copland ten years earlier.
• By 2006, it was obvious that Microsoft's Longhorn was not going to live up to the hype, and would really be just a refresh of the existing Windows XP ...just as Copland had been gutted in 1996 and its salvaged remains delivered as the optimistically named Mac OS 8.
• Microsoft outed Blackcomb as vaporware ...just as Apple admitted that Gershwin had never been anything but a list of deferred goals ten years earlier.

"In an almost spooky series of events, Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple:

• In the mid 90s, Microsoft rapidly built upon its past success with MS-DOS to establish Windows as a vast empire ...just as Apple used the success of the Apple II as a stepping stone to launch the Mac in the mid 80s.
• From 1995 to 2001, Microsoft rapidly delivered advancements to its desktop Windows product ...just as Apple rapidly advanced the Mac System Software from 1985-1991.
• In 2001, Microsoft began announcing technologies that would be released as part of Longhorn and later Blackcomb ...just as Apple described new technologies intended for Copland and Gershwin a decade prior.
• From 2002-2006, Microsoft dropped features, changed plans, and started over several times in protracted efforts to ship Longhorn ...just as Apple had fumbled around with Copland ten years earlier.
• By 2006, it was obvious that Microsoft's Longhorn was not going to live up to the hype, and would really be just a refresh of the existing Windows XP ...just as Copland had been gutted in 1996 and its salvaged remains delivered as the optimistically named Mac OS 8.
• Microsoft outed Blackcomb as vaporware ...just as Apple admitted that Gershwin had never been anything but a list of deferred goals ten years earlier.

Win95 offered a 'good enough' GUI and API advantages, while the Mac's nicer looks couldn't make up for its architectural problems.

The Secrets of Pink, Taligent and Copland

Today however, the tables are turned. Mac OS X offers development advantages and looks nicer both.

Apple's Mac OS X Leopard and Microsoft's Vista 5: Development Challenges

Win95 offered a 'good enough' GUI and API advantages, while the Mac's nicer looks couldn't make up for its architectural problems.

The Secrets of Pink, Taligent and Copland

Today however, the tables are turned. Mac OS X offers development advantages and looks nicer both.

Apple's Mac OS X Leopard and Microsoft's Vista 5: Development Challenges

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune

Even the Xbox 360 is hyped out of control. It barely sold 7 million units in a year--it was actually outsold by the five year old PlayStation 2, which sold 11 million units in the same time period.

Microsoft is fooling itself; it's time for the company to get real and start competing, because its empire is declining. Remember that Apple was also making craploads of cash deep into the late Sculley Era, when it was obvious that the company was about to crash. Microsoft has shadowed Apple's brush with death, making the exact same set of moves exactly ten years after Apple.

10 Ways Microsoft can Salvage their iPod Killer

10 iPod vs Zune Myths

10 More Myths of Zune Why Microsoft Can't Compete With iTunes

Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter

The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune