Slashdot Mirror

How Apple's iTV Media Strategy Works

A Visual Comparison of CD, DVD, HD and iTMS

Why Apple is Winning in Media Downloads

The Apple iTMS vs Amazon Unbox Rivalry Myth

However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.

If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent.

It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.

Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple.

However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.

If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent.

It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.

Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple.

2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

Hmm, are you talking about : http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD 8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

Greenpeace did not make me happy in this article. Did you note: ""....the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent."

Even so, note that 1 in 10 pc users keep their computers for more than five years, and 1 in 3 Mac users keep their computers for more than fifteen years. I guess that means that the amount of pollution caused by all those old Macs is about 1/1000th

However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.

If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent.

It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.

Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple

However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.

If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent.

It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.

Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple

Unraveling the Red Box Myth
According to proponents of the Red Box Myth, Mac OS X will supposedly soon run Windows software natively, perhaps as soon as Leopard 10.5. They're wrong; here's why.

Here's why the idea behind running various different types of software doesn't really work in the real world:

Unraveling the Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth
The Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth speaks of a hardware or software solution that... does it all. It seems like such a great idea, but is it?

And here's an article explaining why pundits' ideas for "copying and pasting together various technologies" does not usually mean such ideas make any sense.

Unraveling The Copy/Paste Development Myth
According to proponents of this myth, complex software development is a something like making funny madlibs from refrigerator magnets. Pick out features, line them up appropriately, and voila: an operating system! They're wrong, here's why.

Unraveling the Red Box Myth
According to proponents of the Red Box Myth, Mac OS X will supposedly soon run Windows software natively, perhaps as soon as Leopard 10.5. They're wrong; here's why.

Here's why the idea behind running various different types of software doesn't really work in the real world:

Unraveling the Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth
The Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth speaks of a hardware or software solution that... does it all. It seems like such a great idea, but is it?

And here's an article explaining why pundits' ideas for "copying and pasting together various technologies" does not usually mean such ideas make any sense.

Unraveling The Copy/Paste Development Myth
According to proponents of this myth, complex software development is a something like making funny madlibs from refrigerator magnets. Pick out features, line them up appropriately, and voila: an operating system! They're wrong, here's why.

Unraveling the Red Box Myth
According to proponents of the Red Box Myth, Mac OS X will supposedly soon run Windows software natively, perhaps as soon as Leopard 10.5. They're wrong; here's why.

Here's why the idea behind running various different types of software doesn't really work in the real world:

Unraveling the Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth
The Utopian System that Runs All Software Imaginable Myth speaks of a hardware or software solution that... does it all. It seems like such a great idea, but is it?

And here's an article explaining why pundits' ideas for "copying and pasting together various technologies" does not usually mean such ideas make any sense.

Unraveling The Copy/Paste Development Myth
According to proponents of this myth, complex software development is a something like making funny madlibs from refrigerator magnets. Pick out features, line them up appropriately, and voila: an operating system! They're wrong, here's why.

Actually Microsoft has failed repeatedly in expanding their Windows business model (MS software + parter hardware) into new areas. They've failed in making any money on SmartPhones and PDAs, they've floundered with Tablets, Oragami, TV set top boxes, and Media Center home convergence, and they failed miserably in trying to play the same game against the iPod with WMA licensing.

What has Microsoft done recently? They've started playing Apple, building their own hardware + software combination, the very same tactic everybody though Apple couldn't pull off, but which has kept the Mac alive. Other platforms, which tried to take the licensing path, didn't go anywhere: BeOS, NeXT/OPENSTEP, Solaris/Intel for the desktop, among others. Apple also applied this successfuly with the iPod.

Microsoft has decided they really want to own platforms the way Apple does, so they have more control over the fit and finish, and aren't at the mercy (or indifference) of hardware partners.

Witness:

the Xbox and Xbox360 - no licensing on others' hardware!

the Zune - abandons hardware partners to take on the iPod itself - no licensing!

Do you supose Microsoft has a plan, or that these new turns in any way reflect the dismal failure of previous efforts to license software out?

An overview of Microsoft's directions is presented in mythbuster articles in RoughlyDrafted Magazine:

The Microsoft iPod-Killer Myth
According to proponents of this myth, Microsoft is out to kill Apple's iPod with a player they will design and build on their own. Once it arrives, they expect Microsoft to clean up not only the music player market, but also online music sales, leaving Apple on the sidelines. They're wrong, here's why.

The Microsoft Invincibility Myth
According to proponents of this myth, Microsoft's expertise in building software platforms ensures that everything that Microsoft does will turn to gold. This supposed invincibility is used to prove how Microsoft will eventually dominate all new markets, from online music stores to the iPod, and how advances by Linux and Apple's Mac OS X will never make any significant impact on PC desktops. They're wrong, here's why.

Actually Microsoft has failed repeatedly in expanding their Windows business model (MS software + parter hardware) into new areas. They've failed in making any money on SmartPhones and PDAs, they've floundered with Tablets, Oragami, TV set top boxes, and Media Center home convergence, and they failed miserably in trying to play the same game against the iPod with WMA licensing.

What has Microsoft done recently? They've started playing Apple, building their own hardware + software combination, the very same tactic everybody though Apple couldn't pull off, but which has kept the Mac alive. Other platforms, which tried to take the licensing path, didn't go anywhere: BeOS, NeXT/OPENSTEP, Solaris/Intel for the desktop, among others. Apple also applied this successfuly with the iPod.

Microsoft has decided they really want to own platforms the way Apple does, so they have more control over the fit and finish, and aren't at the mercy (or indifference) of hardware partners.

Witness:

the Xbox and Xbox360 - no licensing on others' hardware!

the Zune - abandons hardware partners to take on the iPod itself - no licensing!

Do you supose Microsoft has a plan, or that these new turns in any way reflect the dismal failure of previous efforts to license software out?

An overview of Microsoft's directions is presented in mythbuster articles in RoughlyDrafted Magazine:

The Microsoft iPod-Killer Myth
According to proponents of this myth, Microsoft is out to kill Apple's iPod with a player they will design and build on their own. Once it arrives, they expect Microsoft to clean up not only the music player market, but also online music sales, leaving Apple on the sidelines. They're wrong, here's why.

The Microsoft Invincibility Myth
According to proponents of this myth, Microsoft's expertise in building software platforms ensures that everything that Microsoft does will turn to gold. This supposed invincibility is used to prove how Microsoft will eventually dominate all new markets, from online music stores to the iPod, and how advances by Linux and Apple's Mac OS X will never make any significant impact on PC desktops. They're wrong, here's why.

MySpace had to get bailed out by Google; they *weren't* making money on their non-stop heavy handed ad-extravaganza. Have you ever visted MySpace? It has more ads going than than an "Advertising suppliment" and there are interstitials and popups and every other trick in the book. It's the highest trafficed site on the web: and they're still in business trouble!

If the #1 top traffic site in the world + shamless quantities of advertising = money losing failure, where do you get the idea that AdSense and other programs are making webmasters rich?

Google jumped in to float MySpace because it represents a marketplace they can use to experiment with gaudy ads and even video. They couldn't let it go strategically either. However, don't think that these sites are making money on all those ads, particularly after the bandwidth spent hosting all that fat content. Have you noticed how the Wall Street Journal and other real sites are linked to subscriptions? That's because advertising doesn't pay the rent!

All the ventures that expected to sell things via advertising went under in the dotcom years - I was here watching. Nothing has changed just because people have forgot about the lessons they were suposed to have learned.

I have dealt with AdSense, AdBrite, and Yahoo! and not only do they pay pretty much nothing for views or clicks, but the traffic they report (even just for impressions, which they don't have to pay for) was around 1/8 the figure of my own stats, pretty much across the board.

I had stats running in three ways: my own web logs, external counting via cookie based Urchin stats (Google Analytics), and the impression numbers related by affiliates. All of these together were consistant. Yet after 100,000 page views, and multiplied by the number of times Yahoo! was putting an ad on my page (3 or 4, depending on their whim), they would consistantly report not ~350,000 views, but rather ~ 45,000.

If they filter out 85% of my traffic, how many clicks did they absorb? In talking to other web hosts with significant traffic, I saw a pretty clear pattern of fraud out of all the pay-per-click advertisers.

I wrote up details in Secrets of Pay Per Click Advertising.

The real money in online advertising is not related to banner ads or the contextual ads, but rather Paid Placement Search: paying the search engines to show an ad for a product right when users are searching for it. There is big money in this because it actually results in a lot of sales; banner ads are purposefully overlooked by readers who have grown numb to them.

In any event, no amount of clever business models is going to sell blog advertising that earns any significant money. Unfortunately, the real money in web advertising for individuals (apart from paid placement search) is in creating thousands of fake domains that try to catch searchers typing things in directly, then show them Google/Yahoo ads for what they were looking for; this works, and makes the slumlord domain parkers money.

That's why there are so many worthless "fake search" sites, and why even Google searches now return plenty of these fake search or fake content sites, because Google, et all, are creating a model where catching buyers is more valuable than presenting real information.

Since providing access to information (and sneaking ads into the mix) is Google's core compentency and their singular business model, how long can Google crap where it eats? Can they expect users to keep using them for search results if the results they offer are worthless pages full of their own ads?

Google originally unlocked the web and made it accessable. Now they are

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth,

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss,

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can).

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth,

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss,

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can).

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth,

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss,

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can).

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

Apple is opening their iCal Server to get it established as an alternative to Exchange Server. They pointed say on their website that Active Directory shops can set up Xserves to run their calendars and leave AD to user authentication, saving all those Microsoft per user Client Access Licenses.

Apple also wants people using Bonjour and would like other distros to benefit from launchd (less likely, since Linux isn't really all about biting off new ways of doing things).

I wrote up more examples of why Apple (an other commercial developers) will only release things as open source while their product has no chance of sales or market penetration otherwise, at:

---

Open Source Values and the Peanut Gallery
The value proposition involved in choosing an open source strategy, and a roast of the emerging peanut gallery who are attempting to hijack and betray the free software movement.

BSD and GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
The benefits and the motivations behind two very different styles of open source development: the BSD style license, pioneered by UC Berkeley and MIT; and the GPL invented by Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
Over the last decade, every player in the software development industry has been dramatically affected by an open source revolution. How will Apple adapt to fit into this new world? Are they leading, following, or falling behind? Do they stand to benefit from an increased adoption of open source practices, or will they simply have to change how they do business?

Apple and Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
Tim Bray's "Time to Switch?" and John Gruber's "Why Apple Won't Open Source Its Apps" both discuss the potential risks and benefits Apple would face in open sourcing their consumer applications. Here's my take: Apple does not make fierce profits from $130 Mac OS X retail sales, and there isn't a conspiracy behind new apps not working on an old OS.

The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.

---

BTW, there is no chance they will open up Aqua et all as long as they can sell millions of copies at retail, duh. Even Novell isn't opening their NDS jewels. Solaris is open because nobody needs to buy it anymore.

MySpace gets lots of visits because half of the visitors are returning several times an hour because the crapload of ads and layers of WMP's on autoplay crash their browser repeatedly.

Seriously, if you try to use MySpace on a Mac, you'll be luck to get three pages deep (not counting intersititals) before your browser gives up.

MySpace better milk it while they got it, because running their site like that means it isn't going to be popular long. The teen market is notoriously fickle and they have shorter attention spans than the rest of us.

Don't think other companies are going to ignore the youth networking market either. Remember that Friendster pretty much started it, but after their systems slowed to a crawl, everyone just picked up and moved to the next one. MySpace is not only performing poorly, but the ad glut is embarrasingly shameless.

I wrote about Apple making an entry into social networking with .Mac - their business is not motivated by advertising placement:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/A592FAA3-5AA F-44DF-A3BA-7FE0D9D77A19.html

recent stories from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

1. BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
2. The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
3. Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
4. The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth

recent stories from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

1. BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
2. The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
3. Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
4. The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth

recent stories from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

1. BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
2. The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
3. Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
4. The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth

recent stories from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

1. BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
2. The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
3. Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
4. The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth

recent stories from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

1. BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
2. The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
3. Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
4. The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth

An awful lot of screed is being disgorged about Apple's DRM, despite the fact that it is effortlessly simple to get around. Even the most basic user can make a playlist and burn a CD, then use it in whatever device or platform they desire.

People posting about how they bought lots of iTMS songs, then moved to Linux, and now are hopelessly befuddled about their options, are complete liars pushing FUD.

An interesting comparison that nobody seems to be making: what about all the other platforms that make no effort at interoperability with other hardware or software? Why hasn't Scandinavia or France been grandstanding against:

- Sony Playstation games, which don't play on an Xbox, or a GameCube. None can be burned to CD and played elsewhere.
- Microsoft's Windows platform, which "locks" applications written to its APIs to its own OS? No way to burn your Windows apps to a CD and import them into Linux.
- Apple's Mac OS X software (apart from CLI apps) can't be burned to a CD to run on Linux.
- What about Linux' Gnome and KDE apps? Shouldn't everything be a massively fat binary to run anywhere?

( insert 5,000 other obvious and absurd examples here )

Further, rabidly attacking Apple over DRM is like attacking Starbucks over their coffee bean economics. They're the leaders in fair trade/shade grown/sustainable coffee production, so yeah attack them for trying to give a corporate shit about playing fair, then rejoice after putting them out of business, and watch ADM-CoffeeCo replace them selling Frankincoffee grown in the wake of slash and burned rainforest.

Or, in the case of Apple, do a dance on their tombstone, and then you can get rewarded by the WMA alternative, which doesn't support unlimited CD burning, expires tracks when you stop paying for subscription fees, and will soon only run on Paladium PCs.

How ruthlessly absurd.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/146AE13C-A0E 6-426B-9B32-433F4CABC730.html
BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FA34DA6-CD7 A-44C1-9D8A-4AB90106BB4D.html
Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/EB25ECDF-0E5 A-41DF-8C18-99A08767ABEE.html

An awful lot of screed is being disgorged about Apple's DRM, despite the fact that it is effortlessly simple to get around. Even the most basic user can make a playlist and burn a CD, then use it in whatever device or platform they desire.

People posting about how they bought lots of iTMS songs, then moved to Linux, and now are hopelessly befuddled about their options, are complete liars pushing FUD.

An interesting comparison that nobody seems to be making: what about all the other platforms that make no effort at interoperability with other hardware or software? Why hasn't Scandinavia or France been grandstanding against:

- Sony Playstation games, which don't play on an Xbox, or a GameCube. None can be burned to CD and played elsewhere.
- Microsoft's Windows platform, which "locks" applications written to its APIs to its own OS? No way to burn your Windows apps to a CD and import them into Linux.
- Apple's Mac OS X software (apart from CLI apps) can't be burned to a CD to run on Linux.
- What about Linux' Gnome and KDE apps? Shouldn't everything be a massively fat binary to run anywhere?

( insert 5,000 other obvious and absurd examples here )

Further, rabidly attacking Apple over DRM is like attacking Starbucks over their coffee bean economics. They're the leaders in fair trade/shade grown/sustainable coffee production, so yeah attack them for trying to give a corporate shit about playing fair, then rejoice after putting them out of business, and watch ADM-CoffeeCo replace them selling Frankincoffee grown in the wake of slash and burned rainforest.

Or, in the case of Apple, do a dance on their tombstone, and then you can get rewarded by the WMA alternative, which doesn't support unlimited CD burning, expires tracks when you stop paying for subscription fees, and will soon only run on Paladium PCs.

How ruthlessly absurd.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/146AE13C-A0E 6-426B-9B32-433F4CABC730.html
BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FA34DA6-CD7 A-44C1-9D8A-4AB90106BB4D.html
Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/EB25ECDF-0E5 A-41DF-8C18-99A08767ABEE.html

An awful lot of screed is being disgorged about Apple's DRM, despite the fact that it is effortlessly simple to get around. Even the most basic user can make a playlist and burn a CD, then use it in whatever device or platform they desire.

People posting about how they bought lots of iTMS songs, then moved to Linux, and now are hopelessly befuddled about their options, are complete liars pushing FUD.

An interesting comparison that nobody seems to be making: what about all the other platforms that make no effort at interoperability with other hardware or software? Why hasn't Scandinavia or France been grandstanding against:

- Sony Playstation games, which don't play on an Xbox, or a GameCube. None can be burned to CD and played elsewhere.
- Microsoft's Windows platform, which "locks" applications written to its APIs to its own OS? No way to burn your Windows apps to a CD and import them into Linux.
- Apple's Mac OS X software (apart from CLI apps) can't be burned to a CD to run on Linux.
- What about Linux' Gnome and KDE apps? Shouldn't everything be a massively fat binary to run anywhere?

( insert 5,000 other obvious and absurd examples here )

Further, rabidly attacking Apple over DRM is like attacking Starbucks over their coffee bean economics. They're the leaders in fair trade/shade grown/sustainable coffee production, so yeah attack them for trying to give a corporate shit about playing fair, then rejoice after putting them out of business, and watch ADM-CoffeeCo replace them selling Frankincoffee grown in the wake of slash and burned rainforest.

Or, in the case of Apple, do a dance on their tombstone, and then you can get rewarded by the WMA alternative, which doesn't support unlimited CD burning, expires tracks when you stop paying for subscription fees, and will soon only run on Paladium PCs.

How ruthlessly absurd.

The Revolution Will be Open Sourced!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/146AE13C-A0E 6-426B-9B32-433F4CABC730.html
BSD & GPL: Different Sources for Different Horses
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FA34DA6-CD7 A-44C1-9D8A-4AB90106BB4D.html
Apple & Open Source... Strange Buffaloes?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/EB25ECDF-0E5 A-41DF-8C18-99A08767ABEE.html

Apple's own MacOS X Product Manager has pointed out that they've only not released the Intel xnu code yet.

This follows Apple's pattern of getting the code working, then packaging it up when they get a chance.

There has been no official closing of anything, just one overheated journalist's rumor-mongering.

For a great rebuttel to Yager's blathering I recommend reading The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth.

In the meantime don't repeat rumor and assumption as fact.

Five Architectural Flaws in Windows Solved In Mac OS X

Apple's MacTel: TCO for wintel is DOUBLE that of mactel over 3 years

Microsoft Says that Malware Is Often Unbeatable

These come directly from my del.icio.us bookmarks tagged "apple_advocacy" ;)

I'd prefer to be a mac tech support guy for my friends/family, to a Windows tech support guy for my friends/family, ANY day ;)

/once spent 3 hours removing a botched uninstall of norton utilities on some winblows box by manually rooting through the registry
//gouging my eyes out might have almost hurt as much

I published an article: "Will Macs run Windows?" That looks at what stands in the way now, and the likely workarounds to come.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/Jan06.IntelMacsWin1. html

I always like corrections or comments.

EFI isn't the only problem for the new Macs to run Windows. I wrote an article that looks at a range of problems: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/Jan06.IntelMacsWin1. html

Every development build for OS X ends up getting published on p2p networks within days. If Apple was cool with this, they wouldn't have a NDA covering access to development builds, and they wouldn't have sued the guy who obtained developer access via a real developer so that he could give Tiger away.

But the Intel version isn't a DVD - it's only available as part of a $999 "package" that includes a PC mobo in a G5 case, that Apple is demanding back at the end of the year.

It's pretty hard to track a DVD sent to thousands of developers, but if Apple is charging developers $1000 each for access to the Intel hardware, it would be rather trivial to give each copy that goes out a watermark, so that if it gets released, it would be very easy to see who leaked it.

And since developers are in a special agreement to participate in the Intel dev package, Apple could very easily add substantial financial penalties to the contract if their copy got leaked.

Movies have similar watermarks to identify where pirated films are getting copied, but it would be so much easier for Apple to hide a chunk of code in each DVD to identify the very developer involved.

---

After Intel based Macs are available, the majority of users will find that modern Macs are not commodity PCs just because they share the Intel processor, and give up trying to install OS X after their PC fails to boot it from BIOS.

Even if Apple made Mac OS X very difficult to install on PC hardware, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to create a virtual machine for PCs that could run it. Such a product could not be commercial, because Apple said they wouldn't allow it.

Somewhat ironically, Apple enterprise tried to sell OpenStep for Intel and OpenStep for Windows for some time in 1997 after first purchasing NeXT, and couldn't find much interest. Of course, at the price they were asking, they are now basically throwing in a Intel Mac for free!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/images/openstepcd.jp g
---

The few l33t haxxors who get Mac OS X running on a PC will have little effect on Apple's existing market, either in 'loss from piracy' or in 'viral spreading of OS X to create new demand.'

The Mac Mini, iBooks and PowerBooks are all quite popular among those who have bought them, including Linux users who buy them for their hardware features rather than the integration with OS X. All are running proprietary hardware unable to realistically run Windows today. If new versions also allow users access to the only reason wintel PCs need to exist (PC games), buying actual Apple hardware will be even more compelling.

Why buy a Dell system when you can get an Apple Mac that runs OS X for about the same price, and still run your old Windows software in a VM?

I used a Palm V + Keyboard on vacation in Europe for a month to type journal stuff.

Both collapse into a tiny space of two paperbacks and the Palm V lasted for a month with one charge in the middle. Text uploads to a PC without even thinking about it. I didn't even load up any special software; i was only interested in typing fast.

Later when I was in the hospital for a weekend (after being hit by a truck) I tapped my experiences into the same Palm V via one handed grafitti, and had all kinds of stories to upload into my website. Along with my crappy camera phone, I kept my brain busy and entertained despite being bored and alone for hours.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

Too funny and pathetic (on my part) for this reply thread.

I'll accept the +5 Ignorant. For arguing about Quartz/DisplayPDF. But DisplayPDF was what Apple now refers to Quartz (or at least, CoreGraphics). This is how it got introduced as when they got rid of DisplayPostScript.

On other fronts;

It's been said that OpenSTEP on PPC hardware was demonstrated to Apple as a proof of concept (man it's hard to find web pages dating back 1996... was it from FirePOWER, the company that was formed with, basically, the haxed out NeXT hardware division? Was it PREP or CHRP? Can't remember.)

All I could find for now is this: link.

In 1992 they began porting their software package to run on new PowerPC designs, as well as existing 486 PCs. Plans to produce any new custom hardware were killed shortly afterward, and the company renamed itself NeXT Software, shelved the PowerPC port and introduced NextStep/486 as an operating system alternative for PC users.

This is the port that was reportedly demonstrated (presumably, somewhat modified too), to Amelio, wich basically killed the deal for Gassé.

Beyond snapping my left radius in an unusual mid bone break, the impact also busted the hinge off my Titanium Powerbook G4. My arm looked worse than the Powerbook.

Plugged in, the Powerbook worked, the screen worked, but the backlight wires were ripped loose, so you could only make out a faint image. While using the machine hooked up to a monitor, the two wires shorted together inside the case and started spraying fiery sparks out the opening.

I freed the wires and later tried to rejoin them, but no luck. I still don't know if the backlight is broken or if the backlight's transformer got fried. The Powerbook works fine otherwise however, so I use it to drive a video projector to play DVDs on the wall.

Now I just need to find out what voltage I should be getting from the two wires driving the backlight, and if they are putting that out. It'd sure be nice to have a screen that lights up again.

Beyond snapping my left radius in an unusual mid bone break, the impact also busted the hinge off my Titanium Powerbook G4. My arm looked worse than the Powerbook.

Plugged in, the Powerbook worked, the screen worked, but the backlight wires were ripped loose, so you could only make out a faint image. While using the machine hooked up to a monitor, the two wires shorted together inside the case and started spraying fiery sparks out the opening.

I freed the wires and later tried to rejoin them, but no luck. I still don't know if the backlight is broken or if the backlight's transformer got fried. The Powerbook works fine otherwise however, so I use it to drive a video projector to play DVDs on the wall.

Now I just need to find out what voltage I should be getting from the two wires driving the backlight, and if they are putting that out. It'd sure be nice to have a screen that lights up again.

Its the same technology that Intuit tried and gave up on. Macromedia writes outside your format, possibly risking the stability of your system and data. They team that with onerous verification, so if you do format your drive, you have to allocate a hour to deal with 'customer service' in order to reinstall your software. Flash in the Plan

Because anyone who looks at webstats knows that linux is not overtaking anything on the desktop, and certainly not Apple's share.

Your 'smart move' comment is also wrong for another reason.

The other critical difference between Mac users (the only other platform supported by most mainstream commercial developers) and Linux users, is that people who throw down all that extra cash to have a nice Mac instead of buying parts and putting together their own PC... ALSO PAY FOR SOFTWARE! Imagine that. Who the hell is going to move major apps to linux to sell to people who have never bought anything beyond Windows games? How many Linux users are gonna drop $1200 for Adobe's Creative Suite CS or Studio MX 2004?

Also recall that Macromedia has started DRMing MX 2004 apps.