Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Rebuttal, Satellite, Patents
RTFPrint An Anonymous Coward writes: "As I'm sure is true of many others among the Slashdot faithful, I was ecstatic to see the culmination of this story earlier in the week. It seemed that Comcast's leadership had experienced a sudden and uncharacteristic attack of common sense. As a former @Home subscriber being moved to Comcast's network, I'd balked at the new terms of service Comcast required (particularly the part about giving Comcast permission to track my browsing). So, if Comcast swears that it won't track users' browsing anymore, why does it still ask for permission to? Exhibit 1: Comcast's "Subscriber Agreement". May I direct your attention to section 5, entitled "Collection, Use and Disclosure Of Information On Subscriber Use", in which Comcast requests that you give permission for them to track (and sell) information about your browsing habits. I particularly like the part about how collecting information on users' browsing is "necessary to provide the Service". Note also that this exact "Subscriber Agreement" is required for ex-@Home users to move to Comcast's network. How fortunate that I just last week got notified about the avaiability of DSL in my area...."
It's not as simple as averaging "W" and "Y." marktwain writes: "Gene Steinberg probably has the most sensible rebuttal on his website http://www.macnightowl.com/ to Robert Cringely's recent article which Slashdot linked to, commented about, and which deserves a rebuttal. The whole idea of porting OS X is not only inane but is an idea which was flogged to death a year ago. And if Cringely's article wasn't bad enough, Slashdot kicked off with the equally inane "but Apples are so expensive" garbage. In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other."
Getting the most of sky-high satellite costs. Jason Nunnelly sent in a note that he's updated his information on connecting a home network to the Net using satellite, a feat that can be difficult and expensive. Of course, when all your options are difficult and expensive, it might look like a pretty good idea. Read this information if you want to know how to save money on the connection and the hardware required, and some sobering words about technical support. (Check those hourly rates, too.)
Novel idea: require patents to have one. Cecil Bumfluff writes: "An update to a recent /. story regarding European proposals for software patents. It seems that unlike the US system, the vendor must prove they have made a "technical contribution to the state of the art". This seems a lot tougher than current US patent law. Check out the story at The Register"
Judge Dredd, or Judge Milquetoast? spellcheckur writes: "Remember the ACME Rent-a-car and GPS fiasco? The Boston Globe is reporting that ACME has been ordered to cease the practice and refund the money. One of the interesting conclusions in the article, they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging. Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
"Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
.37 * 365 = $135. Going up $200 is a bit much maybe but not as much as you made it seem.
i use the internet for only a few things... and the main use is running servers.
satellite is basically worthless... we can't think of the internet as a media outlet, it is an interactive environment... users aren't 'surfing the web' hoping for content just be spewed at them, they want to interact, and the uplink of most satellites makes even posting a lot of form data a problem.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
In other words its still the same over here. And the reason is simple
THE US HAS TOO MANY LAWYERS
Which means they have an approach of grant and challenge (i.e. in the courts, long and expensive process for everyone involved, normally leads to might is right), rather than the European challenge and grant, which means academics and other interested parties can challenge it before its given. The later gives patents that are rarely over-turned and rarely granted, the former, lots of over-turns of lots of patents.
ITS THE LAWYERS MAKING MONEY HERE
Having Lawyer driven processes is bad... hell even Dan Quayle spotted that one on 8/13/91!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I can't believe we're still discussing this at all. Apple is never going to port OS X to Intel, it just doesn't fit with their business model. Apple is a hardware company. They make their money selling a good package of reliable, solid hardware and powerful software. Mac OS X sells for about $100 and Apple is happy with its returns, they are not interested in selling it for $279 per license to suck the money out of the consumer. They don't even use software keys on it! Can we please let this issue die?
In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other
Except that Apple have their own monopoly; only their business practives are worse than those of Microsoft - the only reason their market share is so small compared to MS is the price of the hardware.
Remember, the Free Software Foundation have never imposed a boycott on Microsoft. They have on Apple.
"I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
These were all very good article's, but they are happy feel good articles, sorta like what you would see on any local news stations.
I'd like to see more articles relating to what a lot of us nerds have been going through lately. I'm talking about dealing with the current economy, unemployment, depression. Reading this posts responses one can only assume that there are a lot us out here in the same boat.
I want to see more stories about how to get through these issues. Maybe some nerd recipe sharing for those on budgets. How about articles that deal with where the money that used to go into the technology sector went. Give me something more to do with my day than hitting refresh on slashdot.org to see what new stories are there. How about stories on places nerds can use their skills in a volunteer position? There are many ways slash can help, please start doing something different.
So they charge you $200 more if you get a speeding ticket. Do you pay it? Well, there you are, they charge more because they can.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
..they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging.
:)
Really sucks if you get a divorce or have a medical problem, and then they nicely raise your rates for no reason other than your credit rating changes. Here in Washington state insurance companies are getting away with murder, if you have low credit or bad credit they want to charge you more, even if you have a perfect driving record. This is known as Credit Scoring, and our Gov. Gary Locke is trying to pass a bill to make it illegal.
I love that scene in fight club where the insurance companies are blown up.
. . . Apple hardware isn't overpriced, but OS X on x86 would kill Apple, because everybody would flock to the comparably priced alternative hardware that isn't compatible with any legacy Mac apps.
Look, the Mac clones were, when it came down to the hardware, real Macs assembled by people other than Apple. Nobody argued that the Mac clone hardware was not equal to that in an Apple Mac. All the arguments for OS X on Intel argue that Intel hardware won't satisfy people who want Mac hardware. While this argument may be fallacious, it is *not* refutable simply by bringing up the Mac clones.
Instead, the basic argument against Cringley is that Mac hardware isn't worth the premium over x86 hardware. That is, that Mac hardware is overpriced relative to equivalent PC hardware, and only can sell because the OS and software makes up for the cost differential. That Mac hardware, dollar per dollar, is inferior to x86 hardware.
I'm not trying to flame; they just are very expensive. The typical reply is that iMacs are cheap. That's why I told my parents to get one. For the rest of us who actually use computers, we want a computer we can take apart and fiddle around with. Macs just can't do this.
Okay, this is funny for two reasons. First just stop and think for a moment about: "...they just are very expensive... iMacs are cheap...". Ummm, so what you're saying is Apple sell a cheap line of computers (starting at $799) and a more expensive line? That doesn't seem unreasonable, and it also seems to contradict the rest of your argument. Just because some Macs are expensive doesn't mean all Macs are expensive.
But even more priceless is: "For the rest of us who actually use computers, we want a computer we can take apart and fiddle around with". Which is hilarious. Because the "we" who want to open up our computers and fiddle with them are the tiny, tiny minority of computer users. Most people don't want to ever open up the case of their computer. Ever. They wouldn't do it if you paid them.
This is why machines like the Mac and most PCs are so popular. Most users don't want to be hardware engineers or system configurators. Machines "for the rest of us" (to borrow an Apple marketing slogan) are sealed units that people will never open. Being a geek is a noble and wonderful thing, but don't for a second forget that we are highly atypical computer users. What we want is not what the mass market wants.
Sailing over the event horizon
Disclaimer: I would love OS X on Intel. Since I can't have it, I bought a Mac.
Let's see if I can proactively shoot down all the OS X on Intel crowd.
Here's my base assumptions:
Everything Apple does has to be advantageous (barring idiocy)
Advantageous to itself
Advantageous to it's current installed base
Advantageous to it's target market
Porting OS X to x86 in of itself implies several questions:
Dual architecture support
Legacy support (Classic)
Clones
Hardware limitations
So let's answer the questions.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to itself?
Apple gains more options. Options are good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Conclusion: Existence of OS X86 is good.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to customers?
If it means producing a new line of x86 hardware:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Performance is a question, but supposedly better. Better performance is good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Developers have to undergo another transition, unless they use Cocoa. Loss of developer support is bad. Virtual PC would perform better under OS X86. Better performance is better. Conclusion: No change for Apple.
If it means releasing the OS only:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Apple is burdened with *many* more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets less thorough testing. Complexity is bad. Developers would have another platform to support. Diversity, while good, is expensive. Expect no software except through Cocoa or VirtualPC. Apple gets more customers. Good. Apple sells cheaper product; lower revenue, lower margins? Arguably bad. Conclusion: Apple loses.
If it means doing both:
Combine both situations, and Apple loses. Not to mention that in order to support the current market base, Apple would need to emulate the 68k under Classic, which itself would need to be ported, and which probably also requires PPC emulation.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to it's target market?
Flat out: No. Target market loses the whole widget equation. Software, OS, and hardware are no longer integrated. Ease of use is hampered. Design decisions are hampered by lowest common denominator effect, unless they release their own PCs, and then they gain no advantage.
How about dual architecture support?
Apple would have to support older G3s, new G3s and G4s, and new x86, not even mentioning the option/headache of AMD vs Intel. This is a headache for no real gain for itself at the questionable gain of performance for it's customers.
How about legacy support (Classic)?
More emulation! Unless the new hardware can emulate PowerPC without a performance loss, users will see sluggishness in all parts of the OS not optimized for the new hardware, especially the PPC native bits. This doesn't even mention emulation of the Classic OS under the new hardware... Emulating an older processor (PPC), which itself emulated an even older processor (68k) as well as emulating parts of the older OS (Classic)... what performance benefit, again?
How about clones?
If the only difference between a Mac x86 and a standard PC is the OS + bits of logic, how soon until someone reverse engineers and releases, ala Compaq-IBM, a clone and steal entirely the Apple market?
How about hardware limitations?
How about the fact that power consumption and form factor limits Apple's ability to create nifty designs? No more 1" laptops that run for 4 hours! No more fanless designs! *Note, Apple *could* use the Tualatin, but then get hobbled by high price and low performance.
GPL Deconstructed
If you say "volunteer effort always adds value" then I will say "for hire effort adds more value than volunteer effort"
This my friend is the cornerstone of capitalism.
The fact that nobody is willing to pay you for your volunteer effort is evidence that that effort is not as valuable as those things that people would be willing to pay for.
In specific for this case, it is much more valuable to society as a whole that a person earn a living rather than collect unemployement and do volunteer work.
Frankly put, why should us linux-using folks give a rats ass if the Mac does well or poorly? I don't see how Mac marketshare or 'cooperation' with the open-source crowd could be of any benefit whatsoever to Linux. To Apple, yes; to Linux, no. If the Mac [Apple] does well, it means more Unix base. It means more people not under the Windows hegemony. It means more users of Open Source (BSD, GPL, or otherwise) software. It means more devlopers of Open Source. It means more testing and debugging of Open Source software. It means more Open Source software: Darwin Streaming Server, Darwin (which is more than just BSD), and OpenPlay (which is a network interface). Apple Open Source Apple isn't and will never be a competitor. Apple has zero chance of negatively affecting the the development or use of Linux. And Apple has nothing to offer Linux. If Apple goes belly-up tomorrow it would have no effect at all on the development of the kernel, KDE, Gnome, various apps, etc. Everyone is a competitor; competitor for users, money, developers, and products. Every engineer at Netscape writing Mac code is an engineer not writing Linux code. Every engineer patching bugs or adding Altivec optimizations to Open Source code is an engineer not doing something similar for non Apple hardware. If Apple goes belly up, Linux loses developments of things like Firewire (which Apple helped to develop), 802.11b (which Apple arguably foisted on the world over Intel's slower wireless networking standard), USB (PCs are still sold with PS/2 ports and peripherals). Arguably, Apple was the impetus for the WIMP paradigm that GNOME and KDE follow, as well as TrueType and PostScript (though one is Apple's and one is Adobe's), there wouldn't be GIMP (without the original PhotoShop), or Killustrator (without Illustrator), or *any* of the Office suites without the first original Word. It's fair to say that the Apple of today is a different beast than the Apple of 20 years ago, but one could arguably extrapolate into the future what Apple may offer us (iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, iPod, etc) and how they may change the computing landscape for everyone, including Linux users. I don't like Macs any more than I like Windows. In fact, I'd say I like the OS less because it's even more restrictive than Windows is (you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive). I see no justification or need for cooperation between Linux developers and Apple. Fair enough. Your opinion and your voice.
GPL Deconstructed
So if someone gets a speeding ticket, that means he speeds 365 days a year.
From a liability standpoint, that is what you assume. Or rather, you assume that because he was caught speeding once, he will speed again. Thus he is a liability.
Getting caught again just reafirms the initial assumption, which is why your rates will go up again.
Remember, insurance isn't about what you -have done- it's about what you -might do-.
The enemies of Democracy are
However there were licensees which is a whole 'nother thing. Clones just rip off the product, licensees have an arrangement with the owner, contracts, payment schedules, etc.
In Apple's case they were having production, inventory & cost-control issues so they figured let some other folks into the pool, expand the market. Apple would keep the mid and upper-end NA & European markets for itself, others could service the super-premium, budget, Asian, educational, and gamer markets. Unfortunately many of these companies soon stopped expanding the market and just went for the low-hanging fruit: Apple's own sales.
Instead of bringing in lots of new Mac users from markets Apple wasn't strong in (or not particularly profitable) instead Apple found itself competing with their own licensees on their own turf with their own technologies and own their compatibility assurances etc. It was cannibalism and Apple was the one getting eaten. Every time Power Computing sold one of their Macs it was at the cost of Apple selling one, and instead of that sale bringing in $$$ it was bringing in $, all while Apple was hemorrhaging money.
Did they shut down the licensees? Damn right - if they hadn't Apple'd have been bled dry pretty darn quick. Sure no Apple would have meant no Mac market but that wasn't the licensees concern, they'd gotten contracts allowing them to buy MacOS ROMs and sell MacOS 7.0 at a great price and they were busy undercutting Apple and making super money.
So finally Apple took advantage of the contracts, refused to write a new license for the new MacOS 7.5 and then used the buy-out clause to shut the licensees down. Did they scream? Sure, they'd been milking an expensive cow for cheap, who wouldn't scream to see that taken away. But was it shutting down "clones"? No, it was all legal, no cloning there.
Wintel PCs on the other hand: IBM never locked wily Bill Gates into an exclusive for DOS. Bill was happy to sell a custom version to anyone who ponied up and when the plethora of versions became too great released the generic and soon to be standard MS DOS.
Later the subtly-incompatible-in-different-ways BIOS issue was surmounted when the IBM PC BIOS was legally reverse-engineered and at that point the cat was out of the bag. IBM had never wanted clones, never expected them, and fought long and mightily against them but was never able to eradicate them.
Clever strategy? No, awful mistake. While the market wouldn't have grown as explosively most folks agree that had IBM kept control of their PC design they'd have made multiples of what they did off of it, would likely have "owned" the market. Anyway, IBM came out with MicroChannel and the PS/2 design and OS/2 which were all attempts to redefine the "IBM PC" back to something IBM controlled but to no avail - and trust me Apple had watched and learned and made sure those MacOS ROMs were crucial.
Now - the ROMs are gone. They're a file loaded like any other. You can even download the core of MacOS X and Apple has kindly ported it to x86. They've kept the upper levels to themselves but Darwin (and particularly with X on top) is a usable OS with some nifty architectural features. After flirtations with standardized PowerPC platforms (PREP, CHRP, etc - at one point there was such compatibility it is rumored that it was possible to boot a legit MacOS on an IBM RS-6000) Apple has instead gone to industry standard hardware with IDE, PCI, AGP, etc - just their own North & South Bridges and Open Firmware instead of the ancient BIOS.
What keeps folks from producing PowerPC-based Mac clones? Well the non-embedded PowerPC motherboard market is pretty small and somewhat pricey. There are also the legions of rabid Apple lawyers. Finally while Darwin is a start on MacOS X it's certainly not the whole thing and without Quartz/Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa/Etc. nobody is going to even try to label the thing "Mac". Apple probably does lose some sales to folks running QuickTime servers on Darwin but hey, it gets QuickTime more exposure, likely results in some outside development on Darwin that can be rolled back into MacOS X and it's not all that big a loss. Besides - that's not a clone either.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.