Slashback: Alternatives, Ads, Apple

Slashback tonight with word on what you can use instead of JPEG, the return of AdCritic.com as payware, NCR vs. Handspring, and more. Read on for the details.

Prepare the JPEG bonfire. Moderator writes: "Here is an open alternative to the JPEG file format. I tried posting it in the JPEG patent article but it got buried under all the comments about "THEY CAN'T DO THIS!" and stuff."

This project is called DjVuLibre and encompasses "a set of compression technologies, a file format, and a software platform for the delivery over the Web of digital documents, scanned documents, and high resolution images."

I hope the judge has a big "WITHOUT MERIT" stamp. theodp writes "A U.S. District Court has issued a summary judgement in the patent infringement lawsuit filed against Palm and Handspring by NCR, dismissing NCR's suit as having no merit. Praising the decision, Handspring's CEO said 'Settlement of this case was never an option,' while Palm's CEO remarked 'We refuse to succumb to intimidation by companies that use charges of patent infringement to bully others.' One of the NCR patents in question was for 'a portable terminal small enough to fit in the user's hand,' and the complaint went on to claim that NCR's researchers, 'recognized an unsatisfied need for a portable, handheld device which would allow the user to information such as appointments, to-do lists, and addresses, and execute financial and shopping transactions by connecting to networks using an interface module.'"

This is sure to bring out the AdCritic critics. thebus writes: "The good news. AdCritic is Alive! The bad news. You gotta pay!"

An annual subscription for $69.95 looks like something worth paying for if you're in the advertising industry, but it would be nice to get a less expensive "interested viewer" option as well. Oh well.

Oh Steve, ya big tease! Maïdjeurtam writes: "In this Yahoo finance article, Reuters asked Apple's CEO Steve Jobs about the possible abandonment by Apple of Motorola and IBM's processors (PowerPC G3's & G4's), and the possibility of Intel processor-equipped Macs. Steve Jobs didn't exclude the possibility. He noticed that, during the year 2002, Apple had to finish the OS X transition and, this done, there would be a lot of amazing possibilities, which he finds exciting."

Most of the content of this article was covered in yesterday's coverage of Jobs' keynote, and the bit at the end about other processors may be only a throwaway line, but it certainly is intriguing.

Comments

I hope Apple keeps Motorola

[Knife_Edge]

I like the idea of a significant number of processors in the PC market that are not made by the two chip giants AMD and Intel. This stems partially from concerns about things like the pentium's processor serial number now - and future possibilities like palladium. I also appreciate that, thanks to the G4, Intel can no longer claim clock speeds are the only meaningful chip performance measurement.

Re:I hope Apple keeps Motorola

[Resist148]

I wouldn't hold your breathe for Motorola, not that I don't want them to be successful, but they just reported a loss of 2.3 billion dollars last quarter. That makes 6 quarters in a row where they have lost money. They just can't go on much longer losing that much money. Maybe if they can get a new Processor out the door....3 year old 800mhz processors aren't going to cut it too much longer.

OSX on x86

[JanneM]

Of course, _nothing_ says that any apple x86 computers would in any way be compatible with standard PC offerings. They would likely still have their own, special BIOS and architecture, and would likely include some 'special', cool, apple-specific hardware OSX would depend on. You would not be able to get OSX to run on anything but genuine Apple hardware, x86 or not.

/Janne

Re:Good god please!

[gwernol]

Am I the only one who thinks that this should be an *entirely* obvious step that should be taken immediately?

I'm sure there are many users who share your wish. Sadly it is hard to see how this makes sense for Apple. They make their money from selling hardware. It is conceiveable they could transition to making their money from selling operating systems - though only Microsoft has ever really built a significant revenue stream in this business. But managing the transition would be almost impossibly hard.

It is almost unimaginable that a public company could turn to its shareholders and say: we have a sustainable business that makes about $1 billion a year and isn't under threat. We're going to throw that away and go into this other business, with Microsoft as our main competitor, and we might be profitable again in a decade.

It just isn't going to happen.

What Apple will do, IMHO, is start selling Macs with Intel-compatible CPUs in them. Mac OS X would only run on those Apple machines, not on an off-the-shelf PC box.

This makes perfect sense, given that Intel's economies of scale and the competition from AMD means their CPUs are faster and cheaper than PowerPC. Apple can still make its money off hardware and the value of its industrial design.

Anybody that pays for advertising ....

[SirSlud]

.. is a sucker. Sorry, had to say it.

I know, some are really really really funny, but sometimes one has to make a stand for one's pricipals.

I know hollywood movies can and have been one huge ad before (Wizard comes to mind for Mario 3, Pokemon, Big Trouble was a massive dorito ad), but doesn't anybody take issue with the fact that music and movies for pay hasn't come about yet, but that advertising for pay might? Isn't that kind of twisted?

Porting OS X

[dhovis]

I think that this is one of the reasons that Apple maintains an Intel port of Darwin. It is not Apple's intention to move, but as long as the code works on more than one architechture, it makes it easier to port it to another one. You will loose Classic support though, and everything will have to be recompiled, but MacOS X provides a mechanism for distributing multiarchitecture binaries.

IA-64 seems more likely than IA-32 to me, but some people have suggested Apple could move to IBM's Power4 line, which is closely related to PPC. How about ARM Processors? MIPS? Sparc? Alpha? Transmeta? Anybody have any other ideas?

Paying to see ads is just wrong

[MrResistor]

Is it just me?

The advertisers should be the ones paying. Let them post their add and bill them for the bandwidth (plus markup to cover overhead, obviously). It's got to be cheaper than getting TV ad spots, and the advertiser gets direct feedback on how many people actually watched it, as opposed to a guess based on "ratings systems".

Adcritic was one of my favorite sites back in the day, but there's no way I'm going to pay to watch ads.

OS X on Intel? Doubt it.

[kitzilla]

Jobs is needling Motorola. Unless Apple's business model is changing from that of a hardware to a software company, they'll stay with PPC.

When folks see my iBook, they think of it as a "Mac." A Mac is different from a PC (in marketing terms). This difference is why Apple can turn a profit these days when Gateway is posting losses.

If you put OS X on Intel, every beige box will be a "Mac." The name will lose all meaning, and Apple will have surrendered its hardware's marketing position.

It might be that Apple has, indeed, decided the hardware market is too saturated to assure the company's long-term profitability. This is the only reason it would make sense to port OS X to Intel.

I do not agree that the market is tapped out for Apple. If I were Jobs, I would constantly press hardware requirements through technological innovation on the OS and clever new add-on devices. This will keep their existing customer base on an upgrade track. A hot OS and new features, properly marketed, will also serve to attract new users. Their entry point is a hardware purchase.

Given Apple's commitment to their new retail stores, I'd think they still believe they're a hardware company. No Intel for now. Just options. :-)

Re:OSX on x86

[jimbolaya]

But how would porting OS X to Itanium 2 in the megahertz race? We've all heard Apple preaching about the "MHz Myth," and they'd have to keep on preaching if the went with Itanium, which is, like the G4, settled around the 1GHz mark. Now, I don't mean to suggest that the Itanium 2 isn't faster than the G4, or a 2.5 bajillahertz Pentium 4, but that's just the point: Fighting the MHz Myth with Joe Consumer. I think if Apple did look past Motorola, it would be to get on the GHz train, to cash in on the market buzz that comes with these high revving chips.

Besides, what would they do for their portable line? Itanium is meant for high-end servers, not lower powered laptops.