Slashdot Mirror


The Forgotten Failure of Apple's PowerTalk

DECS writes "The series of articles Why Apple Will Change TV compared how Apple is poised for success in areas where Microsoft is currently failing. But circumstances are subject to change! Just over a decade ago, Apple began facing serious legacy problems with its platform, with many parallels to today's Microsoft. Examining Apple's dramatic fall provides a series of notable platform lessons that no company should ignore. A look back at the forgotten failure of Apple's PowerTalk: Apple vs. Microsoft in the Enterprise"

138 comments

  1. 3 valuable lessons? by pimpimpim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article mentions 3 valuable lessons:

    1. Don't try to sell a futuristic product that doesn't quite work yet; instead, talk about it while selling as existing product that can compete in the current market.

    2. Don't attempt to fire conceptual ideas at an imagined market; instead, craft finished products that solve real problems and can support a sustainable market.

    3. Ship a functional product and then constantly refine it; Real world use and years of ongoing refinement create enormous value for a product.

    Now, according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster, shouldn't it?

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    1. Re:3 valuable lessons? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I'd say Google models this pretty well. Products with a real current functionality, like GMail and Google Maps, succeed despite pushing the technological envelope. Products which push the envelope too hard, like their office suite, fail to catch fire. They keep looking for the boundary between "functional" and "futuristic", but there's almost always a market for the things (especially at the $0 price they charge for it) they make when they work.

      Either way, Google is all about pushing the "constantly refine it" part. Web apps make for instantaneous, compatible upgrades.

    2. Re:3 valuable lessons? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster, shouldn't it?

      Significantly different market. Google has the cash, time, patience, and talent to instead throw 100 products at the wall and see what sticks. Because we're talking web services and not hardware, they can accept a 20% success rate, or lower, and that would be fantastic.

      That said, Google would do well to invest more energy in promoting the products that look on the verge of success, like mail. Already Yahoo has come out with a product that many think is now better than gmail (though I don't), in part because google's been dragging its feet with gmail, *and* it has stagnated for over a year.

    3. Re:3 valuable lessons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All products ever made by all companies fall into one of those three catagories. Meaning, all products ever produced and sold are either catagory 1, 2, or 3.
      Those are not 3 lessons. It is the same lesson and I do not agree with the conclusion. If companies never tried something on the edge or what I consider catagory 1 or 2, we would have far less technology in the world right now. Catagory 1 and 2 can and do lead to number 3. Companies that only want to release number 3 are waiting for the trend to be set and then jumping on the bandwagon making their own version of the product, in many markets, being conservative and waiting for that is too late.

    4. Re:3 valuable lessons? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Google's not exactly staking the company's future on all its JavaScript toys. They still make something like 98% of their revenue on text, banner, Flash, and video ads. Their beta JavaScript apps just get Google lots of fluffy praise and attention from sites like Slashdot and Kuro5hin. It's fantastic marketing, but it's not like Google expects people to actually confide in Gmail and Docs for any productive purpose.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:3 valuable lessons? by shaneh0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, their office suite launched, what, a week ago? Even if you look at the seperate components, the spreadsheets have been live for only a few months.

    6. Re:3 valuable lessons? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      like their office suite, fail to catch fire.

      Unless its a Weber Grill, products that "fail to catch fire" are generally considered to be a good thing.

    7. Re:3 valuable lessons? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Name the Google products which:

      1. don't work yet
      2. don't have a market
      3. aren't being refined

      I'm having trouble finding examples. I'll admit, sometimes I have trouble figuring out where Google is making their money. Google Talk, for example-- there aren't ads in their chat client. Are they just making money from collecting info from my chats somehow? I'm not sure. But it works. I'm in the market for that service. It continues to be refined.

    8. Re:3 valuable lessons? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      1. Don't try to sell a futuristic product that doesn't quite work yet; instead, talk about it while selling as existing product that can compete in the current market.

      This one didn't work out so well when Osborne Computer Corp tried it.

    9. Re:3 valuable lessons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster,

      uh, The betas are "Ship a functional product and then constantly refine it" almost exactly.

    10. Re:3 valuable lessons? by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

      My Weber grill has yet to catch fire.

      The charcoal I put inside it does catch fire, though. Quite easily (and, unfortunately, the occasional steak, too).

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    11. Re:3 valuable lessons? by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

      Froogle. Okay it's "being refined" as in being taken out behind the barn, shot, and replaced with Google Base.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    12. Re:3 valuable lessons? by hhr · · Score: 1
      No!

      > 1. Don't try to sell a futuristic product that doesn't quite work yet; instead, talk about it while selling as existing product that can compete in the current market

      What google product is futuristic and doesn't quiet work yet? Every google product works, right here, right now. Even if they are in beta, the Google product works.

      > 2. Don't attempt to fire conceptual ideas at an imagined market; instead, craft finished products that solve real problems and can support a sustainable market

      Providing free content and selling ads is not a conceptual market. The TV industry has been doing this for years. Providing quality search is not a conceptual market. Search sites have always been among the most popular wet sites in the internet. The market was well known. How to capitalize the market, that was the hard part.

      > 3. Ship a functional product and then constantly refine it; Real world use and years of ongoing refinement create enormous value for a product.

      Doesn't this describe Google Search? Gmail? AdSense?

    13. Re:3 valuable lessons? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      And Microsoft domintated the software industry by violating the "that doesn't quite work yet" part of rule 1. Windows 1 and 2 clearly were products that didn't quite work yet. Windows NT 3.0 and 3.1 didn't quite work yet.

      Rule #2 could also be stated "follow the trail that someone else blazes". Microsoft is very good at that. Microsoft had plenty of mail servers to copy when it was creating Exchange. They started by implementing other people's computer languages. They purchased a clone of CP/M to sell as DOS. They copied the Macintosh when creating Windows. They copied VisiCalc when making MultiPlan, and MacWrite when making Microsoft Word.

      Rule #3 is good, but it's not at all surprising. What kind of business success would one have shipping a non-functional product, or shipping a functional product and then not refining it?

    14. Re:3 valuable lessons? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Google Web Accelerator, Google Video (what, you think they'll keep it running after they own YouTube?), Checkout (Yahoo! storefront competitor, not a PayPal killer), and Froogle.

      Google makes money on ads and ads alone. Everything else is meant to improve the public's perception of Google so that Google can sell more ads without pissing people off as much as DoubleClick did.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    15. Re:3 valuable lessons? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      SMS and VOIP is where they are looking to make money, plus text adds in Gmail which lets one use as a chat client.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    16. Re:3 valuable lessons? by gamlidek · · Score: 1

      You should get ribeyes. Their the hardest steak to screw up and I think the most flavorful; although, if it catches fire, it'll still turn into charcoal. *sigh*

      -gam

      --
      "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
    17. Re:3 valuable lessons? by unother · · Score: 1

      The jury came in on that one; that's a myth.

    18. Re:3 valuable lessons? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, looks like dump on Apple Day....North Korea and nukes...censorship a certain private universities...but noooo...we've got to dump on Apple...seems like another case of iPod envy...

    19. Re:3 valuable lessons? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Now, according to their lessons, google with all their betas must be a rightout disaster, shouldn't it?

      I have yet to find a Google beta product that didn't work or that was difficult to understand exactly what it did. PowerTalk is another story. I never totally understood what it did (what it was supposed to do) and it didn't work. And I was a Mac power user (i.e. religious fanatic fanboy) at the time who would have bought almost anything Apple was selling within reason. And I didn't understand PowerTalk.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    20. Re:3 valuable lessons? by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side of things. If you turn your steak into charcoal, you can use it to grill the next steak.

  2. Similarities are small by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

    I'm all for learning from past mistakes, and granted, there are similarities between the ongoing PC-in-the-living-room war and past wars; enterprise market notably - but the factors of the two markets are vastly different. Both Microsoft and Apple has come a long way in the past ten years, both regarding compability, marketing and usability - so declaring a (potential) winner based on decade-old experience is as useful as putting the proverbial finger in the air.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  3. AppleTalk back in the day by klang · · Score: 1

    ..when every Mac had AppleTalk and most PC's didn't come with a network card as standard.

    1. Re:AppleTalk back in the day by Mr.+Maestro · · Score: 1

      And now apple wants to take over the living room by shipping macs without a TV tuner standard.

    2. Re:AppleTalk back in the day by vmardian · · Score: 1

      Most broadcasts are encrypted and require proprietary cable/satellite boxes. OTA is only available in major city centers. And what the non-North American market? The future is digital distribution and Apple is right to focus on that.

      --
      PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
  4. No TV Tuner, etc by waif69 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this will fit in to my system. I am happily running a DishNet DVR and am not going to buy a HD TV until the tech levels out, that and I bought a very nice JVC CRT set a few years back that will serve me for many years to come. So what will this do for me? Also, what about infringement on the UK's commercial station ITV?

    1. Re:No TV Tuner, etc by waif69 · · Score: 1

      I found a link on wikipedia that explains the system better than the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_iTV

  5. A bit excited are we? by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "The series of articles Why Apple Will Change TV compared how Apple is poised for success in areas where Microsoft is currently failing. But circumstances are subject to change!"

    What's with the excited exclamation mark? In something purporting to be a news story/blurb i usually expect a recitation of facts combined with a calm statement of opinion. Shouting makes it sound like either a rant or something intended as a dire warning. Are you a fan of microsoft who is vehemently denying that apple will actually experience the success that some people believe they are posed for? Or are you an apple fan sending out a call to arms to other apple fans to make sure that this opportunity doesn't waste away? I can't tell which way you're leaning but the exclamation mark sure makes it seem like you think it's _really_ important for one reason or another.

    [/punctuation nazi]

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:A bit excited are we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "The series of articles Why Apple Will Change TV compared how Apple is poised for success in areas where Microsoft is currently failing. But circumstances are subject to change!"
      What's with the excited exclamation mark? In something purporting to be a news story/blurb i usually expect a recitation of facts combined with a calm statement of opinion. Shouting makes it sound like either a rant or something intended as a dire warning. Are you a fan of microsoft who is vehemently denying that apple will actually experience the success that some people believe they are posed for? Or are you an apple fan sending out a call to arms to other apple fans to make sure that this opportunity doesn't waste away? I can't tell which way you're leaning but the exclamation mark sure makes it seem like you think it's _really_ important for one reason or another.

      [/punctuation nazi]


      You'd think a punctuation nazi would remember the open [punctuation nazi] tag.
    2. Re:A bit excited are we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP also failed to capitalize "I".

    3. Re:A bit excited are we? by Trumpet+of+Doom · · Score: 1

      That's something a grammar nazi would say...

  6. Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hate to break it to you, but Apples marketshare has DROPPED since the Appletalk days. There seems to be some misconception that MSFT is going downhill and AAPL is going uphill but the numbers tell a different story. MSFT enjoyed a 7% increase in revenue last quarter alone, while AAPL's growth has been in the iPod area. There are no similarities between AAPL and MSFT in that front.

    1. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by maztuhblastah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MSFT enjoyed a 7% increase in revenue last quarter alone, while AAPL's growth has been in the iPod area. There are no similarities between AAPL and MSFT in that front.

      You probably didn't mean to phrase it that way, but you're totally right. Note the lack of Zune rumour sites, and general lack of enthusiasm over the Zune when compared to the iPod.

      Now, as for the marketshare aregument: you're also right. Apple's marketshare has fallen since 1994/5. It has also improved since 1997/8. Moving past statistics, one can look at the Wall Street perception of Apple. In 1996-7 Wall Street saw Apple in a death spiral. Their market share was swirling down the toilet, they were losing ground in the education and enterprise sectors, and Windows 95/98 was generating a much bigger buzz than anything Apple was producing. Then Apple turned around: they got Jobs back at the helm, released a product that created a media sensation (iMac -- for examples, look at Newsweek's and Time's coverage of it) and started inching away from the edge of a financial cliff. Following that with Mac OS X, and the iPod, Wall Streets prediction of Apple's future is pretty damn bright.

      You mention Microsoft. I say don't bother. They don't really compete. Apple makes personal computers and iPods. Microsoft makes an operating system and a game console (and soon another iPod "killer"). With the exception of the forthcoming Zune, there's not really much competition between the two. People cite Mac OS X as competing against Windows -- often referencing Vista -- but it's not really. Mac OS X only runs on Macs (officially.) Windows runs on commodity hardware. Apple makes Mac OS X to bundle with their hardware. Microsoft makes Windows because it's the cornerstone of their business. There's far less competition than people think.

    2. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by CherryChuckles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .... but they ARE competing for mindshare... and right now Apple is winning hands down. They seem to have the midas touch where everything they come out with turns to gold. Currently, Microsoft is the exact opposite. An important point to note in the article is how the author discusses how much of Microsoft's monopoly is attributed to customers choosing an MS product over a competitors. They may have 95% market share but its also true that 95% of the time Windows is sold, there's no choice involved. You get it pre-installed on your new computer. Whereas Apple's minute market share is completely derived from people exercising choice. You have to actually choose to buy a mac. This might not be such a big deal right now but Microsoft is definitely worried about it. Mac OS X may not directly compete with Windows per say... but its rising popularity should and does worry the big giant.

    3. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yep, I know. A company that has consistently made a profit on across all product line is a terrible company, while a company that consistently has product line that may never make a profit, to they point that they hide the p/l statements of specific product lines, is a wonderful success.

      The point of this article, and the lesson from countless years of business case studies, is that mature products are easily reproduced by cut rate competitors, and the only way to stay ahead of those competitors is to continuously refine products into compelling new versions. This is as true for a box of tissue as it is for a computer.

      IBM failed to innovate in the 80's, so the cut rate competitor MS won market share. Apple failed to innovate in the 90's, so the cut rate competitor MS won some more market share. In fact, the only thing the article seems to have missing is that MS is always in the position of cut rate competitor, so does not have to innovate so much as wait for others to falter, then come in cheaper commodity products.

      This is changing, as is the norm. At some point the cut rate competitor wants to play with big boys, which is where MS has been moving to. This is dangerous as one can make money selling cheap commodity products, but selling higher end products puts you into the rat race. MS has faltered in many of these ventures, and the only success is the game market. Even in the server market they seem to competing with cut rate and legacy *nix installs rather that modern IBM type systems. But MS has enough money and time to make it through. Only time will tell what will emerge.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by rahrens · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to YOU, but Apple's computer products are NOT going downhill. Apple's computer sales have been steadily higher in sheer numbers, year over year, for the last four years, I think, running.

      There is no doubt that the iPod is the higher profile product, but while that may eclipse the computer side for many, it doesn't mean the computer sales are tanking. Quite the contrary, Apple's share of the portable market is up to almost 12%, and the last market share figures show their share has increased. It may not be what it was ten years ago, but the markets and the products sold therein, are totally different animals now, and just cannot be compared directly anymore.

      And, by the way, in 2001, Apple lost $25M, as of 2005, their net income was $1.335 Billion. In 2004, the net income was $276 million. That's a bit over a 7% increase in revenue, isn't it?

      Go to: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/ 107357/reports/AAPL_5yr_FinHist_FY05.pdf for that financial information. It's their five year historical data.

      --
      "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
    5. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That competition over mindshare is very important for how companies will develop software for platforms other than Windows. That 95% market share is pointed at every time someone asks, "Why isn't there a Macintosh or Linux version of your software?" Yahoo Mail has a new beta version out. It does not work with Safari yet. I surmise it eventually will, but that such support has been back-burnered is indicative of a company's will towards allocation of resources for a project. Mac users will always be second class citizens as long as such market-share views drive production.

        Of course a company's focus is not, "How can we reach that last Amiga user?! Our sales can't be complete without catering to all userbases"; however I wish it were not, "Why bother even trying for cross platform compatibility for that extra small profit when we can just chase the larger profit and population." Blizzard has done nicely, I assume, catering to two platforms; but not every company has the will or resources to hire extra programers, support staff, etc to attempt extra profit (it's not guaranteed the Mac user base will buy your product even after making a hybrid product)

      To sum up - business is a risk, you go where the money is, and where you can (or to find a niche with little competition) you spread out you product and tap into additional customers. Marketshare drives that chicken and egg availability of 'we don't make it for the Mac since there isn't the user base and there isn't the user base since that critical X app (that game, that industrial app, that office product) didn't get made for it.'

      As for my Microsoft take, I think they're less worried about the direct competition than missing out on a niche they don't control yet. I see it as a major political party and a fringe party. The fringe party brings up an issue -- gets a lot of eyeballs -- and the major party takes a quick stand, or incorporates the view. The major party thus steals the show - stays in power - and lets the fringe parties come up with the next new issue. MS follows on the heels of popular products to keep their name always in the public eye. Quicken -> MS Money, Mozilla -> IE, iPod-> Zune, AIM -> Messenger, Eudora -> Outlook, etc. There's nothing wrong with improving upon an idea, but too much 'embrace extend extinguish' turns me off as a consumer.

      Vista will succeed since MS has a lock on PC OS distribution still and new computers will all have Vista (MS will just stop providing XP/ give distributors a 'deal they can't resist'). Hardware upgrades happen sooner or later, and software site licenses will drive companies towards adoption.

    6. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One thing I find noteworthy here is that, if Microsoft were really were making a business out of selling a superior OS, Apple wouldn't really be a threat to them-- at least not any more than Dell is a threat to Microsoft for offering Wordperfect with their computers. In a lot of ways, Apple's switch to Intel should have been a happy day for Microsoft, since it essentially turned Apple into another vendor of hardware for which Windows could be sold.

      The real problem is, "producing superior operating systems" hasn't been Microsoft's core business for years now. Instead they've been riding off of vendor lock-in. And so, just like W.I.N.E., Apple is a threat to Microsoft simply by giving users an option of running Photoshop (and other software not present on open-source operating systems) without buying Windows. The mere existence of an alternative is a serious threat to Microsoft's business model, a model which consists mainly of vendor lock-in. Microsoft can't afford to let users have any choice, or they'll lose market share.

    7. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mention Microsoft. I say don't bother. They don't really compete. Apple makes personal computers and iPods. Microsoft makes an operating system and a game console (and soon another iPod "killer"). With the exception of the forthcoming Zune, there's not really much competition between the two. People cite Mac OS X as competing against Windows -- often referencing Vista -- but it's not really. Mac OS X only runs on Macs (officially.) Windows runs on commodity hardware. Apple makes Mac OS X to bundle with their hardware. Microsoft makes Windows because it's the cornerstone of their business. There's far less competition than people think.
      If I switch to OSX, I probably won't use XP/Vista anymore.
      If I buy a Zune, I probably won't also buy an iPod.

      These products, therefore, are competing.

      Also, If I switch to OSX, I probably won't be using Internet Explorer. But then, I'm already not using that on Windows due to Firefox. Oddly, I might still be using Microsoft Office on OSX. But for my purposes, I'll probably actually just use Google Spreadsheets & Docs on either OSX or Windows. And I'm also more likely to buy a Creative or SanDisk mp3 player rather than an iPod or a Zune. I love competition. :D
    8. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't dismiss the Mac market so easily. You are correct in saying that as a percentage it's a small one, but there are literally tens of millions of Mac users out there and you can make a comfortable profit from that market. Furthermore, the glut of software is not as bad as on Windows, so if you produce a good quality software, chances are high that you will be successful and Mac users are known for their loyalty. When you turn bad, Mac users have a pretty long memory as well. History will tell you that when you abandon your successful Mac software in order to compete on Windows side, disaster happens, most of the time anyway. When the company gets beat on the Windows side, they have nothing left as a foothold to fight another day. See Netscape. It makes good sense to keep a Mac market if you can make a decent profit. I suspect the problem is deeper, though. The managements are short-sighted or hype-driven and can't manage resources. Abandoning a profitable Mac market is a symptom of it, so not surprisingly, they'll fail to compete on the Windows side too.

    9. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by damsa · · Score: 1

      You are confusing revenue with income. Revenue is dollars bring in before expenses. They can have no growth in revenue but have higher income using accounting tricks.

    10. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by rahrens · · Score: 1

      Go look at those figures then, they still show a growth in revenue of over 100%. And even accounting for "accounting tricks" you still can't argue with over a thousand percent growth! My point is still good - Apple is NOT in decline no matter how you want to look at it.

      --
      "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
    11. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by nolife · · Score: 1

      They may have 95% market share but its also true that 95% of the time Windows is sold, there's no choice involved. You get it preinstalled on your new computer. Whereas Apple's minute market share is completely derived from people exercising choice. You have to actually choose to buy a mac.

      WTF are you talking about?

      Every single home user that bought a PC with Windows made a choice to not buy a Mac with OSX and the same the other direction. Both platforms are readily available for anyone in the world to choose at will. The choice is and was always there for the consumer to choose between the two. Lets break it down even further by separating the hardware from the software. I guarantee I can find MANY more places and choices for finding a new PC without Windows then a new Mac without OSX which is the exact opposite of your claim.
      Your post makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea what your point is. Did you actually sit back and read what you wrote?
      Before the pro Apple crowd mods my post down as flame bait, think about what the parent stated.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    12. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1
      MS has faltered in many of these ventures, and the only success is the game market.

      Since Microsoft has lost billions of dollars over the past few years in the game console market with their Xbox line, and just recently posted another $1.6 billion loss in that division, I'd say the word success isn't relevant in this market either.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    13. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in the game market, they're hardly a success. They've spent the lion's share of their Windows OS warchest on the XBox and have barely scratched out a niche for themselves.

      Yes, Microsoft enjoys penetration in US households. However even here they're normally outsold by their primary competitor, Sony, by 2:1. The "mindshare" of Microsoft's game division is much higher than actual sales figures.

      Outside the US though, the picture isn't quite as rosy for Microsoft. In Japan, for instance, the number of 360s sold in a given week have consistently been at the bottom of the pile. They sell fewer 360 consoles than Sony sells Playstation (1) consoles. Further compounding this problem for Microsoft is that the US isn't 95% of the worldwide gaming market like it used to be. They need those overseas sales if they to turn a profit on their XBox gambit.

      Microsoft is, by and large, still living off the relative success of Halo. A title that has a clear line showing where Bungie was developing the title internally, and where Microsoft bought the house and forced Bungie into a rush-rush who-cares-if-the-patterns-and-level-designs-and-ga meplay-modes-repeat-we-need-to-ship-this-yesterday mode. Halo 2 picked up where Halo left off and just kept going with it. 3, by and large, looks to be more of the same.

      Microsoft isn't a company to learn from it's mistakes. It's a company that touts it's mistakes as innovation and sticks it's head in the sand. Without the OS tax to fund every stupid idea a sugar-addled Microserf can come up with after eating too many Krispy Kreams, they'd have gone bankrupt ages ago.

      As an example, Microsoft developers point out to the relative ease of getting titles approved by Microsoft QA. Microsoft quietly explains to developers that their QA process is so much better than the others, that this saves them money when developing their XBox/360 title. Overlooked by both developers & Micorsoft is that XBox/360 titles routinely ship with show-stopping crash & design bugs that would have been picked up & red-flagged if they had gone through normal QA scrutiny at Nintendo or Sony. These bugs frustrate owners, who end up doing the job of QA testers, as they work around the bugs in order to get back to having fun playing the game. This frustration ends up costing them sales, because the owner needs extended time to cool down and forget how fscking stupid they felt wasting their money on a buggy title.

    14. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me explain what he meant: If you go online to purchase a Dell, Sony, HP, Alienware, or Compaq PC, it will invariably come with Windows pre-installed. That means that you paid a 'Windows tax'. That wasn't your choice; it was there to begin with. Most people fool themselves into thinking they're making a choice, but it's not a choice at all. That's part of how Microsoft makes so much money. Even if you plan to run your favorite flavor of Linux, you'll STILL pay for Windows.

      But if you go online and purchase an Apple MacIntosh, you made a choice to use Mac OS X.

      Let me say that again.

      If you purchase an Apple MacIntosh, you MADE A CHOICE TO USE MAC OS X. That's part of the reason (if not THE reason) that people purchase Apple MacIntoshes: To use the operating system. Very few people will pay $2,000 to simply gawk at an iMac's aesthetics, they are paying that much to USE THE OPERATING SYSTEM and the hardware that it runs on. A choice was made. Sure, you can edit video or run an office productivity suite under Windows, but if you purchased a Mac, then you made a choice to use something other than Windows. If you wanted a PC, you didn't have a choice: You paid for Windows.

    15. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abandoning a profitable Mac market is a symptom of it,

      No company abandons a profitable market. If they abandon it, it was because it was NOT profitable. It really is that plain and simple. Companies make products and services to make make money for themselves and/or the shareholders. A company that hangs around to be cool to some diehards while not making money will not be around for very long. The same thing happens to television shows. Regardless of the number of fan sites and dedicated followers, if the show can not sustain a profit goal, it is axed.

    16. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by CherryChuckles · · Score: 1
      WTF are you talking about? Every single home user that bought a PC with Windows made a choice to not buy a Mac with OSX and the same the other direction.

      To answer your articulate question, we're discussing the two operating systems OS X and Windows. Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that buying a PC involves choice, heck anything does. My point is more to do with Windows. The vast majority of new computers sold in the market today come pre-installed with a version of Windows. It doesn't matter if you already own a windows licence, or intend to run Linux, you have to buy a new one, like it or not.

      The keyword being 'vast majority', there's no doubt that building your own PC or some specialist shops could sell you a computer without an OS. But we're talking 95%, which means average Joe. Joe is unaware or doesn't care about a viable alternative OS on the PC. To him, a Dell running on Windows is a computer. Mac's are for creatives and Linux is for geeks. A person who went ahead and bought a mac for personal use, now that is exercising choice because you can't possibly argue that that person has no clue about Windows.

      Choice without knowledge is useless. Arguing that there IS choice is absolutely pointless in this discussion because thats true in any instance. If there was a single candidate in an election, you still have a choice... vote for him or don't... but does it mean anything?

      A real choice requires understanding of at least some alternatives and being able to make a rational decision based on that knowledge. If you want an example to prove the above, just look at Linux on the desktop. The barrier of entry is insanely low. The cost is free, there are live CD's to try it, the installers are unbelievably easy which automate the dual booting process. but no... I install Suse on my girlfriend's computer and she starts crying saying that it doesn't feel like her computer anymore!

    17. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by nolife · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of new computers sold in the market today come pre-installed with a version of Windows. It doesn't matter if you already own a windows licence, or intend to run Linux, you have to buy a new one, like it or not.

      And Macs which you compared Windows too is any different? I'm sure you can buy a Mac without an OS somewhere but the same holds true about your transfer of license crap.

      It sounds like you are trying to say people that buy Windows just want a computer and don't care, people that buy a Mac are doing for some other reason. That comment lacks any depth or insight at all and you are trying to take that completely bogus statement a step further to imply that Mac users are somehow an elite group. I work in IT at a large company. I field one or two questions a month from users asking if a Mac they are looking will interface and work with our "systems" at work. I leave them with a neutral impression and let them determine the advantages of using a Mac. After further questioning, they have NO idea why they really want a Mac other then a friend has one or they look good. Those are perfectly valid reasons to purchase a Mac but not the reason you are claiming about some higher form of knowledge or computer experience that these people need and has absolutely nothing to do with being the creative type you mention. In fact, the most often asked question is will I be able to run Office and use take my work home on the Mac. Well unfortunately, in our environment, we use MS Office and various applications with MANY customizations so the answer is more often then not NO. We actually discourage any work from hitting not work laptops and computers because we do have an extensive Citrix environment through and they can work remotely with the Citrix client on a Mac.

      The car you purchase does not make you a different person because it is special, expensive, or fast, just as your choice in computer does not automatically make you creative. Both of these "groups" or classes of people you are are referring to need only one thing to get involved and that is to buy the product. If I go out today and by a Mac, does that automatically make me the creative type? Absolutely not and you can not automatically assume someone that has on is not creative because there is no relationship between the two.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    18. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by mstahl · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the OEM issue for right now, how do you consolidate the notion of Microsoft as a "cut-rate competitor" now with the fact that their OS costs over three times as much as OS X (buying the software by itself, that is, and not with a new computer)? They also have not replicated (XP) a mature product (OS X, say 10.4), at least not on time (Vista).

    19. Re:Apple vs. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You answered your own question. OEM sales is where the money is at, not individual sales. Even with last years decline in commercial sales, the increase in OEM sales made up the difference. MS does not price the OS itself to sell because there is not money in it. All the profit is eaten up in the retail chain and support. OTOH, MS has been very sensitive to OEM prices, as XP Home has shown. If MS was not a cut rate competitor, and wanted to compete in the cut rate PC market, XP Home would not exist. All PCs would cost $100 more, and the decline in the market would be significant.

      And look at the other factors. The Zune price was dropped to compete with Apple. The base XBox 360 now does not have a hard disk to attract cut rate sales, and to compete with Sony and even Nintendo, a market they should just give up on. MS Vista will have two entry level versions to keep advertised prices of PCs cheap. Certainly it is true that MS is more likely to ask premium prices for some products, but the cut rate legacy is still firmly intact.

      This is even true for Office. Certainly the retail price is high, but if it is licensed, or if one is a student, the price is much lower, and the licenses are much more liberal than they used to be, outside of the question of who owns the file, which is why even at the low cost, MS is no deal.

      To answer the question about Apple, they keep OS upgrades low, even to the point of the five license deals, to keep customers happy. Mac hardware is only worth it because we know that it will be good through at least 2 OS updates, and those updates will not be expensive. There is no reason, as it is with MS, to update the average hardware and ever OS update. Furthermore, an Apple person can easily own 5 machines because the Apple licensing is not going to that much more for five machines, and most everything else is free or very low cost as well.

  7. Yeah but which tuner? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What kind of TV tuner would you have them install?

    Analog NTSC? Great, except that it'll stop working in a few years, and the quality is abysmal by modern standards.

    ATSC? You get high-def, but you need an antenna, and even then you only get the big networks, which is a big step down to people used to 100+ channels of cable.

    Clear QAM? It lets you use cable, so no antenna, but chances are you'll still only get the major networks, and it's arguably a greater pain in the ass than ATSC: many cable companies (Comcast, I'm looking at you) strip the metadata from their clear-QAM channels, making things like program guides really painful to use. And at the end of the day, you'll still be stuck with only the major broadcast networks, because those are the only ones that the cablecos are required to broadcast unencrypted. Everything else requires a proprietary converter box.

    The solution would be CableCard, but there are still a lot of areas where you either can't get one, or are treated like shit and get a degraded level of service if you do. (And you pay several extra bucks for the privilege of renting the card.)

    Given the state of the market right now, I wouldn't ship a computer with a TV tuner in it, either. If the FCC were to get its act together and really make CableCard the standard, and eliminate proprietary converter boxes, then I think you'd see an explosion in the types of set-top boxes and DVRs. I have no doubt Apple would be at the top of the list.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Yeah but which tuner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the multiple possibilities and capabilities but a $50 NTSC tuner installed in a computer sold in the US right now would not be a big risk by any means.

    2. Re:Yeah but which tuner? by generic-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The answer is CableCARD. I want a media box that can replace the piece-of-shit Comcast DVR that reboots several times a week, littering my screen with dozens of "recorded for 0 hours 0 minutes" listings. HDTV compatibility is a must and I don't have the wherwithal to put up a giant antenna. So far the only box that comes close is the TiVo Series3, but that makes even the PlayStation 3 look cheap. ($800, plus rentals for two CableCARDs, plus $17 a month for TiVo service, adds up to over $1,000 in the first year alone.)

      One alternative is just downloading all my TV shows from the iTunes Store (or BitTorrent, if I only want to watch popular stuff the day it comes out). To do that quickly you'll need a cable modem, and to get a cable modem for a decent price you might as well subscribe to some sort of cable, and that brings us around to square one again.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    3. Re:Yeah but which tuner? by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

      What kind of TV tuner would you have them install?
      Analog NTSC? [...] ATSC? [...] Clear QAM?

      Um, all of them?

      And why the heck aren't ATSC-available channels not part of BASIC cable?
    4. Re:Yeah but which tuner? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Well, the local broadcast digital channels are supposed to be transmitted as part of the lowest-cost cable package, but sometimes you don't get them unless you pay for "digital cable" service (because they'll randomly put a broadcast channel up on the higher portion of the band, which is blocked unless you pay for digital service or HSI). This is in violation of the FCC rules, but really, when has that stopped the cable companies?

      And unlike good 'ol analog NTSC, where the transmissions down the cable line were basically the same as the transmissions going over the air, now that we're in the Brave New Digital World, they decided to use one method of transmission for OTA stuff and another for wireline. Over-the-air is ATSC, and cable is QAM. Wonderful, no?

      So even if you do get the standard broadcast lineup in digital on your basic cable, as you're supposed to, it requires a QAM tuner rather than an ATSC one. There are some hybrid tuners (I know of at least two which are designed to decode all three: NTSC, ATSC, and QAM) but they're not very mature.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:Yeah but which tuner? by illumin8 · · Score: 1
      Given the state of the market right now, I wouldn't ship a computer with a TV tuner in it, either. If the FCC were to get its act together and really make CableCard the standard, and eliminate proprietary converter boxes, then I think you'd see an explosion in the types of set-top boxes and DVRs. I have no doubt Apple would be at the top of the list.
      I think you're missing the point here. Apple doesn't want to play in the existing cable/satellite/OTA arenas. They are already heavily dominated by entrenched monopolies. Apple has created an entirely new distribution channel using the Internet and the iTunes store. The future is on-demand video delivered over broadband Internet, where Apple doesn't have to force their customers to give the cable company a cut.

      I know that if I could by an iTV today and download the few TV shows I watch every week for $1.99, I'd cancel my cable bill in a heartbeat, and I'm sure a lot of iPod users that have seen how well iTunes works would as well. Apple is creating an entirely new distribution model; they aren't wrapping hardware around existing outdated distribution models.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  8. Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable box by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative
    And now apple wants to take over the living room by shipping macs without a TV tuner standard.

    Digital cable tuners are supposed to include a FireWire output. All Macintosh computers have FireWire inputs. So if you're a subscriber, you should already have an appropriate tuner. Or are you talking about over-the-air?

  9. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by yabos · · Score: 1

    My satellite box has a firewire out but it's conveniently disabled.

  10. iTV and the iPod and iTunes by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that iTV is an extension of the iPod and iTunes. It solves one problem. How do you play any media that you on your computer in the study on your TV in your living room? Well if you have a laptop, you can just hook it up to the tv. But if you have a desktop, that's more of a problem. I think the vision of iTV is that either through wired or wireless LAN, it will receive the media from iTunes on your desktop or laptop. The success of this will really depend on pricing.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. Key chain by Trillan · · Score: 1

    About the only useful thing to come from PowerTalk was the system-wide keychain. For some reason, it took until Mac OS 9 for Apple to introduce this feature to the Mac community at large.

  12. We forgot also OpenDoc by VDM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another Apple project quickly forgotten was OpenDoc, which was something like OLE for Microsoft. With OpenDoc, at least the Cyberdog browser was developed (1996-97), together with object embedding capabilities on other software. It lasted just a bit.

    1. Re:We forgot also OpenDoc by Kancept · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OpenDoc was actually a group venture with IBM and a few others IIRC. In OS/2 and eComstation we still use it. Also, if you go to IBM's website (and Lenovo as well since they just imaged support section), look in the URL and you will see it's grabbing OpenDoc documents to display. It was a cool tech, just too bad it never took off. There were other parts of the "Open"XXXX standard they put together. OpenDoc just being the most widely used.

  13. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by tepples · · Score: 1
    My satellite box has a firewire out but it's conveniently disabled.

    Have you asked your satellite provider what you can do to get it enabled and working with your computer? Or has the satellite provider already refused and are you locked into long-term commitment so that you can't use the stick of switching to the competitor?

  14. Same data, different conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an email gateway developer, I worked with Exchange since it's inception and I attempted to use AOCE. When I compare that experience with what's going on now, I reach a very different conclusion.

    Exchange started out life in the X.400 world. (If memory serves, Microsoft bought an X.400 product from someone else and GUIfied it.) This meant that even before the advent of the Internet Connector you could connect to Exchange using "standard" X.400 protocols. (I say "standard" because X.400 is so large and messy that pretty much everyone who implemented it was forced to deviate from the specifications in one way or another.) Not easy, but doable, and more to the point, doable from any platform able to deploy an OSI network stack. As Exchange shifted towards SMTP things improved to the point where Exchange was able to connect to existing facilities with little effort. (The article is wrong, BTW, in claiming that modem SMTP was around when Exchange first shipped. It was around but Microsoft chose to ignore it.)

    AOCE, OTOH, only provided vast, arcane, incomplete and poorly documented Mac-specific API. The underlying protocols weren't documented at all. We tried hard to figure how to interface with this mess, even sitting down to discuss our issues with Apple folks at one point, but eventually gave up. And I'm talking a group of people who developed successful gateways to X.400-1984, X.400-1988, cc:Mail, Microsoft Mail, Novell MHS, and GroupWise among others. Either we are fools who got incredibly lucky several times over, or AOCE was an unmitigated disaster. And I don't think we were lucky fools.

    But Apple learned their lesson. As the article points out, they now leverage open standards whenever possible. You can talk to a lot of Apple's new stuff over protocol. Sure, the APis are still there, and some of them are pretty nasty, but in a lot of cases you don't have to use them. Apple is also very active in various standards organizations (I wish they had had more success with Bonjour in the IETF, but that's a different matter).

    Microsoft, OTOH, has utterly failed to learn anything from their experience with Exchange. They still roll their own whenever possible. They don't document the protocols they use, only the APIs, and of course those are only available on Windoze. I used to see lots of Microsoft people at standards meetings but not so many any more.

    Of course things can change, but once things are headed in a particular direction they tend to stay on that course, even if it is a bad one. Everything I see about Microsoft says to me that they are on the wrong course and aren't doing anywhere near enough reinvention to correct it. The exact opposite appears to be the case with Apple.

    1. Re:Same data, different conclusion by lahi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting. If I recall correctly, AOCE/PowerTalk was presented at the 94 WWDC. A friend of mine attended, and shared what he had brought home with me. I saw the Demo video, and the docs. The API docs were huge - about two Inside Mac VI, I think. Incredible. The idea to empower _every_ application with e-mail capability was great in a way. As was many other ideas in AOCE/PowerTalk. But it was too complex and too inefficient.

      However, what really killed it, IMO, was that one of the premises it was built upon, was soon to be shown as false. Few people seem to remember it, but at that time, it was not at all clear that the Internet would take over the world completely. Networking yes, but it was widely believed that the Internet would be an interim solution, soon to be replaced by ISO OSI protocols like TP4. And of course X.400/X.500 etc etc. In addition, Apple still had a dedication to AppleTalk. And there were existing proprietary mailsystems like QuickMail.

      The idea was that PowerTalk users would have adapters that would enable a workstation to use legacy mail systems. In hindsight, this of course is a totally stupid idea, today we would put such gateway functionality at the mailserver. But with the following prevalence of plain SMTP/POP/IMAP mail, this capability would just constitute deadweight in the PowerTalk software.

      The idea of an in-basket on the desktop, and send-mail capabilities in all applications is in a way something that we still miss today. And if you think about it, it is in a way just a GUI rendition of old Unix ideas, with the ~7mbox (= in-basket), and :w !mail user from vi.

      In my opinion the user interface principles as they were strictly defined even up to AOCE are still unsurpassed, no interface has ever had the same completely natural feel. Windows, OS X, KDE, GNOME - nothing comes close to the interface as it was back in good old System 7.

      I sure wish there was an open source project to take the lessons learned back then, and make a new X11 based GUI that puts them to effective use, while trying to retain some fundamental simplicity.

      -Lasse

    2. Re:Same data, different conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ---Completely agree.

      PowerTalk was the result of someone (anyone) not saying "NO". Does anyone remember how many books PowerTalk had to document it? (Lots) Does anyone remember the crazy Finder plugins it had? (useless)

      PowerTalk reminds me of a kind of "engineering" (it resembles engineering closely, but Im not sure it is actually engineering) where a few people go off and have lots of meetings amongst themselves, and write alot of stuff, and tell everyone if they don't understand it, thats ok, its great, they are really smart! And make lots of manuals, and then get onstage and tell everyone how cool it is. Of course they never asked what a user of the computer would notice thats different. (In the end, they should notice something, and it should be positive)

      And 2 years later, everyone asks, what was that all about? I think the other thing about that time, was that there was obviously not an "engineer in charge" at Apple. (That might be because the CEO of that time thought he was an engineer.) So the 5-10 loudest people generated things like PowerTalk, GX, and of course, OpenDoc. Lots of manuals, lots of presentations, lots of demos, lots and lots of T-shirts. (To be fair to QuickDraw GX, it was very disciplined compared to OpenDoc, and PowerTalk.) Its amazing how much productivity is lost because engineering teams lose sight of the fact that they are supposed to be making things easier for the users. Its amazing how despite all of this craziness we are still the worlds leaders in most things software.

      Makes you wonder what they are doing in other places.

      Also makes you thank Saint Wozniak for Steve Jobs coming back and cleaning house, and using the word NO! a couple thousand times, and getting Apple back on track.

      Thats the thing about Steve, I think- he actually does see ahead a few years, and understands that the only way to get there is to LEAD the company there. That really isn't what most tech companies do. I've seen so many engineering projects started by line engineers and trickle up the hierarchy after they are basically done. Sounds great, if you are an engineer, but when you multiply that times the number of engineers, where is the company going? A thousand voices leading is fun for a while, but ....

    3. Re:Same data, different conclusion by illumin8 · · Score: 1
      (The article is wrong, BTW, in claiming that modem SMTP was around when Exchange first shipped. It was around but Microsoft chose to ignore it.)
      Wow, what a logical fallacy. Just because Microsoft chose to ignore SMTP doesn't mean it didn't exist.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    4. Re:Same data, different conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typo on my part - meant to say "(The article is wrong, BTW, in claiming that modem SMTP wasn't around when Exchange first shipped. It was around but Microsoft chose to ignore it.)"

  15. tip-toeing by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to say I have been very impressed by Apple's strategic manovering over the last five years or so. Whilst Sony and Microsoft has been clashing heads trying to use gaming machines as a trojan horse to become the digital hub of people's living rooms, Apple has quietly been putting together all the pieces it needs to do so in a much more sophisticated manner.

    Personally, I don't think Steve Jobs is very interested in conquering the enterprise desktop these days, he's got his eyes fixed on potentially a much bigger pie - becoming the digital media hub of people's homes.

    1. Re:tip-toeing by Black+Perl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and here's the real genius: it's completely stealth! There are no outward signs whatsoever that Apple is doing anything in the digital media space other than iPods. That's brilliant!

      --
      bp
    2. Re:tip-toeing by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 0

      Nope, it was just luck :-)

    3. Re:tip-toeing by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Personally, I don't think Steve Jobs is very interested in conquering the enterprise desktop these days, he's got his eyes fixed on potentially a much bigger pie - becoming the digital media hub of people's homes.

      For years, Steve Jobs has mentioned this "digital media hub" and how it would be the next market place. In this interview he discusses it. With Apple, it appears they have bet their long term strategy around it.


      Like the development of OS X, Apple is taking small steps towards that goal. For argument's sake, Vista and OS X Leopard are comparable. Both Apple and MS took 5 years to get to the same point. Apple decided to release 5 versions taking small steps towards Leopard. MS opted to make one large (and delayed) release.


      With the media hub, it started with the launch of the iPod. Then iTunes. Then iTMS. As more capabilities were added to these product lines, Apple then developed the Mac mini. While the Mac mini is a smaller version of a desktop, you can see how it is the right form factor to be this hub. Then Front Row was added with the remote. Now iTV is being launched. Small steps.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  16. Too Ahead Of Its Time by TheZorch · · Score: 1

    I think the real problem is that PowerTalk was a bit ahead of its time and wasn't really implimented that well either.

    Something like this today might actually work if done properly and without having to buy special hardware.

    --
    Michael "TheZorch" Haney
    thezorch@gmail.com
    http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
  17. iTV by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    You're correct; or at least, that's how the Wikipedia article describes it -- you'll be able to put the iTV in your living room, and then stream content to it from iTunes on your Mac or PC.

    Sounds a little to me like the Airport Express was with audio (it was a box that you could attach to your stereo and then stream music to it, wirelessly) except that where the APE was purely "push" because it didn't have any interface on the recieving end, iTV will be able to "pull," browsing the libraries of the computers connected to it for content.

    I'm cautiously excited about it, although I'm in no way going to go out and buy one on Day 1. I think there's serious possibility for it to suck if they implement a lot of DRM, or limit the number of computers you can have stream media to it. If that's the case, I hope its streaming protocol is quickly reverse-engineered, so that more flexible library backends can be built.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:iTV by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "...limit the number of computers you can have stream media to it."

      I have three Airport Expresses with the audio ports enabled, and I can chose to stream music to any of them.

      I can't see why they'd place a limit on the number of iTV devices you can have, although it may be that you'd need to pair a computer with a device, as there might not be enough bandwidth for a single computer to stream multiple movies to multiple devices simultaneously.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  18. Really, this is a cyclical corporate problem. by RunzWithScissors · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, companies don't really learn from another company's trials and tribulations. At some point they all suffer from the same thing, which will cause them to experience "a downfall". This malady is:

    "But we're [insert company name here]!"

    I know it looks innocuous, but let's see that in action!

    1988, IBM was having big problems with management bloat, a stagnant product line, and a poor customer experience. But if you asked someone there 'Why would I buy from you when I could buy from Compaq or some other less expensive, more innovative competitor?' the response was invariably, "But we're IBM!"

    In 1998, SGI started shipping their coolest, most important product ever. The $15,000 Windows NT workstation. If you asked an executive at SGI 'Why would I pay $15000 for a Windows NT machine with a nice graphics card when I can build a whitebox with an Nvidia Riva TNT card for far less money?', the response was "But we're SGI!"

    Today, ask a SUN exec 'Why should I pay $X for a solaris workstation when I can buy assemble a box for $500 running Linux that will do the same thing?' What do they say? "But we're SUN!"

    It's been my experience that this becomes a problem at most sucessful companies, and if you pay attention, you'll see it's cyclical. The company adopts this mentality, loses customers, re-vamp's their product line, customer service, etc. Gains customers, becomes successful again, and ultimately repeats their mistakes and do the whole thing over again.

    Sad.

    -Runz

    1. Re:Really, this is a cyclical corporate problem. by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      IBM doesn't have these problems now? SUN didn't have these problems in the nineties? As I see it, they had the same approach for all these times, some have the right marketing strategy to pull it through, and some apparently don't (SGI).

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:Really, this is a cyclical corporate problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, ask a SUN exec 'Why should I pay $X for a solaris workstation when I can buy assemble a box for $500 running Linux that will do the same thing?' What do they say? "But we're SUN!"

      To be fair, for a couple of years now you've been able to buy an $895 Opteron (64-bit) workstation from Sun, running Windows, Linux or Solaris 10. You get support for that and it comes built, installed and configured.

      You don't get that with your $500 white box.

      They laid me off when Solaris 10 came out, so by rights I should hate them, but I don't. I'd rather buy from them that Dell or HP.

    3. Re:Really, this is a cyclical corporate problem. by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1
      SUN didn't have these problems in the nineties?
      Kinda, but not as bad as IBM's PC division. In the mid-90s I was using a SPARCstation ELC -- one of the early SPARC machines, and it could run rings around a '286. Problem was, the '486s were just coming out, and could wipe the floor with an ELC (especially the dic^Hskless ones we had). Sun still had the edge in graphics, as long as you could get by with four-bit greyscale. The ELC had a 17" monitor with 1152x900 resolution, back when cutting-edge PCs were lucky to have EGA (640x350, albeit with 16 colors).

      More importantly, Sun had been around for awhile, and there was a lot of special software available for it. Linux was still really new, and Windows 95 hadn't come out yet (yet alone NT), so if you needed to do high-end circuit simulation or run the top-end software engineering toolkits, you bought a Sun. We used ours largely because they ran FrameMaker, a seriously wicked document creation tool. This software availability kept people buying Suns (and Auspex servers...) long after their performance was eclipsed by mainstream PCs.
      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  19. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    Maybe there *are* no competitors. In the UK for example Sky have an absolute monopoly - you have to use their proprietary hardware (and closed encryption) to access their service and there are no other satellite services (unless you're into big dishes and foreign languages).

    It'd be interesting to see if the Apple TV thing works over here.. they'd have to provide content (something they failed to do with the ipod video - you still can't get videos on itunes outside the US), and hardware to interface with the common sources of video - that means at the least a SCART input and digitiser. HD is right out - Sky have that locked down so hard there's no way to build hardware to interface to it unless you reckon Apple can work out a way of cheaply digitising raw HDMI output.

  20. Coral cache link by salimma · · Score: 1

    Site is Slashdotted, use the Coral cache of it.

    Even that is rather slow .. perhaps story submitters could be asked to select which of their links are dynamically-driven, and the rest should be automatically Coralized?

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
  21. Enjoy the articles but take them for what they are by rubeus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Daniel Eran writes a lot of pro-mac articles which leads one to believe that you can't really take any of his opinions on Apple with much weight. The articles are really great to read if you are an Apple fan but, otherwise I can see how they might come off a little bit overly infatuated with Apple. If he could use more facts and cite support then I'd find them a little more insightful, as it is, they remind me of those persuasive writing assignments from English class, except all with an pro-Apple slant. Seriously though, read one or two the articles and see if you don't get the same feeling.

  22. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Mine, a Dish Network 625, doesn't even have a firewire out.

    I don't think Firewire is actually that common, and I'm not sure where Tepples gets the "supposed to have" requirement from.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  23. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Angostura · · Score: 0

    Do all Macs have Firewire? I thought the newer ones had gone USB 2

  24. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Verizon FiOS cable comes with Firewire AND USB (and serial, but I doubt you could get video over that). Of course they're all disabled. I've never heard of any cable company ever leaving the firewire port enabled. You can call and ask to have it enabled, but the first level techs will just tell you to reboot your box and mess with your TV settings, the second level techs will sound confused and not find it in their manual, and the third level tech will finally tell you "we don't do that, what were you thinking?!?".

    Seriously, cable companies fear those features, and beyond a few geeks here and there nobody will notice if they disable them anyway. Thus nobody ever turns it on. I'm not sure why they even put them on the box in the first place.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  25. All Apple's current products are former failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. NeXTstep. Had a following in academia but ultimately a flop. Now known as Mac OS X.
    2. Newton. If Apple had held off on the iPod after looking at the Newton, they could have easily said, "let's stick to desktop computing. Portable devices like this are too risky."


    Those are really the big ones... Of course, part 1 is quite extensive.
  26. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by jandrese · · Score: 1

    What makes you think the competitors are going to enable the Firewire port?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  27. How much do you watch by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this will fit in to my system. I am happily running a DishNet DVR and am not going to buy a HD TV until the tech levels out, that and I bought a very nice JVC CRT set a few years back that will serve me for many years to come. So what will this do for me? Also, what about infringement on the UK's commercial station ITV?

    First of all, Apple has said ITV is just a workingname and the final name needs to change.

    Secondly, what appeals to me about this device is that it's pay-as-you consume, instead of the layered monthy fees you pay with a DVR and cable. I only watch a few shows, so I don't need a full cable subscription - I save money just buying the shows I do watch on ITMS. That's why those calling for a tuner in this box are missing the point about what it's for.

    Lastly, it's a way to push all the online video people watch out to TV. It's a lot more fun to browse YouTube from a couch than on a desktop.

    I use a Mac mini in the role this iTV box would serve, I'm curious though when it arrives what else it might do when it arrives.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by yabos · · Score: 1

    There's only one competitor which is StarChoice and I don't believe their hardware is any better. I have ExpressVu in Ontario and the Canadian govt. doesn't allow American satellite companies to sell service here.

  29. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

    they'd have to provide content

    I think that's going to be a bit of a challenge for Apple outside of the US, at least for English language programming being sold to English speaking countries. For US programmes they'd either have to make a deal with the studios to get the international rights (which might get expensive, as selling the rights to Apple will dilute the value of the programmes in foreign markets) or they'll have to deal with each rights holder in each individual market they want to enter (which will take longer, but may be cheaper). So I really wouldn't want to hold my breath waiting for apple to launch video services outside the US.

    --
    At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
  30. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by rahrens · · Score: 1

    They did, but kept the Firewire. Firewire is essential if you want to connect a video camera to your Mac to download the home movie you just made, so Apple isn't going to dump it for a while - not until something better comes along.

    USB uses an error correcting protocol, and Firewire doesn't - firewire guarantees a steady transfer rate; USB, because of the error correction, does not. Thus, Firewire, or IEEE-1394, as it is otherwise known, is better for video transfer.

    Plus, Firewire is standard output on all home video cameras.

    --
    "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
  31. You have found the solution by bigtrike · · Score: 1

    Microsoft needs to hire Steve Jobs in order to recover.

  32. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by djrogers · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't think Firewire is actually that common, and I'm not sure where Tepples gets the "supposed to have" requirement from.
    He waas talking about CABLE boxes, not sat boxes. Cable cos are actually regulated into providing a working FW port in the US at the moment, but sat companies have no such requirements.
    --
    Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
  33. Engineering vs Marketing by hhawk · · Score: 4, Funny

    The article states that Apple Enginners and Microsoft Markets.

    The authors understanding of what marketing is, is wrong. I think it would have been more correct to say that Microsoft Sells.

    The classical defination of marketing is to find out what a customer needs and then produce that for them.

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
    1. Re:Engineering vs Marketing by DECS · · Score: 1

      Actually the classical definition of marketing is "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services"

      Microsoft is a great promoter and seller, but rarely do they offer the best product in a class. When they do, it's usually because they've repressed any competition and there are no alternatives left. In other cases, they spend a lot of money building a solution for a market that doesn't matter: WinCE and WMA are two good examples. Lots of development and refinements in order to deliver PDAs and DRM - the two products that nobody really wants to pay for.

  34. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    Do all Macs have Firewire? I thought the newer ones had gone USB 2
    Nope, Firewire is still there.
    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  35. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You expect that turd to actually read something before posting?!?! HE'S A FUCKNUT RETARD!!!

  36. Re:All Apple's current products are former failure by ClosedSource · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The only reason OS X is based on NeXTstep is because part of Jobs' price for returning to Apple was to "erase" the Next failure. The core Apple faithful will buy just about anything Jobs comes up with and couldn't care less about "Unixy" features in their OS.

  37. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by donweel · · Score: 1

    The new iMac 24" has a firewire 800 port as well as the 400. http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMac_Late_2006 .html

    --
    Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
  38. I only have one question... by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    Apple vs. Microsoft in the Enterprise

    So, who gets to be Spock?

    1. Re:I only have one question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it doesn't come down to the whole Kirk / Spock dichotomy in this case. McCoy and Scotty work much better.

      Scotty was always trying to patch the Enterprise to make certain it worked for whatever the CEO wanted it to do today and it really wasn't meant to do so. Sometimes it worked, sometimes they had to dump a warp core. McCoy on the other hand fixed anything that came his way and if anyone asked him to do anything more than what he knew he'd scream I'm A Doctor Not A Bricklayer!!! But he'd find an excellent way to get the job done without having to mix paradigms or throw out a load of garbage that even he didn't understand.

  39. Flamebait gets a +2? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    Time to back away from the thread...

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  40. It can be done cheap now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Original XBOX running XBMC can stream any type of video, and I mean nearly everything, from a pc or laptop, wired or wireless to your tv. On top of streaming music and pictures etc.

  41. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah, I'm aware of that. I was responding to the parent who was talking about Sat boxes.

    But I'd still like to know where the Firewire requirement for any type of box has been mandated. You say cable companies are regulated, but (and maybe I'm wrong in thinking this) I was under the impression that there's very little regulation in terms of cable equipment and requirements, to the point that even CableCARD is more or less optional.

    I have had digital cable in the past, from Adelphia, and there was no firewire port. Was this illegal, or was the regulation relatively recent, or is it not really a regulation?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  42. Re:Yeah but which tuner? cablecard not going to fl by dean.collins · · Score: 1

    It's a long story that I've posted here a few times so I wont bore everyone with the details but about 2 years ago I led a consortium of people looking to build a Myth-TV version of the tivo 3 cablecard box.

    The difference with our platform was we were going to take live content from both the cable company's feed and the cat 5 internet connection and overlay them onto a consolidated platform.

    The problem with cablecard the technology is the cable companies, it is quiet clear that the FCC is a toothless tiger who are never going to get anywhere and that the cable companies are stalling until forced then they will move to a new 'technology' with the next appropriate level of stall tactics. (they were just publicly talking about the software version of cablecard that the tv set manafacturers would need to build into their hardware (eg at least a 3 year lead time from signoff).

    Cablelabs the consortium and cable companies the channels can all go to hell.

    We'll be back when you are a forgotten memory and everything is iptv delivered.

    I've since 'gifted' it to the MythTV community but Issac et al haven't picked up on anything but the supporting documentation and the businessplan is still available for download at www.Cognation.net/Cablecard3

    Cheers,
    Dean

  43. Unnecessary criticism by BAM0027 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think this article or /. entry adds value in any significant sense. Sure, it's great to consider in hindsight theis experience, but the criticism is unnecessary if not unfounded.

    Apple addressed PowerTalk and OpenDoc (and various other initiatives) by moving to a completely different operating system. They saw the fundamental shortcomings of their ideas and their approaches and addressed them. Now, they are leveraging all the potential of OS X's *nix core in a myriad of ways.

    They didn't forget the failure. They addressed it.

  44. The iTV is back-asswards by DrXym · · Score: 1
    iTV - $299, Mac Mini $599. A total of $900 minimum to stream upscaled movies to my TV from a device sitting in the next room. The next question is why on Earth would I want to do that? And how is it even the slightest bit different from what you can do today with an Xbox 360 + Windows Media Center.

    Besides, it seems pretty dumb to have to have two machines turned on just to play movies. Something like a Viiv designed to sit under the TV makes more sense. Or a PS3. The movie should be stored on the device connected to the TV, not beamed in from somewhere else. That doesn't make much sense at all.

    1. Re:The iTV is back-asswards by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      Do you have to buy a mac mini? Supposedly, the iTV will work with any mac or windows PC running iTunes 7 or above. It is different from an Xbox360 and Windows media center in that you have to run "windows".

      The mac or PC does not have to be in the same room as the iTV and your TV since it can stream via WiFi. What am I missing here?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:The iTV is back-asswards by C.+Alan · · Score: 1

      What am I missing here?

      What you are missing is a Wireless 802.11n device. Apple is waiting for the new standard before releasing Itv. It will be the only way they will be able to have enough bandwidth between the Itv and the base computer to push across a broadcast quality picture.

    3. Re:The iTV is back-asswards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTV - $299, Mac Mini $599. A total of $900 minimum to stream upscaled movies to my TV from a device sitting in the next room. The next question is why on Earth would I want to do that? And how is it even the slightest bit different from what you can do today with an Xbox 360 + Windows Media Center.

      Huh? WMC and an Xbox cost money too, you know.

    4. Re:The iTV is back-asswards by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Huh? WMC and an Xbox cost money too, you know.

      Who said they didn't? But if you have to forkout $299 for a device that plays streamed content, I know which one I'd pick if the choice is a kick ass console or some dumb terminal. Apple should strike a deal with Nintendo or something.

      Besides, I'm saying that the whole arrangement is silly, whether it's an iTV or an XBox 360. Why does anyone need two devices turned on just to download and play a movie? The TIVO has a LAN and a harddrive. The PS3 can play music and video from its harddrive and it has a LAN connection too. Seems far more sensible to me that either of those devices sell movies and cheaper too. Probably that's exactly what Sony intend to do.

  45. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    "Digital cable tuners are supposed to include a FireWire output."

    Who says?

    "All Macintosh computers have FireWire inputs."

    Yeah. Do they support the video formats over firewire that these tuners are supposed to provide? Where is iPVR? I guess the mac doesn't have support for this after all.

  46. There may be some reasons for 2 machines. by C.+Alan · · Score: 1

    It makes sense for us whom already have half the hardware. I already have an Imac, and Itv looks interesting to me, especialy since Itunes already sells tv shows and is starting to sell movies.

    I think the reason apple is going the route of having the Itv be a seperate machine is two fold: 1. It keeps the cost of Itv down, and 2. It may help sell a few more macs.
    --C. Alan

  47. All of them! by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Remember, we're talking about Apple here. Apple customers expect things to "just work", and they aren't afraid to pay for it. That means whatever kind of TV they have, they should be able to plug it in and have it work, just like the Series3 TiVo - except Apple customers won't balk at paying an extra $600 for the feature the way many TiVo users do.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  48. Google is pushing the envelope? Please. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Products with a real current functionality, like GMail and Google Maps, succeed despite pushing the technological envelope.

    "Pushing the technological envelope"? Wake up and stop drinking the kool-aide.

    Google search? Search results 90% of the time are astroturf sites and spam blogs. I've completely given up trying to find product reviews via google, for example.

    Froogle? Search for some computer component part number. Let's say the same # is used by sewing machines. Click on "Computers" without clicking the subcategory "motherboards"- the parts you wanted are GONE. What the hell? Go back, click motherboards- the parts are there. Froogle is also completely incompetent when it comes to matching/grouping/consolidating products, or even matches like "1GB PC133"...half the time, that'll yield 512MB dimms which happen to have a link to 1GB dimms on the same page!

    Gmail can't let you do more than ONE thing at a time. Want to have a draft of an email open while reading a second for reference? Tough. GMail can't filter by custom headers- which makes it absolutely useless for subscribing to mailing lists. Gmail blatantly and heavily encourages top-posting and full quoting, much to the annoyance of mailing list managers everywhere. GMail was a GIANT step backwards in email client functionality. I never understood what the hell all the fuss was about, and I still don't after using it for a few months.

    Google Maps is "the best map client around", except MS's local.live.com blows it out of the water; pushpins, saved addresses, side birds-eye views, etc...and doesn't have the serious problems Google Maps does with serving up image tiles; half the time, tile images aren't loaded at all, or are loaded in the wrong order. Why in 2006 do I have to keep entering my home/work address as starting points/destinations, when I could have Mapquest save addresses back in 1998!?

    Google Analytics? What if I'd like to do something as simple as track my visitor retention rate over time, to see if it's going up/down? Pretty simple, right? Can't do it; you can't track anything over time except for a few basic parameters. Other bug-based web-trend software is far better, and Google appears to have done squat with Analytics, which they bought off another company!

  49. Cable is the competitor by tepples · · Score: 1
    Maybe there *are* no competitors. In the UK for example Sky have an absolute monopoly - you have to use their proprietary hardware (and closed encryption) to access their service and there are no other satellite services (unless you're into big dishes and foreign languages).

    Do you claim that the United Kingdom doesn't have cable television?

  50. You have to ask for such a box by tepples · · Score: 1
    I have had digital cable in the past, from Adelphia, and there was no firewire port. Was this illegal

    It's illegal if 1. you asked for a cable box with FireWire and 2. Adelphia denied it.

    or was the regulation relatively recent, or is it not really a regulation?

    The FCC's requirement went into effect in April 2004.

  51. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
    But I'd still like to know where the Firewire requirement for any type of box has been mandated.

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/ 47cfr76.640.pdf

    It only applies to HD cable boxes (if your previous cable boxes were non-HD, that would be why they didn't include FireWire), but it's been in effect for ~2.5 years now. On mine, local HD channels and most non-HD digital-cable channels are available over FireWire as MPEG-2 transport streams with AC3 audio.

    (On a related note, the recently-released MythTV 0.20 seems to have improved its FireWire recording, too. I've seen fewer glitches in recordings made since I upgraded from 0.19.)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  52. Re:Enjoy the articles but take them for what they by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    Funny, I get the same feeling when reading supposedly "professional" journalists like John C. Dvorak or Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows except they are overly infatuated with MSFT.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  53. Re:Google is pushing the envelope? Please. by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
    Gmail can't let you do more than ONE thing at a time. Want to have a draft of an email open while reading a second for reference? Tough.
    Click the little icon in the top right of the compose mail window.
  54. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  55. If only there were such a device.... by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    Something like a Viiv designed to sit under the TV makes more sense. Or a PS3. The movie should be stored on the device connected to the TV, not beamed in from somewhere else. That doesn't make much sense at all.

    Yeah, if only Apple could come up with a small, pocket-sized device that included a hard disk to store movies. You could plug it into your Mac, download a movie of of some online video store, and then carry this tiny device into your living room, and drop it into a dock connected to your television. Maybe they could also port the software to Windows so you wouldn't have to buy a Mac Mini, either, but could use that setup on Windows.

    Heck, while they're at it, maybe they could make that thing into a portable music player, with some headphones and....nahh, it'd never work.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:If only there were such a device.... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      That doesn't make any sense either. Why does a user have to own a traditional PC of any kind in order download or play movies? It's utterly pointless and pushes the cost of this solution close to $1000 whether you use an iTV or your iPod with some kind of dock.

      Any device capable of playing movies should be capable of downloading and storing them too. Apple's solution is just half-assed. They'd be better off modding the Mac Mini with a TV out and a FrontRow interface so that the thing functions under the TV. It's almost there now, so why they want to push an iTV is just weird. All this shit with docks or beaming from other computers is just expensive, convoluted and impractical

    2. Re:If only there were such a device.... by Foerstner · · Score: 1

      They'd be better off modding the Mac Mini with a TV out and a FrontRow interface so that the thing functions under the TV. It comes with a DVI interface (for HDTVs) and there's a $20 S-video cable for regular TVs. And it does happen to have "a FrontRow interface" (called...FrontRow...how did you guess?) with a remote control.

      Why does a user have to own a traditional PC of any kind in order download or play movies?How many people are there that want to download video off of the internet, but don't already own a PC yet? Do you seriously think that's a market worth pursuing?

        It's utterly pointless and pushes the cost of this solution close to $1000 whether you use an iTV or your iPod with some kind of dock.iPod, $250.
      A/V cable, $20; Dock, $100.

      I get somewhere between $270 and $350. How do you get $1000?

      --
      The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  56. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. Did not know that. Apparently compliance isn't so good though and support for it isn't built into OS X (as of the writing of the article). Has this changed?

    http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040 426151111599

  57. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

    call dish and ask for one. afaik the FCC says that they need to carry at least one firewire equipped decoder box.

    --
    Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  58. Re:1st? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    COOL

  59. Re:Google is pushing the envelope? Please. by pboulang · · Score: 1
    GMail can't filter by custom headers- which makes it absolutely useless for subscribing to mailing lists.
    The correct way to do this kind of thing would be to use automatic custom addresses.. i.e. username+uniqueID@gmail.com, then create a filter.

    Your points, though valid for the most part, really don't indicate anything about pushing the envelope or not. For instance, your rant on MS live mapping.. I have never seen it, and if it is better, why do you think that it *is* better? Precisely because they set out to BEAT google with that product.

    "Pushing the envelope" means to ME going out and being the vanguard where other companies haven't already gone. Kind of the opposite of MS, where they find an existing product and set out to copy it (for the most part, sometimes they do have innovations).

    Not sure how you are interpretting that phrase that someone applying it to google makes you so defensive.

    For the record, I'm starting to get a little concerned that google is getting close to violating "do no evil" with gbase and checkout, etc... but I do still use them as primary search engine because I RARELY get a lot of spam in my search results.. maybe cause I use really long search strings..

    --

    This comment is guaranteed*

    *not guaranteed

  60. O.T. by dthree · · Score: 1
    Detecting whether a interviewee has MacOS experience prior to OS X: yell "Frog blast the vent core!" If they run, yes.
    Just had to say, this is awesome.
    --
    "I forgot my mantra."
  61. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by dthree · · Score: 1

    You're thinking iPods. They are all USB2 now.

    --
    "I forgot my mantra."
  62. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Angostura · · Score: 1

    My mistake. Ihad just had a back and forth with Elegato about why none of their Mac DTT products (apart from a really expensive obsolescent one) supported firewire, but only USB 2. Their answer, and I quote:

    "All DTT products that support EyeTV use USB 2.0 only. That means your Mac has to have built-in USB 2.0 ports...
    USB 2.0 products are what manufacturers currenly make, so that's what we support."

    Ah well, one lost sale for them.

  63. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by rahrens · · Score: 1

    Actually, you can add USB 2 if you have a tower Mac, I had to do that to my G4 Dp 2 GB MDD last year, so I could connect a new printer at higher speed. Yeah "currently make", but they don't care about the legacy Macs that a lot of us use!

    --
    "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
  64. Re:Your TV tuner is built into your digital cable by Angostura · · Score: 1

    Thanks for pointing that out. Sadly, it's a G4 anglepoise iMac.