There's no monopoly here, so we should let the market decide. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If they've really got things wrong, the market will kick Apple where it hurts. If consumers don't care about background apps, they'll carry on spending.
Me? The beautiful shiny toy is so compromised that I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
Last month Apple had 14% of PC sales, but 25% of dollar value.
This is just a teeny-weeny bit unreal. Close inspection reveals that the cited article refers to US-based PC retail sales.
There is more to the world than the US. And there's more to sales than retail sales. Apple has much lower sales penetration in Europe and Asia, and it has much lower sales in the commercial sector. Apple might be on enjoying a renaissance, but don't be fooled by inappropriate statistics.
Mobile internet access is actually very attractive in the UK. For example, for £15 ($30) per month one provider offers a 3GB monthly allowance (plenty for most non-geeks) and speeds of up to 2.8MB/s. I have friends who've dropped traditional broadband in favour of the greater flexibility offered by mobile services.
For that kind of cost, why would anyone bother with free hotspots and the associated security concerns? The only problem is that most providers require you to use Windows.
Don't patronise people who make technical decisions from a non-technical perspective - it might just be that they have an appropriately broad world view. MySQL is clearly good enough for many applications (if it weren't, the applications would fail or be unreliable), and MySQL's popularity is a very good reason for choosing it - skilled MySQL resource is ubiquitous and affordable. Add the quality of MySQL's support offering (a little googling will show you how highly MySQL rates for support) and you have a winning combination.
support + available resource > technical excellence
Be careful of typical knee-jerk Slashdot reactions that say Microsoft == Evil and Google == Good. There is a legitimate privacy point here. If I click on a context-sensitive advertisement that's based on the content of my emails, the advertiser now knows something about me that he didn't know before. That gives the advertiser the opportunity to treat me differently from other enquirers.
How long until advertisers discover that it's more profitable to withhold information about cheap or steeply discounted products from potential customers who've previously received emails from luxury car manufacturers, for example? I don't know if it's possible with the present generation of Google's technology, but is there anything ion the Gmail terms and conditions that prevent it?
IANAL but in the UK this would almost certainly breach the Computer Misuse Act. Section 3 says that "A person is guilty of an offence if (a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer". All that's needed is a simple letter to Apple and O2 telling them that you withdraw any previously granted permission for them to modify your firmware in any way. In so doing, you might put yourself in breach of your contract with O2 but I doubt if the right to push sofware onto your handset would be regarded as a fundamental contract term.
From the article: "It's not just about translating, it also about creating content unique to certain countries."
This is marketing double-speak for 'we want to restrict certain users from accessing certain content.' It'll start with pressure from commercial organisations (MPAA, TV networks, etc) and gradually move towards yielding to government pressure - as we've already seen with Google's search engine censorship antics. Anyone in China want to see footage of Tiananmen square? Forget it. It's not in Google's best commercial interests.
In future you will see only what Google wants you to see. With its increasing dominance of both access to web content and content itself, Google is becoming the new global censor, answerable to no-one but its shareholders. This is very, very scary
The article seems to assume that 802.11n offers so much more bandwidth that no-one will bother with ethernet any more. Unless the new standard is less susceptible to neighbouring networks, that's just not the case
18 months ago I set up a MythTV setup based around an 802.11g wireless network and, at first, it worked flawlessly - two clients and the server could simultaneously stream TV to/from the router. Then my neighbours started using own networks in anger and the bandwidth available to me gradually dissolved.
Now my network can't come close to supporting one streaming device. Even surfing the net wirelessly is painful, with regular 2-3 second dropouts when the whole street hits the airwaves simultaneously. I've long since given up on wifi and switched to homeplug.
I'm not alone. Most people I know who live in densely populated areas have the same problem. Does 802.11n suffer from the same problems? I imagine that the increased range will just lead to increased contention when its popularity increases. I'm not about to buy it.
...when they're offered for sale in the UK. It's a no-brainer. Dell's laptops are usually priced competitively and the $50 saving will add to that competitive edge. But, most of all, it'll take away the anxiety... Will the wireless work? Will I struggle to get the screen resolution right? Will the onboard ethernet show up? What about suspend?
In the light of this announceent, it'll be hard for me to justify buying my next laptop from anyone other than Dell.
Despite enormous international pressure, software patents aren't enforceable in most countries and (cue gasps of astonishment from US slashdotters) there's actually a huge IT industry outside North America. Unless the whole world introduces software legislation, this is how I see the future:
In the next decade, a huge tranche of software will be developed that can't legally be used in the USA. Meanwhile, US software will become less innovative (due to fear of legal reprisals) and more expensive (due to legal costs and licensing fees) than software available in the rest of the world. Costs to US businesses will rise, as they'll be denied access to the most economical and innovative software. Often, two versions of critical business software (databases, operating systems, CRM systems, etc) will be produced - the full-featured world version and a crippled, feature-deprived US version. Mainstream US businesses will realise that they're at a competitive disadvantage and will begin lobbying against software patents. Finally, patents will be removed and the cheaper, better foreign software will flood the US market. US software companies will be as helpless as bowling pins and will drop even faster.
The process will take 10-20 years, so sit back and enjoy the show. Europe, India, Russia and China, please note: patents are the US software industry's suicide note.
I assumed - perhaps mistakenly - that the Fluendo plugins will allow access to DRM'd files. Like it or not, if the Linux desktop is to hit the mass market then it will have to provide a mechanism for people to be able to play back music and video that they've bought online.
I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is good news. Acquiring and installing proprietary codecs is a dark art that is major obstacle to wider acceptance of the Linux desktop.
Given some further development, I can see a few opportunities:
distros like Suse and Ubuntu could integrate their package management systems with Fluendo and offer fully legal point and click codec installation for a small (compared with the Windows anti-virus tax) fee
suppliers of Linux based PCs and laptops could offer products that play nicely with the rest of the web
system builders might be able to start offering Linux-based media centres build around applications like MythTV
As someone who absolutely refuses to pirate software unless I have no choice, I'd be prepared to pay a few ££ extra to stay legal.
The real world is probably worse than the statistics suggest.
I tried to install Vista on three PCs, all of which passed Microsoft's Ready for Vista testing tool, but all three failed before they were able to sent any crash data back to Microsoft. Two installs hung due because Vista didn't like my SATA / motherboard combination. The other got its knickers twisted over my partitioning scheme. And that was before I got a chance to find out if any of my other hardware (printer, scanner, TV card, firewire, network, graphics, CD/DVD, monitor, soundcard, suspend/resume, camera, etc) had any kind of working support.
Recent Linux kernels work perfectly with all this hardware. Could Vista be the first Microsoft OS that lags behind Linux for hardware support?
Slashdot Mirror
There's no monopoly here, so we should let the market decide. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If they've really got things wrong, the market will kick Apple where it hurts. If consumers don't care about background apps, they'll carry on spending.
Me? The beautiful shiny toy is so compromised that I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
This is just a teeny-weeny bit unreal. Close inspection reveals that the cited article refers to US-based PC retail sales.
There is more to the world than the US. And there's more to sales than retail sales. Apple has much lower sales penetration in Europe and Asia, and it has much lower sales in the commercial sector. Apple might be on enjoying a renaissance, but don't be fooled by inappropriate statistics.
Mobile internet access is actually very attractive in the UK. For example, for £15 ($30) per month one provider offers a 3GB monthly allowance (plenty for most non-geeks) and speeds of up to 2.8MB/s. I have friends who've dropped traditional broadband in favour of the greater flexibility offered by mobile services.
For that kind of cost, why would anyone bother with free hotspots and the associated security concerns? The only problem is that most providers require you to use Windows.
Don't patronise people who make technical decisions from a non-technical perspective - it might just be that they have an appropriately broad world view. MySQL is clearly good enough for many applications (if it weren't, the applications would fail or be unreliable), and MySQL's popularity is a very good reason for choosing it - skilled MySQL resource is ubiquitous and affordable. Add the quality of MySQL's support offering (a little googling will show you how highly MySQL rates for support) and you have a winning combination.
support + available resource > technical excellence
I know the average age of the respondents is pretty young, but those salaries are shockingly low.
Be careful of typical knee-jerk Slashdot reactions that say Microsoft == Evil and Google == Good. There is a legitimate privacy point here. If I click on a context-sensitive advertisement that's based on the content of my emails, the advertiser now knows something about me that he didn't know before. That gives the advertiser the opportunity to treat me differently from other enquirers.
How long until advertisers discover that it's more profitable to withhold information about cheap or steeply discounted products from potential customers who've previously received emails from luxury car manufacturers, for example? I don't know if it's possible with the present generation of Google's technology, but is there anything ion the Gmail terms and conditions that prevent it?
IANAL but in the UK this would almost certainly breach the Computer Misuse Act. Section 3 says that "A person is guilty of an offence if (a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer". All that's needed is a simple letter to Apple and O2 telling them that you withdraw any previously granted permission for them to modify your firmware in any way. In so doing, you might put yourself in breach of your contract with O2 but I doubt if the right to push sofware onto your handset would be regarded as a fundamental contract term.
From the article: "It's not just about translating, it also about creating content unique to certain countries."
This is marketing double-speak for 'we want to restrict certain users from accessing certain content.' It'll start with pressure from commercial organisations (MPAA, TV networks, etc) and gradually move towards yielding to government pressure - as we've already seen with Google's search engine censorship antics. Anyone in China want to see footage of Tiananmen square? Forget it. It's not in Google's best commercial interests.
In future you will see only what Google wants you to see. With its increasing dominance of both access to web content and content itself, Google is becoming the new global censor, answerable to no-one but its shareholders. This is very, very scary
The article seems to assume that 802.11n offers so much more bandwidth that no-one will bother with ethernet any more. Unless the new standard is less susceptible to neighbouring networks, that's just not the case
18 months ago I set up a MythTV setup based around an 802.11g wireless network and, at first, it worked flawlessly - two clients and the server could simultaneously stream TV to/from the router. Then my neighbours started using own networks in anger and the bandwidth available to me gradually dissolved.
Now my network can't come close to supporting one streaming device. Even surfing the net wirelessly is painful, with regular 2-3 second dropouts when the whole street hits the airwaves simultaneously. I've long since given up on wifi and switched to homeplug.
I'm not alone. Most people I know who live in densely populated areas have the same problem. Does 802.11n suffer from the same problems? I imagine that the increased range will just lead to increased contention when its popularity increases. I'm not about to buy it.
...when they're offered for sale in the UK. It's a no-brainer. Dell's laptops are usually priced competitively and the $50 saving will add to that competitive edge. But, most of all, it'll take away the anxiety... Will the wireless work? Will I struggle to get the screen resolution right? Will the onboard ethernet show up? What about suspend?
In the light of this announceent, it'll be hard for me to justify buying my next laptop from anyone other than Dell.
Despite enormous international pressure, software patents aren't enforceable in most countries and (cue gasps of astonishment from US slashdotters) there's actually a huge IT industry outside North America. Unless the whole world introduces software legislation, this is how I see the future:
In the next decade, a huge tranche of software will be developed that can't legally be used in the USA. Meanwhile, US software will become less innovative (due to fear of legal reprisals) and more expensive (due to legal costs and licensing fees) than software available in the rest of the world. Costs to US businesses will rise, as they'll be denied access to the most economical and innovative software. Often, two versions of critical business software (databases, operating systems, CRM systems, etc) will be produced - the full-featured world version and a crippled, feature-deprived US version. Mainstream US businesses will realise that they're at a competitive disadvantage and will begin lobbying against software patents. Finally, patents will be removed and the cheaper, better foreign software will flood the US market. US software companies will be as helpless as bowling pins and will drop even faster.
The process will take 10-20 years, so sit back and enjoy the show. Europe, India, Russia and China, please note: patents are the US software industry's suicide note.
I assumed - perhaps mistakenly - that the Fluendo plugins will allow access to DRM'd files. Like it or not, if the Linux desktop is to hit the mass market then it will have to provide a mechanism for people to be able to play back music and video that they've bought online.
I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is good news. Acquiring and installing proprietary codecs is a dark art that is major obstacle to wider acceptance of the Linux desktop.
Given some further development, I can see a few opportunities:
As someone who absolutely refuses to pirate software unless I have no choice, I'd be prepared to pay a few ££ extra to stay legal.
The real world is probably worse than the statistics suggest.
I tried to install Vista on three PCs, all of which passed Microsoft's Ready for Vista testing tool, but all three failed before they were able to sent any crash data back to Microsoft. Two installs hung due because Vista didn't like my SATA / motherboard combination. The other got its knickers twisted over my partitioning scheme. And that was before I got a chance to find out if any of my other hardware (printer, scanner, TV card, firewire, network, graphics, CD/DVD, monitor, soundcard, suspend/resume, camera, etc) had any kind of working support.
Recent Linux kernels work perfectly with all this hardware. Could Vista be the first Microsoft OS that lags behind Linux for hardware support?