While a computer shaped like a sea urchin may seem like the coolest looking thing in the world to you, it's not a very practical product to manufacture and sell. Although Apple manages to sell machines at a higher margin than the rest of the industry, things can still get tight moneywise. One of the most impressive things about the imacs and the G4's and whatnot is that although form doesn't follow function as plainly as a beige box, the form doesn't interefere with the function either. Infact, both the G4's and apparently the new cube have raised the bar on functionality by being extremely easy to access internally. And the imacs and the cube have been engineered to work fanlessly. While that's possible due to the relatively low heat output of the chips inside them, there was also some form engineering and convection studying going on there. And they still managed to make them look interesting. if you think the imacs look goofy, well, asthetics aren't a universal thing. But they've shipped millions of them, so you're in the minority on this one.
Yeah, I think the Halo announcement was the best part of the whole keynote. The new hardware stuff looks pretty darn cool, but when you're as broke as I am, those machines might as well be vaporware. But halo, here I come, woohoo. *starts counting quarters*
The secrecy that Apple pulls over its new products definately helps build the hype that Steve Jobs loves to see. If nothing else, he's an outstanding showman, and suprises are part of his style.
And like the whole stylish computer direction or not, the reality is, apple's computers are selling well at least partially because they look damn nice, and we've already seen other companies make their own imac-esque computers, so I think Apple has every right to keep their new designs secret. Apple works very hard and I'm sure they spend significant amounts of money coming up with efficient and good looking designs. It's interesting to see that most of the other computer companies imac type computers have sold so poorly (dell's web pc, gateways ugly ass astro pc).
That's all fairly relative, take for example the recent story of that company pinging every computer that they find. The pings themselves aren't a threat to any networks, they aren't using them enmass to DoS, but admins everywhere are pissed off because it's setting off their alarms. Are the admins being a little paranoid? Sure, but it's their job to be. They've got computers that they need to defend, and they have every right to be suspicious even of an 'act of curiosity.'
Well, the way the country works now, it's far more profitable to sue the hell out of a competetor's attempt at innovation than to actually get scientists to do real work. Slowly all the major research centers, even colleges, are getting corporate interests, so the actual science becomes secondary to making some money for a large company. I think we'll figure out how dumb it is in the not to distant future, either that, or the corporate conglomerates will successfully take over the world and it won't matter anymore
I'm more worried about the air rage we've been hearing so much about on the airlines. It'd be ten times worse in space, cause when that guy took a crap on the food service tray, it would've floated around in weightlessness and made everyone a whole lot more miserable.
Wouldn't we have to be able to somehow receieve the mind beams anyway for them to work? Not that your other points aren't perfectly valid or anything though.
I know hundreds of times more about comptuers than the rest of my family, so I'm definately the technical guru, but I don't feel that my family is magically reversed because of that. When my mom says her email is broken, go fix it, I go fix it. We both understand that I know more than her, and that she can't fix it on her own, and maybe in the business world that's the equivelent to power, but for a teenager to be holding something like that over his/her parents to give themselves a position of authority seems to me to say something rather bad about the mentality of kids. Yeah, I know more about an expensive piece of machinery sitting on a desk. She still knows more about life, about money, about the world, all of which seem to me to put the authority back in her hands.
My mom doesn't necessarily know less because she's dumb or too old to understand computers. I know more because I sit around and play with them all day while she's out in the world making money in a job she started training for before computers mattered.
And even if this gap does exist now, it will be gone in another generation. My future kids may know more than I do when they're my age, they'll have computers their whole life, I've only had one since late middle school, but I'll still be plenty competent to use the computer for what I need. And all those kids making big bucks doing internet stuff won't really happen anymore, they've just been taking advantage of an extremely insane marketplace dying for all things electronic. Not to say that these kids aren't smart, but there are millions of smart kids, these guys were just in the right place at the right time, and far less lazy than me.
that shut down hotmail access for millions of people because Microsoft was late on a $35 check? Now they're apparently offering multi-year "grace periods". If anyone is good for the money, it's MS. Messed up.
Actually, it seemed to me that the author of the article is agreeing with you, but is being a little broader than linux vs. macos vs. windows. He's widened it to cover open source vs. closed source. He definately says that the different OS' have different market targets, and also that the different development models are suited for different markets. Eric Raymond's speech at MacHack seemed to ignore that fact, and that some of the open source fanatics screaming for everything open and free are ignoring the realities of the marketplace, and if linux parades on like that, it's going to find itself in a tough position in the future.
This is part of the commercialization of linux, and it's unavoidable. You're never going to run out of some people trying to make a quick buck at the expense of others. I guess another type of information that you'll need to share is which vendors are trying to screw you over and how.
And as linux becomes easier to use, and more accessible to the average user, this will get worse. You've got the advantage of most of the current linux user base being able to tell that they're being screwed over. I guess just spread the word of who sucks as fast as you can.
I agree with this completely, and have sort of been using it as my defense whenever a friend gives me a hard time about my refusal to use pirated software. I'm a poor college student who can hardly afford the photoshop upgrade, but I put out the money because I think Adobe deserves it.
I'm not really a programmer, but I've dabbled in it a little, enough to realize that it can be difficult, very time consuming, and very very frustrating. I've done it enough to be glad that there are others doing it for me.
And if you're sitting in front of that computer and putting all those hours down writing out that code, you should by all means be allowed to charge whatever you want for it. If your price is unreasonable, and/or there are better alternatives, the marketplace, in theory should go against you.
I guess that it can get a little hazy when a particular program has such a monopoly over a genre. I think I read somewhere that photoshop is the single most pirated application out there. I'm not going to cry for adobe, because they've made plenty of money, a signficant (at least to me) amount from software I own; but they've made a great program, and deserve to be paid for their time.
If they need a greenhouse, I've got a great design, it can be made out of extra garbage lying around and some dirty old tarps. And I saw something just like it on a movie that praised itself for its scientific accuracy, so i'm sure it'll work.
It's been said before, but it's worth saying again. Microsoft's Macintosh Software division for the most part does a pretty good job. As much as MS' business practices may have hurt the Mac world and the computer industry in general, they still release a high volume of significant mac software, and as the IE team showed, when they're not forced to just do a direct clone from the windows world over to MacOS, they can do some excellent work.
I really don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that Microsoft's mac teams probably have some people on them that were microsoft hating mac fans who went to work for microsoft just because it's a good job to have.
Still, if Microsoft screws up the Mac version of Halo, then the whole company, including the IE team can go straight to hell;)
Maybe he's looking ahead to the future and wants to write the best software possible. I hope there are a few developers out there that still care about writing good programs. I'm don't do all that much programming, so I can't really speak from an understanding of it all, but from what I've read, Cocoa offers some pretty neat stuff to programmers that in the future can allow application writing much easier. Your point is valid though, because the marketplace realities are one of the most significant forces in the software business world. Apple has a difficult job of convincing developers that it's worth their time and money to create a cocoa version, even if that means writing both a carbon and cocoa version for now. Eventually there comes a time where you have to leave the older technologies behind, Carbon is an attempt to make this major switch smoother. It'll be a bummer if developers are satisfied with a Carbonized version of their software. Apple wouldn't have included Cocoa if it didn't have desirable qualities.
Well, there are different kinds of information, some of which should be open, some which shouldn't./.'ers clamor about for open documentation on technical issues, because then they can further use and improve what's out there. But that doesn't mean we want, or should want any and all information to be free for anyone to look over. If I write a nifty new graphics API, yeah, it should be open for scrutiny and understanding. It'd be nice for anyone that wants to to see exactly how it all works. But those same people don't need to know how much I make in a year, what color boxers I'm wearing today, or when the last time I brushed my teeth was. That's all information as well, and even if others "want it to be free," It really has no business being out there.
The whole Open Source/Open Information movement is far different than the issue of Privacy and what not. You seem to be saying that we can't have both, but you're being far too broad with your definition of "information".
Exposing a potential security flaw in software is fine, but doing it with a specific file that may infact endanger people's lives, in the name of technology and security is kind of irresponsible.
Well, not always. Yeah, it's no good to have to buy a new computer every 18 months to coincide with an OS update, but over longer periods of time, you need to get with the times. Supporting the past can become more trouble than it's worth, and just a drain on progress. Look at our phone system, it's based on a very old system that I'm sure could be replaced by something much nicer. It'd cost a whole lot to move on though, which is why it's not really happening. Another example is the HDTV, everyone would love better TV picture, but it sucks to have to put out money for new tv's and all that. I dunno, I've led a mildly spoiled life, so I guess it's all kind of relative. You don't need to always have the latest and greatest, but sometimes you just have to make a leap.
Well, then find someone else to do it. The quickest way isn't always the best. As fast at the computer field moves, there's a lot of legacy technology in it. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and just leave the old stuff behind in the name of progress. This isn't like giving up century old cultural tradition, it's technical evolution, and it's defiantely a good thing, although not necessarily an easy one. Apple pushes this a lot, particularly in hardware. The iMac only had usb ports for peripherals at a time where usb wasn't all that common (despite having been around for quite some time). Love or hate the iMac, there's not denying that it caused a usb device flood that intel was having no luck doing on its own. Yeah, people's old ADB mice and joysticks and whatnot wouldn't work on the imacs, so they had to buy new stuff, but in the end, isn't that kind of a good thing?
There's always going to be a need for legacy technology and knowledge, and often it's a case of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But the computer industry as a whole is a relatively new thing, and to sit back and say, well, what I know how to do now is good enough isn't wise.
Well, it is to a degree, two fairly different systems cobbled together. This was mostly done in the name of backwards compatability though, to keep all the older mac software running happily. That's what Carbon is all about. Apple is hoping that developers will write all their new stuff for Cocoa, which isn't just a combination of the two OS', but rather an evolution that takes parts from both, as well as some new and improved stuff. Writing for it won't be making a program that'll run under both MacOS and BSD, but one that'll run under OS X.
There aren't really two operating systems at the core, the core is basically unix. All the complexity is abstracting unix so that the older MacOS standards can make sense out of it. As long as developers can shake those old MacOS standards, and write for the OSX standards, they'll do fine.
Sounds to me like you'd get more money doing that than you will working in Open Source. And while money isn't everything, it's nice to be able to eat, not to mention that geekiness can be rather expensive to fund. Perhaps as the open source market grows more, we'll see significant money flow into it (besides those goofy ipo's). Till then, maybe it's better to work for some company, and then open source in whatever free time you can scrape up. Seems to me that's how it's worked for a while.
I like how it's called a breakthrough in "neuromorphic" engineering. Doesn't it just become ten times more impressive when it's described in made up technomumbojumbo?
This is quite unsettling news. So basically we can all get stuck having to buy rambus garbage at a high price, or continue to buy the SDRAM and whatnot at artificially higher prices? What other options do we have? I don't know much about memory, other than there are a zillion different kinds out there, but what else is feasible if we don't want to let Rambus stuff their crappy hardware and crappy prices down our throat?
Slashdot Mirror
While a computer shaped like a sea urchin may seem like the coolest looking thing in the world to you, it's not a very practical product to manufacture and sell. Although Apple manages to sell machines at a higher margin than the rest of the industry, things can still get tight moneywise. One of the most impressive things about the imacs and the G4's and whatnot is that although form doesn't follow function as plainly as a beige box, the form doesn't interefere with the function either. Infact, both the G4's and apparently the new cube have raised the bar on functionality by being extremely easy to access internally. And the imacs and the cube have been engineered to work fanlessly. While that's possible due to the relatively low heat output of the chips inside them, there was also some form engineering and convection studying going on there. And they still managed to make them look interesting. if you think the imacs look goofy, well, asthetics aren't a universal thing. But they've shipped millions of them, so you're in the minority on this one.
Yeah, I think the Halo announcement was the best part of the whole keynote. The new hardware stuff looks pretty darn cool, but when you're as broke as I am, those machines might as well be vaporware. But halo, here I come, woohoo. *starts counting quarters*
And like the whole stylish computer direction or not, the reality is, apple's computers are selling well at least partially because they look damn nice, and we've already seen other companies make their own imac-esque computers, so I think Apple has every right to keep their new designs secret. Apple works very hard and I'm sure they spend significant amounts of money coming up with efficient and good looking designs. It's interesting to see that most of the other computer companies imac type computers have sold so poorly (dell's web pc, gateways ugly ass astro pc).
This would be great, cause there's nothing worse than something like an IM from my mom popping up when I'm *ahem*..."enjoying" some pr0n ;)
That's all fairly relative, take for example the recent story of that company pinging every computer that they find. The pings themselves aren't a threat to any networks, they aren't using them enmass to DoS, but admins everywhere are pissed off because it's setting off their alarms. Are the admins being a little paranoid? Sure, but it's their job to be. They've got computers that they need to defend, and they have every right to be suspicious even of an 'act of curiosity.'
Well, the way the country works now, it's far more profitable to sue the hell out of a competetor's attempt at innovation than to actually get scientists to do real work. Slowly all the major research centers, even colleges, are getting corporate interests, so the actual science becomes secondary to making some money for a large company. I think we'll figure out how dumb it is in the not to distant future, either that, or the corporate conglomerates will successfully take over the world and it won't matter anymore
I'm more worried about the air rage we've been hearing so much about on the airlines. It'd be ten times worse in space, cause when that guy took a crap on the food service tray, it would've floated around in weightlessness and made everyone a whole lot more miserable.
Wouldn't we have to be able to somehow receieve the mind beams anyway for them to work? Not that your other points aren't perfectly valid or anything though.
I know hundreds of times more about comptuers than the rest of my family, so I'm definately the technical guru, but I don't feel that my family is magically reversed because of that. When my mom says her email is broken, go fix it, I go fix it. We both understand that I know more than her, and that she can't fix it on her own, and maybe in the business world that's the equivelent to power, but for a teenager to be holding something like that over his/her parents to give themselves a position of authority seems to me to say something rather bad about the mentality of kids. Yeah, I know more about an expensive piece of machinery sitting on a desk. She still knows more about life, about money, about the world, all of which seem to me to put the authority back in her hands.
My mom doesn't necessarily know less because she's dumb or too old to understand computers. I know more because I sit around and play with them all day while she's out in the world making money in a job she started training for before computers mattered.
And even if this gap does exist now, it will be gone in another generation. My future kids may know more than I do when they're my age, they'll have computers their whole life, I've only had one since late middle school, but I'll still be plenty competent to use the computer for what I need. And all those kids making big bucks doing internet stuff won't really happen anymore, they've just been taking advantage of an extremely insane marketplace dying for all things electronic. Not to say that these kids aren't smart, but there are millions of smart kids, these guys were just in the right place at the right time, and far less lazy than me.
that shut down hotmail access for millions of people because Microsoft was late on a $35 check? Now they're apparently offering multi-year "grace periods". If anyone is good for the money, it's MS. Messed up.
Actually, it seemed to me that the author of the article is agreeing with you, but is being a little broader than linux vs. macos vs. windows. He's widened it to cover open source vs. closed source. He definately says that the different OS' have different market targets, and also that the different development models are suited for different markets. Eric Raymond's speech at MacHack seemed to ignore that fact, and that some of the open source fanatics screaming for everything open and free are ignoring the realities of the marketplace, and if linux parades on like that, it's going to find itself in a tough position in the future.
And as linux becomes easier to use, and more accessible to the average user, this will get worse. You've got the advantage of most of the current linux user base being able to tell that they're being screwed over. I guess just spread the word of who sucks as fast as you can.
Well, I wouldn't go and buy a whole new computer of any kind to try out any new OS. Try it out on someone else's computer first :P
I agree with this completely, and have sort of been using it as my defense whenever a friend gives me a hard time about my refusal to use pirated software. I'm a poor college student who can hardly afford the photoshop upgrade, but I put out the money because I think Adobe deserves it.
I'm not really a programmer, but I've dabbled in it a little, enough to realize that it can be difficult, very time consuming, and very very frustrating. I've done it enough to be glad that there are others doing it for me.
And if you're sitting in front of that computer and putting all those hours down writing out that code, you should by all means be allowed to charge whatever you want for it. If your price is unreasonable, and/or there are better alternatives, the marketplace, in theory should go against you.
I guess that it can get a little hazy when a particular program has such a monopoly over a genre. I think I read somewhere that photoshop is the single most pirated application out there. I'm not going to cry for adobe, because they've made plenty of money, a signficant (at least to me) amount from software I own; but they've made a great program, and deserve to be paid for their time.
If they need a greenhouse, I've got a great design, it can be made out of extra garbage lying around and some dirty old tarps. And I saw something just like it on a movie that praised itself for its scientific accuracy, so i'm sure it'll work.
My Vote is for BFT 9000.
I really don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that Microsoft's mac teams probably have some people on them that were microsoft hating mac fans who went to work for microsoft just because it's a good job to have.
Still, if Microsoft screws up the Mac version of Halo, then the whole company, including the IE team can go straight to hell ;)
Maybe he's looking ahead to the future and wants to write the best software possible. I hope there are a few developers out there that still care about writing good programs. I'm don't do all that much programming, so I can't really speak from an understanding of it all, but from what I've read, Cocoa offers some pretty neat stuff to programmers that in the future can allow application writing much easier. Your point is valid though, because the marketplace realities are one of the most significant forces in the software business world. Apple has a difficult job of convincing developers that it's worth their time and money to create a cocoa version, even if that means writing both a carbon and cocoa version for now. Eventually there comes a time where you have to leave the older technologies behind, Carbon is an attempt to make this major switch smoother. It'll be a bummer if developers are satisfied with a Carbonized version of their software. Apple wouldn't have included Cocoa if it didn't have desirable qualities.
The whole Open Source/Open Information movement is far different than the issue of Privacy and what not. You seem to be saying that we can't have both, but you're being far too broad with your definition of "information".
Exposing a potential security flaw in software is fine, but doing it with a specific file that may infact endanger people's lives, in the name of technology and security is kind of irresponsible.
Well, not always. Yeah, it's no good to have to buy a new computer every 18 months to coincide with an OS update, but over longer periods of time, you need to get with the times. Supporting the past can become more trouble than it's worth, and just a drain on progress. Look at our phone system, it's based on a very old system that I'm sure could be replaced by something much nicer. It'd cost a whole lot to move on though, which is why it's not really happening. Another example is the HDTV, everyone would love better TV picture, but it sucks to have to put out money for new tv's and all that. I dunno, I've led a mildly spoiled life, so I guess it's all kind of relative. You don't need to always have the latest and greatest, but sometimes you just have to make a leap.
There's always going to be a need for legacy technology and knowledge, and often it's a case of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But the computer industry as a whole is a relatively new thing, and to sit back and say, well, what I know how to do now is good enough isn't wise.
There aren't really two operating systems at the core, the core is basically unix. All the complexity is abstracting unix so that the older MacOS standards can make sense out of it. As long as developers can shake those old MacOS standards, and write for the OSX standards, they'll do fine.
Sounds to me like you'd get more money doing that than you will working in Open Source. And while money isn't everything, it's nice to be able to eat, not to mention that geekiness can be rather expensive to fund. Perhaps as the open source market grows more, we'll see significant money flow into it (besides those goofy ipo's). Till then, maybe it's better to work for some company, and then open source in whatever free time you can scrape up. Seems to me that's how it's worked for a while.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,3702 9,00.html
I like how it's called a breakthrough in "neuromorphic" engineering. Doesn't it just become ten times more impressive when it's described in made up technomumbojumbo?
This is quite unsettling news. So basically we can all get stuck having to buy rambus garbage at a high price, or continue to buy the SDRAM and whatnot at artificially higher prices? What other options do we have? I don't know much about memory, other than there are a zillion different kinds out there, but what else is feasible if we don't want to let Rambus stuff their crappy hardware and crappy prices down our throat?