It doesn't matter whose idea it was. It is still a bad idea. They are making exactly the same mistakes that Microsoft did, for the same reasons Microsoft made them, and from which Microsoft has not, to this day, recovered.
Not really, it's his second. Differentiating the iPad 3 by quadrupling the screen pixels, thus increasing the heat and battery wait in return for no increase in usability, was his first.
Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything.
In other words, exactly what Microsoft wanted, but luckily for us, failed at. Perhaps unlike Apple, Microsoft planned to lock up the entire world in their walled garden. Or maybe that's exactly what Apple dreams of too, how else will they grow to four times the market cap of Exxon?
Speaking of the market, Apple's P/E is stuck below 13 in spite of consistently turning in revenue growth over 50%. There is only one possible interpretation: the market expects Apple to hit the wall. I do too. It seems impossible or at the very least, unwise for Apple to maintain their high margins in the face of steadily increasing Android market share in both phones and tablets. Is the market right? We shall soon see.
No, Phoenix was an exercise in actually producing something people wanted to use, and it was massively successful at that, while the suite was a complete and utter failure at it.
You're rewriting history. The Mozilla suite was already on an upward trajectory before Ben Goodger "rebranded" it and Google got on board. After all, Firefox/Phoenix was just Mozilla rescripted with some useful components discarded. At the very least you are guilty of gross exaggeration, but to tell the truth, it sounds more like you have an axe to grind.
Right. I'm perfectly happy with my Xoom from the hardware point of view and look forward to Android sucking less over time. The only thing that will move me off this is a 12 inch tablet.
Yes, the slides are unambiguous: "Greater than 50% reduction in active power going from 32nm to 22nm". Now, Intel tells us they have been predicting modest efficiency gains all along. For the last few months mabe. The truth is, Intel realized months ago the process would not meet expectations and already fired up the spin machine back then.
Try importing a SVG file in OpenOffice and LibreOffice, or just doing some serious editing. Then you will see how biased the review by Meeks is. He's just protecting his job.
The project contributer figures are from ohloh, and show ten times as many developers on LibreOffice as OpenOffice. Do you think ohloh is biased?
IINM LibreOffice forked form OpenOffice because issues under Oracle's stewardship. It made sense at the time. But, now that Oracle has "released" OpenOffice I really don't see why there needs to continue to be two branches. Indeed, I think that it depletes the developer base and dilutes the user base for both projects.
It's time those forks merged.
The Open Docuement Foundation does not hold all the copyrights to the code base as Oracle did, so is unable to relicense work done since the fork under the Apache license. The only way to merge is to add any new code from OpenOffice.org to the LibreOffice codebase so that the aggregate work remains under copyleft licenses wherever that applies. Do you think the Apache foundation will be ok with that?
Openoffice was progressing more slowly than it should have. A lot of good contributions ended up in an infinite state of non-acceptance. That said, Openoffice is still a wonderful thing. But LibreOffice is even better.
many of the reasons for building in-house cafes was to allow those kinds of discussions to occur. Yet, many conversations occur outside in other restaurants.
Perhaps this is about positioning to make conversations in an outside restaurant a firing offense.
It sure smells like the same group that hacked Google, using laptops running Windows inside the corporate network as the attack vector. Google's solution was to ban Windows on laptops inside the corporate network (which now requires authorization from a VP) and VMware should do that too.
For Apple to maintain Mac OS X's reputation of (practically speaking) being virus and ad-ware free, they're going to need a way to hold developers accountable for any malicious application behavior, intentional or accidental.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter whose idea it was. It is still a bad idea. They are making exactly the same mistakes that Microsoft did, for the same reasons Microsoft made them, and from which Microsoft has not, to this day, recovered.
Isn't that good?
That's what this is.
Not really, it's his second. Differentiating the iPad 3 by quadrupling the screen pixels, thus increasing the heat and battery wait in return for no increase in usability, was his first.
Apple is all about the locked-in ecosystem where everything is their way, everything runs through them, and they get a cut of everything.
In other words, exactly what Microsoft wanted, but luckily for us, failed at. Perhaps unlike Apple, Microsoft planned to lock up the entire world in their walled garden. Or maybe that's exactly what Apple dreams of too, how else will they grow to four times the market cap of Exxon?
Speaking of the market, Apple's P/E is stuck below 13 in spite of consistently turning in revenue growth over 50%. There is only one possible interpretation: the market expects Apple to hit the wall. I do too. It seems impossible or at the very least, unwise for Apple to maintain their high margins in the face of steadily increasing Android market share in both phones and tablets. Is the market right? We shall soon see.
In the past, Microsoft used to take the bashing alone!
That was before we learned that Microsoft and Apple are really Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Apple is just better at it.
No, Phoenix was an exercise in actually producing something people wanted to use, and it was massively successful at that, while the suite was a complete and utter failure at it.
You're rewriting history. The Mozilla suite was already on an upward trajectory before Ben Goodger "rebranded" it and Google got on board. After all, Firefox/Phoenix was just Mozilla rescripted with some useful components discarded. At the very least you are guilty of gross exaggeration, but to tell the truth, it sounds more like you have an axe to grind.
Oh, not to be so negative, I really like the way it tells me "maps.google.com wants your location (ok/not ok?)"
It's really impressively fast, but it's missing essential functionality. No pinch zoom? Makes maps.google.com a pain. No keyboard shortcuts? Huh?
Impressive work, but not yet usable.
Come on guys, some of us have keyboards. How hard can it be to implement Ctrl-t?
Solar panels perhaps? And use the hydrogen to store the intermittent solar power.
Microsoft would not sue over someone implementing the API.
Sorry, but I just can't take your word for that.
Having dealt with both I can say Oracle is much more evil than Microsoft.
Impressive. How is that even possible?
--
Posted from my Android tablet
What he really meant was, despite a huge bias among buys for the APPLE IPAD
Right, what he meant was, despite a huge bias for the APPLE IPAD (according to Apple) people are snapping up Android tablets like crazy.
Right. I'm perfectly happy with my Xoom from the hardware point of view and look forward to Android sucking less over time. The only thing that will move me off this is a 12 inch tablet.
Remember a year ago Intel was bragging about their new 3d tri-gate process would be 50% more power efficient: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/standards-22nm-3d-tri-gate-transistors-presentation.html.
Yes, the slides are unambiguous: "Greater than 50% reduction in active power going from 32nm to 22nm". Now, Intel tells us they have been predicting modest efficiency gains all along. For the last few months mabe. The truth is, Intel realized months ago the process would not meet expectations and already fired up the spin machine back then.
Try importing a SVG file in OpenOffice and LibreOffice, or just doing some serious editing. Then you will see how biased the review by Meeks is. He's just protecting his job.
The project contributer figures are from ohloh, and show ten times as many developers on LibreOffice as OpenOffice. Do you think ohloh is biased?
OpenOffice has been "there" for a long time. We just want more, that's all.
IINM LibreOffice forked form OpenOffice because issues under Oracle's stewardship. It made sense at the time. But, now that Oracle has "released" OpenOffice I really don't see why there needs to continue to be two branches. Indeed, I think that it depletes the developer base and dilutes the user base for both projects.
It's time those forks merged.
The Open Docuement Foundation does not hold all the copyrights to the code base as Oracle did, so is unable to relicense work done since the fork under the Apache license. The only way to merge is to add any new code from OpenOffice.org to the LibreOffice codebase so that the aggregate work remains under copyleft licenses wherever that applies. Do you think the Apache foundation will be ok with that?
If so, then merge away and everybody be happy.
However, adding features while improving the underlying code organization is always a good thing.
Openoffice was progressing more slowly than it should have. A lot of good contributions ended up in an infinite state of non-acceptance. That said, Openoffice is still a wonderful thing. But LibreOffice is even better.
1) Competition is good.
2) Oracle's heavyhanded governance went beyond the pale.
many of the reasons for building in-house cafes was to allow those kinds of discussions to occur. Yet, many conversations occur outside in other restaurants.
Perhaps this is about positioning to make conversations in an outside restaurant a firing offense.
This is what patents are supposed to be for, instead of "sure we know its obvious but this time we did it with a computer!".
The article is an Apple troll.
It sure smells like the same group that hacked Google, using laptops running Windows inside the corporate network as the attack vector. Google's solution was to ban Windows on laptops inside the corporate network (which now requires authorization from a VP) and VMware should do that too.
For Apple to maintain Mac OS X's reputation of (practically speaking) being virus and ad-ware free, they're going to need a way to hold developers accountable for any malicious application behavior, intentional or accidental.
Good luck with that.