the whiners can set their slashdot preferences to avoid seeing most apple related stories
both the rumors and the FUD are driven by Google ad revenue for web sites that cover this stuff, so we'll continue to see it so long as Apple does interesting stuff
"So Intel's idea (Light Peak is Intel's technology, not Apple's)"
The design goals and what is known about the high level architecture of Light Peak sure look like they were influenced by Apple. Light Peak is hot pluggable, can be daisy-chained, implements a carrier on which multiple protocols can be routed, and provides for electron/copper or photon/fibre carriers -- it's clearly intended to take the best ideas from existing connection types and roll them into one extensible architecture. There's some debate over whether or not Apple and Intel worked on this jointly, or not. Contrasted with the wholly-Intel effort and design abortion of USB (which utterly failed to learn most of the valuable lessons from prior connection protocols) the Light Peak effort demonstrates Apple's influence. Whether that influence is direct or indirect is mainly an academic question.
CNet appears to have snarfed this from AppleInsider.com, and augmented by reading the Intel web site on LightPeak. I'm normally inclined to agree with your complaint, but in this case it's not clear that you've traced the story back to it's origination.
Actually, it's not at all clear that Nokia has the talent required to do what you suggest. Perhaps it is simply a management failure, but for years they've dedicated substantial resources to development of mobile phone OS, and managed to produce only slight tweaks to a mediocre platform (Symbian), and failed to deliver its successor (MeeGo).
Dell wouldn't need to buy AMD to do bring a Linux desktop/laptop platform to market. What they would need to do is invest deeply in Linux, in an effort to build up a viable Windows competitor, and somehow do that without coaxing retribution from Microsoft. They might start buy acquiring a Linux vendor, say RedHat or somebody like that. Then, they would notice their calls not getting returned as quickly by Steve Ballmer.
So, let me see if I grok you here... if you ignore the computers that generate the most revenue for Apple, then Apple looks like it did five years ago, and that's the opposite of Dell buying AMD?
Well, Nokia abandoned MeeGo yesterday, when they WHOLESALE ADOPTED MICROSOFT WINDOWS PHONE 7 AS THEIR SINGLE OS STRATEGY, PHASING OUT EVEN SYMBIAN WHICH CURRENTLY GENERATES MOST OF THEIR REVENUE. Can we please get some Slashdot users how are not complete morons?
Several operating systems, plus a few additional API which seek to be cross platform. At a minimum, Adobe Flash, Oracle/Sun JavaFX, and presumably Microsoft Silverlight have aspirations of that sort, adding 3 additional API to the mix.
I like how you've attempted to drag the conversation away from the point: a non-trivial percentage of people in North Carolina (and apparently Slashdot users) labor under some delusion that a reasonable argument can be made supporting the case that Hawaii is somehow either not a state or not (in some vague sense that makes Obama ineligible to be President) a "part" of the United States.
The "long term success" (as you put it) of the HP WebOS platform will not be greatly influenced by "how soon HP gets these out the door". Their timing is already "not optimal" as others here have pointed out. If they make their vague ship dates, they're competing with iOS 4, iPhone 5 and iPad 2. HP's offering might be reasonable compared to other products in the phone and tablet market, but is unlikely to provide a compelling alternative to iOS. The problem will be that HP will have a difficult time keeping up.
I think it was the keynote when the iPhone was first announced when Steve Jobs mentioned that he thought Apple had about a three year lead in the area of the smart phone. The competition seems to think (with a few exceptions including recent comments from the head of Nokia) that they're catching up, but in fact Apple is extending their lead over most of the competitors. The sole exception appears to be Google/Android, which gained quite a bit of market traction with offerings on US cell networks where the iPhone didn't compete. The Android lead might be on a foundation of sand, however. Nearly every Android user I meet likes their 'droid, a few dislike it, and none love it. This is a distinct contrast with Blackberry and Apple, most of whose customers profess to love their phone (with the notable exception of folks using Blackberry touch screen devices). Worse for Google, about half of the Verizon 'droid users I've chatted with tell me that their next phone will be an iPhone.
In this market, HP must play a long game, in order to succeed at all. They seem to have already failed to grasp that. Others in this discussion have listed the earlier HP WebOS devices which apparently won't be getting software updates, thus annoying their user base.
I strongly suspect that, like all the other players in this game except Apple, HP does not understand that this is a software game, not a hardware game. HP, like everybody else except Apple, envisions a cool bit of hardware, and then scrambles to make software for it. Then they do it again for another type of device. Apple by contrast does it backwards. Features are substantially software driven, though they may be limited by hardware availability. Hardware is a way to package and sell software features. In the Apple world, the operating system and developer tools are every bit as important as the applications built on top of them, because Apple knows those tools let them bootstrap new features.
If HP has the resources to stay in this game long enough, and if they steadily begin to acquire clue that, at present, isn't entirely obvious, then it won't matter if they ship this generation of devices in four months, six months, or ten months, so long as they do ship. What will matter to their success is grasping the importance of the force multiplier of their development tool chain, operating system, and libraries. That's Apple's secret, and that's the thing that most of the other players in this industry don't understand. Ironically Microsoft, the player competing least effectively at the moment, sorta kinda does almost grok this point, or at least they once did. Microsoft's problem isn't failing to grasp the importance of the developer tool chain, OS, and libraries, it's being utterly unable to recognize elegant architecture and utterly unwilling to enforce common sense in their development process (exactly how many forks of Windows should be shipping on mobile devices at once?) HP will need to overcome these issues that have thus far thwarted Microsoft, Nokia, and most of the rest of their competition.
Unlike RFC 3514, which would require being able to sniff the wire to get the private data, this new proposal from Mozilla will enable evil to remotely crawl the web, searching selectively for the data marked "private" saving much carbon emissions which otherwise would be consumed parsing irrelevant data, looking for the private data users wish to protect. This might be the stupidest thing to ever be uttered from the Mozilla team, but the competition for that award is pretty stiff. I'd need to check the records to be certain.
Slashdot Mirror
Extra "or not" available; free to good home.
The design goals and what is known about the high level architecture of Light Peak sure look like they were influenced by Apple. Light Peak is hot pluggable, can be daisy-chained, implements a carrier on which multiple protocols can be routed, and provides for electron/copper or photon/fibre carriers -- it's clearly intended to take the best ideas from existing connection types and roll them into one extensible architecture. There's some debate over whether or not Apple and Intel worked on this jointly, or not. Contrasted with the wholly-Intel effort and design abortion of USB (which utterly failed to learn most of the valuable lessons from prior connection protocols) the Light Peak effort demonstrates Apple's influence. Whether that influence is direct or indirect is mainly an academic question.
FireWire has supported TCP/IP network connections between Macs for several years, as well.
Agreed.
LightPeak doesn't prohibit the use of a power conductor in the same cable. All you "two cable" people are cracked.
"Crazy kids, get off my lawn!"
CNet appears to have snarfed this from AppleInsider.com, and augmented by reading the Intel web site on LightPeak. I'm normally inclined to agree with your complaint, but in this case it's not clear that you've traced the story back to it's origination.
Actually, it's not at all clear that Nokia has the talent required to do what you suggest. Perhaps it is simply a management failure, but for years they've dedicated substantial resources to development of mobile phone OS, and managed to produce only slight tweaks to a mediocre platform (Symbian), and failed to deliver its successor (MeeGo).
Really. +1.
Oh, yes, two! Two API! Thanks for fixing my math error! : )
I'll just go out, and come back in.
Dell wouldn't need to buy AMD to do bring a Linux desktop/laptop platform to market. What they would need to do is invest deeply in Linux, in an effort to build up a viable Windows competitor, and somehow do that without coaxing retribution from Microsoft. They might start buy acquiring a Linux vendor, say RedHat or somebody like that. Then, they would notice their calls not getting returned as quickly by Steve Ballmer.
So, let me see if I grok you here... if you ignore the computers that generate the most revenue for Apple, then Apple looks like it did five years ago, and that's the opposite of Dell buying AMD?
Or, in Slashdot memespeak: "What do you get when you cross Dell and AMD? Dell."
More like the equivalent of Samsung, only without the fabs. So they would be more like Dell, than anything, really.
If Dell bought a gun, they would have to point it at their head and pull the trigger!
Uhm, no. There are lots of other things that Dell could do with AMD, aside from commit suicide.
Well, Nokia abandoned MeeGo yesterday, when they WHOLESALE ADOPTED MICROSOFT WINDOWS PHONE 7 AS THEIR SINGLE OS STRATEGY, PHASING OUT EVEN SYMBIAN WHICH CURRENTLY GENERATES MOST OF THEIR REVENUE. Can we please get some Slashdot users how are not complete morons?
Several operating systems, plus a few additional API which seek to be cross platform. At a minimum, Adobe Flash, Oracle/Sun JavaFX, and presumably Microsoft Silverlight have aspirations of that sort, adding 3 additional API to the mix.
vide supra.
Hehe, and David Wynn Miller is King of Hawaii! Long live the King!
I like how you've attempted to drag the conversation away from the point: a non-trivial percentage of people in North Carolina (and apparently Slashdot users) labor under some delusion that a reasonable argument can be made supporting the case that Hawaii is somehow either not a state or not (in some vague sense that makes Obama ineligible to be President) a "part" of the United States.
I wonder what I could do to get the Vatican to ban my app?
The "long term success" (as you put it) of the HP WebOS platform will not be greatly influenced by "how soon HP gets these out the door". Their timing is already "not optimal" as others here have pointed out. If they make their vague ship dates, they're competing with iOS 4, iPhone 5 and iPad 2. HP's offering might be reasonable compared to other products in the phone and tablet market, but is unlikely to provide a compelling alternative to iOS. The problem will be that HP will have a difficult time keeping up.
I think it was the keynote when the iPhone was first announced when Steve Jobs mentioned that he thought Apple had about a three year lead in the area of the smart phone. The competition seems to think (with a few exceptions including recent comments from the head of Nokia) that they're catching up, but in fact Apple is extending their lead over most of the competitors. The sole exception appears to be Google/Android, which gained quite a bit of market traction with offerings on US cell networks where the iPhone didn't compete. The Android lead might be on a foundation of sand, however. Nearly every Android user I meet likes their 'droid, a few dislike it, and none love it. This is a distinct contrast with Blackberry and Apple, most of whose customers profess to love their phone (with the notable exception of folks using Blackberry touch screen devices). Worse for Google, about half of the Verizon 'droid users I've chatted with tell me that their next phone will be an iPhone.
In this market, HP must play a long game, in order to succeed at all. They seem to have already failed to grasp that. Others in this discussion have listed the earlier HP WebOS devices which apparently won't be getting software updates, thus annoying their user base.
I strongly suspect that, like all the other players in this game except Apple, HP does not understand that this is a software game, not a hardware game. HP, like everybody else except Apple, envisions a cool bit of hardware, and then scrambles to make software for it. Then they do it again for another type of device. Apple by contrast does it backwards. Features are substantially software driven, though they may be limited by hardware availability. Hardware is a way to package and sell software features. In the Apple world, the operating system and developer tools are every bit as important as the applications built on top of them, because Apple knows those tools let them bootstrap new features.
If HP has the resources to stay in this game long enough, and if they steadily begin to acquire clue that, at present, isn't entirely obvious, then it won't matter if they ship this generation of devices in four months, six months, or ten months, so long as they do ship. What will matter to their success is grasping the importance of the force multiplier of their development tool chain, operating system, and libraries. That's Apple's secret, and that's the thing that most of the other players in this industry don't understand. Ironically Microsoft, the player competing least effectively at the moment, sorta kinda does almost grok this point, or at least they once did. Microsoft's problem isn't failing to grasp the importance of the developer tool chain, OS, and libraries, it's being utterly unable to recognize elegant architecture and utterly unwilling to enforce common sense in their development process (exactly how many forks of Windows should be shipping on mobile devices at once?) HP will need to overcome these issues that have thus far thwarted Microsoft, Nokia, and most of the rest of their competition.
Well, 8% of North Carolina folk don't believe that Hawaii is a state, anyway. Do you really think they might *read* the Constitution, if you sent them a copy?
Unlike RFC 3514, which would require being able to sniff the wire to get the private data, this new proposal from Mozilla will enable evil to remotely crawl the web, searching selectively for the data marked "private" saving much carbon emissions which otherwise would be consumed parsing irrelevant data, looking for the private data users wish to protect. This might be the stupidest thing to ever be uttered from the Mozilla team, but the competition for that award is pretty stiff. I'd need to check the records to be certain.