The Mac still provides sales for Microsoft. PowerPCs provide value to IBM in many ways (low power, something to use against Intel for lower prices, etc).
Real is nobody. I don't know ANYONE that has half a clue about computers that is even ambililent about Real. They all dislike (up through hate) Real. Real doesn't have a large customer base. Real doesn't have lots of users who like them. Real doesn't have a good reputation.
To agree to this would be like Bank of America partnering up with a local loan-shark (who has, supposedly reformed and is no longer crooked and evil). It doesn't do anything for Bank of America except lower their reputation.
If someone worthy came to Apple, I think they would have been more likely to say yes. If Amazon had said "let us integrate iTMS into our website" that would help Apple. If Barns & Noble had done it, that would provide value. If Walmart, Blockbuster, or even Sam Goodey had asked, there would be value there. Those compares are at least respected by many people. They have many returning customers that they would provide.
As far as I'm concerned, Real is a company that is up to it's head in quicksand and covered in Ebola. They are reaching for ANYTHING to stay alive (MS settlements, partnering with Apple, who knows what tomarrow) but no reasonable company wants to help them because they would then be associated with them (catch Ebola in my example).
For Apple, Real would be more of a paracite than something that could provide a symbiotic relationship for Apple.
Shrugging off one of the companies I listed above would be one thing, and your argument would have legitimacy. But since it's Real, I can't believe your point.
High bandwidth and local. BT is slow, and WiFi isn't good for having tons of things in the same area.
Besides, BT and WUSB are for peripherals, WiFi is for networking. I don't like the idea of putting WiFi in every camera, home printer, etc just so it can be wireless. Those are the kind of applications that are just screaming for WUSB.
WiFi should be for inter-computer networking and nothing else IMHO (note: TiVos and such count as computers, becasue they aren't peripherals).
Re:Your Bluetooth desktop?
on
USB Going Wireless
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Nope.
I don't see it that way. Bluetooth is a great technology. It's slow speed do limit it's applications, but for you mouse and your keyboard and syncing up your cell phone and such, it works great and there is no reason to replace it. It is also low power, isn't it?
WUSB on the other hand is FAST. It seems like a waste to use it for a keyboard or mouse. That said, it will work great in those areas where BT is too slow. Wouldn't it be great to set your iPod next to your laptop and have it sync up all the songs in a few seconds? Or to print wirelessly (BT does this, but if you wanted to print a photo it would be slooooooowwwwww). Want a new hard drive? Set it next to your computer and it works. Same thing with that new camera you got that has WUSB. Just keep it near your PC and you can get your pictures with no wires. How about a wireless soundcard? Or even a (he he he) wireless USB wireless network adaptor! The idea of having a flash key thing built into your watch is nice, but imagine if it was WUSB! Just walk up to any computer and thanks to WUSB you have access to the files that are on your wrist without any cables or anything else (after a password for security or something, of course).
And because WUSB supports limited P2P stuff (IIRC), you could move your iPod next to your WUSB hard drive and have them sync without the computer (after all, all the data is in the iTunes database files) or have your camera download the pictures to your hard drive, or print your pictures without a computer or wires. For things needing high bandwidth, WUSB is the way to go. For many other things, BT is still great.
Now you can find many of those things I listed above with BT right now. There are BT printers, a BT camera,, and more. But while BT works for low bandwidth things, trying to move pictures from a camera to your PC through BT is supposed to be agonizingly slow. I wouldn't want to print 5MP photos over BT either.
I think there is room for both. It's if BT speeds up fast enough in time that we could be in for a fight. Otherwise I think they serve different enough markets that things will be OK.
Re:OT: What I want from a 3D GUI project
on
Sphere XP Makes GUI 3D
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I know what you mean. I've seen a few 3D desktops before (I've seen this one before, plus Sun's 3D demo which I liked) and they all seem to be pushing the 2D paradigm into 3D. No one is really "using" 3D, they all seem to be making a 2D desktop where the 2D windows can be put "in the background" or something like that for the use of 3D. Nothing really "innovative".
Like I said, I really like the way Sun did their 3D desktop demo, but it's still not really a 3D desktop, just a 2D desktop with a 3rd deminsion.
There was an add-on for IE 5.x from Microsoft that let you set up search things like that. I had all my comptuers set up so that anytime I typed in "goo (something)" in the open location dialog or the address bar in IE it would search for "(something)" on Google. I was awesome.
It even seemed to work in IE 6.x (had to install it manually), untill my little sister used my computer one day and installed some horrid thing called the "iSearch toolbar" which was spyware. I've run adaware and spybot s&d and even messed with the registry. I think I've got it all gone, but it took me so long to do that I deleted the add-on before I figured out how to get rid of the spyware.
Now I use the google toolbar which is nice, and I like the pop-up blocking, but being able to type "ctrl-o goo some obscure subject" and having Google appear with my query was SOOO handy.
What about Tyan? They make AMD boards that are supposed to be fantastic for servers.
As for AMD making another gain, when software moves to 64-bit AMD will probably see more gains. Some software (like MP3 and video encoders) really seems to love it. It will be like a free performance upgrade in some circumstances. And I've heard that the G5 is supposed to get up to 50% performance boosts just by getting a fully 64-bit OS X (because of the differences in optimization between the G4 and the G5, what kind of code runs faster, what operations are slower, etc).
When improved OSes and software come out, Intel is going to look even worse. They aren't planning a desktop 64-bit part untill something like Q3 or Q4 next year. They are going to be in real trouble. The already had to add tons of cache just to keep up with a top of the line AMD chip. What happens when even the old chips get faster for some of the toughest tasks for free?
The Opteron is based on IA32, but I think it's fine for now. We can all move to Itaniums some day, but it's in no position to be a desktop/mainstream processor right now and 32-bits won't last untill it does.
As for the P4 vs Pentium M, you seem to have misunderstood me as many other have. I think it's GOOD that they are switching to the Pentium M, I'm just saying it's proof that the P4 wasn't that great a design. It was made to ratchet up the clock and nearly nothing else. The Pentium M is supposed to be much better (and cooler) clock for clock. I can't wait for it, I want to see what it's like.
We can switch architectures. I just don't think the P4 should have ever been more than a tiny stopgap.
Yep. AMD kept one socket that whole time. A motherboard built for one of the first Athlon XPs probably wouldn't hold one of the newest ones, but it's still the same socket.
As for the future of Intel, I agree that the Pentium M derivitive is the best for consumers, but the fact that they have to switch just proves what I've believed all along (as you seem to also). The P4 was just designed for clockspeed and that's it. I disagree with the design decisions and I think it they had looked at other things besides raw clockspeed for improving performance (such as integrating the memory controller, faster FSB, better memory technology like that new FBDIMM tech, etc) we would end up with better computers. The P4's motto seems to be "more speed ahead, damn the furnace!"
I'm interested into seeing where Intel goes with the Pentium M derivitive. They could make a great processor out of it. But as far as I'm concerned the P4 is dead and has been throughout it's entire lifetime. First it was slow compared to the P3. Then it was decent, then slow compared to the Opteron (in 32 bit, where in some/many tests the Opteron is "crippled"), and now it's just a furnace. It's time for something new. THAT's when Intel will have a chance again, IMHO.
That's true and AltiVec rocks, but I'd wager that 3DNow! was a much bigger problem for Intel because it was on the same platform. It's one thing to say "Look at those Macs, they're fast", but to get one you have to buy a whole new platform and software. But AMD selling chips that could do better was a real problem becasue you don't lose all that investment you have in x86.
Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. weren't about to start buying PPC chips for their desktop computers, so AltiVec wasn't a huge deal. But they COULD easily switch to AMD's processors (K6 was the first with 3DNow!, right?) so that was a MUCH bigger threat (at least in the short term).
I know just what you mean. I was solid Intel up through the Pentium III. As I posted above, I had kept a serious interest in AMD since the Athlon, but when I built my last computer for myself (it was a PIII 933, about when the PIII 1ghz came out) I still didn't think I'd go with AMD. Around then AMD was still running very hot, IIRC.
But this winter I built a Shuttle mini-pc for my little sister. The decision was easy. By buying an Athlon XP I got a system that lasted longer (Intel will be going to socket 755 soon, so the P4's socket 478 is basically dead) since I assume I'll be able to Athlon XPs for a while. The processors were cooler running than a P4 monster. I could also get the nForce 3 chipset which let me get decent 3D and other great things cheap (she doesn't play any real games, so it's not a problem and it can be upgraded).
AMD was cheaper, gave me better upgrade options, ran cooler, etc. It wasn't much of a decision, really.
As for Intel, they'll either wise up soon (hopefull) or they will run though most of their cash and THEN try to adapt (likely).
My question is... since no Intel processors are out that support x86-64 right now (or at least it's disabled), how hard would it be for Intel to add those two instructions in if they wanted to?
The whole thing is very interesting. The first thing to note is that Intel has been doing this since the very start. The proof? According to a document that made all the tech sites a few weeks ago (don't want to dig it up) if you remove the stuff Intel added to the IA-32e over AMD-64 (you know, SSE3 and such) the architectures are IDENTICLE except for two instructions. Those two instructions happen to be the exact same two that were not in the first draft of the AMD-64 architecture and were added later. That would be one MAJOR coincidence. I doubt that anyone is suprised though.
As for Intel's processor, I haven't heard good things. I saw an article on either The Register or The Inquirer that pointed to an article in c't about the Noncona (English thanks to Google) that Noncona is in trouble. According to the article in c't, a beta tester described the performance of the chip succintly: "It sucks." The article also states that HP has decided to only use Opteron chips, so perhaps it knows this fact too. The article doesn't say why (although it speculates that it's only emulating parts of the 64 bit instruction set). The article also has some info on some other things.
All in all, after all their foot dragging, I've lost interest in Intel. I'm worried that it won't perform as well as an Opteron. I'm worried it will be a blast furnace (Opteron's aren't cool by any means, but they look only luke-warm compared to Presshot). And I have read speculation (which I believe) that Intel is going to move to an integrated memory controller (like the Opteron) for performance reasons. Let's not forget that Intel is pushing a whole new form factor (BTX) just to help controll heat (or at least that seems to be it's major contribution to the world). AMD used to look like a "me too" company to me, making knockoffs. But over time (starting with the Athlon) I've been watching them and I no longer see them as an "also ran", they seem to be the REAL innovators these days.
AMD vs. Intel:
Intel says Rambus. AMD says DDR. The industry uses DDR.
Intel says "no one needs 64-bits". AMD says "here, have 64-bits". People buy AMD, so Intel says "wait for me!"
Intel makes MMX, AMD makes 3DNow! and it spanks MMX, so Intel has to make SSE.
Intel says "faster processors (ghz) are faster, performance ratings confuse people". AMD says "faster processors (ghz) aren't always faster, performance ratings help people see past speeds". AMD's chips are faster than Intel's and Intel has to admit it won't keep pumping up clockspeeds. Result? Intel says "faster processors (ghz) aren't always faster, performance ratings help people see past speeds".
AMD released the Opteron and Athlon 64 which races past the P4. Intel has to release the P4 Emergency Edition just to stay competitive at the top end. How did they improve the processor? They didn't, they just added cache. They're 3ghz processor needs extra cache to keep up with a 2ghz one from their compeditor that runs cooler and has 64-bits.
There are tons more. I saw an article on it the other day. Intel is not on sure footing, if you ask me. Between the problems above, the trend to sub $500 computers, and just AMDs gaining reputation, Intel could be in trouble. It has recently admitted that it can't continue to use the P4 and is going to build it's future chips off of it's mobile chip because they can't keep speeding up the P4, it's not worth it.
I didn't see it mentioned in the article, so does anyone know what the monthly fee is expected to be? Since I'm already paying for X-Box Live is there no monthly fee? (Unlikely but I hope I hope I hope).
There are many MMORPGs that I'd like to try (Everquest, FFXI especially) but the monthly fee really puts me off. But since I'm already paying for X-Box Live (which pays for the infrastructure, among other things) they could have a very low monthly fee to pay for this game's origional contentand such ($2 maybe?). That I could stomach. I've seen a few previews of this game and it really interests me, but this is a question I'd really like an answer to.
I agree (also with what you replied to yourself with). I think, at this point, the best shot they have is to release lots of models of the N-Gage. How do they do this with out pushing consumers off by constant obsolesence?
"With N-Gage Technology." They basically turn ALL (or many) or their phones into "N-Gages". They would all have the same tech specs (screen, processor, memory available to the game) so they all play the exact same games. The differences would be in form factor (one that is a tad harder to play but works better as a phone, one that's the other way, etc), in abilities (one might have built in WiFi, another a camera, etc), and such. Games wouldn't have access to the things that aren't common to all models so it wouldn't matter which phone you had. They are play N-Gage games identically, they are just different. They could even license the N-Gage platform off to other companies if they wanted to. This way instead of buying a $300 cell phone/game console, you would say "Phone Y costs $50 more but includes N-Gage support and there are some games I might want so I'll buy that one." It would be almost like a $50 game console.
I think either this or massive discounts (see my other comment in this story) would be two ways to get the platform off the ground.
Either way the need some killer games or they're dead in the water no matter what they do. I think their platform would be perfect to get ports of PopCap games. They could sell a collection or two. I'd buy 'em if I had an N-Gage, those games are GREAT for killing a few minutes.
I agree. If they want to get ANYWHERE with it, it needs to be a loss leader (at least for a while to build up a userbase). Bundle a game or two, a GOOD game. Get a KILLER game. Sell the phone for $100 for six months or so (with rebates you get when signing up, it would be free or $50). That way people will BUY them.
But I'm not going to pay $200 or $300 for a phone that has a handfull of games none of which are supposed to be any more than "not bad". If the games are there, you have a chance at getting buyers. If the phones don't cost much, you have a chance at getting great games. It's a chicken and egg thing, so Nokia needs to get some eggs (great games) to get more chickens (owners), and putting a MAJOR discout on the chickens for a while would really help.
Otherwise, I think the system will end up a footnote in the history of convergece, only to be pulled out to make jokes about how bad it is and "The top ten 'what were they thinking'?" articles in the future.
Short of being flat out idiots, that is the only thing I can think of that makes any sense. They either want to do it to drive CD sales, do it to drop online sales (so they can continue to claim piracy), or they are all idiots.
You decide, my guess is a combination of 2 and 3 with a hair of number 1 in there.
The industry just doesn't get it. Finally someone comes up with a good plan on how to do things online. So what does the industry think?
Our album costs $13. Now that we don't have to manufacture CDs, we can charge $16! huh?
People are buying songs because they don't have to pay $13 to get the one or two they want, only $0.99. So let's raise the price to $2.50! huh?
People aren't buying the whole album when they only want a track or two, so we'll FORCE them to get the songs they don't want by bundling it for free. huh?
Is there ANYONE at the top of the music industry who has a clue? Consumers get a chance to get choices and pay half-decent prices. So what does the industry do? Take away the choices (the whole reason why people we're moving to online music) and raise the prices! They want to take away every reason to buy things online. They act like jerks to customers, customers demand something better, something better comes, the industry tries to change it to treat customers like jerks.
What a winning business strategy. QUICK! Call Donald Trump and tell him the great idea!.
Does anyone else get the feeling that music industry execs don't listen to any music? How else could they be so radically out of touch with what they are doing to consumers?
It's probably that $100.00 vs. $99.99 thing. We all really know that it's the exact same thing (one cent doesn't really matter). But for some reason if you change the price from $100.00 to $99.99 people will buy more, because it "seems" cheaper. Odd as it is, it has been proven true. I'm guessing it's the same thing.
Sorta like the point I made about the eMac in the Apple story the other day. Sure it costs more, but the value of the software it includes/doesn't need (has photo, video, MP3, doesn't need AV, etc) and the fact that it includes a monitor make it a good/better value than a PC priced $200-$300 less. But if a person is only walking by and they just see the two prices: $500 and $800, which one are they more likely to look into buying?
Oddly enough, removing the buldle "is a better deal" than having the bundle, despite having the same value and cost.
That said, many people don't upgrade their computers. These days so many of the things one might buy you can get externally. If you want a DVD writer or a new CD drive or something, you can get it firewire. You could also get a new hard drive externally, or you could upgrade the internal one. You can also upgrade the memory in the eMac. With the exception of the graphics card, that's all most people ever do.
So many things that you used to need to be able to upgrade to you don't need anymore. You don't need a DVD decoder card. The computer already has Ethernet (and you could do that through USB). Wireless could be done through USB or I think eMacs can take Airport cards. Most people don't need the upgradeability that a Dell or other PC provides. Very few upgrade their processors, they just buy a new computer. For most people, an eMac is more than enough machine for them.
I don't expect Apple to start selling $500 eMacs, but they could at least advertise them and the benefits so someone who's looking for a computer to do e-mail and maybe photo editing and maybe put some family movies on DVD knows they even have the option.
And besides, salesmen can do some of the work! If people come in to look at that low end eMac but they need more of a computer, the sales people can show them better models as would happen if the Dell didn't fit their needs. The point is to get them in there and looking at Macs.
As for the "people who tinker", that's not Apple's market and the way they operate it never will be (their choice, a good thing). I really don't think it's a significant part of the market. And the other fact is that tinkerers are in the know, so they probably already know that an Apple isn't for them. It's not worth advertising to them, but as I said I don't think it's that significant of a portion of the market. Even if it IS and it's 50% of the PC market (I don't believe that by a long shot), that still leaves Apple with 50% of the PC market (which is like 40% of all computers sold) that they can aim at, an compared to their small percentage (5%?) that's significant.
I know, I run cygwin, but it's still a bunch of steps and if you bother to read what's going on and mess with the defaults, you can get into so weird and confusing stuff. I'm just saying it's not as easy as having it pre-installed or get to install it with one click on the "Yes" button.
Of course, I agree. VS is a great product. But if you just want to get your feet wet in Windows, you have to go 3rd party because VS (or even just VC++) is VERY expensive. Because Apple includes development tools for free (and you could buy better stuff if you get really serious) it's easier (and cheaper) than getting into Windows development.
I understand what you're saying about if they made VS free, but what if things were switched? What if MS had the OS with 5% market share? Don't you think making a version of VS free would help them out?
And acedemic is nice for students, but it's not as good as free. And again, if it was MS with the 5% it would still be hard for businesses to "take the plunge" into the "Microsoft world" becasue they couldn't use the Acedemic edition because you can't sell what you make with it. With the tools free (as Apple has) a programmer or two could be given the task of investigating putting their stuff on Apple without the massive cash outlay required to investigate that on a Windows box (thanks to the price of VS or CodeWarrior).
But I agree. That they include development stuff is nice, but many developers would switch to a more professional environment (like CodeWarrior). But for the amature, hobbiest, or small company, or educational institution, it's a great thing.
I agree completely. But as I've pointed out in two other replies in this thread, when consumers get bombarded with ads on TV and such for $400 and $500 dollar PCs and they see that Macs start at like $700, they are going to look at the PC. Now if Apple were to run commercials showing them how the Mac is a much better value, they'd be doing much better. But if you only look at price (as consumers are apt to do if you don't teach them better) Apple will have a hard time.
See my otherposts in this thread for more commentary on how/why the above is true (IMHO).
I think capturing the home market is more important to Apple. By doing that they get more hardware and software from 3rd parties. This, among other things, increases the number of competent developers on your platform.
How can Apple do this? There are two problems, as I see it. First is advertising. They haven't had ads targeting you basic consumer since the iMac days (since most Joe Sixpacks aren't going to buy a G5, and they didn't advertise the LCD iMac long). If someone who doesn't have a computer wants one, what do they think of? They think "I can buy one at Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack, or from Dell, or Compaq." Unless the happen to walk into a store like Microcenter or CompUSA and see the Mac section, they probably won't give buying a Mac any real thought.
The other problem is prices. Now, before you go calling me a troll, hear me out. I agree that a Mac is most of the time a better value than a PC. But when people see ads on TV for $500 Dells and they found out that Macs start at $700 or so, you're in trouble. If they could lower the price of the lowest one (say to $600) that would help. They should also ADVERTISE their lowest model and it's price (the eMac). Point out in the ads that it comes with iTunes, movie editing software, photo editing software, video conferenceing software, DVD burning software, and such. Compare the price of that $500 Dell once you include the monitor, that software above, and such. Maybe include a nice office suite (Open Office or anything else) so it will be a "complete computer" with anything most people would need. This will sell some real computers. Advertise how they are practically immune to viruses and hackers (compared to Windows) so you don't have to worry when you're on the internet. Show the cool features like expose (eye candy is always good). Show that Macs can play games too.
And get them back into schools. That plus the above should really help apple out. Schools will love the Unix core (secure, easy to centereally manage), low virus problems, etc. Macs can read and write disks/etc from students with PCs or Macs so no one will run into that "but I have a Mac and so my disk won't work here" problem.
I love Macs, but they aren't going to grow (at any noticeable rate) in market share without some advertising. Grassroots is nice, but it's only keeping Apple sustained. They've got some of the best computers on the market (along with, IMHO, the best OS). Tell the world!
As for the business market, if the boss has a Mac at home (even if he got it for his kids, or he's seen the one at a friend's house) and he's had little trouble with it (compared to his PC) then he's going to be much more likely to entertian the idea of getting Macs. Businesses will like Macs too for many of the reasons stated above in the "school" paragraph.
I think this is a FANTASTIC thing. I'm sure fink et al would provide them if they weren't included, but still. I think it's great that the OS comes with development stuff. I love that Linux does, and I really wish Windows did. You want to develop for Windows? You buy VC++, or CodeWarrior, or you go download something like Cygwin. You want to develop for Linux? It's installed already or is on a CD that came with the OS. You want to develop for the Mac? It's already installed or it's on a CD that came with the Mac. I love that. At least DOS used to come with QBasic.
I think that having the barries to development low is key to getting people interested in programming (especially programming your platform). Having to go out and buy (or hunt around for "hard to install" (cygwin, relative to a simple install of apt-get gcc)) makes things harder and a developer who's only curious less likely to mess around on your platform.
I like programming and not having to buy something to develop for a Mac is a reason that I like it. I can use basically the same tools pros could be using for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Real is nobody. I don't know ANYONE that has half a clue about computers that is even ambililent about Real. They all dislike (up through hate) Real. Real doesn't have a large customer base. Real doesn't have lots of users who like them. Real doesn't have a good reputation.
To agree to this would be like Bank of America partnering up with a local loan-shark (who has, supposedly reformed and is no longer crooked and evil). It doesn't do anything for Bank of America except lower their reputation.
If someone worthy came to Apple, I think they would have been more likely to say yes. If Amazon had said "let us integrate iTMS into our website" that would help Apple. If Barns & Noble had done it, that would provide value. If Walmart, Blockbuster, or even Sam Goodey had asked, there would be value there. Those compares are at least respected by many people. They have many returning customers that they would provide.
As far as I'm concerned, Real is a company that is up to it's head in quicksand and covered in Ebola. They are reaching for ANYTHING to stay alive (MS settlements, partnering with Apple, who knows what tomarrow) but no reasonable company wants to help them because they would then be associated with them (catch Ebola in my example).
For Apple, Real would be more of a paracite than something that could provide a symbiotic relationship for Apple.
Shrugging off one of the companies I listed above would be one thing, and your argument would have legitimacy. But since it's Real, I can't believe your point.
Besides, BT and WUSB are for peripherals, WiFi is for networking. I don't like the idea of putting WiFi in every camera, home printer, etc just so it can be wireless. Those are the kind of applications that are just screaming for WUSB.
WiFi should be for inter-computer networking and nothing else IMHO (note: TiVos and such count as computers, becasue they aren't peripherals).
I don't see it that way. Bluetooth is a great technology. It's slow speed do limit it's applications, but for you mouse and your keyboard and syncing up your cell phone and such, it works great and there is no reason to replace it. It is also low power, isn't it?
WUSB on the other hand is FAST. It seems like a waste to use it for a keyboard or mouse. That said, it will work great in those areas where BT is too slow. Wouldn't it be great to set your iPod next to your laptop and have it sync up all the songs in a few seconds? Or to print wirelessly (BT does this, but if you wanted to print a photo it would be slooooooowwwwww). Want a new hard drive? Set it next to your computer and it works. Same thing with that new camera you got that has WUSB. Just keep it near your PC and you can get your pictures with no wires. How about a wireless soundcard? Or even a (he he he) wireless USB wireless network adaptor! The idea of having a flash key thing built into your watch is nice, but imagine if it was WUSB! Just walk up to any computer and thanks to WUSB you have access to the files that are on your wrist without any cables or anything else (after a password for security or something, of course).
And because WUSB supports limited P2P stuff (IIRC), you could move your iPod next to your WUSB hard drive and have them sync without the computer (after all, all the data is in the iTunes database files) or have your camera download the pictures to your hard drive, or print your pictures without a computer or wires. For things needing high bandwidth, WUSB is the way to go. For many other things, BT is still great.
Now you can find many of those things I listed above with BT right now. There are BT printers, a BT camera,, and more. But while BT works for low bandwidth things, trying to move pictures from a camera to your PC through BT is supposed to be agonizingly slow. I wouldn't want to print 5MP photos over BT either.
I think there is room for both. It's if BT speeds up fast enough in time that we could be in for a fight. Otherwise I think they serve different enough markets that things will be OK.
Like I said, I really like the way Sun did their 3D desktop demo, but it's still not really a 3D desktop, just a 2D desktop with a 3rd deminsion.
It even seemed to work in IE 6.x (had to install it manually), untill my little sister used my computer one day and installed some horrid thing called the "iSearch toolbar" which was spyware. I've run adaware and spybot s&d and even messed with the registry. I think I've got it all gone, but it took me so long to do that I deleted the add-on before I figured out how to get rid of the spyware.
Now I use the google toolbar which is nice, and I like the pop-up blocking, but being able to type "ctrl-o goo some obscure subject" and having Google appear with my query was SOOO handy.
All you need is a car that can run on french fries and your set!
As for AMD making another gain, when software moves to 64-bit AMD will probably see more gains. Some software (like MP3 and video encoders) really seems to love it. It will be like a free performance upgrade in some circumstances. And I've heard that the G5 is supposed to get up to 50% performance boosts just by getting a fully 64-bit OS X (because of the differences in optimization between the G4 and the G5, what kind of code runs faster, what operations are slower, etc).
When improved OSes and software come out, Intel is going to look even worse. They aren't planning a desktop 64-bit part untill something like Q3 or Q4 next year. They are going to be in real trouble. The already had to add tons of cache just to keep up with a top of the line AMD chip. What happens when even the old chips get faster for some of the toughest tasks for free?
As for the P4 vs Pentium M, you seem to have misunderstood me as many other have. I think it's GOOD that they are switching to the Pentium M, I'm just saying it's proof that the P4 wasn't that great a design. It was made to ratchet up the clock and nearly nothing else. The Pentium M is supposed to be much better (and cooler) clock for clock. I can't wait for it, I want to see what it's like.
We can switch architectures. I just don't think the P4 should have ever been more than a tiny stopgap.
As for the future of Intel, I agree that the Pentium M derivitive is the best for consumers, but the fact that they have to switch just proves what I've believed all along (as you seem to also). The P4 was just designed for clockspeed and that's it. I disagree with the design decisions and I think it they had looked at other things besides raw clockspeed for improving performance (such as integrating the memory controller, faster FSB, better memory technology like that new FBDIMM tech, etc) we would end up with better computers. The P4's motto seems to be "more speed ahead, damn the furnace!"
I'm interested into seeing where Intel goes with the Pentium M derivitive. They could make a great processor out of it. But as far as I'm concerned the P4 is dead and has been throughout it's entire lifetime. First it was slow compared to the P3. Then it was decent, then slow compared to the Opteron (in 32 bit, where in some/many tests the Opteron is "crippled"), and now it's just a furnace. It's time for something new. THAT's when Intel will have a chance again, IMHO.
Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. weren't about to start buying PPC chips for their desktop computers, so AltiVec wasn't a huge deal. But they COULD easily switch to AMD's processors (K6 was the first with 3DNow!, right?) so that was a MUCH bigger threat (at least in the short term).
But this winter I built a Shuttle mini-pc for my little sister. The decision was easy. By buying an Athlon XP I got a system that lasted longer (Intel will be going to socket 755 soon, so the P4's socket 478 is basically dead) since I assume I'll be able to Athlon XPs for a while. The processors were cooler running than a P4 monster. I could also get the nForce 3 chipset which let me get decent 3D and other great things cheap (she doesn't play any real games, so it's not a problem and it can be upgraded).
AMD was cheaper, gave me better upgrade options, ran cooler, etc. It wasn't much of a decision, really.
As for Intel, they'll either wise up soon (hopefull) or they will run though most of their cash and THEN try to adapt (likely).
My question is... since no Intel processors are out that support x86-64 right now (or at least it's disabled), how hard would it be for Intel to add those two instructions in if they wanted to?
As for Intel's processor, I haven't heard good things. I saw an article on either The Register or The Inquirer that pointed to an article in c't about the Noncona (English thanks to Google) that Noncona is in trouble. According to the article in c't, a beta tester described the performance of the chip succintly: "It sucks." The article also states that HP has decided to only use Opteron chips, so perhaps it knows this fact too. The article doesn't say why (although it speculates that it's only emulating parts of the 64 bit instruction set). The article also has some info on some other things.
All in all, after all their foot dragging, I've lost interest in Intel. I'm worried that it won't perform as well as an Opteron. I'm worried it will be a blast furnace (Opteron's aren't cool by any means, but they look only luke-warm compared to Presshot). And I have read speculation (which I believe) that Intel is going to move to an integrated memory controller (like the Opteron) for performance reasons. Let's not forget that Intel is pushing a whole new form factor (BTX) just to help controll heat (or at least that seems to be it's major contribution to the world). AMD used to look like a "me too" company to me, making knockoffs. But over time (starting with the Athlon) I've been watching them and I no longer see them as an "also ran", they seem to be the REAL innovators these days.
AMD vs. Intel:
There are tons more. I saw an article on it the other day. Intel is not on sure footing, if you ask me. Between the problems above, the trend to sub $500 computers, and just AMDs gaining reputation, Intel could be in trouble. It has recently admitted that it can't continue to use the P4 and is going to build it's future chips off of it's mobile chip because they can't keep speeding up the P4, it's not worth it.
There are many MMORPGs that I'd like to try (Everquest, FFXI especially) but the monthly fee really puts me off. But since I'm already paying for X-Box Live (which pays for the infrastructure, among other things) they could have a very low monthly fee to pay for this game's origional contentand such ($2 maybe?). That I could stomach. I've seen a few previews of this game and it really interests me, but this is a question I'd really like an answer to.
"With N-Gage Technology." They basically turn ALL (or many) or their phones into "N-Gages". They would all have the same tech specs (screen, processor, memory available to the game) so they all play the exact same games. The differences would be in form factor (one that is a tad harder to play but works better as a phone, one that's the other way, etc), in abilities (one might have built in WiFi, another a camera, etc), and such. Games wouldn't have access to the things that aren't common to all models so it wouldn't matter which phone you had. They are play N-Gage games identically, they are just different. They could even license the N-Gage platform off to other companies if they wanted to. This way instead of buying a $300 cell phone/game console, you would say "Phone Y costs $50 more but includes N-Gage support and there are some games I might want so I'll buy that one." It would be almost like a $50 game console.
I think either this or massive discounts (see my other comment in this story) would be two ways to get the platform off the ground.
Either way the need some killer games or they're dead in the water no matter what they do. I think their platform would be perfect to get ports of PopCap games. They could sell a collection or two. I'd buy 'em if I had an N-Gage, those games are GREAT for killing a few minutes.
But I'm not going to pay $200 or $300 for a phone that has a handfull of games none of which are supposed to be any more than "not bad". If the games are there, you have a chance at getting buyers. If the phones don't cost much, you have a chance at getting great games. It's a chicken and egg thing, so Nokia needs to get some eggs (great games) to get more chickens (owners), and putting a MAJOR discout on the chickens for a while would really help.
Otherwise, I think the system will end up a footnote in the history of convergece, only to be pulled out to make jokes about how bad it is and "The top ten 'what were they thinking'?" articles in the future.
You decide, my guess is a combination of 2 and 3 with a hair of number 1 in there.
Is there ANYONE at the top of the music industry who has a clue? Consumers get a chance to get choices and pay half-decent prices. So what does the industry do? Take away the choices (the whole reason why people we're moving to online music) and raise the prices! They want to take away every reason to buy things online. They act like jerks to customers, customers demand something better, something better comes, the industry tries to change it to treat customers like jerks.
What a winning business strategy. QUICK! Call Donald Trump and tell him the great idea!.
Does anyone else get the feeling that music industry execs don't listen to any music? How else could they be so radically out of touch with what they are doing to consumers?
Sorta like the point I made about the eMac in the Apple story the other day. Sure it costs more, but the value of the software it includes/doesn't need (has photo, video, MP3, doesn't need AV, etc) and the fact that it includes a monitor make it a good/better value than a PC priced $200-$300 less. But if a person is only walking by and they just see the two prices: $500 and $800, which one are they more likely to look into buying?
Oddly enough, removing the buldle "is a better deal" than having the bundle, despite having the same value and cost.
That said, many people don't upgrade their computers. These days so many of the things one might buy you can get externally. If you want a DVD writer or a new CD drive or something, you can get it firewire. You could also get a new hard drive externally, or you could upgrade the internal one. You can also upgrade the memory in the eMac. With the exception of the graphics card, that's all most people ever do.
So many things that you used to need to be able to upgrade to you don't need anymore. You don't need a DVD decoder card. The computer already has Ethernet (and you could do that through USB). Wireless could be done through USB or I think eMacs can take Airport cards. Most people don't need the upgradeability that a Dell or other PC provides. Very few upgrade their processors, they just buy a new computer. For most people, an eMac is more than enough machine for them.
I don't expect Apple to start selling $500 eMacs, but they could at least advertise them and the benefits so someone who's looking for a computer to do e-mail and maybe photo editing and maybe put some family movies on DVD knows they even have the option.
And besides, salesmen can do some of the work! If people come in to look at that low end eMac but they need more of a computer, the sales people can show them better models as would happen if the Dell didn't fit their needs. The point is to get them in there and looking at Macs.
As for the "people who tinker", that's not Apple's market and the way they operate it never will be (their choice, a good thing). I really don't think it's a significant part of the market. And the other fact is that tinkerers are in the know, so they probably already know that an Apple isn't for them. It's not worth advertising to them, but as I said I don't think it's that significant of a portion of the market. Even if it IS and it's 50% of the PC market (I don't believe that by a long shot), that still leaves Apple with 50% of the PC market (which is like 40% of all computers sold) that they can aim at, an compared to their small percentage (5%?) that's significant.
I know, I run cygwin, but it's still a bunch of steps and if you bother to read what's going on and mess with the defaults, you can get into so weird and confusing stuff. I'm just saying it's not as easy as having it pre-installed or get to install it with one click on the "Yes" button.
I understand what you're saying about if they made VS free, but what if things were switched? What if MS had the OS with 5% market share? Don't you think making a version of VS free would help them out?
And acedemic is nice for students, but it's not as good as free. And again, if it was MS with the 5% it would still be hard for businesses to "take the plunge" into the "Microsoft world" becasue they couldn't use the Acedemic edition because you can't sell what you make with it. With the tools free (as Apple has) a programmer or two could be given the task of investigating putting their stuff on Apple without the massive cash outlay required to investigate that on a Windows box (thanks to the price of VS or CodeWarrior).
But I agree. That they include development stuff is nice, but many developers would switch to a more professional environment (like CodeWarrior). But for the amature, hobbiest, or small company, or educational institution, it's a great thing.
See my other posts in this thread for more commentary on how/why the above is true (IMHO).
How can Apple do this? There are two problems, as I see it. First is advertising. They haven't had ads targeting you basic consumer since the iMac days (since most Joe Sixpacks aren't going to buy a G5, and they didn't advertise the LCD iMac long). If someone who doesn't have a computer wants one, what do they think of? They think "I can buy one at Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack, or from Dell, or Compaq." Unless the happen to walk into a store like Microcenter or CompUSA and see the Mac section, they probably won't give buying a Mac any real thought.
The other problem is prices. Now, before you go calling me a troll, hear me out. I agree that a Mac is most of the time a better value than a PC. But when people see ads on TV for $500 Dells and they found out that Macs start at $700 or so, you're in trouble. If they could lower the price of the lowest one (say to $600) that would help. They should also ADVERTISE their lowest model and it's price (the eMac). Point out in the ads that it comes with iTunes, movie editing software, photo editing software, video conferenceing software, DVD burning software, and such. Compare the price of that $500 Dell once you include the monitor, that software above, and such. Maybe include a nice office suite (Open Office or anything else) so it will be a "complete computer" with anything most people would need. This will sell some real computers. Advertise how they are practically immune to viruses and hackers (compared to Windows) so you don't have to worry when you're on the internet. Show the cool features like expose (eye candy is always good). Show that Macs can play games too.
And get them back into schools. That plus the above should really help apple out. Schools will love the Unix core (secure, easy to centereally manage), low virus problems, etc. Macs can read and write disks/etc from students with PCs or Macs so no one will run into that "but I have a Mac and so my disk won't work here" problem.
I love Macs, but they aren't going to grow (at any noticeable rate) in market share without some advertising. Grassroots is nice, but it's only keeping Apple sustained. They've got some of the best computers on the market (along with, IMHO, the best OS). Tell the world!
As for the business market, if the boss has a Mac at home (even if he got it for his kids, or he's seen the one at a friend's house) and he's had little trouble with it (compared to his PC) then he's going to be much more likely to entertian the idea of getting Macs. Businesses will like Macs too for many of the reasons stated above in the "school" paragraph.
I think that having the barries to development low is key to getting people interested in programming (especially programming your platform). Having to go out and buy (or hunt around for "hard to install" (cygwin, relative to a simple install of apt-get gcc)) makes things harder and a developer who's only curious less likely to mess around on your platform.
I like programming and not having to buy something to develop for a Mac is a reason that I like it. I can use basically the same tools pros could be using for free.