because $6k is for a 12-core machine, not a 4-core machine ?
because the *software* is better ?
because you'd be throwing away all that in-house expertise ?
Or, maybe it's not for you. Your call, I couldn't really care less. I just don't think that $40 for a USB-3 port or two is any justification for that decision.
If you've just spent $6k on a new Mac Pro, and you *really* need USB-3, just spend another $40 and plug the card in. It's a Mac Pro. It has expansion ports. Use them and feel happy.
... and if you want e-sata, just buy an extender cable for the two extra on-board sata channels in the Mac Pro. That'll cost you the princely sum of $19.
Sure, you can argue it ought to have come with them (and I'd agree, for what it's worth) but the cost of implementing it yourself is hardly the end of the world.
The record figure for a single month was reported as T$18 billion which is roughly $570 million for the month of April
$0.57B is waaay less than $10B/3...
If you *really* want to see how Apple is blowing away the competition, look here for a graph of Apple profit vs the combination of {RIM, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, Sony Ericsson}... Now Samsung and LG aren't part of the group Apple is compared against on the graph, but when you're making huge amounts more *profit* (not revenue as you quote above) than a significant number of your competitors *combined*, you're doing something right.
Just logged on to check on how it's presented. The international view may be a HSBC Premier-only thing, since the link to get to it "Go to Global View" is part of the HSBC Premier logo at the top-left of the Account summary page.
Agreed with the customer service thing. When I got married, and we made all our accounts into joint-accounts, we went to the local branch to sign all the documents etc. and the manageress insisted on coming out to chat with us and introduce herself. At Wells Fargo, we just got a blank stare and some forms to fill out and hand to the cashier. Both places accomplished the exact same thing, but one was far more pleasant than the other.
I have an HSBC debit card. My credit score is in the high 800's. Since I only like to spend money I actually have, they make sense to me.
With a debit card, if someone ever steals your card or its number they can drain your entire checking account and that money is gone.
Not true. As it happens, just recently my debit card was used fraudulently online, and pretty much emptied the account to the tune of ~$4,500. The bank phoned me up, asked me which of the purchases were mine, I told them, and they ordered me a new (unactivated, for the record) debit card, refunded (immediately, as in, the money was there when I logged in while talking to the agent on the phone) all the cash, and asked me if there was anything else they could do. The new card arrived two days later by courier (and the courier company phoned me the night before to tell me I should expect a to-sign-for package).
All told, I'm pretty impressed with HSBC. It's the only bank I know of where you can see accounts in different countries and transfer money internationally in real-time. Since I'm a Brit living in the US, this helps me a lot. I can transfer money from my US account to my UK account, then immediately transfer funds from my UK account to pay bills/family members/whatever. Way better than my "toys" account at Wells Fargo, who don't actually let you transfer money out of your account to another bank via their online system.
HSBC on the other hand have an online form where you type in the details, and if it can't be done automatically, a human will do all the leg-work for you, so I can transfer money out of Wells Fargo using the HSBC website, which is pretty cool too.
Shit, just about every software company in the world is in deep-doo-doo then.
Show me a single software company that hasn't released a piece of software with known bugs, and then charged for 'version N+1'.
It seems to me that if all these iPhone owners are sufficiently motivated to keep their new phones, and not just return them for refund in the current 30-day period they're allowed, then maybe it's just not that big of a deal for them.
Anand's numbers are an impressive tour-de-force, but people are missing his other statements too - that *even with* the antenna performance dropping bars like there's no tomorrow, the iPhone 4 performs better at making calls than the 3GS he had right next to it. In other words, the bars are measuring signal attenuation, not phone efficiency.
Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction by some third-party developers that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.
Question: Since Apple was labelled "the new Microsoft" due to its supposed policies, does this make Microsoft - um - the new Microsoft, again ? [grin]
I think you're using absolutes, whereas he's using derivatives. The rate-of-change of apps in the app-store (in order to get to the 220k number) is impressively high. The rate-of-change of Macs in the marketplace is going up faster than the rate-of-change of any other PC manufacturer.
On the other hand, MS ain't dead IMHO, and even a useless juggernaut takes a while to slow down - MS'll be around for quite some time yet, even if it's failing in crucial business areas right now.
I have 47 books on my iPad, I am what you would call an avid reader, and for me the iPad won hands down over a Kindle that I borrowed for a couple of weeks before buying the iPad. For me at least, this idea that e-ink is easier on the eyes is just so much snake-oil.
The author states: The web was never meant to provide a reading experience similar to an ebook or print book. That's patently not true. I set up one of the first websites in the UK (when you still had to email CERN to tell them a new website was in the world:), and I remember just how plain and boring^W"quiet" the WWW was This was before the <IMG SRC= tag came along.
My point is that the web was *exactly* designed for a quiet reading experience, because it was originally supposed to be for easy dissemination of scientific research. That may not be what it is today (and it's perhaps lesser because of it), but "was never meant to" is precisely wrong.
The author then goes on to say (in both text and comments) that there are two main reasons websites split articles over multiple pages - to monetise the site, and to help all those users who fret about scrolling the page.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the former of those two reasons is dramatically more important to the website author than the latter. I'd go so far as to say the latter was a desperate justification for the former. The author apparently thinks so too, because when challenged to reverse his policy (put everything on one page and have a button to split the article into multiple ones), he demurs.
Now, I'm not against websites making money from advertisers. If that's your business model, all the more power to your elbow, but there are sites out there that extract the proverbial urine, and I'm equally supportive of methods to defeat that. The website absolutely has the right to serve adverts. Equally, the user has the right to work around that if (s)he is sufficiently motivated to. Advertisers seem to want to motivate users to do that, these days, is all I'm saying.
I'm far more likely to read an article on arstechnica that's spread out over multiple pages specifically because each page has a lot of relevant content and it hangs together well. I'm far less likely to want to read a multi-page article where each "page" is a 40-word paragraph - *those* are the sites that Safari Reader will be a blessing for.
It's also not clear to me that this is a doomed battle for Reader. HTTP is a simple protocol, and it's relatively easy to forge a user's browsing habits programmatically
Neither. It's mainly purchased due to a desire to conform to what the majority have, mainly for interoperability with others (work, gamers,...). It's purchased because it has the majority of marketshare.
It's tough to make the same claim when Apple went from zero phones in 2007 to what they have today, or the introduction of the iPad which again went from 0 to todays 2 million in a matter of weeks.
Yeah, and it will probably only let you talk to other iPhone users. But, hey, that way you can maintain your illusion that this is something new or unique to Apple. Wouldn't want to have your preconceptions challenged, would you now.
Except that it will be released as an open standard. But, hey, that way you can keep thinking anything Apple does is evil. Wouldn't want to have your preconceptions challenged, would you now ?
I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone thinks *I* am more compassionate than you. I think your attempt to tie Apple's corporate policy in one area to the corporate policy of a supplier company in another, when that second policy results in suicide is very poor form.
Frankly, I don't think they deserve to be mentioned in the same post. I'll say it again, you're cheapening their deaths for your own political gain. Stop it.
Well, that's because Google is entirely populated by the hipster artsy types that/. maintains is the only type of Apple user. No informed users, no intelligent selection by PhD graduates, no conceivable advantage. No sir.
Pardon me, but I think people committing suicide due to manufacturing conditions is nothing whatsoever to do with AppStore policies. You cheapen their deaths by attempting to link the two. For shame.
Because despite the fact that FoxConn make stuff for all sorts of people in the consumer electronics world, all the bile and invective seems to fall on Apple's shoulders.
No doubt, Apple actually trying to help will be seen negatively too - let's see if any of the subsequent comments say so (my money's on yes...). Honestly, the anyone-but-apple brigade make the fanboys look calm, collected, and sane.
It seems maths isn't your strong suit either... At this point I'm going to guess you're terminally stupid or being deliberately obtuse. Either way I'm done feeding the troll.
No. What I'm saying is that Apple had sufficient cash in the bank that they could take a token sum of money, while forcing MS to licence a huge number of patents, simultaneously extracting a promise to deliver office for the next 5 years. If they were desperate for cash, they'd have just taken the money... patents don't help a business out of cash...
Yeah, blah blah blah blah... sorry, I'm a techie simpleton with as much business acumen as a potato
Yes, you do have, don't you ? Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit either. If you have billions in the bank, 150 million isn't a huge amount of money. So, in small, simple words:
Microsoft did not bail out Apple
... which somewhat refutes your claim to have "won" the argument in any meaningful way.
As for "winning" by using your nice open-source operating system, look, you're barking up the wrong tree here.
I've contributed to Linux, to gcj, to PHP, to any number of other smaller projects. I've written my own multi-tasking operating system for the 8-bit AVR, and opened up the source; I wrote a virtual memory system for the nintendo DS in the homebrew arena, and gave away the source; just because I thought it was cool, I bought an FPGA kit, designed a 32-bit CPU in verilog, tested it in the FPGA, wrote an assembler, C compiler, and linker for it, and opened up the source until I found students were cheating using the code; I wrote frameworks for the PS2 linux kit and gave them away as open-source; I set up and ran hostip.info as a community-based geolocation system, again opening up the database and website as open-source; I've been using linux since it came on root- and boot-floppies; I've written filesystems (a filesystem view of an application's database) and device-drivers ( linked up my EP2002H circuit engraver to a linux host and written gerber interpolation routines to translate to M-code.). I have in fact set up three businesses all based on Open Source, and sold two of them at great profit, then moved on to something new. I could go on, and on...
In short, I've been there, done that, and almost all of it was open source. That which wasn't, paid the bills to fund that which was.
Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature.
Thanks, it IS rather cool, isn't it.
Not particularly. It was mind-numbingly obvious to the meanest of intelligences. You, on the other hand appear to be proud of determining it. Oh dear.
[sigh] Microsoft bought $150M worth of non-voting shares. Which they've since sold (at a handsome profit, although if they'd waited they'd have made more money). Apple had billions in the bank at the time, so it's hardly "keep them solvent".
The reason wasn't altruism, either. Microsoft did it to settle a court-case (along with granting Apple access to a broad base of MS patents) because they were about to be taken to the cleaners by Apple. MS also had to promise to keep developing MS Office for 5 years. Back when Office was important to Apple, that was a big deal.
It's always best to use facts to win arguments, rather than wishful thinking, I find.
[sarcasm]Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature. That's what I was missing - people will be able to understand it now.... [/sarcasm]. Since you clearly are a Microsoft fanboi, though, I'm surprised at your direct and honest approach. Kudos to you and your hard-on, sir.
Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT (219.18B) by having a market cap of 222.07B.
To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders
Slashdot Mirror
Two options:
1) Use a single optical drive (I've never used 2 in a mac). That leaves you with a single e-sata connection
2) Instead of the cable, buy This card for $6 more ($25).
Again, it's a mac pro. Use the expansion slots and feel happy.
Simon.
because $6k is for a 12-core machine, not a 4-core machine ?
because the *software* is better ?
because you'd be throwing away all that in-house expertise ?
Or, maybe it's not for you. Your call, I couldn't really care less. I just don't think that $40 for a USB-3 port or two is any justification for that decision.
Simon
If you've just spent $6k on a new Mac Pro, and you *really* need USB-3, just spend another $40 and plug the card in. It's a Mac Pro. It has expansion ports. Use them and feel happy.
... and if you want e-sata, just buy an extender cable for the two extra on-board sata channels in the Mac Pro. That'll cost you the princely sum of $19.
Sure, you can argue it ought to have come with them (and I'd agree, for what it's worth) but the cost of implementing it yourself is hardly the end of the world.
Simon
$0.57B is waaay less than $10B/3...
If you *really* want to see how Apple is blowing away the competition, look here for a graph of Apple profit vs the combination of {RIM, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, Sony Ericsson}... Now Samsung and LG aren't part of the group Apple is compared against on the graph, but when you're making huge amounts more *profit* (not revenue as you quote above) than a significant number of your competitors *combined*, you're doing something right.
Simon
Just logged on to check on how it's presented. The international view may be a HSBC Premier-only thing, since the link to get to it "Go to Global View" is part of the HSBC Premier logo at the top-left of the Account summary page.
Agreed with the customer service thing. When I got married, and we made all our accounts into joint-accounts, we went to the local branch to sign all the documents etc. and the manageress insisted on coming out to chat with us and introduce herself. At Wells Fargo, we just got a blank stare and some forms to fill out and hand to the cashier. Both places accomplished the exact same thing, but one was far more pleasant than the other.
Simon
Not true. As it happens, just recently my debit card was used fraudulently online, and pretty much emptied the account to the tune of ~$4,500. The bank phoned me up, asked me which of the purchases were mine, I told them, and they ordered me a new (unactivated, for the record) debit card, refunded (immediately, as in, the money was there when I logged in while talking to the agent on the phone) all the cash, and asked me if there was anything else they could do. The new card arrived two days later by courier (and the courier company phoned me the night before to tell me I should expect a to-sign-for package).
All told, I'm pretty impressed with HSBC. It's the only bank I know of where you can see accounts in different countries and transfer money internationally in real-time. Since I'm a Brit living in the US, this helps me a lot. I can transfer money from my US account to my UK account, then immediately transfer funds from my UK account to pay bills/family members/whatever. Way better than my "toys" account at Wells Fargo, who don't actually let you transfer money out of your account to another bank via their online system.
HSBC on the other hand have an online form where you type in the details, and if it can't be done automatically, a human will do all the leg-work for you, so I can transfer money out of Wells Fargo using the HSBC website, which is pretty cool too.
Simon.
Shit, just about every software company in the world is in deep-doo-doo then.
Show me a single software company that hasn't released a piece of software with known bugs, and then charged for 'version N+1'.
It seems to me that if all these iPhone owners are sufficiently motivated to keep their new phones, and not just return them for refund in the current 30-day period they're allowed, then maybe it's just not that big of a deal for them.
Anand's numbers are an impressive tour-de-force, but people are missing his other statements too - that *even with* the antenna performance dropping bars like there's no tomorrow, the iPhone 4 performs better at making calls than the 3GS he had right next to it. In other words, the bars are measuring signal attenuation, not phone efficiency.
Simon
Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction by some third-party developers that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.
Question: Since Apple was labelled "the new Microsoft" due to its supposed policies, does this make Microsoft - um - the new Microsoft, again ? [grin]
Simon
I think you're using absolutes, whereas he's using derivatives. The rate-of-change of apps in the app-store (in order to get to the 220k number) is impressively high. The rate-of-change of Macs in the marketplace is going up faster than the rate-of-change of any other PC manufacturer.
On the other hand, MS ain't dead IMHO, and even a useless juggernaut takes a while to slow down - MS'll be around for quite some time yet, even if it's failing in crucial business areas right now.
Simon
Mine does. As does every 3G-enabled iPad.
Simon
I have 47 books on my iPad, I am what you would call an avid reader, and for me the iPad won hands down over a Kindle that I borrowed for a couple of weeks before buying the iPad. For me at least, this idea that e-ink is easier on the eyes is just so much snake-oil.
Simon.
My point is that the web was *exactly* designed for a quiet reading experience, because it was originally supposed to be for easy dissemination of scientific research. That may not be what it is today (and it's perhaps lesser because of it), but "was never meant to" is precisely wrong.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the former of those two reasons is dramatically more important to the website author than the latter. I'd go so far as to say the latter was a desperate justification for the former. The author apparently thinks so too, because when challenged to reverse his policy (put everything on one page and have a button to split the article into multiple ones), he demurs.
Now, I'm not against websites making money from advertisers. If that's your business model, all the more power to your elbow, but there are sites out there that extract the proverbial urine, and I'm equally supportive of methods to defeat that. The website absolutely has the right to serve adverts. Equally, the user has the right to work around that if (s)he is sufficiently motivated to. Advertisers seem to want to motivate users to do that, these days, is all I'm saying.
I'm far more likely to read an article on arstechnica that's spread out over multiple pages specifically because each page has a lot of relevant content and it hangs together well. I'm far less likely to want to read a multi-page article where each "page" is a 40-word paragraph - *those* are the sites that Safari Reader will be a blessing for.
It's also not clear to me that this is a doomed battle for Reader. HTTP is a simple protocol, and it's relatively easy to forge a user's browsing habits programmatically
Simon
Neither. It's mainly purchased due to a desire to conform to what the majority have, mainly for interoperability with others (work, gamers, ...). It's purchased because it has the majority of marketshare.
It's tough to make the same claim when Apple went from zero phones in 2007 to what they have today, or the introduction of the iPad which again went from 0 to todays 2 million in a matter of weeks.
Simon.
Yeah, and it will probably only let you talk to other iPhone users. But, hey, that way you can maintain your illusion that this is something new or unique to Apple. Wouldn't want to have your preconceptions challenged, would you now.
Except that it will be released as an open standard. But, hey, that way you can keep thinking anything Apple does is evil. Wouldn't want to have your preconceptions challenged, would you now ?
Simon
Except that they were now no longer legal tender (closest I can get to Giz breaking the phone before returning it). I'd be pissed if that happened....
Simon
I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Simon
I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone thinks *I* am more compassionate than you. I think your attempt to tie Apple's corporate policy in one area to the corporate policy of a supplier company in another, when that second policy results in suicide is very poor form.
Frankly, I don't think they deserve to be mentioned in the same post. I'll say it again, you're cheapening their deaths for your own political gain. Stop it.
Simon.
Well, that's because Google is entirely populated by the hipster artsy types that /. maintains is the only type of Apple user. No informed users, no intelligent selection by PhD graduates, no conceivable advantage. No sir.
Simon.
Pardon me, but I think people committing suicide due to manufacturing conditions is nothing whatsoever to do with AppStore policies. You cheapen their deaths by attempting to link the two. For shame.
Simon
Because despite the fact that FoxConn make stuff for all sorts of people in the consumer electronics world, all the bile and invective seems to fall on Apple's shoulders.
No doubt, Apple actually trying to help will be seen negatively too - let's see if any of the subsequent comments say so (my money's on yes...). Honestly, the anyone-but-apple brigade make the fanboys look calm, collected, and sane.
Simon
It seems maths isn't your strong suit either... At this point I'm going to guess you're terminally stupid or being deliberately obtuse. Either way I'm done feeding the troll.
Simon.
No. What I'm saying is that Apple had sufficient cash in the bank that they could take a token sum of money, while forcing MS to licence a huge number of patents, simultaneously extracting a promise to deliver office for the next 5 years. If they were desperate for cash, they'd have just taken the money... patents don't help a business out of cash...
Simon
Yes, you do have, don't you ? Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit either. If you have billions in the bank, 150 million isn't a huge amount of money. So, in small, simple words:
... which somewhat refutes your claim to have "won" the argument in any meaningful way.
Microsoft did not bail out Apple
As for "winning" by using your nice open-source operating system, look, you're barking up the wrong tree here.
I've contributed to Linux, to gcj, to PHP, to any number of other smaller projects. I've written my own multi-tasking operating system for the 8-bit AVR, and opened up the source; I wrote a virtual memory system for the nintendo DS in the homebrew arena, and gave away the source; just because I thought it was cool, I bought an FPGA kit, designed a 32-bit CPU in verilog, tested it in the FPGA, wrote an assembler, C compiler, and linker for it, and opened up the source until I found students were cheating using the code; I wrote frameworks for the PS2 linux kit and gave them away as open-source; I set up and ran hostip.info as a community-based geolocation system, again opening up the database and website as open-source; I've been using linux since it came on root- and boot-floppies; I've written filesystems (a filesystem view of an application's database) and device-drivers ( linked up my EP2002H circuit engraver to a linux host and written gerber interpolation routines to translate to M-code.). I have in fact set up three businesses all based on Open Source, and sold two of them at great profit, then moved on to something new. I could go on, and on...
In short, I've been there, done that, and almost all of it was open source. That which wasn't, paid the bills to fund that which was.
Not particularly. It was mind-numbingly obvious to the meanest of intelligences. You, on the other hand appear to be proud of determining it. Oh dear.
Simon.
[sigh] Microsoft bought $150M worth of non-voting shares. Which they've since sold (at a handsome profit, although if they'd waited they'd have made more money). Apple had billions in the bank at the time, so it's hardly "keep them solvent".
The reason wasn't altruism, either. Microsoft did it to settle a court-case (along with granting Apple access to a broad base of MS patents) because they were about to be taken to the cleaners by Apple. MS also had to promise to keep developing MS Office for 5 years. Back when Office was important to Apple, that was a big deal.
It's always best to use facts to win arguments, rather than wishful thinking, I find.
[sarcasm]Oh, and congratulations on figuring out the play on words in my signature. That's what I was missing - people will be able to understand it now.... [/sarcasm]. Since you clearly are a Microsoft fanboi, though, I'm surprised at your direct and honest approach. Kudos to you and your hard-on, sir.
Simon
Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT (219.18B) by having a market cap of 222.07B.
To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders
Simon.