Imagine AppleTV produced around 100 models of AppleTV. Ok, now make them all sound sexy... good luck with that.
Imagine Apple produced over fifty models of iPod. Ok, now make them all sound sexy.
Oh, wait - they did that already. The called them all iPods and differentiated the models with features and design.
That's the problem with thinking in the industry. I keep seeing ads for an HP XYZ1323Gobbledygook laptop on TV, and I think: "How do they expect anyone to remeber the name of that product when they check the website, much less a retail store?"
Everyone else markets a bill of materials to the customer. Apple markets solutions - products, if you must - instead of a collection of parts that fulfill a featureset.
Apple "gets" this kind of marketing because they stat with simple assumptions about people, not machines
Apple already builds an Apple TV for standard def TV users - it's called the iPod video. Buy one - they're the same price as this rig, albeit with less storage at the same price point, but you get portability. -- The Apple TV - It's the true video iPod everyone tittered about all through 2005.
Instead of a cable or dock, it uses 802.11g/n.
Instead of headphones, you attach your TV/Home Theatre.
Apple limited the device to widescreen because they understand the market for the device a whole lot better than you do. People with big glass 4:3 TVs are getting rid of them. People who already have 16:9 or high-def sets will have the scratch to pop for one of these devices. They're the "wavefront" consumers who embraced the iPod first, and Apple hopes they'll embrace this iPod for the living room.
This all sounds a little fantastic to be true. Most folks at Apple I know don't have time for an agenda. And speaking of agendas, George Ou's definitely got a hard-on for Apple.
These cases hardly seem revolutionary, despite the ability to interchange "skins".
Revolutionary...now that might be adding handles to the case to make it easier to bring the machine to a LAN party...or making the case a different shape...or something like that. Something at least useful.
But this is a regular old square PC with a skin on it. Not revolutionary. Just different.
Anyone see the discovery channel Supervolaco edu-doc-drama show last year, or two years ago. I thought it was really frightening Well, the acting was frightening, anyway.
EyePee addresses are traceable only to whatever you have that terminates them, such as a wireless cable/router, or at worst, your computer. They are not stamped inside your head or buried in an RFID in your skin such that they necessarily place your hands on a keyboard/mouse such that you're necessarily engaged with whatever activity was occurring on that link. Not yet.
Preignition is ignition before its supposed to happen.
To be more precise, preignition is when the fuel/air mixture begins a flame propagation from one area (usually a dirty piston crown); the spark fires and burns any remaining mixture; in essence, there are two closely-spaced explosions, but it is NOT detonation.
If mugged, you could have the serial# (asin?) of the phone hotlisted and it would not be possible to reactivate it.. what's the point of mugging for a cellphone? It'd be nice if hotlisting the EIN of the phone also disabled it's other functions, essentially damping the market for thefts. It'd be a nice perk, although whether many theives would clue in is another question.
I all but ignore the UI on my phone. I sync the numbers with my Mac, and make calls from the address book or the history list, for the most part. The phone does a lot more than that, but I really can't be bothered to find out what. You must have a RAZR. God, I hate mine. If my Sony-Erisson T616 wasn't finally flaking out after four years, I'd be using it instead.
Who at Motorola decided it was a good idea to have a separate address book entry for every number a single contact has? I really must hand it to the Choose Your Own Adventure story author who seems to have found work at MOT - the inconsistent softkey menu choices are maddening.
Macs suck for the enterprise because they come with too much stuff.
Please, enlighten me as to how having a webcam during the twelve hours of netmeetings I had last week would make things WORSE - because my speakerphone is decent, but being able to see someone does help. Explain how having more RAM than absolutely necessary is a BAD thing, given that corporate desktops typically have at least one software upgrade cycles.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around dissing this article and macs because the author stresses the additional capabilities (at very little extra cost or for less than the PC equivalent) that Macs have for Enterprise use. Pardon me if I happen to think that adding productive capabilities to my employees' toolset is a good idea. Typically, the more that people can do, the more they will do.
You're an awfully small-minded thinker. I'm glad you don't work for our IT department.
They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise?
It is at virtually every company I've worked at. IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons (AFP over IP is too chatty...in 2003?), then when called on their crap, they just stand there, cross their arms, and say "not gonna happen".
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
I don't mean to criticise *you* (not least because I don't know who you are!), but why is it such a bad thing for MS not to provide tools for Mac OS X, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that they don't provide anything for Red Hat.
Um, beccause they've offered this feature on the Mac OS for years?
In other words, they're discontinuing the VBA feature on the Mac. They've never offered,/b> the feature on Red Hat. They are taking this action to reduce the competitiveness of an operating system competitor. They have no such leverage against OO or Linux.
Office for Mac was on the chopping block...but so was Microsoft's credibility during a time when the DOJ was sniffing VERY hard around the Redmond campus. To "make nice" with a competitor they'd pretty much stolen code from was a strategic move that may very well have staved off more serious antitrust penalties - especially when Mac Office is taken into account.
Apple didn't so much hold the lawsuit over Microsoft's head as Microsoft calculated that fighting the QuickTime suit would have reversed the disdain Apple earned with the "look and feel" suit. Essentially, Microsoft would have validated the air of mistrust created by the antitrust suit by fighting Apple's QuickTime suit and losing or settling. So they chose to bury a settlement and to keep Apple running - in equal measures with symbolism and investment.
I can assure you that none of what you speculate would have come to pass.
In 1997, Steve Jobs was burying the body of OpenDoc behind AC5, next to Newton. There was nothing to make a homebuilt "Mac Office" suite out of - AppleWorks was a very lightweight suite that couldn't hold a candle to Office, and leveraging any Office products from NextStep/OPENSTEP was still at least three years off.
Microsoft certainly held the future of Apple in it's hands with Office - and arguably, still does. Maybe it won't be so in another ten years - but first, OO will have to get some polish and usability.
I'm not of the opinion that if they can't properly make a secure voting machine, what is to say that they can make a secure ATM?
1. The secure transaction networks NOT created by Diebold; 2. The visual and electronic security monitoring every ATM is subject to; 3. Receipts; 4. Government-mandated standards and auditing.
Diebold was a respected maker of bank vault, ATM, security (!) and deposit equipment before they started messing with the E-voting market.
As my dad said, don't stake your reputation on something if you can't seem to get the hang of it; he was talking about sports, but it applies here as well. Diebold can't do this well; they should stop doing it and concentrate on their core business.
That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine AppleTV produced around 100 models of AppleTV. Ok, now make them all sound sexy... good luck with that.
Imagine Apple produced over fifty models of iPod. Ok, now make them all sound sexy.
Oh, wait - they did that already. The called them all iPods and differentiated the models with features and design.
That's the problem with thinking in the industry. I keep seeing ads for an HP XYZ1323Gobbledygook laptop on TV, and I think: "How do they expect anyone to remeber the name of that product when they check the website, much less a retail store?"
Everyone else markets a bill of materials to the customer. Apple markets solutions - products, if you must - instead of a collection of parts that fulfill a featureset.
Apple "gets" this kind of marketing because they stat with simple assumptions about people, not machines
Apple already builds an Apple TV for standard def TV users - it's called the iPod video. Buy one - they're the same price as this rig, albeit with less storage at the same price point, but you get portability.
--
The Apple TV - It's the true video iPod everyone tittered about all through 2005.
Instead of a cable or dock, it uses 802.11g/n.
Instead of headphones, you attach your TV/Home Theatre.
Apple limited the device to widescreen because they understand the market for the device a whole lot better than you do. People with big glass 4:3 TVs are getting rid of them. People who already have 16:9 or high-def sets will have the scratch to pop for one of these devices. They're the "wavefront" consumers who embraced the iPod first, and Apple hopes they'll embrace this iPod for the living room.
That's fucking ridiculous. Any developer with a Radar account knows better.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and assumption than Mos Slashdot.
And you know, that makes it kind of fun sometimes.
...ever met many rich engineers?
At Apple? Fuck yeah. At least the ones who started loading ESPP in 1997 are rich today.
Besides, you can be rich and stupid or comfortable and smart. I much prefer to be (and socialize with) the latter.
I take it you don't know anyone from Apple's legal department?
No, I only hang out with the smart people - the engineers.
Is this the same guy who doesn't know Gerbils from Goebbels?
This all sounds a little fantastic to be true. Most folks at Apple I know don't have time for an agenda. And speaking of agendas, George Ou's definitely got a hard-on for Apple.
...and two copies is not a backup.
The third copy is the backup.
These cases hardly seem revolutionary, despite the ability to interchange "skins".
Revolutionary...now that might be adding handles to the case to make it easier to bring the machine to a LAN party...or making the case a different shape...or something like that. Something at least useful.
But this is a regular old square PC with a skin on it. Not revolutionary. Just different.
Preignition is ignition before its supposed to happen.
To be more precise, preignition is when the fuel/air mixture begins a flame propagation from one area (usually a dirty piston crown); the spark fires and burns any remaining mixture; in essence, there are two closely-spaced explosions, but it is NOT detonation.
Why, thank you, kind sir!
Who at Motorola decided it was a good idea to have a separate address book entry for every number a single contact has? I really must hand it to the Choose Your Own Adventure story author who seems to have found work at MOT - the inconsistent softkey menu choices are maddening.
To sum up your comment:
Macs suck for the enterprise because they come with too much stuff.
Please, enlighten me as to how having a webcam during the twelve hours of netmeetings I had last week would make things WORSE - because my speakerphone is decent, but being able to see someone does help. Explain how having more RAM than absolutely necessary is a BAD thing, given that corporate desktops typically have at least one software upgrade cycles.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around dissing this article and macs because the author stresses the additional capabilities (at very little extra cost or for less than the PC equivalent) that Macs have for Enterprise use. Pardon me if I happen to think that adding productive capabilities to my employees' toolset is a good idea. Typically, the more that people can do, the more they will do.
You're an awfully small-minded thinker. I'm glad you don't work for our IT department.
They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise?
It is at virtually every company I've worked at. IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons (AFP over IP is too chatty...in 2003?), then when called on their crap, they just stand there, cross their arms, and say "not gonna happen".
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
I don't mean to criticise *you* (not least because I don't know who you are!), but why is it such a bad thing for MS not to provide tools for Mac OS X, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that they don't provide anything for Red Hat.
Um, beccause they've offered this feature on the Mac OS for years?
In other words, they're discontinuing the VBA feature on the Mac. They've never offered,/b> the feature on Red Hat. They are taking this action to reduce the competitiveness of an operating system competitor. They have no such leverage against OO or Linux.
Parent is 100% correct.
Office for Mac was on the chopping block...but so was Microsoft's credibility during a time when the DOJ was sniffing VERY hard around the Redmond campus. To "make nice" with a competitor they'd pretty much stolen code from was a strategic move that may very well have staved off more serious antitrust penalties - especially when Mac Office is taken into account.
Apple didn't so much hold the lawsuit over Microsoft's head as Microsoft calculated that fighting the QuickTime suit would have reversed the disdain Apple earned with the "look and feel" suit. Essentially, Microsoft would have validated the air of mistrust created by the antitrust suit by fighting Apple's QuickTime suit and losing or settling. So they chose to bury a settlement and to keep Apple running - in equal measures with symbolism and investment.
I can assure you that none of what you speculate would have come to pass.
In 1997, Steve Jobs was burying the body of OpenDoc behind AC5, next to Newton. There was nothing to make a homebuilt "Mac Office" suite out of - AppleWorks was a very lightweight suite that couldn't hold a candle to Office, and leveraging any Office products from NextStep/OPENSTEP was still at least three years off.
Microsoft certainly held the future of Apple in it's hands with Office - and arguably, still does. Maybe it won't be so in another ten years - but first, OO will have to get some polish and usability.
Sorry if it wasn't evident; that last line was a sop to the conspiracy theorists. Not my belief.
I'm not of the opinion that if they can't properly make a secure voting machine, what is to say that they can make a secure ATM?
1. The secure transaction networks NOT created by Diebold;
2. The visual and electronic security monitoring every ATM is subject to;
3. Receipts;
4. Government-mandated standards and auditing.
Any other questions?
Diebold was a respected maker of bank vault, ATM, security (!) and deposit equipment before they started messing with the E-voting market.
As my dad said, don't stake your reputation on something if you can't seem to get the hang of it; he was talking about sports, but it applies here as well. Diebold can't do this well; they should stop doing it and concentrate on their core business.
That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans.