I wrote the software for a rebate fulfillment center about 10 years ago. Rebates are a science. Everything is tracked and calculated: The amount of the rebate and the percentage of people who redeem are carefully calculated. It is standard practice to collect marketing data from this information. However, the real focus of rebate programs is the retailer.
Here is how the program that I worked on would work. First, a retailer, such as Joe's True Value hardware store would see an ad from Home Depot. There a product, such as a Name Brand(r) Hammer, would be advertised to the public at LESS than his cost for a True Value Branded Hammer through the True Value buying group. (Some buying group!) So, he contacts the manufacturer of the True Value branded hammer that he sells and faxes them the advertisement. They calculate a rebate based on Home Depot's advertised price for their competiter, a profit margin for Joe, the % of rebates redeemed, and other factors. The next day, a stack of rebate coupons arrives at Joe's, allowing him to match the price at home depot, or advertise a similiar price on his True Value branded hammer.
Because only a small % of people redeem the rebate, the True Value hammer manufacturer has only slightly lowered his price overall. (The % redeemed is proportional to the size of the rebate) Meanwhile, Name Brand Hammer is selling their hammers at a loss through Home Depot, but making it up in volume. (Or at least thats what the True Value hammer manufacturer likes to think.)
Note that Joe cannot get the same price for Name Brand Hammers that Home depot does. He and True Value just don't have that kind of buying power. So, he has few options in this situation. He will never be able to sell the product at the price that Home Depot does without the rebate.
Jakob Nielson's talks alot about micropayments on his site useit.com. He has put up an amazon honor box on his site, along with some commentary. He has doubts about the possibility of raising any significant amout of money for a web site via volentary payments. He also has some reservations about amazon using their cookies to put your name on sites that your have never visited. I agree, it was freaky the first time I saw one of those boxes. Got my attention, though. At least the first time. Total collected so far at useit.com: $23.57.
Amazon does have a couple of things going for it in the micropayments business: Their huge list of credit card numbers, and the trust and name recognition that they have built.
A share in an almost profitable dot.com company: $14.
Cost of supporting a really excellent web site: $2
Seeing your name emblazoned on weird websites: priceless.
Installing programs under Windoze is a total fuckup because of all the DLLs and inevitable scores of data files that have to be installed along with the application itself.
The fundamental problem installing programs under windoze is the registry. Windows will never solve this problem as long as the registry exists. Sadlly, the registry is so ingrained that it probably can't be gotten rid of.
Whats wrong with the registry?
The registry tries to do too many things in one place. It contains system preferences, application preferences, system information, and only Satan and Bill Gates know what else. The problem is that it separates information critical to applications from the application and maintains the only copy of that information.
DLLs have this problem, too, because they all get dumped into a common system directory. How does windows try to solve the problems created by storing DLLs in a central location? By maintaining reference counts of the DLLs inside the centralized registry! I want to cry.
So, when you move or delete an application, the registry and DLL information, being separate, often do not get updated properly. Especially the shared DLL reference counts. I fear uninstalling on my windows machine more than I fear installing.
Mac OS X has a better solution
Mac operating systems breaks up the type of information that goes into the windows registry into different places. File information is automatically read from the applications and consoldated into the desktop file. Delete an application? OS X detects that through the filesystem and updates the desktop file. Desktop file gets corrupt? Delete it. OS X will create a new one. (just try deleting your registry file)
The power of this is that the OS maintains this information as an index to the real information that resides with the application, rather than trying to be the authority on that information by having the only copy itself.
OS X also handles preferences better. Each application's preferences gets put into a separate file. Therefore, you always know where to find an applications preferences. In addition, each application is required to be able to run even if the preferences are missing. So, you can always delete the preference files. The application will simply make another one.
Mac OS X also has an elegant solution to the DLL problem. Again, they use the same solution. You do NOT put your DLLs into a central spot. (try counting the DLLs in your Windows\System directory.) Instead, it builds an index of them and leaves them with the application. So, when you remove an application directory, you also remove its DLLs.
The de-centralized indexing approach that Mac OS X uses is much better than the centralized authority approach that windows attempts. So, OS X tries not to be the program you have to hassle with before you get to hassle with the application and does try to put the emphasis on the applications as much as it can.
Mac vs. Linux = Apples vs. Oranges
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
Linux and the Mac can co-exist peacefully because they serve different markets. Its all about the apps.
Apple should NOT port OS X to x86. Instead, they should work on methods for gracefully running windows apps under OS X. One way would be to come up with a classic environment for windows apps using emulation. Another would be to create a carbon type environment for cocoa apps that let them run under windows. Then developers could target either machine. Windows still has the most apps. People buy machines to run apps. [ Maybe this afternoon, Apple will announce they are buying Virtual PC:) ] Its all about the apps
Linux on the desktop? Please. Everytime I sign into KDE on my Suse box, I giggle at those ugly optical illusion checkboxes. The day after Mac OS X is released it will be the unix variant with the largest installed base of desktop machines. The commercial base for desktop software for the mac is much larger than for linux. Soon after, I predict you will you be able to run the linux GUI apps under OS X, that is if you want to. If windows thrashes OS X in the desktop market because of its wealth of apps, OS X should in turn thrash linux. Its about the hardware, too
If you want to see what pc hardware will look like in six months, look at the mac today. Apple's hardware is elegent and well designed and you pay a premium for it. Under no circumstances should they abandon this. It's the core market position of the company. That leaves a whole bunch of PCs that can't run OS X. Linux will always have an opportunity to be the secondary desktop OS on those multiboot windows machines. (Find me a primary boot of linux that doesn't also serve web pages or some other server task.) OS X will probably decimate the PPC based linuxes, and have virtualy no effect on the x86 linuxes. Windows will continue to dominate linux on the desktop x86 boxes. Its all about the apps
Today, Linux towers over the mac in the server space because of its killer internet apps. People don't use linux to run linux on their server, people run linux so that they can run apache on their server. The arcane interface is nullified, because people are interacting with apache instead. The configuration nightmares are reduced because you do it once and forget about it. I think this is where Apple is a real sleeper. OS X can run all of the linux killer apps because none of them require a GUI. Once they make it so that grandma can administer unix (OS X) on her iMac, OS X will have some significant advantages over linux in the server space. That is not to say that they will even put a dent in linux's server market, but I think they will make surprising inroads. Summary
So, to sum it up. Linux and the Mac are in different markets. The Mac is a high end product for the desktop market. Linux is a low end product for the server market. Apple should bring linux and windows apps to them instead of bringing their apps to windows and linux. No Mac OX on x86.
The asp site has been slashdotted. As a mac user and a PHP programmer, I must admit that pleases me in some sadistic sort of way. (Am I a bad person?) I can't stand IE on the PCs and try to use netscape when I can. On the mac, however, it is reversed. IE 5 for the mac is pretty good. IE for windows just has too many annoying UI quirks. IE 5 for the mac has lost the rough edges that IE 5 for windows has. (A more discerning UI audience?) It is a little slower than netscape on the mac, but it appears to be more stable.
(a pox on the person(s) responsible for the netscape resize bug) The only problem is alot of web sites don't recognize that IE 5 for the mac is a different html animal than IE 5 for the PC, especially javascript that makes assumptions about the DOM. Some sites don't work correctly.
I've had this discussion about requiring a specific browser for business sites. I find that a desire to use the specific features of IE is indicitive of a desire to structure the application like a desktop application, rather than a web application. ("We want drag and drop, so lets require IE") The point is not that everyone is using IE, so we can sacrifice 5% of our customers, but that the sites that try to do this end up with a clumsy web application. Given my wide variety of browser usage, I always argue for browser neutrality. I have found that bringing a page up in Bobby can make an effective argument for nuetrality with corporate types. It gets the point across that there are people who can't just switch browsers to access their site. Bringing pages up in lynx is always fun, too.
Nice list. I've been infatuated with most of these games at one point or another.
I am still waiting to join the class action lawsuit against Microprose. I suspect that the diversion of time from productive pursuits to Civilization was the real cause of the 91 recession. I know it affected my productivity. Orson Scott Card wrote that it delayed the release of at least one of his books. If that guy wins his cell phone case, I am going to have give him a call and get the ball rolling.
I was a little surprised at selecting Dune II over Warcraft. I had never heard of Dune II, but Warcraft was a huge. I guess I have to respect their claims of influence.
I can only think of one game that held a powerful influence over me that did not make the list, Zork. I don't know anything about gamespot, but is it possible that some of the contributers to the list hadn't been born yet when Zork was released? Does PC mean IBM-PC compatible or does it mean personal computer?
MacOS and linux compete in two totally seperate markets. Of all the people
I know who own computers, I personally do not know anybody using linux as a
desktop machine.Although, I know about the same number of mac users and people
using linux as a server operating system. Actually, every linux user I know
owns more than one computer and runs other OSes. Not a typical consumer. I know
of no one using a mac as a server. I am running MacOS, Windows NT, and Slackware
on three different machines.
There is nothing compelling about GNOME for consumers. If fact, there is much
to be wary of. Try simulating this new computer user error:
On a windows machine: Move the Program Files directory into another directory
on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Gnome machine: Move/usr into another directory on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Macintosh: Move the Applications folder into another folder on the hard
drive. Reboot.
Which OS do you think will still be able to run Microsoft Word after the reboot?;)
I actually think that the strength of the linux market strengthens the mac
market. As I understand it, most of the killer apps in the linux market (apache,
samba, etc...) will be able to run under the new OSX with little modification.
On the contrary, I think it is great that Real is using open source for a portion of their commercial product. This will be a boon for Mozilla. Now Real has some stake in the Mozilla code base and presumably will dedicate some resources to it. Where would Mozilla be today without the resources dedicated by Netscape/AOL with the intention of using it in their commercial product? There is a difference between open source and software at no charge. I'm sure that the mere thought of not being able to make money from software would trigger panic attacks in legions of slashdot readers.
First its the big web page providers that are responsible for content on their client's websites. Now individuals are supposed to be responsible for the materials on sites that they link to? The argument in the article has a certain logic, but people can't realistically be expected to gauge the legality of what they link to. What if the linked site is a list of links to other sites that are deemed to promote illegal activity? Does that make the whole web a tool to commit crime? What if excite dredges up a site like this in response to a query? Are they aiding and abetting a crime? I'm afraid we're going to have to put up with absurd things like this for awhile before legal systems can digest the internet and come up with a reasonable body of laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is how the program that I worked on would work. First, a retailer, such as Joe's True Value hardware store would see an ad from Home Depot. There a product, such as a Name Brand(r) Hammer, would be advertised to the public at LESS than his cost for a True Value Branded Hammer through the True Value buying group. (Some buying group!) So, he contacts the manufacturer of the True Value branded hammer that he sells and faxes them the advertisement. They calculate a rebate based on Home Depot's advertised price for their competiter, a profit margin for Joe, the % of rebates redeemed, and other factors. The next day, a stack of rebate coupons arrives at Joe's, allowing him to match the price at home depot, or advertise a similiar price on his True Value branded hammer.
Because only a small % of people redeem the rebate, the True Value hammer manufacturer has only slightly lowered his price overall. (The % redeemed is proportional to the size of the rebate) Meanwhile, Name Brand Hammer is selling their hammers at a loss through Home Depot, but making it up in volume. (Or at least thats what the True Value hammer manufacturer likes to think.)
Note that Joe cannot get the same price for Name Brand Hammers that Home depot does. He and True Value just don't have that kind of buying power. So, he has few options in this situation. He will never be able to sell the product at the price that Home Depot does without the rebate.
Amazon does have a couple of things going for it in the micropayments business: Their huge list of credit card numbers, and the trust and name recognition that they have built.
A share in an almost profitable dot.com company: $14.
Cost of supporting a really excellent web site: $2
Seeing your name emblazoned on weird websites: priceless.
If you want to put a blue Apple logo on your menu bar, consider buying a Mac.
The fundamental problem installing programs under windoze is the registry. Windows will never solve this problem as long as the registry exists. Sadlly, the registry is so ingrained that it probably can't be gotten rid of.
Whats wrong with the registry?
The registry tries to do too many things in one place. It contains system preferences, application preferences, system information, and only Satan and Bill Gates know what else. The problem is that it separates information critical to applications from the application and maintains the only copy of that information. DLLs have this problem, too, because they all get dumped into a common system directory. How does windows try to solve the problems created by storing DLLs in a central location? By maintaining reference counts of the DLLs inside the centralized registry! I want to cry.
So, when you move or delete an application, the registry and DLL information, being separate, often do not get updated properly. Especially the shared DLL reference counts. I fear uninstalling on my windows machine more than I fear installing.
Mac OS X has a better solution
Mac operating systems breaks up the type of information that goes into the windows registry into different places. File information is automatically read from the applications and consoldated into the desktop file. Delete an application? OS X detects that through the filesystem and updates the desktop file. Desktop file gets corrupt? Delete it. OS X will create a new one. (just try deleting your registry file)
The power of this is that the OS maintains this information as an index to the real information that resides with the application, rather than trying to be the authority on that information by having the only copy itself.
OS X also handles preferences better. Each application's preferences gets put into a separate file. Therefore, you always know where to find an applications preferences. In addition, each application is required to be able to run even if the preferences are missing. So, you can always delete the preference files. The application will simply make another one.
Mac OS X also has an elegant solution to the DLL problem. Again, they use the same solution. You do NOT put your DLLs into a central spot. (try counting the DLLs in your Windows\System directory.) Instead, it builds an index of them and leaves them with the application. So, when you remove an application directory, you also remove its DLLs.
The de-centralized indexing approach that Mac OS X uses is much better than the centralized authority approach that windows attempts. So, OS X tries not to be the program you have to hassle with before you get to hassle with the application and does try to put the emphasis on the applications as much as it can.
Linux and the Mac can co-exist peacefully because they serve different markets. :) ]
Its all about the apps.
Apple should NOT port OS X to x86. Instead, they should work on methods for gracefully running windows apps under OS X. One way would be to come up with a classic environment for windows apps using emulation. Another would be to create a carbon type environment for cocoa apps that let them run under windows. Then developers could target either machine. Windows still has the most apps. People buy machines to run apps. [ Maybe this afternoon, Apple will announce they are buying Virtual PC
Its all about the apps
Linux on the desktop? Please. Everytime I sign into KDE on my Suse box, I giggle at those ugly optical illusion checkboxes. The day after Mac OS X is released it will be the unix variant with the largest installed base of desktop machines. The commercial base for desktop software for the mac is much larger than for linux. Soon after, I predict you will you be able to run the linux GUI apps under OS X, that is if you want to. If windows thrashes OS X in the desktop market because of its wealth of apps, OS X should in turn thrash linux.
Its about the hardware, too If you want to see what pc hardware will look like in six months, look at the mac today. Apple's hardware is elegent and well designed and you pay a premium for it. Under no circumstances should they abandon this. It's the core market position of the company. That leaves a whole bunch of PCs that can't run OS X. Linux will always have an opportunity to be the secondary desktop OS on those multiboot windows machines. (Find me a primary boot of linux that doesn't also serve web pages or some other server task.) OS X will probably decimate the PPC based linuxes, and have virtualy no effect on the x86 linuxes. Windows will continue to dominate linux on the desktop x86 boxes.
Its all about the apps
Today, Linux towers over the mac in the server space because of its killer internet apps. People don't use linux to run linux on their server, people run linux so that they can run apache on their server. The arcane interface is nullified, because people are interacting with apache instead. The configuration nightmares are reduced because you do it once and forget about it. I think this is where Apple is a real sleeper. OS X can run all of the linux killer apps because none of them require a GUI. Once they make it so that grandma can administer unix (OS X) on her iMac, OS X will have some significant advantages over linux in the server space. That is not to say that they will even put a dent in linux's server market, but I think they will make surprising inroads.
Summary
So, to sum it up. Linux and the Mac are in different markets. The Mac is a high end product for the desktop market. Linux is a low end product for the server market. Apple should bring linux and windows apps to them instead of bringing their apps to windows and linux. No Mac OX on x86.
The asp site has been slashdotted. As a mac user and a PHP programmer, I must admit that pleases me in some sadistic sort of way. (Am I a bad person?)
I can't stand IE on the PCs and try to use netscape when I can. On the mac, however, it is reversed. IE 5 for the mac is pretty good. IE for windows just has too many annoying UI quirks. IE 5 for the mac has lost the rough edges that IE 5 for windows has. (A more discerning UI audience?) It is a little slower than netscape on the mac, but it appears to be more stable. (a pox on the person(s) responsible for the netscape resize bug) The only problem is alot of web sites don't recognize that IE 5 for the mac is a different html animal than IE 5 for the PC, especially javascript that makes assumptions about the DOM. Some sites don't work correctly.
I've had this discussion about requiring a specific browser for business sites. I find that a desire to use the specific features of IE is indicitive of a desire to structure the application like a desktop application, rather than a web application. ("We want drag and drop, so lets require IE") The point is not that everyone is using IE, so we can sacrifice 5% of our customers, but that the sites that try to do this end up with a clumsy web application. Given my wide variety of browser usage, I always argue for browser neutrality.
I have found that bringing a page up in Bobby can make an effective argument for nuetrality with corporate types. It gets the point across that there are people who can't just switch browsers to access their site. Bringing pages up in lynx is always fun, too.
I am still waiting to join the class action lawsuit against Microprose. I suspect that the diversion of time from productive pursuits to Civilization was the real cause of the 91 recession. I know it affected my productivity. Orson Scott Card wrote that it delayed the release of at least one of his books. If that guy wins his cell phone case, I am going to have give him a call and get the ball rolling.
I was a little surprised at selecting Dune II over Warcraft. I had never heard of Dune II, but Warcraft was a huge. I guess I have to respect their claims of influence.
I can only think of one game that held a powerful influence over me that did not make the list, Zork. I don't know anything about gamespot, but is it possible that some of the contributers to the list hadn't been born yet when Zork was released? Does PC mean IBM-PC compatible or does it mean personal computer?
MacOS and linux compete in two totally seperate markets. Of all the people I know who own computers, I personally do not know anybody using linux as a desktop machine.Although, I know about the same number of mac users and people using linux as a server operating system. Actually, every linux user I know owns more than one computer and runs other OSes. Not a typical consumer. I know of no one using a mac as a server. I am running MacOS, Windows NT, and Slackware on three different machines.
There is nothing compelling about GNOME for consumers. If fact, there is much to be wary of. Try simulating this new computer user error:
On a windows machine: Move the Program Files directory into another directory on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Gnome machine: Move /usr into another directory on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Macintosh: Move the Applications folder into another folder on the hard drive. Reboot.
Which OS do you think will still be able to run Microsoft Word after the reboot? ;)
I actually think that the strength of the linux market strengthens the mac market. As I understand it, most of the killer apps in the linux market (apache, samba, etc...) will be able to run under the new OSX with little modification.
On the contrary, I think it is great that Real is using open source for a portion of their commercial product.
This will be a boon for Mozilla. Now Real has some stake in the Mozilla code base and presumably will dedicate some resources to it. Where would Mozilla be today without the resources dedicated by Netscape/AOL with the intention of using it in their commercial product?
There is a difference between open source and software at no charge. I'm sure that the mere thought of not being able to make money from software would trigger panic attacks in legions of slashdot readers.
First its the big web page providers that are responsible for content on their client's websites. Now individuals are supposed to be responsible for the materials on sites that they link to? The argument in the article has a certain logic, but people can't realistically be expected to gauge the legality of what they link to. What if the linked site is a list of links to other sites that are deemed to promote illegal activity? Does that make the whole web a tool to commit crime? What if excite dredges up a site like this in response to a query? Are they aiding and abetting a crime? I'm afraid we're going to have to put up with absurd things like this for awhile before legal systems can digest the internet and come up with a reasonable body of laws.