That's fine. iMovie is adapt at guessing formats and converting. It works quite well.
In other words, you are adapting all of your content to the limitations that Apple has imposed rather than the Apple product being good enough to deal with whatever you happen to have around.
Apple sells a general purpose product, OSX. That one does fine with thousands of formats.
That only works so long as you stay inside the walled garden and only do the things that Apple wants you to do. The moment you add one home movie into the mix it becomes a total mess.
Huh? I can add a home movie to an iOS device quite literally by drag and drop. Move it to that device in iTunes, done.
Microsoft was willing to keep moving down market in the 1990s and early 2000s to fight being disrupted. At this point they are willing to lose the bottom 1/3rd to help lock in the remainder of the home/small business market with a compelling product. They could easily build $200 windows laptops. But they can't build $200 touch screen and keyboard windows laptops.
I think you are a bit too ambitious about what kids can do. I taught my daughter Logo at 6-7 and that was mentally a stretch. She couldn't have possibly have understood how a computer operates.
Except MacOS has no real value as a platform. It is an obscure also ran.
Apple's computer division pulls something in the 85-91% of all x86 desktop sales profits per year every year for going on 6 years running. The obscure also ran is vastly more profitable than the main contender for home/small business. Where Microsoft's platform has most of its value is it sells server solutions like SharePoint, SQL Server.... to mid business and enterprise.
That's not blinders. That's leadership. That's what Apple does. They call the plays the ecosystem goes along. The reason their are such objections is Windows customers aren't used to Microsoft calling plays.
Microsoft has been very back and forth on multi-architecture their whole history as a company.
On the one hand their core product Microsoft BASIC ran on a huge number of systems. Then they immediate turned around and got into operating systems for IBM. They then worked with Western Digital and Intel to open that platform up creating a multivendor hardware platform. At the same time they did terrific work on OS/2 to help keep it closed. Then they stabbed OS/2 on the back and went with extending DOS to create Windows instead. Then they took Windows and ported it to other processors.
Internet explorer used to have excellent cross platform support. Then it became a center piece of Windows lock in. Now it is standards compliant but doesn't run on other systems.
Microsoft charges about $10 for Windows RT. They can't price the hardware like the Kindle Fire because they aren't making money on media sales. Amazon is happy to break even, and lose after fully loading the cost because they aren't aiming to make money on the devices themselves.
It would be news if there were any truth to it. Apple hasn't had a single quarter since the first year of the iPhone where their marketshare touched 5%. Moreover their year over year growth continues to be faster than the smartphone market as a whole.
Apple releases one smartphone per year. Every year they are cyclical. Every analyst knows this. Every analyst knows that they get weaker every month until the release. August numbers are likely far worse than July's, so what? Every analysts knows to look at annualized numbers.
The things you are listing: detention camps, torture, mass spying had strong support from the bulk of the population. If anything they had weaker support than average from monied interests. Certainly war has weaker support from most moneyed interests.
Wow one sentence and you read what you wanted to see. Let's try it again, " But popular support in a society with pluralistic institutions so that there is broad and open public debate does make a policy non totalitarian."
a) Popular support b) pluralistic institutions c) broad and open public debate
3 criteria not one 2 of which weren't true of the Nazis.
The interests of the Democrats and majorities are not just interests of monied minorities, broad groups of citizens agree with them. The voters in Kentucky, West Virginia, PA and Ohio who swung towards the Republicans over coal aren't rich but they love energy extraction. Conversely the Democratic base wants more investment in energy technologies like solar and wind and less in classical extraction. The donor base represents the bases of the parties. The voters of the south want the high employment and stability that comes from a low wage economy. The voters of the North East and West want a high wage economy even if it means less stability and higher unemployment. The donors represent the parties.
OK the donors who are often major players in the parties. Exxon and the other drilling companies are major players for the Republicans. The president is most certainly not a spokesperson for Exxon though Speaker Boehner certainly is. Which is to say the Republican speaker of the house represents Republican interests.
Tech companies and H1B has been major contributors to both parties but leaning democrat. And the President is a spokesperson for the interests of tech companies. Tech workers are all over the map politically but tended to more libertarian before the wage collapses in 2001. Which is to say the Democratic president represents Democratic interests.
That's not a secret. That's the way our system is designed to work.
Why go to that much trouble? Point to point encryption would already do quite a number on surveillance. Throw in even one layer of anonymizer and the system becomes overwhelmingly complex to monitor. You are already going to see people start walking away from US providers over this.
As far as I understand it the European position has always been pro-policing anti-warfare. They aren't being hypocrites they wanted the USA to have a deeper surveillance system and said so openly for many years.
the president is a spokesman for somebody, and this ain't tin foil shit, it's obvious to everybody but naive.
If it is so obviously maybe you'll name this somebody and give examples of this somebody's policies that contradicted those of the American people and the presidents on the way in.
Up until recently the civilian population strongly supported aggressive anti-terrorism efforts. Were their civilian oversight it would have looked like what congressional oversight has. Now the civilian population is more evenly divided, but they still aren't strongly pro-freedom.
Today Google maps is an approved app on the app store. You can simply claim motivations that both Apple and Google deny but unless you have inside information I'd assume Apple and Google are telling the truth about their dispute. Moreover Google remained the default search engine which had more revenue potential. As for "ad revenue" there wouldn't be any ad revenue under Apple's approach, that was the point.
Apple pulled Google maps because they didn't want to agree to the privacy rules Google wanted. The cost to Apple has ben hundreds of millions if they aren't up a billion yet. You can agree with Apple's call here or not, but screwing the customers financially was not the motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine. iMovie is adapt at guessing formats and converting. It works quite well.
Apple sells a general purpose product, OSX. That one does fine with thousands of formats.
Huh? I can add a home movie to an iOS device quite literally by drag and drop. Move it to that device in iTunes, done.
I can even edit home movies to a limited extent using Apple's formats: http://www.apple.com/apps/imovie/
Microsoft was willing to keep moving down market in the 1990s and early 2000s to fight being disrupted. At this point they are willing to lose the bottom 1/3rd to help lock in the remainder of the home/small business market with a compelling product. They could easily build $200 windows laptops. But they can't build $200 touch screen and keyboard windows laptops.
I think you are a bit too ambitious about what kids can do. I taught my daughter Logo at 6-7 and that was mentally a stretch. She couldn't have possibly have understood how a computer operates.
Apple's computer division pulls something in the 85-91% of all x86 desktop sales profits per year every year for going on 6 years running. The obscure also ran is vastly more profitable than the main contender for home/small business. Where Microsoft's platform has most of its value is it sells server solutions like SharePoint, SQL Server.... to mid business and enterprise.
When did Apple do full compatibility between ARM and x86?
That's not blinders. That's leadership. That's what Apple does. They call the plays the ecosystem goes along. The reason their are such objections is Windows customers aren't used to Microsoft calling plays.
Microsoft has been very back and forth on multi-architecture their whole history as a company.
On the one hand their core product Microsoft BASIC ran on a huge number of systems.
Then they immediate turned around and got into operating systems for IBM.
They then worked with Western Digital and Intel to open that platform up creating a multivendor hardware platform.
At the same time they did terrific work on OS/2 to help keep it closed.
Then they stabbed OS/2 on the back and went with extending DOS to create Windows instead.
Then they took Windows and ported it to other processors.
Internet explorer used to have excellent cross platform support.
Then it became a center piece of Windows lock in.
Now it is standards compliant but doesn't run on other systems.
Microsoft charges about $10 for Windows RT. They can't price the hardware like the Kindle Fire because they aren't making money on media sales. Amazon is happy to break even, and lose after fully loading the cost because they aren't aiming to make money on the devices themselves.
There is no 15 year pause in global warming.
It would be news if there were any truth to it. Apple hasn't had a single quarter since the first year of the iPhone where their marketshare touched 5%. Moreover their year over year growth continues to be faster than the smartphone market as a whole.
Apple releases one smartphone per year. Every year they are cyclical. Every analyst knows this. Every analyst knows that they get weaker every month until the release. August numbers are likely far worse than July's, so what? Every analysts knows to look at annualized numbers.
So no, it isn't news.
The things you are listing: detention camps, torture, mass spying had strong support from the bulk of the population. If anything they had weaker support than average from monied interests. Certainly war has weaker support from most moneyed interests.
Wow one sentence and you read what you wanted to see. Let's try it again, " But popular support in a society with pluralistic institutions so that there is broad and open public debate does make a policy non totalitarian."
a) Popular support
b) pluralistic institutions
c) broad and open public debate
3 criteria not one 2 of which weren't true of the Nazis.
The interests of the Democrats and majorities are not just interests of monied minorities, broad groups of citizens agree with them. The voters in Kentucky, West Virginia, PA and Ohio who swung towards the Republicans over coal aren't rich but they love energy extraction. Conversely the Democratic base wants more investment in energy technologies like solar and wind and less in classical extraction. The donor base represents the bases of the parties. The voters of the south want the high employment and stability that comes from a low wage economy. The voters of the North East and West want a high wage economy even if it means less stability and higher unemployment. The donors represent the parties.
OK the donors who are often major players in the parties. Exxon and the other drilling companies are major players for the Republicans. The president is most certainly not a spokesperson for Exxon though Speaker Boehner certainly is. Which is to say the Republican speaker of the house represents Republican interests.
Tech companies and H1B has been major contributors to both parties but leaning democrat. And the President is a spokesperson for the interests of tech companies. Tech workers are all over the map politically but tended to more libertarian before the wage collapses in 2001. Which is to say the Democratic president represents Democratic interests.
That's not a secret. That's the way our system is designed to work.
Why go to that much trouble? Point to point encryption would already do quite a number on surveillance. Throw in even one layer of anonymizer and the system becomes overwhelmingly complex to monitor. You are already going to see people start walking away from US providers over this.
As far as I understand it the European position has always been pro-policing anti-warfare. They aren't being hypocrites they wanted the USA to have a deeper surveillance system and said so openly for many years.
The US government, Al Qaeda and the government of Pakistan all confirmed the kill. I'd say that's rather good evidence.
Because talented nice guys often can't get past institutional barriers. Being an asshole is another word for being willing to do what it takes.
If it is so obviously maybe you'll name this somebody and give examples of this somebody's policies that contradicted those of the American people and the presidents on the way in.
Up until recently the civilian population strongly supported aggressive anti-terrorism efforts. Were their civilian oversight it would have looked like what congressional oversight has. Now the civilian population is more evenly divided, but they still aren't strongly pro-freedom.
Today Google maps is an approved app on the app store. You can simply claim motivations that both Apple and Google deny but unless you have inside information I'd assume Apple and Google are telling the truth about their dispute. Moreover Google remained the default search engine which had more revenue potential. As for "ad revenue" there wouldn't be any ad revenue under Apple's approach, that was the point.
1/860 is pretty close the 900 dpi which I heard was the limit for children. I don't agree on 3-4 years the move from 96 dpi to 300 took 2 decades.
Apple pulled Google maps because they didn't want to agree to the privacy rules Google wanted. The cost to Apple has ben hundreds of millions if they aren't up a billion yet. You can agree with Apple's call here or not, but screwing the customers financially was not the motivation.