Integrated notification systems. Corporate people spend a tremendous amount of time using email is a bad time consuming notification system and hiring project managers (sometimes this role is played by supervisors or line managers) so that there is a single person outside people can talk to about statuses. Integrated notification allows for less project management.
The original claim is it is based on market share. Your claim is that every attacker goes after the market leader and ignores the rest. Were that theory true we would see a huge number of attacks against iOS devices.
Sure it does. PC compatibles were based on the Microsoft / Western Digital / Intel Standard. An x86 Linux box is based on the Intel / Western Digital standard. Systems like Xenix were never consider "PCs".
Well first off up until recently iOS devices couldn't be operated without another computer. Another computer is still required for iOS recovery operations. In limited circumstances you can get away without using your own computer and using Apple's via. iCloud. But that is still not recommended.
OSX is sold as a general purpose computer operating system. iOS is sold as a secondary operating system.
As for them having to be committed, absolutely. Beneath the covers iOS is far less user friendly than OSX. If you aren't committed you are going to brick your phone. OSX is laid out in a way to prevent the user from accidentally damaging programs from applications or the OS. iOS is laid out in a way to prevent applications from deliberately damaging each other's data. If you don't know what you are doing you can do a lot of harm, and nothing is obvious to the uncommitted. If you aren't committed enough to pay $99, you aren't committed enough to know what you are doing well enough to be safe.
Honestly the people who are most upset about the $99 are exactly the people who would be most likely to destroy their iPhone/iPad/iPod... if they had access to shell.
That you are alright with having to pay to develop applications for the primary computer OS is exactly why you cannot be taken seriously on the matter.
Well first off its the secondary OS. Apple has never sold iOS devices as primary devices. The rest of your post is a rant without any evidence. Apple has an almost 40 year track record as a company that can be examined. And they've done the exact opposite of almost everything you cite. Far from objecting to Linux on their hardware, the MKLInux project which ported Linux to the PPC kernel was an Apple project. etc...
Well yes you pay a minor fee to cover Apple's cost for support and administration. This isn't a profit center for Apple. If $99 is a big deal to you, you shouldn't be buying Apple in the first place. Stuff costs more in the iOS/OSX world.
Oh absolutely which disproves the whole market share argument. When Apple was on OS 7... its market share was at about the same level and the virus problem was likely far worse for Apple than PC. As an aside the problem was networking: Apple's always came with peer to peer networking and easy Appletalk networks. For PC's it was a value add option (far better networking) with OS/2 Lan Manager or Novell until Windows had its own Lan system (plus other players like Lantastic)
NPD's data (the source he was using) has Apple at about 90% for computers over $1000. His old data was underestimating not overestimating Apple's place in the high end market today.
It is not as though Mac OS X has a strong developer community or open source ecosystem surrounding it.
Huh? The center of the OSX Open Source development community is Apple itself. http://www.macosforge.org/
Which includes Macports -- thousands of open source applications many maintained by Apple Webkit which is used in the browsers for about 70% of all users far and away the largest open source engine.
They are very active in LLDM and were very active in GCC. What are you talking about?
iOS isn't that closed either. If you are comfortable at the terminal it isn't hard to get your Mac to access your iOS device like another remote Unix box you are administering.
I can explain it. It goes back to the very origin of the word "PC". PC was a term of IBM's computer based on the Intel 8088 (not a typo), which competed against the Apple II, Dec Rainbow, Commodore... It was an IBM brandname. Once the IBM Bios was cracked it got applied to IBM and the clone manufacturers who made "IBM compatible" or sometimes even "PC compatible" computers.
The fact that PC was an abbreviation for "Personal Computer" doesn't really matter in the context of thinking of it as a proper noun.
How exactly is the walled garden a threat to/. users? If Apple were in Microsoft's position/. users would be people who had the developer's SDK (which is only $99 not some staggering sum) and they could do whatever they wanted on their machines.
like a larger screen or a faster processor. Apple can't compete there.
Huh? Apple comes with an HDMI port. Short of the absolutely gigantic screens that require completely custom hardware, what can't it run? As for processors:
2x Xeon 5675's with 12 cores ain't the best. But I don't know many people who get more than that.
Statistically, were they less likely to get viruses because Apple's OS is on a lower percentage of the computers out there? Yes.
No, there is no evidence for that. Were that the case then the number of viruses for OSX would be about the same as it was for OS9, since their market shares are roughly equal. And that's not what the data shows. Nor do we see a major increase in virus for iOS as it has an even larger market share.
And they are essentially right. While Apple certainly didn't invent the GUI they demonstrated it, developed the standards for it, and advanced it. They took what was a niche research item and made it a consumer product.
What they mean is that as Mac users they more or less don't worry about virus and they more or less don't have to. And that is true. The chance of infection and seriousness of infections are still so much lower that mac users don't experience virus, trojans, malware... as everyday events that are a universal threat but extremely infrequent anecdotal events.
It depends if you count the Kindle Fire. Apple is happy seeing the Amazon/B&N subsidized tablets doing well because it removes a price point for Android (or not Microsoft).
Amazon/B&N on at the $80-220 Apple at $400-800 Microsoft (classic windows) $1000+
is a fine positioning for Apple.
So far to move a lot of tables you have to sell your tablet at or below hardware cost either on purpose (Amazon) or accidentally (RIM).
Browsers because they run large interpreted programs that are graphics heavy are demanding applications, well above average. That's worse then a hosted operating system within the main operating system since generally the hosted system would be running compiled code. We just think of them as being light because the individual applications are low functionality.
I.E. 2 (the version before they started working hard on their browser) was just a default throw away product. Netscape had about 70% of the market with Microsoft having about 5% of web traffic, even with it being the default browser. #2 was likely AOL's in house browser, the one they bought Netscape to write a replacement for.
When Vista was still called Longhorn there were 3 projects that were going to be part of it:
1) A full database filesystem like you have on mini computers and mainframes. 2) An entirely new security architecture with DRM built in at every level so that any author of any document could use effective DRM. 3) A new spitzy interface.
1 & 2 requires getting the hardware guys and the app guys to cooperate while (3) Microsoft could do alone.
There are elements within Microsoft that think Windows needs a massive overhaul to bring their domain back to life and there are elements that think that the success of Windows is based on backwards compatibility and tampering with that would open the doors to competitors. Both are right.
Slashdot Mirror
so what is the driver behind the need to change?
Integrated notification systems. Corporate people spend a tremendous amount of time using email is a bad time consuming notification system and hiring project managers (sometimes this role is played by supervisors or line managers) so that there is a single person outside people can talk to about statuses. Integrated notification allows for less project management.
The original claim is it is based on market share. Your claim is that every attacker goes after the market leader and ignores the rest. Were that theory true we would see a huge number of attacks against iOS devices.
Sure it does. PC compatibles were based on the Microsoft / Western Digital / Intel Standard. An x86 Linux box is based on the Intel / Western Digital standard. Systems like Xenix were never consider "PCs".
Well first off up until recently iOS devices couldn't be operated without another computer. Another computer is still required for iOS recovery operations. In limited circumstances you can get away without using your own computer and using Apple's via. iCloud. But that is still not recommended.
OSX is sold as a general purpose computer operating system.
iOS is sold as a secondary operating system.
As for them having to be committed, absolutely. Beneath the covers iOS is far less user friendly than OSX. If you aren't committed you are going to brick your phone. OSX is laid out in a way to prevent the user from accidentally damaging programs from applications or the OS. iOS is laid out in a way to prevent applications from deliberately damaging each other's data. If you don't know what you are doing you can do a lot of harm, and nothing is obvious to the uncommitted. If you aren't committed enough to pay $99, you aren't committed enough to know what you are doing well enough to be safe.
Honestly the people who are most upset about the $99 are exactly the people who would be most likely to destroy their iPhone/iPad/iPod ... if they had access to shell.
That you are alright with having to pay to develop applications for the primary computer OS is exactly why you cannot be taken seriously on the matter.
Well first off its the secondary OS. Apple has never sold iOS devices as primary devices. The rest of your post is a rant without any evidence. Apple has an almost 40 year track record as a company that can be examined. And they've done the exact opposite of almost everything you cite. Far from objecting to Linux on their hardware, the MKLInux project which ported Linux to the PPC kernel was an Apple project. etc...
Well yes you pay a minor fee to cover Apple's cost for support and administration. This isn't a profit center for Apple. If $99 is a big deal to you, you shouldn't be buying Apple in the first place. Stuff costs more in the iOS/OSX world.
Oh absolutely which disproves the whole market share argument. When Apple was on OS 7... its market share was at about the same level and the virus problem was likely far worse for Apple than PC. As an aside the problem was networking: Apple's always came with peer to peer networking and easy Appletalk networks. For PC's it was a value add option (far better networking) with OS/2 Lan Manager or Novell until Windows had its own Lan system (plus other players like Lantastic)
Apple's don't boot the same way Windows machines do. They don't use an MBR scheme to boot (different BIOS design). So nope.
NPD's data (the source he was using) has Apple at about 90% for computers over $1000. His old data was underestimating not overestimating Apple's place in the high end market today.
You are quoting a 2008 article, it is now more like 90%. of all computers over $1000 also from NPD. As an aside the averages from last year:
average windows box $515
average Mac $1400
Funny how they chose a different approach with iOS. Is there some hidden "please remove the restrictions" setting? No,
Yes there is. There are three in fact. the iOS individual developer program, iOS enterprise program, and the iOS University program.
It is not as though Mac OS X has a strong developer community or open source ecosystem surrounding it.
Huh? The center of the OSX Open Source development community is Apple itself. http://www.macosforge.org/
Which includes Macports -- thousands of open source applications many maintained by Apple
Webkit which is used in the browsers for about 70% of all users far and away the largest open source engine.
They are very active in LLDM and were very active in GCC. What are you talking about?
Expensive? You can administer an iOS device as a remote Unix system with any pice of junk PC running any Unix (including Linux).
iOS isn't that closed either. If you are comfortable at the terminal it isn't hard to get your Mac to access your iOS device like another remote Unix box you are administering.
I can explain it. It goes back to the very origin of the word "PC". PC was a term of IBM's computer based on the Intel 8088 (not a typo), which competed against the Apple II, Dec Rainbow, Commodore... It was an IBM brandname. Once the IBM Bios was cracked it got applied to IBM and the clone manufacturers who made "IBM compatible" or sometimes even "PC compatible" computers.
The fact that PC was an abbreviation for "Personal Computer" doesn't really matter in the context of thinking of it as a proper noun.
How exactly is the walled garden a threat to /. users? If Apple were in Microsoft's position /. users would be people who had the developer's SDK (which is only $99 not some staggering sum) and they could do whatever they wanted on their machines.
like a larger screen or a faster processor. Apple can't compete there.
Huh? Apple comes with an HDMI port. Short of the absolutely gigantic screens that require completely custom hardware, what can't it run? As for processors:
2x Xeon 5675's with 12 cores ain't the best. But I don't know many people who get more than that.
Statistically, were they less likely to get viruses because Apple's OS is on a lower percentage of the computers out there? Yes.
No, there is no evidence for that. Were that the case then the number of viruses for OSX would be about the same as it was for OS9, since their market shares are roughly equal. And that's not what the data shows. Nor do we see a major increase in virus for iOS as it has an even larger market share.
And they are essentially right. While Apple certainly didn't invent the GUI they demonstrated it, developed the standards for it, and advanced it. They took what was a niche research item and made it a consumer product.
Exactly. Mac users live in a world of few and far between infections.
What they mean is that as Mac users they more or less don't worry about virus and they more or less don't have to. And that is true. The chance of infection and seriousness of infections are still so much lower that mac users don't experience virus, trojans, malware... as everyday events that are a universal threat but extremely infrequent anecdotal events.
That's not a small thing
It depends if you count the Kindle Fire. Apple is happy seeing the Amazon/B&N subsidized tablets doing well because it removes a price point for Android (or not Microsoft).
Amazon/B&N on at the $80-220
Apple at $400-800
Microsoft (classic windows) $1000+
is a fine positioning for Apple.
So far to move a lot of tables you have to sell your tablet at or below hardware cost either on purpose (Amazon) or accidentally (RIM).
Browsers because they run large interpreted programs that are graphics heavy are demanding applications, well above average. That's worse then a hosted operating system within the main operating system since generally the hosted system would be running compiled code. We just think of them as being light because the individual applications are low functionality.
I.E. 2 (the version before they started working hard on their browser) was just a default throw away product. Netscape had about 70% of the market with Microsoft having about 5% of web traffic, even with it being the default browser. #2 was likely AOL's in house browser, the one they bought Netscape to write a replacement for.
When Vista was still called Longhorn there were 3 projects that were going to be part of it:
1) A full database filesystem like you have on mini computers and mainframes.
2) An entirely new security architecture with DRM built in at every level so that any author of any document could use effective DRM.
3) A new spitzy interface.
1 & 2 requires getting the hardware guys and the app guys to cooperate while (3) Microsoft could do alone.
There are elements within Microsoft that think Windows needs a massive overhaul to bring their domain back to life and there are elements that think that the success of Windows is based on backwards compatibility and tampering with that would open the doors to competitors. Both are right.