You can't make that layer-by-layer in a single pass. You have to make the feet first, go all the way up to the knees, and then back down to the body.
I don't think the point of this is that it can assemble anything. If it can make all the parts (possibly changing materials here and there) and then I have to do some minor assembly, that's good enough for me.
If Bob's Concrete Construction paid the government $1 million to get the contract to build a new major freeway bypass, you guys would be calling it bribery.
Bribery is when Bob pays Joe Politician $1 million directly. Business is when Bob discounts his pricing $1 million dollars to get the contract.
What exactly Microsoft did in this case is unknown, but I think they probably lowered the price drastically.
Do I feel it is a necessary one? Yes, most definitely.
I think I actually find it more horrifying that so many people like you come to the defense of the thought police putting people in jail for years than the actual fact of it happening.
My user name on Wikipedia (and Citizendium) is my real name. My first edits to Wikipedia were on neo-Nazis and Scientology.
Considering you can be put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts in certain countries in Europe, I would be very, very careful what you write on those subjects.
This is not theoretical -- people can, and are, put in jail for writing the wrong things in supposedly free countries in Western Europe.
I just see this image of Carmack sitting out in the middle of the desert, steering tons real life explosives costing who-know-show-much money, using a first person view GUI... which happens to be a Quake 3 Mod.
Actually, that's not far from the truth... he sits in a van with a laptop, and does steer the vehicle using a remote camera view when it gets close to the landing pad (prior to that, it's on automatic control). He doesn't even look at the real thing, he depends on other people to watch it.:)
then about 88 seconds of the second, potentially prizewinning flight before engine trouble brought them down
I think it was 83 seconds (7 seconds short!), but it's also worth noting that they did the return flight with a fist-sized hole in the graphite engine. John decided to try the return flight by flying it over really fast, then hovering above the ground a few meters so if the engine finally quit, it would only fall a short distance. Flying with that much damage is amazing enough, but I also find it interesting how easily the rocket is programmed to do whatever Carmack wants, with such control.
Inevitably, some "real" engineers will comment on this story and make snide armchair hindsight comments, with the overall point that it really does take a billion dollars to do rocketry.
Some points:
1) These are R&D vehicles. They are not production vehicles. Don't judge what production reliability will be like based on R&D.
2) They may not have made it over the finish line, but they are the only ones who entered the race among ten or so teams. Many of the teams said they were "close" last year, yet still couldn't make it work a year later.
The real measure of how successful Armadillo is going is the how easy they're making it look in their videos. But it's not easy, and the fact that they're the only one that's flying hoverable rockets on a weekly basis proves it.
One of the things that bugs me the most is when Aerospace engineers tear down what they're doing, implying they could do it better, if they only had Armadillo's money. Lots of people have money, but lots of people are also not making Armadillo's progress -- with volunteers, working two days a week.
Give Carmack the credit for being the genius that he is.
The clock speed of the legendary Cray 1 was 80 MHz. With two instructions going per cycle, you could theoretically get 160 MFLOPS. These are laughable speeds by today's standards, but back then it was considered unbelievable.
What inner city problems are the result of the Democrats?
I don't feel like debating this for the billionth time (and you're mind won't be changed by me anyway), so let me just say this. Study the great depression. Compare the crime rates, drug rates (yes, drugs existed), etc, etc during that time when the U.S. had *real* poverty, completely unlike anything we can relate to today. Since the Great Society, the moral foundation, work ethic, and dare I say the self-esteem of the inner cities has been completely destroyed.
People back in 30s may have been dirt poor, but they had pride. Very few would lower themselves to steal, no matter how bad off. It tortured them to accept charity from their neightbors. Now, after several generations of faceless handouts, we have the "entitlement generation". No longer is it shameful to accept charity, it's by God a natural right! And it was all done by our friends the Democrats, who will gladly tell you how their "helping" people, oh, and by the way, it sure looks good in speeches to those people!
You mention the drug war. Why do you think we *have* a drug war? Because of drugs! And how did it happen that people lost their moral compass, that they're so desperate to escape reality that they take drugs? Because their moral foundations have been destroyed. They no longer have any pride. All of this moral decay can put at the feet of the Democrats.
As I said, I'm not exactly happy with a lot of crap from the Republicans, either. I could write a post like this ranting about a lot of their problems, too. But on balance, I don't think anything compares to what the Democrats did with the Great Society. Compare what we've spent on federal wealth transfer programs to what we've spent on Defense (the usual bugaboo that Democrats don't like about Repulicans), and it's not even close. At least Defense is a constitutional function.
Anyway, as I said, I don't feel like debating this again. It's always the same things, "Oh, well, that was a different society! You can't compare the 30s to today! Blah, blah". "It's all the fault of EEEEEVIL CORPORATISM." Whatever corporatism means. You know someone doesn't have a clue what a corporation is when they use the word corporatism. But I digress.
I just find it amusing that some people get upset that a hardware manufacturer makes money or a lot of it.
Nobody complains about Apple making money. However, it's everyone's right to criticize Apple -- even iPhone customers -- when their method of making money sucks so much and they're so intent on crapping on their customers.
Where does this idea that no company should ever be criticized when customers have a choice to take it or leave it? I can choose to take it or leave it AND criticize Apple for sucking at the same time!
Most people want a straight, honest deal. Here's the product, here's the money, wham-bam. Why do many people hate car dealers so much? It's because there is an arrogant air of "I better watch out or I'm going to get taken advantage of." Apple is the same way. There's a sense that Apple is not showing honest behavior.
Or to put it another way, it's my goddamn phone, and it's none of Apple's business what I do with it after I give them my money. Their license agreements are good for toilet paper. That they think it's still their phone after I give them my money is the stinking arrogance that most people hate.
If Apple packed up, and completely and permanently stopped manufacturing Macs and their accompanying software tomorrow, I'd be pretty damn sure that their stock would take a very big hit.
No doubt, but the poster's point was that Apple share price is way up. The reason it's up is not because of Macs, it's because of all their other products.
Put it this way, which would cause a bigger hit: abandoning Macs, or abandoning their consumer electronics? The latter would crush them, the former would be a relatively minor hit.
Did they start a war for profit in the 80's? Did they abolish habeas corpus? Did they gut the 4th amendment? Iran-Contra? Abu-Ghraib? Rendition? Do you have any similar list of misdeeds by the Democrats? I'm not talking about penny-ante corruption, I'm talking about wars, tyranny, torture.
I'm not going to necessarily defend the Republicans in your laundry list above, but you are exaggerating the effects of their stupidity. As for misdeeds by the Democrats, it wasn't in the 80s, but apparently you're forgetting about that debacle called the Vietnam War. As with the current war, it started with good intentions, but quickly gave over to political opportunism. The Democrats have also historically manipulated elections FAR FAR more than Republicans, which is how they kept their power so long until the overthrow in the 80s.
Then we could talk about the moral bankruptcy in buying the votes of the poor with only cynical intentions to "help people". I would say the damage the Democrats have wrought in the inner cities trumps anything the Repulicans have ever done in history. They have spent trillions and trillions and trillions, all down the drain, for the purpose of keeping people in bondage to the government -- and the Democrats.
Of course, I could also point to the fact that Clinton did nothing after the first World Trade Center bombing, and pretty much knowingly let terrorism get out of control. You can put 9/11 directly at his feet.
when it comes to our two political parties in the US, there is no moral equivalence
On balance, I would say that Democrats have done far more damage to the country, but I admit it's debatable. It's like trying to debate which is worse -- death by hanging, or death by drowning. Both are pretty damn bad.
Apparently you're too young to remember when the Democrats had real power in the 80s. Both parties are equally evil. The question is only where you want the evil directed, as that's where there are slight differences.
So this fellow with pictures was fiddling the film?
He was probably sincere, but ghost hunters are infamous for seeing ghosts in everything, especially from photographic effects. Google for ghosts and "orbs", as one example. It's a well-known flash effect from dust, but a lot of ghost hunters believe that they're paranormal.
I have no idea with Theo's point here is. His statement is like saying, "Firewalls are programmed by the same people who write operating systems. If you think Firewalls have no security issues, then you're deluded, if not stupid." Therefore, Firewalls are useless and just increase complexity.
Virtualization, from a security standpoint, is just a firewalling method. It increases isolation between instances, and more isolation is ALWAYS good.
Been there, done that... 60 million dollars and several hundred people. Meanwhile, Armadillo has done it for a couple of million (at most), and seven volunteers working two days a week.
You can't get much shrink-wrapped Mac OS software either, except at the Apple store and that one half-aisle at the few remaining CompUSA stores.
But it exists. The reason it's not stocked is because Apple has a microscopic market share... which would skyrocket if people had an alternative to Microsoft. They would be at 20% in six months, and probably 33% in 12 months. Hell, I *hate* Apple as a company, and I would seriously consider OS X if I didn't have to buy Apple's hardware. If Apple had a decent marketshare, a lot of companies would port their applications.
That means that every clone sale was a missed Apple sale. And it would be today, too.
That is simply untrue. The reason clones were successful is because they were sold at a reasonable price. Apple loses a HUGE number of sales because of their insistance that you HAVE to buy their hardware. Most of those clone sales are taking away from PC sales, not Apple sales. I simply don't understand why people don't get this. People hate being locked in, and they hate paying a huge premium for something they can get down the street for half the price (I'm not interested in debating the value. This is about consumer perception).
It wouldn't be 100% profit (see my second argument above).
Development is a fixed cost. Once that is paid for, it's 100% profit. Versus hardware, which is not a fixed cost. That's why Microsoft is so rich, and hardware companies (even Dell!) are not rolling in excess money. Microsoft was smart enough to realize that the money was in the software.
Microsoft is soon to be in a world of hurt.
They're hurting because being too successful made them fat and lazy, producing mediocre products. Yet, they still make gigantic amounts of money! Just not the same obscene levels as in the past.
And Microsoft's billions came from locking OEM's into only selling Windows then ratcheting up the price to a hair below the breaking point, and repeating that for every OEM they could find.
A common myth, but wrong. No doubt Microsoft used aggressive tactics, but they embraced the developers and made sure that every developer and hardware manufacturer wrote software for Windows. Again, people use applications, not operating systems. They had the most applications, ergo, they won, simple as that. Every competitor that's come along since has been application poor, and they make the same mistake, time after time.
The reason people are so frustrated with Microsoft right now is because their applications and hardware are suffering compatability nightmares. They can't use their applications, ergo, they hate Windows. Apple has the application base necessary to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, Steve is too arrogant to do it.
But that same logic works for the first Windows app you buy/download too.
Not true. I can move that Windows app (and Windows itself) to literally thousands of other hardware manufacturers. But if you want a new computer, Apple is the only place to go if you want your Mac-based software to work.
People aren't going to just swap out Windows for Mac OS on their PCs. If it was that simple and easy then Linux would be the #1 OS by now, its friggin free!
Yes, they will, because the software base for Mac OS is there (to some extent). If Apple announced Mac OS for commodity PCs, every software company would produce a version of their software within months. People use applications, not operating systems, which is why Linux is a non-starter. You can't get shrink-wrapped Linux software.
Under the clones Apple was losing money.
Absurd. Exactly how can Apple "lose" money? Are they selling the software below the cost of the CD-ROM it was supplied on?
Oh, they "lost" money because some accountant decided that every clone sale was a missed Apple sale. By that logic, Microsoft loses money every time Dell sells a box.
What part of "Selling Mac OS alone would not make Apple as much money as selling Mac OS on Macs" do you not understand?
The part where Apple sells 10x more copies of Mac OS to the general market, and it's 100% profit! Sheesh, do you think the 10s of billions of dollars Microsoft has socked away fell from a tree? Somehow they managed to make a small profit, yet they don't sell their own PCs.
If Photoshop or the complete CS3-Suite were available for Lunix you'd be just as locked in with that as anywhere else.
What is this Linux proprietary hardware of which you speak?
The point is you're locked into Apple *hardware*. If I want a new computer, or a new laptop, or whatever, I *have* to buy it from Apple, or I have to throw away all my software investment.
They simply stopped licensing the ROM because it was killing the company
If by "killing" you mean saving, then yes, you're right. Apple's marketshare was *increasing*! Apple could be as large as Microsoft right now (and Microsoft as small as Apple) if they had just stayed the course and sold people what made Apple unique -- the software. Where does this myth come from that a software company is not profitable?
Hell, Apple could still kill Microsoft if they would just get a clue and sell people what they want.
As for the "hardware lock-in"... that's just silly. My Macbook Pro is no more 'locked in' to its hardware than your Dell/Gateway/Lennovo laptop. Less so IMHO.
Sheesh, how's that kool-aid taste? Sure, if all you do with your computer is use it out of the box, then there's no difference. But once you spend money to buy an OS-X application, your are officially locked-in to Apple. If you want a new computer, there is nowhere else to go., unless you want to throw away your software investment.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't make that layer-by-layer in a single pass. You have to make the feet first, go all the way up to the knees, and then back down to the body.
I don't think the point of this is that it can assemble anything. If it can make all the parts (possibly changing materials here and there) and then I have to do some minor assembly, that's good enough for me.
Clearly we all need to start wrapping tinfoil around our cell phones as well as our heads.
If Bob's Concrete Construction paid the government $1 million to get the contract to build a new major freeway bypass, you guys would be calling it bribery.
Bribery is when Bob pays Joe Politician $1 million directly. Business is when Bob discounts his pricing $1 million dollars to get the contract.
What exactly Microsoft did in this case is unknown, but I think they probably lowered the price drastically.
Do I feel it is a necessary one? Yes, most definitely.
I think I actually find it more horrifying that so many people like you come to the defense of the thought police putting people in jail for years than the actual fact of it happening.
My user name on Wikipedia (and Citizendium) is my real name. My first edits to Wikipedia were on neo-Nazis and Scientology.
Considering you can be put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts in certain countries in Europe, I would be very, very careful what you write on those subjects.
This is not theoretical -- people can, and are, put in jail for writing the wrong things in supposedly free countries in Western Europe.
I just see this image of Carmack sitting out in the middle of the desert, steering tons real life explosives costing who-know-show-much money, using a first person view GUI... which happens to be a Quake 3 Mod.
Actually, that's not far from the truth... he sits in a van with a laptop, and does steer the vehicle using a remote camera view when it gets close to the landing pad (prior to that, it's on automatic control). He doesn't even look at the real thing, he depends on other people to watch it. :)
then about 88 seconds of the second, potentially prizewinning flight before engine trouble brought them down
I think it was 83 seconds (7 seconds short!), but it's also worth noting that they did the return flight with a fist-sized hole in the graphite engine. John decided to try the return flight by flying it over really fast, then hovering above the ground a few meters so if the engine finally quit, it would only fall a short distance. Flying with that much damage is amazing enough, but I also find it interesting how easily the rocket is programmed to do whatever Carmack wants, with such control.
Inevitably, some "real" engineers will comment on this story and make snide armchair hindsight comments, with the overall point that it really does take a billion dollars to do rocketry.
Some points:
1) These are R&D vehicles. They are not production vehicles. Don't judge what production reliability will be like based on R&D.
2) They may not have made it over the finish line, but they are the only ones who entered the race among ten or so teams. Many of the teams said they were "close" last year, yet still couldn't make it work a year later.
The real measure of how successful Armadillo is going is the how easy they're making it look in their videos. But it's not easy, and the fact that they're the only one that's flying hoverable rockets on a weekly basis proves it.
One of the things that bugs me the most is when Aerospace engineers tear down what they're doing, implying they could do it better, if they only had Armadillo's money. Lots of people have money, but lots of people are also not making Armadillo's progress -- with volunteers, working two days a week.
Give Carmack the credit for being the genius that he is.
The clock speed of the legendary Cray 1 was 80 MHz. With two instructions going per cycle, you could theoretically get 160 MFLOPS. These are laughable speeds by today's standards, but back then it was considered unbelievable.
What inner city problems are the result of the Democrats?
I don't feel like debating this for the billionth time (and you're mind won't be changed by me anyway), so let me just say this. Study the great depression. Compare the crime rates, drug rates (yes, drugs existed), etc, etc during that time when the U.S. had *real* poverty, completely unlike anything we can relate to today. Since the Great Society, the moral foundation, work ethic, and dare I say the self-esteem of the inner cities has been completely destroyed.
People back in 30s may have been dirt poor, but they had pride. Very few would lower themselves to steal, no matter how bad off. It tortured them to accept charity from their neightbors. Now, after several generations of faceless handouts, we have the "entitlement generation". No longer is it shameful to accept charity, it's by God a natural right! And it was all done by our friends the Democrats, who will gladly tell you how their "helping" people, oh, and by the way, it sure looks good in speeches to those people!
You mention the drug war. Why do you think we *have* a drug war? Because of drugs! And how did it happen that people lost their moral compass, that they're so desperate to escape reality that they take drugs? Because their moral foundations have been destroyed. They no longer have any pride. All of this moral decay can put at the feet of the Democrats.
As I said, I'm not exactly happy with a lot of crap from the Republicans, either. I could write a post like this ranting about a lot of their problems, too. But on balance, I don't think anything compares to what the Democrats did with the Great Society. Compare what we've spent on federal wealth transfer programs to what we've spent on Defense (the usual bugaboo that Democrats don't like about Repulicans), and it's not even close. At least Defense is a constitutional function.
Anyway, as I said, I don't feel like debating this again. It's always the same things, "Oh, well, that was a different society! You can't compare the 30s to today! Blah, blah". "It's all the fault of EEEEEVIL CORPORATISM." Whatever corporatism means. You know someone doesn't have a clue what a corporation is when they use the word corporatism. But I digress.
I just find it amusing that some people get upset that a hardware manufacturer makes money or a lot of it.
Nobody complains about Apple making money. However, it's everyone's right to criticize Apple -- even iPhone customers -- when their method of making money sucks so much and they're so intent on crapping on their customers.
Where does this idea that no company should ever be criticized when customers have a choice to take it or leave it? I can choose to take it or leave it AND criticize Apple for sucking at the same time!
Most people want a straight, honest deal. Here's the product, here's the money, wham-bam. Why do many people hate car dealers so much? It's because there is an arrogant air of "I better watch out or I'm going to get taken advantage of." Apple is the same way. There's a sense that Apple is not showing honest behavior.
Or to put it another way, it's my goddamn phone, and it's none of Apple's business what I do with it after I give them my money. Their license agreements are good for toilet paper. That they think it's still their phone after I give them my money is the stinking arrogance that most people hate.
If Apple packed up, and completely and permanently stopped manufacturing Macs and their accompanying software tomorrow, I'd be pretty damn sure that their stock would take a very big hit.
No doubt, but the poster's point was that Apple share price is way up. The reason it's up is not because of Macs, it's because of all their other products.
Put it this way, which would cause a bigger hit: abandoning Macs, or abandoning their consumer electronics? The latter would crush them, the former would be a relatively minor hit.
I think Apple's share price agrees with you.
Except Apple's share price has nothing to do with the Mac.
Did they start a war for profit in the 80's? Did they abolish habeas corpus? Did they gut the 4th amendment? Iran-Contra? Abu-Ghraib? Rendition? Do you have any similar list of misdeeds by the Democrats? I'm not talking about penny-ante corruption, I'm talking about wars, tyranny, torture.
I'm not going to necessarily defend the Republicans in your laundry list above, but you are exaggerating the effects of their stupidity. As for misdeeds by the Democrats, it wasn't in the 80s, but apparently you're forgetting about that debacle called the Vietnam War. As with the current war, it started with good intentions, but quickly gave over to political opportunism. The Democrats have also historically manipulated elections FAR FAR more than Republicans, which is how they kept their power so long until the overthrow in the 80s.
Then we could talk about the moral bankruptcy in buying the votes of the poor with only cynical intentions to "help people". I would say the damage the Democrats have wrought in the inner cities trumps anything the Repulicans have ever done in history. They have spent trillions and trillions and trillions, all down the drain, for the purpose of keeping people in bondage to the government -- and the Democrats.
Of course, I could also point to the fact that Clinton did nothing after the first World Trade Center bombing, and pretty much knowingly let terrorism get out of control. You can put 9/11 directly at his feet.
when it comes to our two political parties in the US, there is no moral equivalence
On balance, I would say that Democrats have done far more damage to the country, but I admit it's debatable. It's like trying to debate which is worse -- death by hanging, or death by drowning. Both are pretty damn bad.
Apparently you're too young to remember when the Democrats had real power in the 80s. Both parties are equally evil. The question is only where you want the evil directed, as that's where there are slight differences.
So this fellow with pictures was fiddling the film?
He was probably sincere, but ghost hunters are infamous for seeing ghosts in everything, especially from photographic effects. Google for ghosts and "orbs", as one example. It's a well-known flash effect from dust, but a lot of ghost hunters believe that they're paranormal.
I have no idea with Theo's point here is. His statement is like saying, "Firewalls are programmed by the same people who write operating systems. If you think Firewalls have no security issues, then you're deluded, if not stupid." Therefore, Firewalls are useless and just increase complexity.
Virtualization, from a security standpoint, is just a firewalling method. It increases isolation between instances, and more isolation is ALWAYS good.
Been there, done that... 60 million dollars and several hundred people. Meanwhile, Armadillo has done it for a couple of million (at most), and seven volunteers working two days a week.
You can't get much shrink-wrapped Mac OS software either, except at the Apple store and that one half-aisle at the few remaining CompUSA stores.
But it exists. The reason it's not stocked is because Apple has a microscopic market share... which would skyrocket if people had an alternative to Microsoft. They would be at 20% in six months, and probably 33% in 12 months. Hell, I *hate* Apple as a company, and I would seriously consider OS X if I didn't have to buy Apple's hardware. If Apple had a decent marketshare, a lot of companies would port their applications.
That means that every clone sale was a missed Apple sale. And it would be today, too.
That is simply untrue. The reason clones were successful is because they were sold at a reasonable price. Apple loses a HUGE number of sales because of their insistance that you HAVE to buy their hardware. Most of those clone sales are taking away from PC sales, not Apple sales. I simply don't understand why people don't get this. People hate being locked in, and they hate paying a huge premium for something they can get down the street for half the price (I'm not interested in debating the value. This is about consumer perception).
It wouldn't be 100% profit (see my second argument above).
Development is a fixed cost. Once that is paid for, it's 100% profit. Versus hardware, which is not a fixed cost. That's why Microsoft is so rich, and hardware companies (even Dell!) are not rolling in excess money. Microsoft was smart enough to realize that the money was in the software.
Microsoft is soon to be in a world of hurt.
They're hurting because being too successful made them fat and lazy, producing mediocre products. Yet, they still make gigantic amounts of money! Just not the same obscene levels as in the past.
And Microsoft's billions came from locking OEM's into only selling Windows then ratcheting up the price to a hair below the breaking point, and repeating that for every OEM they could find.
A common myth, but wrong. No doubt Microsoft used aggressive tactics, but they embraced the developers and made sure that every developer and hardware manufacturer wrote software for Windows. Again, people use applications, not operating systems. They had the most applications, ergo, they won, simple as that. Every competitor that's come along since has been application poor, and they make the same mistake, time after time.
The reason people are so frustrated with Microsoft right now is because their applications and hardware are suffering compatability nightmares. They can't use their applications, ergo, they hate Windows. Apple has the application base necessary to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, Steve is too arrogant to do it.
But that same logic works for the first Windows app you buy/download too.
Not true. I can move that Windows app (and Windows itself) to literally thousands of other hardware manufacturers. But if you want a new computer, Apple is the only place to go if you want your Mac-based software to work.
People aren't going to just swap out Windows for Mac OS on their PCs. If it was that simple and easy then Linux would be the #1 OS by now, its friggin free!
Yes, they will, because the software base for Mac OS is there (to some extent). If Apple announced Mac OS for commodity PCs, every software company would produce a version of their software within months. People use applications, not operating systems, which is why Linux is a non-starter. You can't get shrink-wrapped Linux software.
Under the clones Apple was losing money.
Absurd. Exactly how can Apple "lose" money? Are they selling the software below the cost of the CD-ROM it was supplied on?
Oh, they "lost" money because some accountant decided that every clone sale was a missed Apple sale. By that logic, Microsoft loses money every time Dell sells a box.
What part of "Selling Mac OS alone would not make Apple as much money as selling Mac OS on Macs" do you not understand?
The part where Apple sells 10x more copies of Mac OS to the general market, and it's 100% profit! Sheesh, do you think the 10s of billions of dollars Microsoft has socked away fell from a tree? Somehow they managed to make a small profit, yet they don't sell their own PCs.
If Photoshop or the complete CS3-Suite were available for Lunix you'd be just as locked in with that as anywhere else.
What is this Linux proprietary hardware of which you speak?
The point is you're locked into Apple *hardware*. If I want a new computer, or a new laptop, or whatever, I *have* to buy it from Apple, or I have to throw away all my software investment.
They simply stopped licensing the ROM because it was killing the company
If by "killing" you mean saving, then yes, you're right. Apple's marketshare was *increasing*! Apple could be as large as Microsoft right now (and Microsoft as small as Apple) if they had just stayed the course and sold people what made Apple unique -- the software. Where does this myth come from that a software company is not profitable?
Hell, Apple could still kill Microsoft if they would just get a clue and sell people what they want.
As for the "hardware lock-in"... that's just silly. My Macbook Pro is no more 'locked in' to its hardware than your Dell/Gateway/Lennovo laptop. Less so IMHO.
Sheesh, how's that kool-aid taste? Sure, if all you do with your computer is use it out of the box, then there's no difference. But once you spend money to buy an OS-X application, your are officially locked-in to Apple. If you want a new computer, there is nowhere else to go., unless you want to throw away your software investment.
Insert joke here about Dirty Hawari with the Most Powerful Postitron Beam in the world, and can blow a grad student's head clean off...
I know there's a good joke here, but it's not coming to me. -sigh- Some days you have it, some days you don't. :)