Well, of course . . . new 360 games cost $60 bones. Also, let's not forget that the lineup of packaged games available for the box in the US is less than bigantic.
Notice that Burst.com also announced that they are waiting another month to file their counter-claim to Apple's original suit.
What does this mean?
1. Burst.com needs more time to get their ducks in a row?? - Not likely. Any patent attorney worth their shiny shoes could have seen this stink with Apple coming from at least 946 smoots away. I can't imagine that Burst.com didn't anticipate Apple's suit and thus, they know how to reply.
2. Burst.com is stalling for time in case someone else is going to buy them in the near future - Why would Sony or Microsoft swoop in now when they didn't all of last year? They've got their own dudes with shiny shoes who are advising them to wait on the sidelines. I'm postive that no one in high-tech thinks that Burst.com's patents are valid -- however, someone has to jump in and sue. If Apple does, let 'em. Sony and Microsoft and Amazon and NetFlix and Blockbuster and . . . . insert old media company here . . . will jump in the pond after Apple's determined the water temperature. No one ELSE is going to buy Burst.com until this thing is clear.
3. Burst.com and Apple are working out a deal - Now this one . . . I think I can smell. Apple's suit is a great opening chess move. I can see Burst.com demanding a hefty licensing fee that amounts to something silly like amounts that have more than 9 figures or huge amounts each year. I'll bet Burst.com even has the moxy to think that their patents are worth hundreds of millions alone. What better way to get good terms for Apple than to file a suit? Dare Burst.com to go to trial . . and risk losing the patents . . . or settle on a lower licensing fee or selling price.
I'll bet at least my own shiny shoes that these suits are just negotiating by other means.
This is the key point to take from the article. I'm not defending whether or not Burst's patents are valid or not valid...just that nothing will happen until Apple makes Burst.com go away. This will require:
1. Invalidating their key patents via the courts - long and costly
2. Buying a license to use their patents (the solution Microsoft pursued) - short and costly
3. Buying Burst.com - short and costly and not a chance in hell because I can't see Jobs giving up when he is convinced that the patents that Burst.com hold are invalid.
However, I do think that the rumors of Sony launching some sort of movie service that y'all can plug your PS3s into is lighting a fire under the Cupertino booty. Somebody is going to launch this party . . . and if iTunes is any indication, to the first goes the $$$$.
Intel and HP spend untold sums of cash developing and rolling out a chip that comparatively few use. Thus, the market has effectively told them that there is not a large need for this behemoth. So how do they respond? A pledge to spend $10 billion more? How does this make sense again?
I thought much the same thing - until I wondered if size were an issue. Maybe the computer manufacturers want a connecter that is small enough to fit on a laptop. HDMI is pretty small but maybe they want it to be smaller still.
Dreamcast's launch lineup was much better. Virtua Fighter 3? Check. Soul Caliber? Check. A Sonic game? Check. Furthermore, games like Soul Caliber exercised the power of its hardware. A fair number - Gun, Tony Hawk:AW, others - of the launch titles of the 360 are just retextured ports.
1. Keep quitting as a last resort. Quitting is only necessary when it is clear that nothing will EVER change. I quit a job when my stress level got too high and it was obvious that the company was never going to change its practices of using Windows NT4.0 until the return of Christ.
2. Take stock of your environment. Note everything that can go wrong and make sure that your boss knows that you have a preventative solution. Try to come up with a good/better/best solution for each of these issues. WHEN (not if) these situations happen and you demonstrate that the problem could have been avoided - virus/worm attack, lost data due to hard drive crash, slow response due to slow server, etc. - you can whip out your solution and more than likely, at least the bottom level solution can be implemented.
3. Don't be afraid to learn new things. My previous boss hated tapes for backups - he felt that they were always unreliable and prone to failure. He had me go 100% disk-based with removable disks for redundancy/off-site storage. I gave in after fighting this for a bit. I just knew a good tape system could be productive but he pays the bills. It turned out great and I learned a great new backup paradigm for small networks.
4. Learn, learn, learn.
5. Find ways to demonstrate the importance of your job function.
6. If all else fails, ignore my advice on #1 and walk.
I'm one of the freaks who was bidding $800 or so for an Xbox 360. I lost about 6-7 auctions and decided to take a rest.
Guess what? 3 of those auctions were halted by eBay as fraudulent - how did they know?? - and the other 4 have all come to me because the top bidder - we'll call them the collective "King Crazy" - bailed on paying the $1200-1400 that they bid.
So - if you want an Xbox 360 before Christmas, just have patience. You'll pay a $100-150 premium but considering this is roughly a 20-30% markup over retail, this is not out of line for wanted goods like this.
I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.
I can easily justify the purchase of an iBook as a desktop replacement for my boss if the cost stays at around $1000. For this price, he'd be "buying" my current system as a replacement/"new" PC for others in the company as well as a portable system for me to use at home. However, this is only feasible in my environment if the machine can dual-boot Windows. I am a current Mac user and will be able to use OS X for its UNIX-y goodness but will have to fight Redmond's best minds from time to time as I use several tools that are only available in Microsoft-land. suspect that I'm not alone and that there is a sizeable market for users like me with bosses like mine.
I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.
How is this dishonesty? If a company wants to dole its products out in a piecemeal fashion to create buzz, I can't say that I see anything wrong with this. It is within the rights of the manufacturing company to release its products in whatever fashion it sees fit. Why is Microsoft obligated to do a mass push that might result in consoles left on the shelves and thus give the media the chance to say that Microsoft was unable to sell out in its first week?
The reviewer on Ars tested video output on a standard definition CRT.
My suspicion is that output from an iPod on a modern hi-definition TV will be somewhat worse due to the upsampling that almost all modern TVs use to play back their programming at the TV's lowest native resolution. This lowest native resolution is still higher than standard definition TV.
The parent is indeed funny but the metaphor is not quite appropriate.
It should be obvious to anyone that the intrinsic value of say, the latest song/album for Kanye West or (checking iTune top 5) Black Eyed Peas song is higher than an oldie by Elton John or the Doobie Brothers. Apple's pricing model is static -.99 a song or (for the most part) $9.99 for an album.
The "evil" music industry simply wants what all corporations want - to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. Music companies do this - at a most basic level - by selling songs. If current hit album/songs were priced at say $11.99/1.99 instead of 9.99/.99, wouldn't it be fair to say that profits would be increased? There would be grousing at first but this would be the normal grousing. At the same time, why not price that old not-as-popular-as-the-first-album second album of Hooty & The Blowfish at $5.99/$.49 to stimulate sales? The record companies probably have some sort of model that indicates that lowering the price of certain songs/albums might stimulate sales and 10000 downloads at.49 per pays better than 2000 at.99, right?
My numbers are all completely imaginary but certainly, we can all understand this argument, right? Is this so out of whack as to be "greedy"?
The only thing in my view is whether or not there is a contract. If the contract is due to expire soon and the music industry feels strong enough, they'll withhold signing. They'll launch their own services and if their model is successful, it will do better than Apple's. If it is not, they'll come back and Steve will get better terms than he has now.
This is all simplistic, yes - but it illustrates the point.
Often, the manager of tech areas is a person who used to be one of the techs. Managers of this type are often poor managers - IMHO - because they feel inclined to get their hands dirty in the areas that are best left -- for better or worse -- to their employees.
The manager should know something about tech but they should especially know about how the tech in question is going to interface with the business at large.
I'm sure that others have surmised this. There is absolutely no way that Apple will invest the money in an expensive-for-the-consumer line of computers that will be partially obsolete in less than two years; who in their right mind would buy them?
It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.
. . . run OS X on whatever Intel system you want, folks. I'm sure that there will be a dozen "I can't wait to put this on my blah-blah-blah Dell blah-blah-blah".
Apple is a hardware company. They will make damn sure that you can only run their software on their hardware.
I am truly glad that we went to the moon. I believe that the space race of the 1960's brought numerous advantages to our society and helped on the propaganda front of the Cold War. I will be the first to admit that this was the right course of action for our country at the time. However, we are not racing with anyone right now. The billion$ that this will cost could be much better used in other things such as developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, helping to fix Social Security, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, funding better education efforts, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, and so forth. I just can't see why it would be better to go to Mars and pick up certain ancillary benefits when we could use the money to help produce major benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of course . . . new 360 games cost $60 bones. Also, let's not forget that the lineup of packaged games available for the box in the US is less than bigantic.
Notice that Burst.com also announced that they are waiting another month to file their counter-claim to Apple's original suit.
What does this mean?
1. Burst.com needs more time to get their ducks in a row?? - Not likely. Any patent attorney worth their shiny shoes could have seen this stink with Apple coming from at least 946 smoots away. I can't imagine that Burst.com didn't anticipate Apple's suit and thus, they know how to reply.
2. Burst.com is stalling for time in case someone else is going to buy them in the near future - Why would Sony or Microsoft swoop in now when they didn't all of last year? They've got their own dudes with shiny shoes who are advising them to wait on the sidelines. I'm postive that no one in high-tech thinks that Burst.com's patents are valid -- however, someone has to jump in and sue. If Apple does, let 'em. Sony and Microsoft and Amazon and NetFlix and Blockbuster and . . . . insert old media company here . . . will jump in the pond after Apple's determined the water temperature. No one ELSE is going to buy Burst.com until this thing is clear.
3. Burst.com and Apple are working out a deal - Now this one . . . I think I can smell. Apple's suit is a great opening chess move. I can see Burst.com demanding a hefty licensing fee that amounts to something silly like amounts that have more than 9 figures or huge amounts each year. I'll bet Burst.com even has the moxy to think that their patents are worth hundreds of millions alone. What better way to get good terms for Apple than to file a suit? Dare Burst.com to go to trial . . and risk losing the patents . . . or settle on a lower licensing fee or selling price.
I'll bet at least my own shiny shoes that these suits are just negotiating by other means.
This is the key point to take from the article. I'm not defending whether or not Burst's patents are valid or not valid...just that nothing will happen until Apple makes Burst.com go away. This will require:
1. Invalidating their key patents via the courts - long and costly
2. Buying a license to use their patents (the solution Microsoft pursued) - short and costly
3. Buying Burst.com - short and costly and not a chance in hell because I can't see Jobs giving up when he is convinced that the patents that Burst.com hold are invalid.
However, I do think that the rumors of Sony launching some sort of movie service that y'all can plug your PS3s into is lighting a fire under the Cupertino booty. Somebody is going to launch this party . . . and if iTunes is any indication, to the first goes the $$$$.
We definitely live in interesting times.
Intel and HP spend untold sums of cash developing and rolling out a chip that comparatively few use. Thus, the market has effectively told them that there is not a large need for this behemoth. So how do they respond? A pledge to spend $10 billion more? How does this make sense again?
I thought much the same thing - until I wondered if size were an issue. Maybe the computer manufacturers want a connecter that is small enough to fit on a laptop. HDMI is pretty small but maybe they want it to be smaller still.
Dreamcast's launch lineup was much better. Virtua Fighter 3? Check. Soul Caliber? Check. A Sonic game? Check. Furthermore, games like Soul Caliber exercised the power of its hardware. A fair number - Gun, Tony Hawk:AW, others - of the launch titles of the 360 are just retextured ports.
1. Keep quitting as a last resort. Quitting is only necessary when it is clear that nothing will EVER change. I quit a job when my stress level got too high and it was obvious that the company was never going to change its practices of using Windows NT4.0 until the return of Christ.
2. Take stock of your environment. Note everything that can go wrong and make sure that your boss knows that you have a preventative solution. Try to come up with a good/better/best solution for each of these issues. WHEN (not if) these situations happen and you demonstrate that the problem could have been avoided - virus/worm attack, lost data due to hard drive crash, slow response due to slow server, etc. - you can whip out your solution and more than likely, at least the bottom level solution can be implemented.
3. Don't be afraid to learn new things. My previous boss hated tapes for backups - he felt that they were always unreliable and prone to failure. He had me go 100% disk-based with removable disks for redundancy/off-site storage. I gave in after fighting this for a bit. I just knew a good tape system could be productive but he pays the bills. It turned out great and I learned a great new backup paradigm for small networks.
4. Learn, learn, learn.
5. Find ways to demonstrate the importance of your job function.
6. If all else fails, ignore my advice on #1 and walk.
4.
I'm one of the freaks who was bidding $800 or so for an Xbox 360. I lost about 6-7 auctions and decided to take a rest.
Guess what? 3 of those auctions were halted by eBay as fraudulent - how did they know?? - and the other 4 have all come to me because the top bidder - we'll call them the collective "King Crazy" - bailed on paying the $1200-1400 that they bid.
So - if you want an Xbox 360 before Christmas, just have patience. You'll pay a $100-150 premium but considering this is roughly a 20-30% markup over retail, this is not out of line for wanted goods like this.
Water too wet?
Microsoft intent on world domination?
Apple makes pretty hardware?
Leeroy Jenkins rules at WoW?
From ST:6 - The Undiscovered Country:
"Don't believe them - don't trust them!"
If anyone knows where to get this, let me know. :)
I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.
I can easily justify the purchase of an iBook as a desktop replacement for my boss if the cost stays at around $1000. For this price, he'd be "buying" my current system as a replacement/"new" PC for others in the company as well as a portable system for me to use at home. However, this is only feasible in my environment if the machine can dual-boot Windows. I am a current Mac user and will be able to use OS X for its UNIX-y goodness but will have to fight Redmond's best minds from time to time as I use several tools that are only available in Microsoft-land. suspect that I'm not alone and that there is a sizeable market for users like me with bosses like mine.
I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.
How is this dishonesty? If a company wants to dole its products out in a piecemeal fashion to create buzz, I can't say that I see anything wrong with this. It is within the rights of the manufacturing company to release its products in whatever fashion it sees fit. Why is Microsoft obligated to do a mass push that might result in consoles left on the shelves and thus give the media the chance to say that Microsoft was unable to sell out in its first week?
LOL - this was the first thing I did as well. Great minds think alike.
The reviewer on Ars tested video output on a standard definition CRT.
My suspicion is that output from an iPod on a modern hi-definition TV will be somewhat worse due to the upsampling that almost all modern TVs use to play back their programming at the TV's lowest native resolution. This lowest native resolution is still higher than standard definition TV.
My two cents worth - probably an inflated value.
OTFC = Olsen Twins Fan Club
Card had me at hello but lost me when he threw in the plug for 'Full House'.
Of course, I'm kidding. Great review written by someone who got the movie just like I did.
The parent is indeed funny but the metaphor is not quite appropriate.
.99 a song or (for the most part) $9.99 for an album.
.49 per pays better than 2000 at .99, right?
It should be obvious to anyone that the intrinsic value of say, the latest song/album for Kanye West or (checking iTune top 5) Black Eyed Peas song is higher than an oldie by Elton John or the Doobie Brothers. Apple's pricing model is static -
The "evil" music industry simply wants what all corporations want - to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. Music companies do this - at a most basic level - by selling songs. If current hit album/songs were priced at say $11.99/1.99 instead of 9.99/.99, wouldn't it be fair to say that profits would be increased? There would be grousing at first but this would be the normal grousing. At the same time, why not price that old not-as-popular-as-the-first-album second album of Hooty & The Blowfish at $5.99/$.49 to stimulate sales? The record companies probably have some sort of model that indicates that lowering the price of certain songs/albums might stimulate sales and 10000 downloads at
My numbers are all completely imaginary but certainly, we can all understand this argument, right? Is this so out of whack as to be "greedy"?
The only thing in my view is whether or not there is a contract. If the contract is due to expire soon and the music industry feels strong enough, they'll withhold signing. They'll launch their own services and if their model is successful, it will do better than Apple's. If it is not, they'll come back and Steve will get better terms than he has now.
This is all simplistic, yes - but it illustrates the point.
Often, the manager of tech areas is a person who used to be one of the techs. Managers of this type are often poor managers - IMHO - because they feel inclined to get their hands dirty in the areas that are best left -- for better or worse -- to their employees.
The manager should know something about tech but they should especially know about how the tech in question is going to interface with the business at large.
I, for one, welcome our new custom made overlords.
This technology seems perfect for implementing a 'Star Trek' type 'Computer, please locate Mr. Spock' technology.'
There is not a day that goes by that I don't wish that I had a real-time in-the-building locator system so I could find a particular person.
Privacy advocates, prepare your mod points for flaming now...
Even with mass market production, this sucker would have to be expensive, dontcha think?
I'll take my $15 USB keyboard thank you - although I'm starting to wish I had a better ergonomic alternative!
...this looks like a solid case. If the iPod was introduced in 2001, this is after the patent date. Seems like a settlement is in the future to me.
I'm sure that others have surmised this. There is absolutely no way that Apple will invest the money in an expensive-for-the-consumer line of computers that will be partially obsolete in less than two years; who in their right mind would buy them?
It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.
. . . run OS X on whatever Intel system you want, folks. I'm sure that there will be a dozen "I can't wait to put this on my blah-blah-blah Dell blah-blah-blah".
Apple is a hardware company. They will make damn sure that you can only run their software on their hardware.
I am truly glad that we went to the moon. I believe that the space race of the 1960's brought numerous advantages to our society and helped on the propaganda front of the Cold War. I will be the first to admit that this was the right course of action for our country at the time.
However, we are not racing with anyone right now. The billion$ that this will cost could be much better used in other things such as developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, helping to fix Social Security, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, funding better education efforts, developing alternative energy sources & their required infrastructures, and so forth. I just can't see why it would be better to go to Mars and pick up certain ancillary benefits when we could use the money to help produce major benefits.