What will this mean if the GPU is integrated with the CPU?
It'll mean that if you want graphics performance that doesn't suck, you'll still need an external video card with dedicated VRAM, but for embedded systems, servers, and business laptops and desktops where Intel's ghastly GPUs are acceptable it'll be OK.
This will also probably make Microsoftwood happy, since it'll guarantee there's no open traces on the video card for you to use to pirate your HD movies on Vista.
Try to tell that to the common person like my parents and many others who have questioned whether they should upgrade to Vista, because they've seen the advertising and are convinced by it.
And yet they're *not* converting in droves. It doesn't matter how many people are asking whether they should upgrade, it's how many people do... and they're not doing it.
I'm unsure how focus switched over to an unusual claim about DRM
Because without the DRM components there's no Vista. That's what Vista's all about.
that would have made it into XP too
But doing it over a longer period would have produced less pushback.
even to the same degree
Unlikely.
When Microsoft drops support for XP, then Vista will indeed become the most secure and reliable.
Microsoft *just* dropped support for Windows 2000, after 5 years, just before the release of Vista... and Windows 2000 never had the installed base of XP because (a) it wasn't on the market for long, and (b) it wasn't targeted for consumers. If Microsoft drops support for XP any sooner then that the backlash will just get worse.
Everyone has their plunder on Vista now but the arguments are reminiscent of when Windows 95 (the next big step at the time) supplanted Windows 3.x.
Vista's not a "big step". It's more like Windows Me.
Apple's record on "Trusted Computing" and all other aspects of DRM is this:
When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.
Of course. What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it. -- Steve Jobs, the Rolling Stone interview, December 2003
What's Apple using the TPM module in the OS for? To keep open source drivers out of the kernel, to lock down computers so they can't play "protected" content? No, that's what Microsoft uses it for. Microsoft's use of strong DRM is already so draconian that multiple security researchers have called for people to boycott Vista. Apple's using it as a cheap dongle to keep casual users from running OS X on PCs without their module - but with an open-source kernel that's hardly more of a barrier than the DRM in iTunes they *tell* you how to bypass.
I'll take a company with no track record with TPM and a history of undercutting their own DRM to the point where it's basically "honor system" to one who's got an official statement on TPM and a history of locking people out of their own computers.
The Tron Guy and the Devil Costume were doing dataless and diskless workstations in the '80s. What you're talking about is the norm for UNIX environments: it's only Windows where you need to be a billion-dollar multinational to have enough systems for the tools you're talking about to be cost-effective.
For small and medium-sized businesses, and that's most businesses, it's still all one-on-one.
What does that have to do with anything? Go read my original message, look at the picture.
The choice isn't just between Wally (Windows) and the Yuppie (Mac): the Tron suit (Linux) and the devil costume (BSD) are happy to pick up the slack... and do a better job than either.
Have you tried getting "business class" support from apple as a medium business.
No, but I've tried getting it from Microsoft as a medium business.
I called them with a licensing problem with NT Server, and they guided me through making some changes in the configuration over three separate calls. Half an hour after the third call the whole network was down and I couldn't back out the changes... the server wouldn't let me. I called them back, and they refused to talk to me without a service contract because I'd used up my three "free" calls bundled with the server.
I got an answer from Usenet and fixed it before they got back to me with apologies (but no compensation).
Where is the 4-hour on-site support, premium software service and all the other stuff of "real business machines".
That's not from Microsoft, that's from Dell or HP or IBM.
HP and IBM are happy to offer you premium service on their BSD-based boxes. You don't need to choose between Wally and the Yuppie.
If they had left XP alone too long, there would not have been much remaining to cannibalize because a product can only be hyped and marketed for so long before it starts losing ground to the competition, like to Linux.
I'm sorry, but people don't buy Windows XP because it's "hyped and marketed", they buy it because it runs the applications they want to run, and developers don't develop for Windows XP because it's "hyped and marketed", they do it because that's what their customers are running. That's what the people who go on about Linux on the desktop don't understand... people don't buy a computer to run an operating system, they buy it to run applications, and developers don't write applications to run on an operating system, they write them to sell to customers.
The only Vista sales that represent sales to people who might even have potentially switched to Linux are sales to people who are already running XP and who don't need to switch to Vista. If almost all the Vista sales are sales that Microsoft would have made anyway, then that means Microsoft didn't actually need to release a new operating system.
XP ran its time, even if it would have been sold anyway because it would have started losing ground.
On the contrary, Vista has the potential of costing Microsoft a lot of ground in the long run. The reason XP sold to existing Windows users was because XP was more responsive and reliable than what most of them were currently running. Vista is slower and less reliable than XP, and it can not even in theory ever change that without Microsoft backing out the changes that make Vista a different operating system than XP, because the whole point to the DRM components in Vista is to reduce the reliability of the operating system.
These guys are not "free software whackos", they're professional computer security researchers, top names in the field. This is just the start of the backlash against Vista. Far from being necessary to "keep linux from the door", Vista is a tremendous risk for Microsoft... and no matter what they say in public they have to be worried about the low uptake.
Most of the performance problems of Mach are because it's not a microkernel design, whether it's using a single kernel-space server in Mach 2.5 or multiple user-space servers in Mach 3.
It's not the customer's responsibility to ensure that HP or Sony complies with the law, it's the company's responsibility.
Solution: ship a bootable CD to run the hardware diagnostics with the computer.
This used to be the standard for ANY computer, because there's no way to know if the customer's operating system is compromised or not, even if so far as they know it's exactly what was shipped with the computer. 25c worth of plastic to save hundreds of dollars worth of tech support time... seems like such a simple choice.
Microsof was asking the EU, not so long ago, why anyone would want to buy a "crippled" version of Windows without Windows Media Player. Well, this is the answer... take out Windows Media Player, the ability to play "premium" protected content, the ability to read encrypted Office files, and all the code, components, and requirements that go with it... and it's the "full" version that seems crippled.
My last two Nokia phones were the old melted-soap-bar style, with a honking big battery and great performance as a phone... and a minimum of extraneous features. I actually wanted an older model with fewer features, but I couldn't get it, so I compromised on this one. I'm sorry I did, now.
WTF is the point of separating the two and putting them back to back [...]
The flip schtick is gimmicky, and I agree that it would be better to stick everything on one side. The point is that this is still infinitely better than having no buttons at all.
It really chars my hide to see people make such essentially bad designs and have the gimmicks being passed off as cool or useful.
That's exactly how I feel aboutthe iPod and iPhone.
Windows is also responsible for countless man-years lost to fighting viruses abnd worms that could have been avoided (yes, really, the big flood of Windows malware coincided with the introduction of Active Desktop and the merging of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Windows Explorer through the HTML control), and that's just one of the ways it's a classic Wally-style "high maintainance employee". I've already mentioned its "moonlighting" as an enforcer for the RIAA and MPAA, which you can explore further in Peter Gutmann's article.
Businesses are used to putting up with people like this, so it's no wonder that they accept the same kind of abuse from computers.
Mach is hardly a microkernel, or if it is, so is NT.
Yes, OS X has a lot of unnecessary overhead, and where kernel performance is important you're better off with a traditional UNIX kernel rather than a high overhead modularized one (OS X *or* NT). But it's unfair to tar microkernels with the Mach brush while you're pointing that out.
Anyway...
Why anybody wants it on a server is a mystery.
Same reason they want NT on a server, despite it only being a decent desktop OS (albeit one that's been increasingly screwed up as it's been targeted more as a game console and video player by Microsoft). It's a trade-off between computer processing time and human processing time.
Linux users make the same tradeoff when they use glibc instead of building a custom Gentoo around uLibc.:):):)
He's not Dilbert, he's Wally. Look at Vista... it's got a few improvements, but most of what's new in Vista is the business it's running out of its cubicle selling music and movies for the entertainment industry.
The Mac guy, maybe he's the guy in sales with executive hair, but luckily there's a better choice for the server room.
This is a win-win situation. Oh, the "flip" business is gimmicky, and unnecessary... they could easily fit both interfaces on one side of the phone... but I can't see anyone sane buying the iPhone over this given a choice. My wife's got a similar Samsung phone (it seems almost identical on the phone side) and is very happy with it, and I'm seriously considering giving up my long-standing preference for Nokia and going with a Samsung for my next phone.
It's a pity they didn't think of this a few years back when they put the SPH up against the Treo and lost. With a real phone keypad and a full size display they'd have had a winner.
Of course in the US cellphone market nobody will get a choice. If you're not on Sprint you'll probably not have the option of getting the UpStage, and if you're not on AT&T Cingular you won't get the iPhone on the menu.
Microsoft has been able to use their agreements with vendors to force people to buy the new and unproven Windows Vista instead of XP... you can't get a retail copy of XP in many markets, Dell doesn't sell XP, and HP didn't until customer pushback forced them to restore it as an option.
Manufacturers routinely use any kind of contractual agreements they can to force distributors and retailers to limit consumer choice. Rather than cutting back, we need more limits on what monopolists can force people to put up with.
I would say that almost all of those sales are to people who would have bought XP if it was available to them. To create the illusion of demand for Vista Microsoft's had to use their pricing agreements with manufacturers to cut off XP as nearly as completely as possible. If I was buying a new computer running Windows today, a hard requirement for it would be that it include XP rather than Vista, and I'm not confident that I could find one.
By comparison, we were able to buy laptops running 2000 Pro rather than XP for years after XP came out, and XP was still selling better, percentage-wise, than 2000. That's because XP had a reason for existing... it was the retail release of NT5 and replaced the appalling Windows 9x-based Windows Me. People were going out in large numbers and buying XP for computers they already had... not simply getting it as "whatever came with my new computer".
So, no, Microsoft isn't "making a financial killing". They're selling almost the same number of copies of Windows as they would have if Vista had never shipped.
So lets be honest: it supports 64bit and your expensive 3D hardware!
I've been running 64-bit since 1994, and unless you actually *need* 64-bit (and if you do you're already doing it, because you're writing heavy-duty simulation software or you're Oracle) the only time 64-bit is faster than 32-bit is when there's something actually broken about the 32-bit hardware. So apart from the folks who are already using Windows XP Pro 64-bit (hey, it's already out there!) or some kind of UNIX, WHO CARES?
And what do you need that expensive 3d hardware for? Running the software that doesn't work on Vista? Check out the various game forums, where the people who've been trying Vista are still dead in the water. Drivers for Vista cost more to develop than drivers for XP because of Microsoft's aggressive signing requirements, and the manufacturers are simply not bothering to upgrade existing drivers for Vista. This is particularly problematical for the 64-bit edition. So... WHO CARES?
PDAs have been crushed by PDA manufacturers who thought they could sell them for cellphone prices.
I've been burned by cellular carriers and cellphone batteries too often to trust my important data to a phone. If we had real transportability and compatible protocols I might consider buying a PDA/cellphone combo... because then there would be a fighting chance of finding a combo that was reasonably priced and worked well, and that wasn't locked up by a phone company who thinks they're still THE phone company.
There were better cheap GPUs than the godawful GMA950 available when the Intel mini came out. Including the Radeon x200 which was a faster successor to the 9200 used in the original Mac mini... so they could still have used an embedded GPU if they had to.
And there were CERTAINLY better GPUs available when the current low-end iMac which also uses the godawful GMA950 came out.
But the go7300 isn't even an embedded GPU, it's got its own VRAM, and in a computer even cheaper than the mini...
Doesn't matter one bit what computer the user accesses iTunes from [...]
The user access the iTunes Store from the iTunes application running on their PC.
if the person doesn't have a regular PC around there's no reason that he can't use the ATV to access iTunes and download his shows.
Tha AppleTV doesn't run the iTunes application, and if they did install the iTunes application on some future version of AppleTV, they still wouldn't need to lock the AppleTV down, because it would still be just a tiny percentage of the iTunes users around the world running Windows or MacOS on computers that aren't locked down.
The point is the same, there's no profit or advantage to Apple from locking the AppleTV down more than required to keep the casual user from screwing it up. The "swarming protocol" idea is a complete red herring, because the majority of that swarm, if they implemented it, wouldn't be AppleTVs.
Slashdot Mirror
blog.uspto.gov
wiki.uspto.gov
uspto.slashdot.org
What will this mean if the GPU is integrated with the CPU?
It'll mean that if you want graphics performance that doesn't suck, you'll still need an external video card with dedicated VRAM, but for embedded systems, servers, and business laptops and desktops where Intel's ghastly GPUs are acceptable it'll be OK.
This will also probably make Microsoftwood happy, since it'll guarantee there's no open traces on the video card for you to use to pirate your HD movies on Vista.
Try to tell that to the common person like my parents and many others who have questioned whether they should upgrade to Vista, because they've seen the advertising and are convinced by it.
And yet they're *not* converting in droves. It doesn't matter how many people are asking whether they should upgrade, it's how many people do... and they're not doing it.
I'm unsure how focus switched over to an unusual claim about DRM
Because without the DRM components there's no Vista. That's what Vista's all about.
that would have made it into XP too
But doing it over a longer period would have produced less pushback.
even to the same degree
Unlikely.
When Microsoft drops support for XP, then Vista will indeed become the most secure and reliable.
Microsoft *just* dropped support for Windows 2000, after 5 years, just before the release of Vista... and Windows 2000 never had the installed base of XP because (a) it wasn't on the market for long, and (b) it wasn't targeted for consumers. If Microsoft drops support for XP any sooner then that the backlash will just get worse.
Everyone has their plunder on Vista now but the arguments are reminiscent of when Windows 95 (the next big step at the time) supplanted Windows 3.x.
Vista's not a "big step". It's more like Windows Me.
What's Apple using the TPM module in the OS for? To keep open source drivers out of the kernel, to lock down computers so they can't play "protected" content? No, that's what Microsoft uses it for. Microsoft's use of strong DRM is already so draconian that multiple security researchers have called for people to boycott Vista. Apple's using it as a cheap dongle to keep casual users from running OS X on PCs without their module - but with an open-source kernel that's hardly more of a barrier than the DRM in iTunes they *tell* you how to bypass.
I'll take a company with no track record with TPM and a history of undercutting their own DRM to the point where it's basically "honor system" to one who's got an official statement on TPM and a history of locking people out of their own computers.
The Tron Guy and the Devil Costume were doing dataless and diskless workstations in the '80s. What you're talking about is the norm for UNIX environments: it's only Windows where you need to be a billion-dollar multinational to have enough systems for the tools you're talking about to be cost-effective.
For small and medium-sized businesses, and that's most businesses, it's still all one-on-one.
What does that have to do with anything? Go read my original message, look at the picture.
The choice isn't just between Wally (Windows) and the Yuppie (Mac): the Tron suit (Linux) and the devil costume (BSD) are happy to pick up the slack... and do a better job than either.
Have you tried getting "business class" support from apple as a medium business.
No, but I've tried getting it from Microsoft as a medium business.
I called them with a licensing problem with NT Server, and they guided me through making some changes in the configuration over three separate calls. Half an hour after the third call the whole network was down and I couldn't back out the changes... the server wouldn't let me. I called them back, and they refused to talk to me without a service contract because I'd used up my three "free" calls bundled with the server.
I got an answer from Usenet and fixed it before they got back to me with apologies (but no compensation).
Where is the 4-hour on-site support, premium software service and all the other stuff of "real business machines".
That's not from Microsoft, that's from Dell or HP or IBM.
HP and IBM are happy to offer you premium service on their BSD-based boxes. You don't need to choose between Wally and the Yuppie.
If they had left XP alone too long, there would not have been much remaining to cannibalize because a product can only be hyped and marketed for so long before it starts losing ground to the competition, like to Linux.
I'm sorry, but people don't buy Windows XP because it's "hyped and marketed", they buy it because it runs the applications they want to run, and developers don't develop for Windows XP because it's "hyped and marketed", they do it because that's what their customers are running. That's what the people who go on about Linux on the desktop don't understand... people don't buy a computer to run an operating system, they buy it to run applications, and developers don't write applications to run on an operating system, they write them to sell to customers.
The only Vista sales that represent sales to people who might even have potentially switched to Linux are sales to people who are already running XP and who don't need to switch to Vista. If almost all the Vista sales are sales that Microsoft would have made anyway, then that means Microsoft didn't actually need to release a new operating system.
XP ran its time, even if it would have been sold anyway because it would have started losing ground.
On the contrary, Vista has the potential of costing Microsoft a lot of ground in the long run. The reason XP sold to existing Windows users was because XP was more responsive and reliable than what most of them were currently running. Vista is slower and less reliable than XP, and it can not even in theory ever change that without Microsoft backing out the changes that make Vista a different operating system than XP, because the whole point to the DRM components in Vista is to reduce the reliability of the operating system.
Bruce Schnier says: don't upgrade to Vista.
Peter Gutmann says: Vista will inevitably cost you more and run slower.
These guys are not "free software whackos", they're professional computer security researchers, top names in the field. This is just the start of the backlash against Vista. Far from being necessary to "keep linux from the door", Vista is a tremendous risk for Microsoft... and no matter what they say in public they have to be worried about the low uptake.
Most of the performance problems of Mach are because it's not a microkernel design, whether it's using a single kernel-space server in Mach 2.5 or multiple user-space servers in Mach 3.
What law?
The one quoted elsewhere in this discussion that restricts the circimstances under which the warranty may be voided.
It's not the customer's responsibility to ensure that HP or Sony complies with the law, it's the company's responsibility.
Solution: ship a bootable CD to run the hardware diagnostics with the computer.
This used to be the standard for ANY computer, because there's no way to know if the customer's operating system is compromised or not, even if so far as they know it's exactly what was shipped with the computer. 25c worth of plastic to save hundreds of dollars worth of tech support time... seems like such a simple choice.
Microsof was asking the EU, not so long ago, why anyone would want to buy a "crippled" version of Windows without Windows Media Player. Well, this is the answer... take out Windows Media Player, the ability to play "premium" protected content, the ability to read encrypted Office files, and all the code, components, and requirements that go with it... and it's the "full" version that seems crippled.
My last two Nokia phones were the old melted-soap-bar style, with a honking big battery and great performance as a phone... and a minimum of extraneous features. I actually wanted an older model with fewer features, but I couldn't get it, so I compromised on this one. I'm sorry I did, now.
WTF is the point of separating the two and putting them back to back [...]
The flip schtick is gimmicky, and I agree that it would be better to stick everything on one side. The point is that this is still infinitely better than having no buttons at all.
It really chars my hide to see people make such essentially bad designs and have the gimmicks being passed off as cool or useful.
That's exactly how I feel aboutthe iPod and iPhone.
Windows is also responsible for countless man-years lost to fighting viruses abnd worms that could have been avoided (yes, really, the big flood of Windows malware coincided with the introduction of Active Desktop and the merging of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Windows Explorer through the HTML control), and that's just one of the ways it's a classic Wally-style "high maintainance employee". I've already mentioned its "moonlighting" as an enforcer for the RIAA and MPAA, which you can explore further in Peter Gutmann's article.
Businesses are used to putting up with people like this, so it's no wonder that they accept the same kind of abuse from computers.
Mach is hardly a microkernel, or if it is, so is NT.
:) :) :)
Yes, OS X has a lot of unnecessary overhead, and where kernel performance is important you're better off with a traditional UNIX kernel rather than a high overhead modularized one (OS X *or* NT). But it's unfair to tar microkernels with the Mach brush while you're pointing that out.
Anyway...
Why anybody wants it on a server is a mystery.
Same reason they want NT on a server, despite it only being a decent desktop OS (albeit one that's been increasingly screwed up as it's been targeted more as a game console and video player by Microsoft). It's a trade-off between computer processing time and human processing time.
Linux users make the same tradeoff when they use glibc instead of building a custom Gentoo around uLibc.
The Windows guy ain't delivering.
He's not Dilbert, he's Wally. Look at Vista... it's got a few improvements, but most of what's new in Vista is the business it's running out of its cubicle selling music and movies for the entertainment industry.
The Mac guy, maybe he's the guy in sales with executive hair, but luckily there's a better choice for the server room.
The employees you really want are in the Tron suit and devil costume.
On the music side, a conventional d-pad.
On the phone side, actual buttons.
This is a win-win situation. Oh, the "flip" business is gimmicky, and unnecessary... they could easily fit both interfaces on one side of the phone... but I can't see anyone sane buying the iPhone over this given a choice. My wife's got a similar Samsung phone (it seems almost identical on the phone side) and is very happy with it, and I'm seriously considering giving up my long-standing preference for Nokia and going with a Samsung for my next phone.
It's a pity they didn't think of this a few years back when they put the SPH up against the Treo and lost. With a real phone keypad and a full size display they'd have had a winner.
Of course in the US cellphone market nobody will get a choice. If you're not on Sprint you'll probably not have the option of getting the UpStage, and if you're not on AT&T Cingular you won't get the iPhone on the menu.
Microsoft has been able to use their agreements with vendors to force people to buy the new and unproven Windows Vista instead of XP... you can't get a retail copy of XP in many markets, Dell doesn't sell XP, and HP didn't until customer pushback forced them to restore it as an option.
Manufacturers routinely use any kind of contractual agreements they can to force distributors and retailers to limit consumer choice. Rather than cutting back, we need more limits on what monopolists can force people to put up with.
I would say that almost all of those sales are to people who would have bought XP if it was available to them. To create the illusion of demand for Vista Microsoft's had to use their pricing agreements with manufacturers to cut off XP as nearly as completely as possible. If I was buying a new computer running Windows today, a hard requirement for it would be that it include XP rather than Vista, and I'm not confident that I could find one.
By comparison, we were able to buy laptops running 2000 Pro rather than XP for years after XP came out, and XP was still selling better, percentage-wise, than 2000. That's because XP had a reason for existing... it was the retail release of NT5 and replaced the appalling Windows 9x-based Windows Me. People were going out in large numbers and buying XP for computers they already had... not simply getting it as "whatever came with my new computer".
So, no, Microsoft isn't "making a financial killing". They're selling almost the same number of copies of Windows as they would have if Vista had never shipped.
So lets be honest: it supports 64bit and your expensive 3D hardware!
I've been running 64-bit since 1994, and unless you actually *need* 64-bit (and if you do you're already doing it, because you're writing heavy-duty simulation software or you're Oracle) the only time 64-bit is faster than 32-bit is when there's something actually broken about the 32-bit hardware. So apart from the folks who are already using Windows XP Pro 64-bit (hey, it's already out there!) or some kind of UNIX, WHO CARES?
And what do you need that expensive 3d hardware for? Running the software that doesn't work on Vista? Check out the various game forums, where the people who've been trying Vista are still dead in the water. Drivers for Vista cost more to develop than drivers for XP because of Microsoft's aggressive signing requirements, and the manufacturers are simply not bothering to upgrade existing drivers for Vista. This is particularly problematical for the 64-bit edition. So... WHO CARES?
Apart from the Monks of Cool, who's going to fork out that kind of money for a locked down device?
PDAs have been crushed by PDA manufacturers who thought they could sell them for cellphone prices.
I've been burned by cellular carriers and cellphone batteries too often to trust my important data to a phone. If we had real transportability and compatible protocols I might consider buying a PDA/cellphone combo... because then there would be a fighting chance of finding a combo that was reasonably priced and worked well, and that wasn't locked up by a phone company who thinks they're still THE phone company.
The Intel Mac mini isn't all that old.
There were better cheap GPUs than the godawful GMA950 available when the Intel mini came out. Including the Radeon x200 which was a faster successor to the 9200 used in the original Mac mini... so they could still have used an embedded GPU if they had to.
And there were CERTAINLY better GPUs available when the current low-end iMac which also uses the godawful GMA950 came out.
But the go7300 isn't even an embedded GPU, it's got its own VRAM, and in a computer even cheaper than the mini...
Doesn't matter one bit what computer the user accesses iTunes from [...]
The user access the iTunes Store from the iTunes application running on their PC.
if the person doesn't have a regular PC around there's no reason that he can't use the ATV to access iTunes and download his shows.
Tha AppleTV doesn't run the iTunes application, and if they did install the iTunes application on some future version of AppleTV, they still wouldn't need to lock the AppleTV down, because it would still be just a tiny percentage of the iTunes users around the world running Windows or MacOS on computers that aren't locked down.
The point is the same, there's no profit or advantage to Apple from locking the AppleTV down more than required to keep the casual user from screwing it up. The "swarming protocol" idea is a complete red herring, because the majority of that swarm, if they implemented it, wouldn't be AppleTVs.