Improvement and innovation are two different ideas. Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo, whereas improvement is gradual change to the status quo resulting in a better product.
Photoshop was a huge innovation originally over traditional darkroom techniques. Early non-linear digital video editors were a huge innovation over linear tape-based and traditional film editing techniques, so Avid qualifies as an innovator.
(I'm a video editor and photographer, hence the analogies)
Since version 3, nothing in Photoshop has been terribly innovative though the program has seen numerous improvements.
Direct-to-disk video recording is a huge innovation over tape based recording and it's accompanying tape-based offline workflow. Panasonic, Sony and Red have shown some innovation there, but most everyone else has just improved upon existing technologies and work flows.
Linux, when it was released was a highly innovative OS and method of distribution. Now, however, most of what goes on in the OSS world (as it applies to Linux) is a matter of improvement rather than innovation.
The idea of innovation has become so diluted that it's now meaningless and people simply equate it with "getting stuff done", no matter how small the change.
Innovation isn't so much an active process as it is the result of inspired genius that strikes occasionally. Improvement is an active process of evaluation and execution. Innovation comes in spurts and then the innovations are improved upon and evolve.
I used to work at a print shop that did the pre-press for all the 360 developer kit printed materials. The XBox 360 developer boxes were indeed all PowerMac G5's. It was stated in pretty much all of the printed materials.
Without a good script... there is no movie. Screenwriting is a unique form.
The script is the foundation for everything. The budget, the schedule, the shot lists, a guideline for the editor... you name it.
If they spend money on anything it should be a good screenwriter, a good director and a good producer... and an editor, but that's just because I am an editor.
They have all the animation talent they need already. Just need the key people who know who to tell a story properly on-screen.
Clarification of terms is a very important aspect of any intelligent discussion. If a term is used to broadly, it comes becomes watered down and irrelevant.
Again, this is largely semantic, but "illegal monopoly" isn't really a great term. To be precise, M$ is a monopoly who has been convicted for abuse of their monopoly power. It doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal, but it does make their actions as a monopoly illegal according to law.
Convicted, abusive monopoly, yeah. We have court rulings proving that.
Their actions are illegal, not their monopoly. Should they, by their actions, abuse their power too egregiously, the government has a duty to bust up the monopoly... but apparently, the Bush Administration doesn't feel terribly duty bound to obey the courts... or laws in general, so we still have this behemoth to deal with as a monopoly.
Well, M$ is not an illegal monopoly, they are a confirmed monopoly which has been convicted of illegal behavior.
A semantic issue, for sure.
There is nothing inherently illegal with their monopoly, but many of their actions which created a barrier to entry into the market as well as blatantly killing off emerging technologies by leveraging their monopoly in other areas are what is abusive and illegal. It's what they got "busted" for, if you can call what the DoJ did to them "busting".
The Bush era DoJ should have had the cajones to split them up as per the judges decree, but I suspect too many people in the Bush administration have too much cash tied up in M$ to do that.
I think the reason I got off on my tangent was that, as a business, Apple should have the right to sell their ware as they intend it to be experienced. Want OS X? Fully supported under a contract with Apple? Buy a Mac.
Want OS X? Don't care about support under a contract with Apple? Enjoy tinkering around with computers? The challenge of the hardware and software engineering to get OS X on commodity hardware intrigues you? Buy something else, a copy of OS X and go to town. Just don't expect us to help you. And please don't sell it commercially as that really angers us as it could possibly eat into our profits and we would have to defend ourselves via legal action.
If someone bought copies of Windows and then started reselling them in bulk, they'd be in a heap of trouble because they don't have an agreement with Microsoft to to resell Windows even though it runs on commodity hardware.
That's what OEM and retail licenses/agreements are all about.
Well, the difference between Apple and the RIAA is that the RIAA is a consortium of companies with a nearly publicly stated goal of price fixing, which is illegal. That's why I brought it up and called it "shady". I think it's "shady" business practice.
I'm all for people going nuts and getting OS X to work on commodity boxes. It's part of what keeps Apple on their toes. Now, reselling it, that's what I'm really on about. Go ahead and tinker and hack and make it work on the commodity stuff. I think that's actually a very valuable thing to be doing.
However, reselling it without a license to do so is crossing the line. I don't believe that the license for OS X is transferable via hacked hardware/software.
So, I'm totally in agreement with you that you should be able to go and tinker with OS X as you see fit, just don't go out and make a company that resells that product. Or do and face the totally justifiable wrath of Apple's legal department.
If they start going after hobbyists, then I'll have a problem as it's a non-commercial endeavor and not hurting anyone or anyone's ability to generate revenue.
Actually, Apple is selling more computers (laptop and desktop) now than ever. Their stock is climbing again and they are recording record profits quarter after quarter. This "clone" company is just out to make a quick buck and get some publicity in the process. They had to know from the get-go that they would get nailed for this. Remember all the iMac wannabe's in 1999-2001?
So to clarify my position... which I think is actually in accordance with yours to a degree....
People should feel free to try and make OS X work on non Apple boxes without fear of reprisal as long as they don't resell it commercially. I even believe they should be able to publish their findings under the right of free speech. Then if Apple has a problem with that, a court will have to decide as then it truly does become a legal matter of free speech vs. the IP rights of the corporation.
You are entitled to your opinions and if you think I'm attacking you, well, this is mild by/. standards, so you might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit.
Essentially you are calling for legislation that would criminalize how Apple currently decides to distribute their software. If Apple says "We only want our software running on our boxes", that's perfectly legal and they are WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to do so.
Whether or not you agree is quite a different matter. Whether or not it's a smart business decision will be determined by the consumer, but in a market economy, a product like OS X can and should be distributed in the manner in which the company producing it sees fit. The market will decide if it's the right course of action, not the courts or legislature. You are attributing consumer rights to this issue as if it were something laid out in the Constitution, which it plainly isn't. Apple is not violating anyone's Constitutional rights by distributing their OS in this manner.
(Don't compare this to the RIAA's shady tactics as that is a wholly different market with wholly different products. OS's and CD's/music files are different beasts altogether. If you claim that OS's and music are consumed in the same fashion, you are simply deluded by ideology.)
Until they achieve monopoly power and begin abusing that power to prevent competition can legal or legislative action be taken against them. Until then, the market decides.
Your claims of illegality are quite unfounded and really just opinion. It goes against the grains of your belief and that's fine. You vote with your wallet and go elsewhere. Fine. Great. That's what this economy is supposed to be about.
As a long time Mac user, I have NO PROBLEM getting a copy of the OS with my new computer purchase and paying for an upgrade to install on that machine (and any others I have) when it comes out. I am fine with how it has worked and I vote in Apple's favor with my wallet. That is MY OPINION AND CHOICE.
You can't convince me that I am fostering illegal business practices by following their business model as it is right now. I buy a Mac because it fits my needs as a home and professional user and the license does not restrict me in any manner whatsoever.
Apple should sink or swim based upon the merits of their offerings. Right now they're doing alright and the customers and shareholders are happy. If this turns out to not be a wise course of action, the market will let them know and they will either adapt or die.
You want OS X on a non-Apple box. Other than hobbyists doing this, such an option does not exist. The short answer to this is... tough! If you're not willing to pay the Apple Tax, don't. It's as simple as that. Cloning almost killed Apple in the 90's. It's a calculated (and perfectly legal) business move that has reversed Apple's fortunes.
You're simply whining that you can't get what you want at the price that you think is reasonable when millions of other people are perfectly happy and willing to pay the price put before them for the goods offered.
Apple is a closed source shop. Deal with it. If they are legislated to make their OS work on other boxen when it doesn't fit their business model and could possibly threaten their survival... that is government out of control.
Show me proof that Apple is acting illegally by stating that their OS should run on their boxes. They won't prosecute you for putting on your own homemade box, but they are fully entitles to stick it to someone who is reselling their merchandise without an OEM license on unauthorized hardware.
You may not like it and that's fine, but it's how things are and Apple is not acting illegally. You must now deal with it and stop whining that you can't afford the hardware.
Don't buy it. If all you want to do is something cosmetic like switch out the dashboard... buy something where you can easily do that. Vote with your dollars.
There are lots of hobbyists out there who already have OS X running on stock machinery. Go talk to them if you want to do it.
If you're not prepared to get your hands dirty, you can use an off-the-shelf Mac like the rest of us do. If you can't afford it, get something else. It's as simple as that.
Apple doesn't OWE you OS X on clones. They're a business with a brand and a user experience they want to maintain and until someone convicts them of being an abusive monopoly, they can protect their OS and user experience any way that is legal.
Not allowing other manufacturers to ship OS X boxen isn't illegal. Deal with it.
Gasoline is fuel for the engine of a car. Electricity is the fuel for the computer and I believe any old wall socket will do.
Apple uses industry standard hard drives and RAM. Granted, replacing the HD in some models can be tricky, but it's doable. You don't need Apple branded parts to replace failed ones.
Your analogy fails. Sad considering it was a car analogy and you compared Apple to Ford.
The legality of of not allowing it on other boxes? Legality? Is that really the term you want to use?
That's some seriously screwy legislation that would FORCE a company to license it's OS to other manufacturers.
As far as I know, Mac OS X is not so vast that it's become part of the federal infrastructure.
Agree or disagree with Apple's choice to keep all design and manufacturing in house, but in a market economy, their choice to do so should be left to them and they should sink or swim with their decisions. I'm no Libertarian, but legislating this kind of business behavior is appalling even to me... and I'm a socialist at heart.
When MS bundles a media player or a browser or anything with their OS, they make it so that removing that application actually BREAKS the OS. Delete QuickTime Player or iTunes or iPhoto and OS X chugs along happily.
Proper use of the term irony is more a function of vocabulary and syntax than it is grammar. Grammar is merely structure whereas vocabulary and syntax cover meaning.
Unless I'm mistaken the only thing 64bit color has to do with 64bit processing is that they both start with the number 64.
64Bit will allow the computer to deal with more data at a time, no matter what the color depth of the file is... It'll let the program have more memory. That will help a 64bit image if it's BIG, but just because it's BIG, not because it's 64 bit. Whoa! 64Bit color? No one works with 64Bit color! The two color spaces people work with are 8Bit/channel and 16Bit/channel and those pretty much encompass all colors visible to the human eye in RGB. A 64Bit color image would be HUGE indeed.
Apart from that your doomsday scenarios are, simply put, woefully ignorant. I write software for a living, you know. I think I understand the mindset of at least some of those of us who do so. I do demand the freedom to modify the code I use. You don't have to meet my demand, I'm no king. I don't set the laws the land. I don't compel people to do as I say. However, if you do not give me the freedom to modify your code, I do not use your code. I do not pay you money. I do not do business with you. Why? Because I'm tired of being trapped in dead-end software hell. I'm tired of upgrades that are downgrades. I'm tired of people trying to wring that little extra bit of money from me.
Then stick to your freely available, free software. That is your choice. It's the very foundation of our economy. You are not going to bring Adobe or Apple to their knees. Write, distribute and promote your software as you see fit. It's your choice.
Don't call me ignorant though when I make a decision to stick with proprietary software like Final Cut Pro, Avid, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. to get my work done. In your free software world, the tools that I need to get my work done don't exist. Your demand for software freedom would limit my ability to do my job at the same level I can right now with commercially available software which limits my earning potential which in turn limits my freedom to live my life outside work as I would like to.
Then again, the coders of the world need to realize that, though they write the software, they rarely are the ones who have to spend 40-60 hours a week actually using it. I want something that works out of the box that I don't have to tinker with... because I am a user and not a coder. I will spend my hard earned money on what will get the job done. If it's OSS or proprietary, I don't care. I just want to get my work done with the best tool available and don't care about what's under the hood.
Care to elaborate? What exists that exceeds Photoshop in terms of usability and power? Free or commercial.
The reason real Photoshop users complain about GIMP is because GIMP's interface is geared toward the "coder crowd" and it's feature set is almost on par with where Photoshop was about 11-12 years ago with version 4.
I stare at and use Phoptoshop upwards of 10 hours a day. I get massive amounts of work done every day. With GIMP, there is simply no way I could get the same amount of work done in a day because it's toolset does not stack up to what Photoshop currently has to offer.
Slashdot Mirror
Improvement and innovation are two different ideas. Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo, whereas improvement is gradual change to the status quo resulting in a better product.
Photoshop was a huge innovation originally over traditional darkroom techniques. Early non-linear digital video editors were a huge innovation over linear tape-based and traditional film editing techniques, so Avid qualifies as an innovator.
(I'm a video editor and photographer, hence the analogies)
Since version 3, nothing in Photoshop has been terribly innovative though the program has seen numerous improvements.
Direct-to-disk video recording is a huge innovation over tape based recording and it's accompanying tape-based offline workflow. Panasonic, Sony and Red have shown some innovation there, but most everyone else has just improved upon existing technologies and work flows.
Linux, when it was released was a highly innovative OS and method of distribution. Now, however, most of what goes on in the OSS world (as it applies to Linux) is a matter of improvement rather than innovation.
The idea of innovation has become so diluted that it's now meaningless and people simply equate it with "getting stuff done", no matter how small the change.
Innovation isn't so much an active process as it is the result of inspired genius that strikes occasionally. Improvement is an active process of evaluation and execution. Innovation comes in spurts and then the innovations are improved upon and evolve.
I used to work at a print shop that did the pre-press for all the 360 developer kit printed materials. The XBox 360 developer boxes were indeed all PowerMac G5's. It was stated in pretty much all of the printed materials.
Word!
Well, they would need good voice talent.
Without a good script... there is no movie. Screenwriting is a unique form.
The script is the foundation for everything. The budget, the schedule, the shot lists, a guideline for the editor... you name it.
If they spend money on anything it should be a good screenwriter, a good director and a good producer... and an editor, but that's just because I am an editor.
They have all the animation talent they need already. Just need the key people who know who to tell a story properly on-screen.
Bad Taste. It lived up to it's name and I loved every single frame of it.
I miss the old Wazu macro bug in Word from way back when!
Clarification of terms is a very important aspect of any intelligent discussion. If a term is used to broadly, it comes becomes watered down and irrelevant.
Again, this is largely semantic, but "illegal monopoly" isn't really a great term. To be precise, M$ is a monopoly who has been convicted for abuse of their monopoly power. It doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal, but it does make their actions as a monopoly illegal according to law.
Convicted, abusive monopoly, yeah. We have court rulings proving that.
Their actions are illegal, not their monopoly. Should they, by their actions, abuse their power too egregiously, the government has a duty to bust up the monopoly... but apparently, the Bush Administration doesn't feel terribly duty bound to obey the courts... or laws in general, so we still have this behemoth to deal with as a monopoly.
Well, M$ is not an illegal monopoly, they are a confirmed monopoly which has been convicted of illegal behavior.
A semantic issue, for sure.
There is nothing inherently illegal with their monopoly, but many of their actions which created a barrier to entry into the market as well as blatantly killing off emerging technologies by leveraging their monopoly in other areas are what is abusive and illegal. It's what they got "busted" for, if you can call what the DoJ did to them "busting".
The Bush era DoJ should have had the cajones to split them up as per the judges decree, but I suspect too many people in the Bush administration have too much cash tied up in M$ to do that.
Well, I usually use my debit card Visa for small purchases. If $99 isn't a small purchase for you.... ouch. I'm sorry.
Well, Windows does run on Intel Macs.
I think the reason I got off on my tangent was that, as a business, Apple should have the right to sell their ware as they intend it to be experienced. Want OS X? Fully supported under a contract with Apple? Buy a Mac.
Want OS X? Don't care about support under a contract with Apple? Enjoy tinkering around with computers? The challenge of the hardware and software engineering to get OS X on commodity hardware intrigues you? Buy something else, a copy of OS X and go to town. Just don't expect us to help you. And please don't sell it commercially as that really angers us as it could possibly eat into our profits and we would have to defend ourselves via legal action.
If someone bought copies of Windows and then started reselling them in bulk, they'd be in a heap of trouble because they don't have an agreement with Microsoft to to resell Windows even though it runs on commodity hardware.
That's what OEM and retail licenses/agreements are all about.
Well, the difference between Apple and the RIAA is that the RIAA is a consortium of companies with a nearly publicly stated goal of price fixing, which is illegal. That's why I brought it up and called it "shady". I think it's "shady" business practice.
I'm all for people going nuts and getting OS X to work on commodity boxes. It's part of what keeps Apple on their toes. Now, reselling it, that's what I'm really on about. Go ahead and tinker and hack and make it work on the commodity stuff. I think that's actually a very valuable thing to be doing.
However, reselling it without a license to do so is crossing the line. I don't believe that the license for OS X is transferable via hacked hardware/software.
So, I'm totally in agreement with you that you should be able to go and tinker with OS X as you see fit, just don't go out and make a company that resells that product. Or do and face the totally justifiable wrath of Apple's legal department.
If they start going after hobbyists, then I'll have a problem as it's a non-commercial endeavor and not hurting anyone or anyone's ability to generate revenue.
Actually, Apple is selling more computers (laptop and desktop) now than ever. Their stock is climbing again and they are recording record profits quarter after quarter. This "clone" company is just out to make a quick buck and get some publicity in the process. They had to know from the get-go that they would get nailed for this. Remember all the iMac wannabe's in 1999-2001?
So to clarify my position... which I think is actually in accordance with yours to a degree....
People should feel free to try and make OS X work on non Apple boxes without fear of reprisal as long as they don't resell it commercially. I even believe they should be able to publish their findings under the right of free speech. Then if Apple has a problem with that, a court will have to decide as then it truly does become a legal matter of free speech vs. the IP rights of the corporation.
You are entitled to your opinions and if you think I'm attacking you, well, this is mild by /. standards, so you might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit.
Essentially you are calling for legislation that would criminalize how Apple currently decides to distribute their software. If Apple says "We only want our software running on our boxes", that's perfectly legal and they are WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to do so.
Whether or not you agree is quite a different matter. Whether or not it's a smart business decision will be determined by the consumer, but in a market economy, a product like OS X can and should be distributed in the manner in which the company producing it sees fit. The market will decide if it's the right course of action, not the courts or legislature. You are attributing consumer rights to this issue as if it were something laid out in the Constitution, which it plainly isn't. Apple is not violating anyone's Constitutional rights by distributing their OS in this manner.
(Don't compare this to the RIAA's shady tactics as that is a wholly different market with wholly different products. OS's and CD's/music files are different beasts altogether. If you claim that OS's and music are consumed in the same fashion, you are simply deluded by ideology.)
Until they achieve monopoly power and begin abusing that power to prevent competition can legal or legislative action be taken against them. Until then, the market decides.
Your claims of illegality are quite unfounded and really just opinion. It goes against the grains of your belief and that's fine. You vote with your wallet and go elsewhere. Fine. Great. That's what this economy is supposed to be about.
As a long time Mac user, I have NO PROBLEM getting a copy of the OS with my new computer purchase and paying for an upgrade to install on that machine (and any others I have) when it comes out. I am fine with how it has worked and I vote in Apple's favor with my wallet. That is MY OPINION AND CHOICE.
You can't convince me that I am fostering illegal business practices by following their business model as it is right now. I buy a Mac because it fits my needs as a home and professional user and the license does not restrict me in any manner whatsoever.
Apple should sink or swim based upon the merits of their offerings. Right now they're doing alright and the customers and shareholders are happy. If this turns out to not be a wise course of action, the market will let them know and they will either adapt or die.
You want OS X on a non-Apple box. Other than hobbyists doing this, such an option does not exist. The short answer to this is... tough! If you're not willing to pay the Apple Tax, don't. It's as simple as that. Cloning almost killed Apple in the 90's. It's a calculated (and perfectly legal) business move that has reversed Apple's fortunes.
You're simply whining that you can't get what you want at the price that you think is reasonable when millions of other people are perfectly happy and willing to pay the price put before them for the goods offered.
Apple is a closed source shop. Deal with it. If they are legislated to make their OS work on other boxen when it doesn't fit their business model and could possibly threaten their survival... that is government out of control.
Show me proof that Apple is acting illegally by stating that their OS should run on their boxes. They won't prosecute you for putting on your own homemade box, but they are fully entitles to stick it to someone who is reselling their merchandise without an OEM license on unauthorized hardware.
You may not like it and that's fine, but it's how things are and Apple is not acting illegally. You must now deal with it and stop whining that you can't afford the hardware.
Don't buy it. If all you want to do is something cosmetic like switch out the dashboard... buy something where you can easily do that. Vote with your dollars.
There are lots of hobbyists out there who already have OS X running on stock machinery. Go talk to them if you want to do it.
If you're not prepared to get your hands dirty, you can use an off-the-shelf Mac like the rest of us do. If you can't afford it, get something else. It's as simple as that.
Apple doesn't OWE you OS X on clones. They're a business with a brand and a user experience they want to maintain and until someone convicts them of being an abusive monopoly, they can protect their OS and user experience any way that is legal.
Not allowing other manufacturers to ship OS X boxen isn't illegal. Deal with it.
Good points.
Gasoline is fuel for the engine of a car. Electricity is the fuel for the computer and I believe any old wall socket will do.
Apple uses industry standard hard drives and RAM. Granted, replacing the HD in some models can be tricky, but it's doable. You don't need Apple branded parts to replace failed ones.
Your analogy fails. Sad considering it was a car analogy and you compared Apple to Ford.
The legality of of not allowing it on other boxes? Legality? Is that really the term you want to use?
That's some seriously screwy legislation that would FORCE a company to license it's OS to other manufacturers.
As far as I know, Mac OS X is not so vast that it's become part of the federal infrastructure.
Agree or disagree with Apple's choice to keep all design and manufacturing in house, but in a market economy, their choice to do so should be left to them and they should sink or swim with their decisions. I'm no Libertarian, but legislating this kind of business behavior is appalling even to me... and I'm a socialist at heart.
When MS bundles a media player or a browser or anything with their OS, they make it so that removing that application actually BREAKS the OS. Delete QuickTime Player or iTunes or iPhoto and OS X chugs along happily.
That is the difference.
Proper use of the term irony is more a function of vocabulary and syntax than it is grammar. Grammar is merely structure whereas vocabulary and syntax cover meaning.
True, bad grammar can mangle meaning though.
64Bit will allow the computer to deal with more data at a time, no matter what the color depth of the file is... It'll let the program have more memory. That will help a 64bit image if it's BIG, but just because it's BIG, not because it's 64 bit. Whoa! 64Bit color? No one works with 64Bit color! The two color spaces people work with are 8Bit/channel and 16Bit/channel and those pretty much encompass all colors visible to the human eye in RGB.
A 64Bit color image would be HUGE indeed.
Apart from that your doomsday scenarios are, simply put, woefully ignorant. I write software for a living, you know. I think I understand the mindset of at least some of those of us who do so. I do demand the freedom to modify the code I use. You don't have to meet my demand, I'm no king. I don't set the laws the land. I don't compel people to do as I say. However, if you do not give me the freedom to modify your code, I do not use your code. I do not pay you money. I do not do business with you. Why? Because I'm tired of being trapped in dead-end software hell. I'm tired of upgrades that are downgrades. I'm tired of people trying to wring that little extra bit of money from me.
Then stick to your freely available, free software. That is your choice. It's the very foundation of our economy. You are not going to bring Adobe or Apple to their knees. Write, distribute and promote your software as you see fit. It's your choice.
Don't call me ignorant though when I make a decision to stick with proprietary software like Final Cut Pro, Avid, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. to get my work done. In your free software world, the tools that I need to get my work done don't exist. Your demand for software freedom would limit my ability to do my job at the same level I can right now with commercially available software which limits my earning potential which in turn limits my freedom to live my life outside work as I would like to.
Then again, the coders of the world need to realize that, though they write the software, they rarely are the ones who have to spend 40-60 hours a week actually using it. I want something that works out of the box that I don't have to tinker with... because I am a user and not a coder. I will spend my hard earned money on what will get the job done. If it's OSS or proprietary, I don't care. I just want to get my work done with the best tool available and don't care about what's under the hood.
Write your own software then and put into it what you want. Why ride the coattails of someone else?
Care to elaborate? What exists that exceeds Photoshop in terms of usability and power? Free or commercial.
The reason real Photoshop users complain about GIMP is because GIMP's interface is geared toward the "coder crowd" and it's feature set is almost on par with where Photoshop was about 11-12 years ago with version 4.
I stare at and use Phoptoshop upwards of 10 hours a day. I get massive amounts of work done every day. With GIMP, there is simply no way I could get the same amount of work done in a day because it's toolset does not stack up to what Photoshop currently has to offer.